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.
The only real clue which our original authorities give us to the date of the second journey is the statement of Hist. S. Flor. that it was after the foundation of Beaulieu and before that of S. Nicolas (Marchegay, Eglises, p. 275). Now S. Nicolas was founded in 1020 (ibid.). Beaulieu was consecrated in 1012, but all we know of its foundation is that it cannot have been before Fulk’s return from his first journey in 1004. Modern writers have proposed three different dates for this second pilgrimage. The Art de vérifier les dates (vol. xiii. p. 50) places it in 1028; M. d’Arbois de Jubainville (Hist. des Comtes de Champagne, vol. i. p. 245) in 1019–20; M. Mabille (Introd. Comtes, pp. lxxviii, lxxx) and M. de Salies (Foulques-Nerra, pref. pp. xxxii, xxxiii, 143) in 1010–11. The first date, founded on a too literal reading of Ademar of Chabanais (Rer. Gall. Scriptt., vol. x. p. 164), is disposed of at once by the History of S. Florence. The theory of M. de Jubainville has a good deal of plausibility, but there is no documentary evidence for it. M. Mabille quotes in support of his date, 1010, a charter of S. Maur-sur-Loire, setting forth how Fulk, Hildegard and Geoffrey visited that abbey on the eve of Fulk’s departure for Holy Land. This charter is in Marchegay’s Archives d’Anjou, vol. i. p. 356; it has no date of any sort; and it does not specify whether Fulk’s intended journey was his second or third. The presence of Geoffrey proves it was not the first, but nothing more. M. Mabille pronounces for the second, and dates it “vers 1010”; but the editor of the Archives, M. Marchegay, says in a note “vers l’an 1030.” This charter therefore does not help at all. M. de Salies (Foulques-Nerra, p. 143, and pref. ib. p. xxxii) appeals in support of the same date, 1010, to the Chronicle of Tours, whose chronology throughout the century is so wild as to have no weight at all, except in strictly local matters; to the Chron. S. Petr. Senon., where I can find nothing about the question at issue;—and above all, to a charter in Baluze’s collections which says: “In natali S. Barnabæ Apostoli, qui est in Idibus Junii, Rainaldus ... Andecavensium Episcopus rebus terrenis exemptus est ... Ad sepulchrum Domini Hierosolymam comitante Fulcone vicecomite tendebat, progressusque usque Ebredunum” ... died and was there buried “anno ab Incarnatione Domini nostri Jesu Christi 1010.”
In the first place, this charter is suspicious as to date, for the Chronn. S. Albin. (Marchegay, Eglises, p. 22), Vindoc. (ib. p. 164), S. Flor. Salm. (ib. p. 187), all date Bishop Rainald’s death 1005, and so, according to Gallia Christiana, vol. xiv. col. 558, does the Obituary of S. Maurice; and the Chron. S. Serg. (Marchegay, Eglises, p. 134) dates the consecration of his successor Hubert 1007. In the next place, what ground has M. de Salies for assuming that “Fulco vicecomes” is Fulk Nerra count of Anjou? The authors of Gallia Christiana quote this same charter, and their comment on it is this: “Fulco sedenim comes” [it is vicecomes in the charter] “quocum Rainaldus Hierosolymitanum iter aggressus supra memoratur, Andegavensis rei curam annum circa 1010, teste non uno, suscepit.” And as they have been describing various dealings of the bishop with Fulk the Black long before 1010, it is quite clear they take this Fulk to be some one else; though one would like to see their witnesses and know who he really was.
