Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;+VGO.DVCKS, post: 4987632, member: 110504&quot;]...Hyperbole aside, the viscounty’s coins (deniers and half-deniers, anachronistically called oboles [<i>sic</i>]) embody much of what is most emblematic of French feudal coinage.&nbsp; Especially of the broader series’ early, (only) more chaotic phases, through the first half of the 13th century.</p><p>Numismatically, you get a chronological range from immobilizations of Robertian (/’Carolingian’) issues, c. mid-10th century, to imitations of the tournois type in the early 14th.&nbsp; (Cf. Duplessy, Féodales tome I, pp. 112-123.)&nbsp; Over the whole interval, the variations can be dated by surprisingly discrete intervals, sometimes closely enough to identify the anonymous issues with individual viscounts.</p><p>Geographically and politically, you get a small feudal polity, which spent most of its early life under the suzereignty of the counts of Blois, Chartres and Champagne.&nbsp; (An aggregate regional superpower, straddling the Capetian royal demesne, west to east.)<img src="http://www.earlyblazon.com/earlyblazon/images/blazonMap/videMap50.gif" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" />&nbsp; </p><p>Add a seriously cool castle, and you’ve got some stuff going on.&nbsp; ...The circular donjon /keep, c. 1170-1190, predates most of Philippe II’s royal examples, which are aggregately better known.&nbsp; (For Chateaudun, see esp. Mesqui, Chateaux forts et fortifications en France, Paris, 1997, 113-4.&nbsp; For Philippe II’s castles, “which may have been inspired by the example of Chateaudun” (298), see esp. Baldwin, The Government of Philip Augustus, UC Berkeley /LA, 1986/1991, 298-301, with several pages of b/w plates.)</p><p>This view shows the donjon surrounded by an agglomeration of 15th-century buildings, mostly residential, ranging from late Gothic to what, for this part of the world, is remarkably early Renaissance architecture.</p><p>(Par Patrick GIRAUD — Travail personnel (Personal work), CC BY-SA 3.0, <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3342956" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3342956" rel="nofollow">https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3342956</a>.)</p><p><img src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/UoLOE5bO_b-dpSwAD_waR7LQ7ey3Jqe-xhlRJ3lNCtvkhvMeDvMPJ036bRtpiObEb4QOJHPzWJXgfs2eJQu8rZpfnHMs1HBzOkCboG9bXVZ6c0dnCABvr4c6BvHdyZT2vHdusZ4z" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>Back to the coins.&nbsp; Up to the early 13th century, the legends and motifs are as formulaic as you might expect from the series; the reverse legends run heavily to more and less blundered variations of the medieval Latin, ‘CASTRI DVNI’ (‘Castle of the Dunois’), while for obverse motifs, the Bléso-chartraine /Chinonais type predominates.&nbsp; (Other people here have done a lot with this type in previous threads.&nbsp; ...Wish I could find ‘em....)</p><p>...Except that, during this, earlier but sustained phase, the sheer profusion of variants is kaleidescopic.&nbsp; Duplessy gives them six pages (Féodales 113-9).&nbsp; Even though these examples are clearly based on prior issues --one in particular-- this is no typically passive ‘immobilization.’&nbsp; True immobilizations are just that; datable mainly by engraving style and gradual deterioration of the legends, while the motifs themselves are slowly driven into the ground by centuries of repitition.&nbsp; In this series, along with the ongoing blundering of the legends, the most salient variations of the motif are both distinct and consistent enough to denote intentionality.&nbsp; Evoking, for instance, the regularly scheduled reissues of later Anglo-Saxon pennies.&nbsp; The wryly cerebral beauty of this is that, thanks to the wonders of modern numismatic methodology (hoard evidence being front and center), the seemingly endless early variaties can be rescued from the brink of chaos and dated, often within a couple of decades.</p><p>...Toward the end of the series, from the early 13th century, the coins abandon the ‘Bléso-chartraine’ type, and begin to be issued in the viscounts’ own names.&nbsp; Here is where you get the final component of the early French feudal ‘perfect storm:’ the convergence of a small, seemingly insignificant polity with a named individual, often enough (along with&nbsp; predecessors) of record in primary sources.