Power, Agency, and Gender in Thirteenth Century France

In 1270, King Louis IX died during the eighth crusades at Tunis. Sometime prior, likely between 1260 to his death, a letter of advice was addressed to his first-born son, Prince Philip. The penmanship of the letter has been called in to question by scholars of European history, but this essay will assume the author was King Louis IX of France. The likely audience for the letter was only Philip, and perhaps his council. The letter seeks to guide Philip on his journey to kinghood and what characteristics best befit a young ruler. It was intended to show Philip the best path to have a strong relationship with God and his future subjects. The letter is an important piece of French history because it gives historians a glimpse into French royalty of the thirteenth century, and the societal norms that existed. At first glance this letter may appear to be a great primary source for a political historian, but it is arguably more important to the scholar of gender and power. The letter is layered with important aspects of French society that, when seen from a certain perspective, gives the modern reader a look at the complexity of thirteenth century French culture. 

Historians of gender and power are consistently seeking to understand the dynamics of power, agency, and gender. The amount of historiography about these pales in comparison to the historiography of the political history of medieval Europe. Men have dominated the field of history for several hundred years. While there are numerous scholars looking to rectify this problem, political history still dominates the field. It might be difficult for historians to study sources such as the letter from the perspective of gender and power, but it is an important undertaking to have a fuller picture of history. This essay will, thus, unpack and analyze the masculinity and hyper-religiousness contained in the letter, then examine the power and agency of King Louis and Prince Philip, and lastly, deeply examine the letter from a feminist perspective with an emphasis on the omission of important French women.

The masculine perspective is arguably the most obvious choice when analyzing the letter because it is shared between two men, a father and son.  Masculinity at that time was an uncertain and ever-changing concept. Kim Phillips demonstrates that the regulation of clothing had less to do with class and more to do with the regulation of masculinity. Phillips’ main point is that sumptuary laws helped to enforce the patriarchy through the regulation of clothing, but sumptuary laws more broadly were a way to restrict private expenditures and gift-giving. The regulation of clothing does not really apply to Louis’ letter because he does not mention the regulation of dress to Philip, but he does advise Philip on gift-giving. He advises Philip to “have a pitiful heart for the poor [and to] comfort and aid them with some alms.”[1] Louis is not mandating that his son care for the poor, but he is advising him to do so because it likely benefited Louis at some point in his reign. Louis further advises his son on private expenditures. Louis says, “take care that the expenses of your household are reasonable and moderate and that its moneys are justly obtained.”[2] Again, Louis did not make a law requiring that the king obey this concept, but Louis is advising Philip to do these things because it is the way of the Christian man. If sumptuary laws were a way of regulating masculinity, then Louis is setting the standard for what the ultimate man should be—a man that gives to the poor and spends money moderately. 

Derek Neal argues the hierarchy of masculinity corresponded to the hierarchy of occupation—an apprentice was less masculine than a journeyman who was less than a master.[3] In this essay, I am considering political offices such as kings and barons as occupations. As such, the highest level of occupation, and thus, masculinity, was the office of the king. Neal’s argument that the hierarchy of occupation translated into the hierarchy of masculinity can be applied to Louis’ letter. There are a few descriptions of official kingly work from Louis. For example, Louis instructs Philip to “strive to that which befits a king…that in justice and rectitude you hold yourself steadfast and loyal toward your subjects and your vassals.”[4] Additionally, Louis advises Philip to preserve the estates of France and to ensure that his subjects live free. Louis provides a clear description of non-official kingly work which creates a distinction between Philip and his future subjects. For example, Louis instructs Philip to “Love your brothers…, and also be to them in the place of a father.”[5] This is important because Louis is creating a masculinity hierarchy of man ruling boys just as fathers rule over sons. What constituted what a man was depended on his social ranking within the homosocial structure.[6] In addition to the hierarchy of masculinity, Neal offers traits that constituted manhood which include honesty, openness, and loyalty. In Louis’ letter, he lists a set of masculine traits similar to Neal. For example, anyone that speaks ill of God or of the Church should be expelled from France. Louis writes, “put a stop…to bodily sins, dicing, taverns, and other sins.”[7] A true man, according to the letter, would be a man that uses all of his strength to shun everything that is displeasing to God. Committing a mortal sin, which Louis does not define, is the among the worst things a man can do. Louis states that a man should have “all of your limbs to be hewn off, and suffer every manner of torment, rather than fall knowingly into mortal sin.”[8] These traits suggest that masculinity and Christianity were tightly woven during this time period, which is why, to better understand the religiousness of the letter, William Burgwinkle’s work should be consulted to help provide some context about the letter. 