There is however another clue which may suggest a different date for this second pilgrimage. There are only two ways of making sense of the account given in the Gesta Cons. (Marchegay, Comtes, pp. 88–91) of “the wicked Landry’s” attack on Anjou and the war of Châteaudun. In that account the first misdoings of Landry and his aggressions against Sulpice and Archambald of Amboise are put in the reign of Count Maurice; then Maurice dies and his son Fulk succeeds him, and the raid upon Châteaudun follows as the first exploit of “juvenis haud modici pectoris.” Now we have seen that Maurice was not Fulk’s father but his younger brother, and never was count of Anjou at all. We must therefore either regard the introduction of Maurice as a complete myth and delusion, or interpret the tale as a distorted account of a regency undertaken by Maurice during his brother’s absence. It is hard to see why the chroniclers should have gratuitously dragged in Maurice without any reason. Moreover the charter which establishes the date of Fulk’s first pilgrimage informs us that he left his brother as regent of Anjou on that occasion (Mabille, Introd. Comtes, p. lxxvi); it is therefore quite possible that he may have done the same thing a second time. On this theory, to ascertain the date of the war with Landry would be equivalent to ascertaining the date of Fulk’s second pilgrimage.
If we take the Gesta’s account of Landry just as it stands, Landry’s attack on Anjou must have been made at the close of 1014 or in 1015; for he was resisted (say they) by Sulpice, treasurer of S. Martin’s, and his brother Archambald. Now Sulpice could not be treasurer of S. Martin’s before 1014, as his predecessor Hervey died in that year (Chron. Tur. Magn. ad ann., Salmon, Chron. de Touraine, p. 119; Chronol. S. Mar. Autiss. ad ann., Rer. Gall. Scriptt., vol. x. p. 275); and on the other hand, Archambald must have died in 1015 or very early in 1016, for the Chron. Tur. Magn. (as above)—which is likely to be right in its dating of local matters, though hopelessly confused in its general chronology—places in 1016 the building of Sulpice’s stone tower at Amboise, which the Gesta Cons. (Marchegay, Comtes, pp. 88, 89) tell us took place after his brother’s death; and the whole affair was certainly over some time before July 1016, the date of the battle of Pontlevoy. According to the Gesta (as above, pp. 89, 90), Landry makes another attack on Sulpice, after his brother’s death, just when Maurice has also died and Fulk succeeded him [i.e. Fulk has come home and resumed the reins of government]; and the raid on Châteaudun follows immediately. Here comes in a new difficulty; Odo of Blois is now brought in with a minute list of his possessions in Champagne, which he only acquired in 1019 at earliest, so that if this part of the story is also to be taken literally, Landry’s war with Sulpice and Fulk’s raid on Châteaudun must be separated by nearly four years. Maurice cannot possibly have been regent all that time, so we must either give him up entirely, or conclude that some of the details are wrong. And the one most likely to be wrong is certainly the description of Odo, whom almost all the old writers call “Campanensis” long before he had any right to the epithet. This is the view of M. d’Arbois de Jubainville, who dates the whole affair of Landry and Châteaudun in 1012–1014 (Comtes de Champagne, vol. i. pp. 227, 228), but ignores Maurice and puts Fulk’s second journey in 1019, without giving any reason. It seems to me that this strange Angevin hallucination about Count Maurice, so utterly inexplicable in any other way, becomes intelligible if we believe that he was regent of Anjou in 1014–1015 during a second journey of his brother to Holy Land; a theory which, if it has no positive evidence to support it, seems at least to have none to contradict it, and is not rendered improbable by the general condition of Angevin affairs at the time.
2. As to the third journey. The Gesta Cons. state that Fulk, on one of his pilgrimages, went in company with Robert the Devil. Now as Robert died at Nikaia in July 1035 Fulk cannot have met him on either of his first two journeys, nor on his last; therefore, if this incident be true, we must insert another pilgrimage in 1034–1035. The story appears only in the Gesta Cons. and is therefore open to suspicion, as the whole account of Fulk’s travels there given is a ludicrous tissue of anachronisms (Marchegay, Comtes, pp. 100–103). Fulk first goes to Rome and promises to deliver Pope Sergius IV. (who reigned 1009–1012) from Crescentius (who was killed in 997); then he goes to Constantinople, and thence in company with Robert to Jerusalem; Robert dies on the way home (1035) and Fulk on his return founds Beaulieu Abbey (consecrated 1012.) The monk has confounded at least two journeys, together with other things which had nothing to do with either.