</p><p>This is the earliest example I have, c. 1020-1040.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1198246[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Obv. Bléso-chartraine profile, right, with ‘crenellated crown;’ crosslets in left and right fields; retrograde ‘S’ in lower left.&nbsp; Omega in the center (the ‘eye’); three wedges indicating the ‘mouth.’</p><p>Rev. +DVNIS CASTI-I-I&nbsp; (‘DVNIS CAST[RVM]’, or something vaguely along those lines.)</p><p>(Féodales p. 113, 462.&nbsp; Cf. nos. 456-461 for the legend, with still earlier phases of its, at severe risk of oxymoron, progressive blundering.)</p><p>This initial issue has a distinctly closer resemblance to the issues of the county of Chartres than the contemporaneous ones of Blois.&nbsp; With apologies for the pics, here’s one of Chartres.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1198247[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1198248[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>Comté de Chartres.&nbsp; Anon., c. 10th-earlier 11th centuries.</p><p>Obv.&nbsp; Bleso-chartraine profile; ‘crennelated crown;’ besants in both fields and for the central ‘eye;’ three wedges for the ‘mouth.’</p><p>Rev.&nbsp; +CARTIS CIVITAS.&nbsp; &nbsp; (Duplessy 431.)</p><p>For contrast, here are two deniers of the county of Blois, c. 980 -1030 and 1050 -1080, respectively.&nbsp; (Duplessy 575 and 578.&nbsp; The later esample is a close variant of the two preceding ones.)</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1198249[/ATTACH]</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1198250[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>Back to Chateaudun, this one dates to the next interval, c. 1040-1080.&nbsp; As in the case of Blois, the&nbsp; pattern of distinguishing issues by variations of the Bléso-chartraine motif is already beginning to emerge.&nbsp; (Duplessy 464.)</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1198252[/ATTACH]</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1198253[/ATTACH]</p><p>(Duplessy 464.)&nbsp; Right, the blundering of the legend is already accelerating.&nbsp; Meanwhile, though, the distinctly Chartrain three wedges, denoting the mouth, are replaced by a horizontal omega.&nbsp; (That is, a medieval French variation; kind of a rounded ‘W’, also seen on contemporaneous issues of the neighboring county of Maine.)&nbsp; The horizontal omega reappears over the rest of the series’ bléso-chartraine phase, up to the early 13th century.&nbsp; This example continues it into the earlier 12th.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1198254[/ATTACH]</p><p>Obole, c.1120-1130.&nbsp; (Duplessy 474.)</p><p>This issue admits of identification with the viscount Geoffroy III (fl. c. 1110-1145), who already finds colorful mention, not only in extant legal documents, but in one local monastic chronicle.&nbsp; Livingstone mentions his imprisonment by his cousin, a neighboring baron, in 1136, and his excommunication by the bishop of Chartres a decade lahen he was ‘near death.’&nbsp; She goes on to note how Geoffroy’s wife, Helvisa (/Heloise) effectively bailed him out, reinstating all the monastery’s privileges he had allegedly impinged upon.&nbsp; In a different vein, as Livingstone continues, “Helvisa and Geoffrey appear to have been a devoted couple.&nbsp; Viscount Geoffrey’s affection for Helvisa is event in several charters where he refers to her as his ‘venerable wife.’&nbsp; In addition, this couple appeared in many acts together, suggesting that they spent a great deal of time in each other’s company.”&nbsp; (Out of Love for My Kin: Aristocratic Family Life in the Lands of the Loire, 1000-1200.&nbsp; Cornell UP, 2010.&nbsp; 76-7, 197-8.)</p><p>Back to the coins, from the early 13th century, things start to get interesting again.&nbsp; Instead of an omega (replaced by a single wedge in several intervening issues of the 12th-century), the ‘mouth’ is now rendered by a star.&nbsp; In two instances (including an obole), this coincides with what can only be called a remarkably early rendering of a Gothic ‘N’ in this medium.