Burgwinkle assists in unpacking the hyper-religiousness of the letter. According to Burgwinkle, the Church sought to extend its influence over the secular institutions by claiming moral superiority of sodomy in 1215 with the Fourth Lateran Council. Louis’s letter does not explicitly state anything regarding sodomy, yet it shows just how much control the Church had over French kingship. In almost every paragraph God or the clergy are mentioned, and Louis provides advice on how to address each issue. For example, Louis advises his son to fully give himself to God and to love Him.[9] Louis further advises Philip on how to properly worship when in church, and how and to whom to confess his sins. Louis provides council on how to conduct himself if the Church should take away some of his rights. Perhaps the best example of the religious power that was exerted over the French king was Louis’s advice to “…always be devoted to the Church of Rome, and to the sovereign pontiff…”[10] The best explanation as to why the letter is so religiously driven is the expansion of papal power over the French king. It is possible that without so much religious governance that Louis would have focused more on secular ruling than on religiousness. 

Masculinity, as the three scholars indicate, was an uncertain and ever-changing concept. From the clothing that was worn and gifts that were given to the occupation of a male, manliness was hard to define. Masculinity absorbed another dimension when the Church raised the issue of sodomy and cast it as a sin. Yet, there was one single point where everything merged into the ultimate display of manliness: kingship. Kings held the authority of dress, occupation, and sexual partners. Kings were expected to dress a certain way, their occupation was the highest of all occupations, and they were expected to have a wife and produce an heir. All other males under the king’s charge would fall somewhere below him on the masculine hierarchy depending on their lot in life. The relationship between masculinity and power is an important piece of this analysis. To understand the complexity of a term such as power, historians should turn to the work of Michel Foucault, who is arguably the pioneer in the study of power.

Power and agency are an important piece of the Louis’ letter which warrant some investigation. Foucault believed that power was not static, that is, power is not stationary and unchanging. He instead believed that power is dynamic and ever changing, much like masculinity. Foucault believed that power is “the name that one attributes to a complex strategical situation in a particular society.”[11] In other words, he is saying that power cannot be neatly summed up as “king,” “lord,” or “knight.” He is instead suggesting that power is the situation of the ebb and flow of control over other people that everyone in a society possesses. King Louis attempts to build a hierarchy of power for Philip by designating who deserves what. The poor deserve Philip’s love, while the Pope and the Church deserves his support. One clear application of power is Louis’s attitude toward Jews. Louis instructs Philip to “put down all heresy so far as you can, and hold in especial abhorrence Jews, and all sort of people who are hostile to the Faith.”[12] This type of language is unsurprising when we consider the work of David Nirenberg. Nirenberg makes the case that medieval Christians considered themselves sociologically and theological superior to Jews.[13] These Christians, especially the sainted King Louis IX, “asserted their honor as members of God’s privileged people by contrasting themselves to the dishonored Jew.”[14] Beyond the religious power the Christians exerted over the Jews, they also enforced political power such as taxation. With this context, it is easier to understand why Louis had such a hatred for a group of his subject, and why he insisted that Philip do the same. One criticism that scholars have had with Foucault’s work is that he tended to focus solely on power and did not explore its relation to women.

