A letter from Constance, countess of Toulouse (1164?)
Sender
Constance of France, countess of Toulouse
Receiver
Louis VII, King of France
Translated letter:
To Louis, by the grace of God most excellent king of the French, her venerable lord and brother, C[onstance] his humble sister, the spirit of counsel and fortitude.
I declare to your highness that this knight whose name is Guido has long served me and that I have rewarded him very little. Since piety for his mother and many affairs compel him to return to his country, he left me with tears, knowing and seeing my need. For which reason I humbly pray your brotherly feeling that, for love of God and me, you deign to be a good helper and defender to him in all matters. Since he knows the secrets of my need better than any other man, he will not refuse to expose their truth to you. I pray that you, for the love of God and family piety, help me soon in this. I call God as my witness unless you help me, I am in bad straits and worse will happen in the future.
Fare well.
Original letter:
Ludovico, Dei gratia excellentissimo Regi Francorum, venerabili domino et fratri suo, C. ejus humilis soror, spiritum consilii et fortitudinis. Altitudini vestrae declaro, istum militem Guidonem nomine mihi diu servivisse, et me ei in paucis retribuisse Et cum matris ejus pietas, et plurima negotia, eum repatriare coegerint, necessitatem meam sciens et videns, ab me lacrymabiliter discessit. Unde fraternitatem vestram humiliter deprecor, ut, pro Dei amore et mei, ei bonus adjutor et omnium suarum rerum bonus defensor esse dignemini. Cum necessitatis meae secreta melius quam alter homo noverit, vobis eorum veritatem detegere non denegabit. Super hoc vos pro Dei amore et fraternitatis pietate deprecor, ut in proximo mihi subveniatis. Testor Deum, nisi mihi subveneritis, modo malum sustineo, et pejus in futuro eveniet. Valete.
Historical context:
Constance speaks of her desperate plight, and promises more orally from a trusted retainer who carries the letter.
Printed source:
HGF 16 ep.390, p.126, which dates it 1164, perhaps an error, since it seems to describe the same situation as the previous letter.
Date:
1164?