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1198256[/ATTACH]</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1198257[/ATTACH]</p><p>...With the star; rev. ‘+CASTRI [annulet] DVnI:&nbsp; (Duplessy 488; variant.)</p><p>Over the next few decades, things take a more dramatic turn.&nbsp; First, Blois --now split off from the main comital dynasty, as the appanage of a younger son-- undergoes a sustained regency.&nbsp; From this interval, the coins begin to adopt entirely different motifs.&nbsp; Only more to the point, they begin to be issued in the viscount’s name, for the first time in the entire series.&nbsp; The trend accelerates from 1234, with Louis IX’s acquisition of direct suzerainty over Chartres, Blois and, in consequence, Chateaudun.&nbsp; One of several listings in the .cgb archives has this comment:</p><p>“According to D. Legros, the Viscount of Châteaudun remained under the influence of the Counts of Chartres and Blois. When Thibaut VI died in 1218, is Marguerite, his aunt, who inherited Blois. Geoffroy V took advantage of this change to monetize Chateaudun his name.”</p><p>(<a href="https://www.cgbfr.com/chateaudun-vicomte-de-chateaudun-geoffroy-v-denier-tb-,v22_0131,a.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cgbfr.com/chateaudun-vicomte-de-chateaudun-geoffroy-v-denier-tb-,v22_0131,a.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.cgbfr.com/chateaudun-vicomte-de-chateaudun-geoffroy-v-denier-tb-,v22_0131,a.html</a>.)</p><p>Lacking access to Legros, nothing I have in print even confirms this dynastic interval.&nbsp; Here Charles Cawley’s website, Medieval Lands, is of help, citing primary sources as it goes along:</p><p><a href="https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/CENTRAL%20FRANCE.htm#_Toc4742197" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/CENTRAL%20FRANCE.htm#_Toc4742197" rel="nofollow">https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/CENTRAL FRANCE.htm#_Toc4742197</a>.</p><p>Ironically, it’s from this point that the secondary sources, numismatic and otherwise, begin to seriously diverge.&nbsp; Starting with the relatively innocuous detail of how the operant Geoffroys of Chateaudun are numbered (we’re up to about IV and /or V).&nbsp; From that point, you run into the secondary-source equivalent of ‘mission creep,’ ranging from details of the chronology to the attribution of the coins themselves.&nbsp; But it’s still possible to apply a measure of critical triangulation to available references, such as they are.&nbsp; Especially with Cawley’s dependable reliance on primary sources.</p><p><img src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/aLLdJ7b8CRxDBwJlWpD5BmC7d1cJujl8CyemGjSZ_VBXhnGXvmrc2B7hK6yDl9L8aM7j5myy8Tovx5OCMYmnOIHoJrmAkQgaz5ZGXpAwr73DES6YWWBr6m0x2iF1GOEjOoLz5hA7" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ESr7dHUKIXewo1rzeEW--vuPZRNqIgDbSTPv_2tLH88J35blEmKUuyjPjNQW4yFgIPgxzY7VuBiK_V-mEhagAAwUdJo8xF20t8jjwM7et0caClv2VR0kLAbYp-puGroJcXB-AG2E" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p>Geoffroy IV (Cawley: V), Viscount (Duplessy: ‘vers 1215-1233;’ Cawley: fl. 1175/84 -after 1218.)&nbsp; Denier.</p><p>Obv. (very weakly struck: ) Crescent; smaller crescents at top and bottom of legend.&nbsp; (From 7 o’clock: ) GAVF / RIDVS.</p><p>Rev.&nbsp; Cross, one crescent in upper right angle.</p><p>+CASTRVM DVNI.</p><p>(Duplessy 119; cf. esp. Boudeau 250.&nbsp; Also Poey d/Avant 1854, Roberts 4351.)</p><p>Here’s the obverse of a seal of his, from the France Balade website</p><p>(<a href="http://www.francebalade.com/chartres/ctdunois.htm" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.francebalade.com/chartres/ctdunois.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.francebalade.com/chartres/ctdunois.htm</a>).</p><p><img src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/tevj5QTf_Iy5QY0suax2Fr_GMYPKDhCxW1Ey-vIAluFYb3rtN5BSEzfnopdB-LMGsZv9mQpqG1Utn58CGwAXFaLAyEdo2IHDB9XGLkDtjHI2kabogC-syf83SGlbftXGI_-yOiLd" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p>(From 11 o’clock: )+SIGILLVm GAUFRIDI VICEMOmITIS CASTRI dVNI.&nbsp; (Seal of Geoffroy, Viscount of Chateaudun.)</p><p>The next viscount is Geoffroy ...let’s call him V (Duplessy); of record 1209-1250 (Cawley).</p><p><img src="https://images.inumis.com/pictures/728e5f6d-a0a6-684e-8209-f0c32f03688b.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /><img src="https://images.inumis.com/pictures/db51fcf1-c3fb-a249-9c3a-479304e60cdc.