Marie Kelleher took up the challenge of exploring women’s relationship to power and agency. Agency, to Kelleher, is as complicated of a term as power. Kelleher sees that agency is an act “that has the potential to affect one’s own destiny; whereas power is an act “that has the potential to affect the destiny of others.”[15] It is challenging to examine French women’s relationship between power and agency by analyzing just the letter because of the lack of female characters. Kelleher’s use of the term agency can instead assist in understanding Philip’s agency. By considering the aforementioned restrictions placed on men, specifically the king and his role as the hegemonic masculine figure, it is safe to assume that Philip had little to no agency. He was forced to marry Marguerite and have children. He was forced to become king after the death of his father. He was forced to dress a certain way after assuming his office. To not be complicit in the role of the masculine hegemon, Philip may have been seen as incompetent and be deposed just as King Edward II of England (d. 1327) was seen as incompetent and deposed in 1327. The only true agency that Philip could exert is his personal relationship with religion and God. The King requests several times that Philip have a good relationship with God. Philip can choose not to take his father’s advice and it would only affect Philip and no one else, and no one else would likely know so long as he continued to attend mass. Expanding on Kelleher’s exploration of women’s relationship to power, one could explore, even more broadly, the full feminist perspective as it relates to the letter.

Judith Bennett believes that women’s history is losing its link to feminism. Bennett argues that the mainstreaming of women’s history has led to a lack of feminist focus. This lack of feminist focus has led to women’s history simply accepting that women of the past were oppressed and not explaining the way and the why in which women were oppressed. According to Bennett, “most historical fields are male-centered and male-defined,” and the profession is now hostile to feminist theory.[16] Bennett concludes her chapter with a short manifesto, “I would like to hear more feminist talk in women’s history, to hear our voices more raised, more angry, and more often speaking about how the past can inform the politics of feminism.”[17] To put women front and center in the historical narrative, one must examine the letter from the greater feminist perspective, to include the women that were omitted from Louis’ letter and their contribution to French society and Louis as the man and as the King. 

Without a doubt, the feminist perspective is the most important way to analyze the letter. First, I will examine the only two women mentioned in the entire letter: the Virgin Mary and Philip’s mother Marguerite of Provence, who is not mentioned by name and is not really a character of Louis’ letter. Then, I will explore the powerful women that surrounded Louis, yet he failed to mention their importance in his letter. The Virgin Mary is a staple of the Catholic Church at virtually any point in history. If any historical figure talks about a relationship with the Church, they probably will speak of the Virgin Mary at some point. What is interesting about Louis’ use of the Virgin Mary is that he only mentions her once at the end of his letter. Louis prays to God, and the Virgin Mary, for protection for Philip from doing anything against God. Surrounded by his mention of Mary is Jesus Christ, the angels, and the saints, all of which are presumably men. Even when Louis mentions the womanliest of women, he surrounds her with men. 

The only other mention of a woman in the letter is when Louis advises Philip to love and revere his mother, Marguerite, again, not mentioned by name. Louis advises Philip to keep her commandments and “be inclined to believe [her] good [counsel].”[18] Thus, if the letter is advising Philip on what kind of king Louis wishes him to be, logically, one could conclude that Louis is expecting Philip to remain a subject to his mother in one form or another after receiving his kingship. One possible reason for this, which is not mentioned by Louis, is that the mother of Louis, Blanche of Castile, twice queen-regent (1226-1234), helped the young Louis until he was old enough to assume the kingship.[19] As such, Louis had experience with his mother’s good counsel and commandments, and it is probable that Louis was subject to her, which reinforces Jennifer Edwards notion that man can be subject to woman. He projected this same type of parent-child relationship to his wife, Marguerite, and his son. 