The idea of a journey intermediate between the second and the last is however supported by the story of R. Diceto (Stubbs, vol. i. p. 164; Marchegay, Comtes, p. 329) that Geoffrey Martel having been left regent while his father was on pilgrimage kept him out on his return. Now at the time of Fulk’s first pilgrimage Geoffrey was not born; at the time of the second he was a mere child; and from the last Fulk came home only in his coffin. Consequently this story implies another journey; and we seem to get its date at last on no less authority than that of Fulk’s own hand. The charter in Epitome S. Nicolai (quoted in Mabillon, Ann. Bened., vol. iv. p. 386), after relating Fulk’s application to Abbot Walter of S. Aubin’s to find him an abbot for S. Nicolas, and the consequent appointment of Hilduin in 1033, ends thus: “Res autem præscriptas a domno Beringario atque domno Reginaldo scribere jussi, et priusquam ad Jerusalem ultimâ vice perrexissem manu meâ roboravi.” The Chron. S. Albin. says Walter was not abbot till 1036 (Marchegay, Eglises, p. 23; the extract in note 3, ibid., makes it 1038), and if so the date of Hilduin’s consecration is wrong. But the authors of Gallia Christiana think it more likely that the abbot’s name is wrong and the date right. Now by “ultimâ vice” Fulk must have meant “the journey whence I last returned.” Before starting for that of 1040 he might hope, but he could not know, that it would be his last. So here we have, apparently, his own authority for a third pilgrimage soon after Hilduin’s consecration—i.e. in 1034 or 1035.
The worst stumbling-block, however, in the way of our chronology of Fulk’s last years is William of Malmesbury. He gives a much fuller account than any one else of Geoffrey’s rebellion and Fulk’s last pilgrimage, and his account, taken alone, is so thoroughly self-consistent and reasonable, and withal so graphic, that it is hard not to be carried away by it. But it utterly contradicts the date which the sources above examined assign to the third journey, as well as that which all other authorities agree in assigning to the last, and also the universally-received account of Fulk’s death. William (l. iii. c. 235; Hardy, pp. 401, 402) says nothing about Geoffrey having rebelled during his father’s absence. He tells us that Fulk in his last years ceded his county to his son; that Geoffrey misconducted himself, and was brought to submission (here comes in the story of the saddle); that Fulk in the same year went out to Palestine (here follows the story of the penance); that he came quietly home, and died a few years after.
This account of William’s is entitled to very much more respectful handling than those of the Gesta Consulum and Ralf de Diceto. William’s statements about the counts of Anjou are of special value, because they are thoroughly independent; where they come from is a mystery, but they certainly come from some source perfectly distinct from those known to us through the Angevin writers. Moreover William shews a wonderfully accurate appreciation of the Angevins’ characters and a strong liking for them—above all for Fulk Nerra, whom he seems to have taken special pains to paint in the most striking colours. His version therefore is not to be lightly treated; nevertheless it seems clear that he is not altogether correct. His omitting all mention of the pilgrimage which immediately preceded Geoffrey’s rebellion is no proof of its non-reality. His account of the last journey of all is a graver matter. According to him, it must have taken place about 1036–1037, and Fulk died, not at Metz, but at home. There is only one other writer who countenances this version, and that is the chronicler of S. Maxentius (a. 1040, Marchegay, Eglises, p. 393), who says that Fulk died in his own abbey of S. Nicolas at Angers. But this very same chronicle gives also an alternative statement—the usual one of the death on pilgrimage which is given by the Gesta, R. Diceto and Fulk Rechin. Against either of the two former witnesses singly William’s solitary word might stand, but not against them with Fulk Rechin to support them. The pilgrimages therefore stand thus: 1. in 1003; 2. in 1014–1015; 3. in 1034–1035; 4. in 1040.