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p>Denier.&nbsp; Obv. Chatel tournois (imitating an issue appropriated by Philippe II, along with Tours itself, early in the 13th century).&nbsp; Fleur de lis in center (as if to underscore the point); crescents above and below.</p><p>(From 7 o’clock: ) GAVI-&nbsp; / RID’.</p><p>Rev. +CATRVM DVNI.</p><p>(Duplessy 504; cf. the original listing, from iNumis:</p><p><a href="https://www.inumis.com/shop/chateaudun-vicomte-de-geoffroi-v-denier-1601091/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.inumis.com/shop/chateaudun-vicomte-de-geoffroi-v-denier-1601091/" rel="nofollow">https://www.inumis.com/shop/chateaudun-vicomte-de-geoffroi-v-denier-1601091/</a>.)</p><p>The combination of the (now very royal) tournois motif with the fleur de lis seems to denote Louis IX’s acquisition of direct suzereignty over Blois, Chartres and Chateaudun, as noted above.&nbsp; (Le Goff, St. Louis.&nbsp; Trans. Gollrad.&nbsp; 1996 /U of Notre Dame, 2009.&nbsp; Pp.68-9.&nbsp; Cf. Joinville, the old, ridiculously abridged, annoying indexless Penguin translation, p. 185.&nbsp; ...The sudden appearance of fleurs de lis on other feudal issues around this time, symptomizing similar dynamics, gets to be another story.)&nbsp; Under these conditions, however ironically, this Geoffroy continues to issue coins in his own (thank you, hyper-eponymous) name.</p><p>Here’s a seal of his, from the previous, France Balade web page:</p><p><img src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/bSOzFRe68S6VU_BkEvFXEhZHIuKBCrFw74LIzHyUkFw4MOBmQ3wrVOj5Yp5lfprZSOU7OpW2HWn6Pl-IIFxdyxP5BnaKqE052_jZ_DopqrYu6-IXfFZauy72eu7B7JchO5jdEegf" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p>...And it’s here that we get some particularly revealing detail about the character and demeanor of the operant Geoffroy.&nbsp; From primary sources, which are only better, for sheer drama, than secondary ones.&nbsp; This is from a letter of the papal legate assigned to Louis IX’s first (/ ‘the 7th’) crusade, to Pope Innocent IV.</p><p>&quot;On Friday [23 October 1248] after the feast of St Luke, the Viscount of Chateaudun and several other knights landed in Cyprus. After some days a quarrel arose at the Devil&#039;s prompting, [...] between the Viscount and his ship&#039;s crew. The Viscount&#039;s crossbowmen were responsible for killing two on the Genoese side, of whom one was a man of status and good birth. The Viscount himself, moreover, under what influence I do not know, sought, after a discussion with the Count of Montfort, to sail across to Acre [on the Frankish Syrian mainland, rather than to Egypt, the crusade&#039;s destination], and many knights with him. But on learning this the King of France restrained him and the other knights from doing so; for it could have brought about the dispersal of the entire army, and impeded the business of Christendom. Yet since the Viscount wanted at all costs to carry out his intention, the King had his own galleys armed and prevented the ships&#039; captains from trying to take the Viscount or his associates any distance whatsoever. At this the&nbsp; &nbsp; Viscount changed tactics, taking possession of the ship and everything in it, and claiming that according to the contract drawn up between them and the ship&#039;s masters both the vessel and all its contents were his by right. It was finally proposed, through the French King&#039;s mediation, that the parties should entrust the case to two good men and the King should appoint a third. But the parties would not agree, with the result that the dispute could not be resolved at this juncture.&quot;</p><p>(Jackson, ed. /trans. <u>The Seventh Crusade, 1244-1254: Sources and Documents</u>. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, 2009. Document 56, pp. 74-5. Cf. Jackson&#039;s encapsulation (p. 64), and his observaton that Geoffroy &quot;would be killed in Egypt on 6 February 1250.&quot;&nbsp; (P. 75, note 65. This was the day before the ford across the Nile was discovered, precipitating Robert d&#039;Artois&#039;s disastrous attack of Mansourah.&nbsp; Cf. p. 72.)</p><p>...After enough of this, the Crusades start to look like two centuries&#039; worth of Vietnam.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in