Marguerite may have been mentioned by Louis, albeit not by name, yet there were other important and powerful women that were in Louis’ life that, when we understand their importance in French history, make their lack of an appearance quite surprising. Marguerite of Provence came from a powerful family that spread all throughout the region and was a powerhouse in her own right. She may have been overshadowed by her mother-in-law, Blanche of Castile, but her importance is not unnoticed by scholars such as Theresa Earenfight. Marguerite and Louis IX had eleven children in total, and in 1248 she travelled with Louis on crusade, and even “ruled for him briefly in Damietta in 1250, negotiated the terms of his release after his capture and was frequently called upon to mediate.”[20] Blanche was vital to Louis’ kingship because while he and Marguerite were away on crusades she ruled as queen-regent for her second time until her death in 1252. This proves that men in her realm were subject to her and that women could hold power even if only temporarily. Eleanor of Provence and Henry III of England had their own affairs in England, but her importance in France comes when her and Marguerite played pivotal roles in settling land disputes in Normandy and to negotiate the Treaty of Paris in 1259.[21] Marguerite, Eleanor, and Blanche exercised political power and Isabelle exercised religious power, and all exerted some sort of agency. 

Blanche’s daughter, Isabelle of France, was another powerful woman that surrounded Louis. Sean Field provides an account of Isabell, King Louis IX’s sister, and her resistance to papal and royal pressures to take an oath to be a nun. Isabelle instead preferred to be mobile like the beguines which had freedom of movement. Additionally, Isabelle did not want to give away her inherited wealth, which would have happened had she become a nun. Isabelle was permitted this resistance because she was the sister of the king. Had she been a person of the lower classes it is possible she would have no choice but to surrender herself to the Church. In any event, Field implies that King Louis IX allowed his sister to resist the pope because it bolstered his theocratic kingship. One of the central questions in this essay is why these powerful women were not mentioned by Louis in his letter.

The explanation for this could be that powerful women were so commonplace in thirteenth century France that Louis did not think it was necessary to include them. Linda E. Mitchell describes the power women wielded through political connections and marriages in twelfth and thirteenth century Europe. Mitchell makes the case that Isabella de Clare, a woman of a powerful family, married a relatively common man named William le Marshal. Together, this couple would go on create a dynasty of powerful daughters. These women exercised power by holding together important political and social alliances, and continued their legacy through strategic marriages, which they helped to furnish in some way. William le Marshal and Isabella de Clare may have lived primarily in England, but they lived at the same time as Louis. Two of Isabella’s daughters, Isabelle and Eva, helped their brother Richard in the revolt against Henry III.[22] Being a major event at this time, Louis had to have known about the revolt. In any event, the Marshal children are not necessarily important to Louis’ letter, yet it contributes to the point that powerful women were unexceptional, even if in each case the individual women were extraordinary.[23] The numerous powerful women mentioned showcases the possible reason Louis failed to mention them was because Philip, although young, understood that women could too be powerful in their own right. If this is true, it would be unnecessary to talk about women and it may have been more necessary to talk about Philip’s relationship with the Church and God and his future subjects. 

This essay has shown that primary sources that are exclusively about men have much more to offer than just political history. The purpose of this essay was to create a more complete picture of King Louis IX’s reign. It unpacked and analyzed the masculinity and hyper-religiousness which showed that in thirteen century France masculinity was complicated and complex concept. It showed that the French monarchs interwove masculinity and Christianity, and the complexities that stemmed from that. Then, the essay explored the relationship between power and agency of King Louis and Prince Philip. It questioned Philip’s true agency even with all of his power as king. Finally, this essay explored feminist theory as its most important concept and perspective. The deep analysis of powerful French women and their close ties to King Louis helped to shed light on the possible fact that powerful women of thirteenth century France might have been such common place that Louis did not feel it was necessary to give them the rightfully deserved attention in his letter. In all, the letter is layered with important aspects that one must consider when studying medieval French society and the kingship of Louis IX of France. In the academic pursuit of medieval history, one would be remiss not to attempt to make King Louis’ letter a focal point of their study of power and gender in thirteenth century France. 

Bibliography

Bennett, Judith M. “Feminist History and Women’s History,” In Judith M. Bennett, History Matters: Patriarchy and the Challenge of Feminism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006.

Burgwinkle, William E. “Locating Sodomy.” In Sodomy, Masculinity and Law in Medieval Literature France and England, 1050-1230. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Earenfight, Theresa. Queenship in Medieval Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

Edwards, Jennifer C. “‘Man Can Be Subject to Woman’: Female Monastic Authority in Fifteenth-Century Poitiers.” Gender & History 25, no. 1 (February 14, 2013): 86–106. 

Field, Sean L. “Prologue: The Rise of Capetian Sanctity and the Reign of Louis IX.” Courting Sanctity: Holy Women and the Capetians. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 2019.

Foucault, Michel The History of Sexuality (excerpts). In Joyce Appleby, Elizabeth Covington, David Hoyt, Michael Latham, and Allison Sneider (eds), Knowledge and Postmodernism in Historical Perspective. New York: Routledge, 1996, pp, 408–409, 418–34.

Kelleher, Marie A. “What Do We Mean by ‘Women and Power’?” Medieval Feminist Forum 51, no. 2 (April 15, 2016): 104–15. 

Mitchell, Linda. “The Most Perfect Knight’s Countess: Isabella de Clare, Her Daughters, and Women’s Exercise of Power and Influence, 1190-ca. 1250.” In Medieval Elite Women and the Exercise of Power, 1100-1400: Moving beyond the Exceptionalist Debate. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.

Neal, Derek G. “False Thieves and True Men.” In Neal, The Masculine Self in Late Medieval England. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 2008.

Nirenberg, David. “Conversion, Sex, and Segregation: Jews and Christians in Medieval Spain.” The American Historical Review 107, no. 4 (October 2002): 1065–93. 

Phillips, Kim M. “Masculinities and the Medieval English Sumptuary Laws.” Gender & History 19, no. 1 (April 2007): 22–42. 

“Saint Louis' Advice to His Son,” inMedieval Civilization, trans. and eds. Dana Munro and George Clarke Sellery (New York: The Century

Notes

[1] “Saint Louis' Advice to His Son,” in Medieval Civilization, trans. and eds. Dana Munro and George Clarke Sellery (New York: The Century Company, 1910), pp. 366 -75.

[2] “Saint Louis”

[3] Derek G Neal, “False Thieves and True Men,” In Neal, The Masculine Self in Late Medieval England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008), 20-21. 

[4] “Saint Louis”

[5] “Saint Louis”

[6] Neal, 20.

[7] “Saint Louis”.

[8] “Saint Louis”

[9] “Saint Louis”

[10] “Saint Louis”

[11] Michel Foucault. The History of Sexuality (excerpts). In Joyce Appleby, Elizabeth Covington, David Hoyt, 
Michael Latham, and Allison Sneider (eds), Knowledge and Postmodernism in Historical 
Perspective. New York: Routledge, 1996, p. 434. 

[12] “Saint Louis”

[13] David Nirenberg, “Conversion, Sex, and Segregation: Jews and Christians in Medieval Spain,” The American Historical Review 107.4 (2002): 1087.

[14] Nirenberg, p. 1088. 

[15] Marie A. Kelleher, “What Do We Mean by ‘Women and Power’?” Medieval Feminist Forum 51:2 (2015): 110. 

[16] Judith M Bennett, “Feminist History and Women’s History,” in Judith M. Bennett, History Matters: Patriarchy and the Challenge of Feminism(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), p. 28.

[17] Bennett, p. 29.

[18] “Saint Louis”

[19] Theresa Earenfight, Queenship in Medieval Europe (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), p. 155.

[20] Earenfight, p. 123.

[21] Earenfight, p. 124 & 157.

[22] Linda Mitchell, “The Most Perfect Knight’s Countess: Isabella de Clare, Her Daughters, and Women’s Exercise of Power and Influence, 1190-ca. 1250.” In Medieval Elite Women and the Exercise of Power, 1100-1400: Moving beyond the Exceptionalist Debate (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019), 53.

[23] Mitchell, p. 64.