Geoffroi de Charny
Compartir
1. Who was Geoffroi de Charny, and why does he matter?
Geoffroi de Charny (around 1306 to 1356) was a French knight who was regarded by his contemporaries on both sides of the English Channel as the supreme embodiment of chivalric virtue, praised in his own lifetime as a true and perfect knight. He matters for several distinct reasons. As a soldier he was one of the most capable and experienced men of his generation, tested repeatedly in battle, captivity, crusade, and the grinding campaigns of the early Hundred Years War. As a writer he produced works on chivalry that stand as the most serious and personally felt treatment of the knightly ideal to survive from medieval France. And as the first documented owner of the cloth now known as the Shroud of Turin he is at the centre of one of the most enduring controversies in the history of sacred relics. He died at the Battle of Poitiers in 1356, holding the sacred battle standard of France as the army collapsed around him, and his death was long remembered as the definitive image of knightly honour kept unto the last extremity.
2. What were Charny's origins, and how did his birth position shape his career?
Charny was born around 1306 as the third son of Jean de Charny, lord of the Burgundian stronghold of Charny, and Marguerite de Joinville, daughter of Jean de Joinville, the celebrated biographer and companion of King Louis IX. His distinguished maternal lineage gave him connections and prestige, but his position as a third son gave him nothing else. By the conventions of medieval inheritance, the lordship of Charny passed first to his eldest brother Dreux and then, through Dreux's daughter, to her husband Philip de Jonvelle. Geoffroi inherited no land and no income. When he married his first wife Jeanne de Toucy in 1336 he still possessed no fief of his own, and early military records list him not by any property of his own but by the Toucy family holding of Pierre-Perthuis, which belonged to his wife's family. His entire career was therefore built from nothing through the life of a professional fighting man: tournaments, campaign service, and the cultivation of a reputation for prowess and honour that would attract royal patronage and reward.
3. How did Charny first distinguish himself in the Hundred Years War, and what happened at Calais?
Charny served in the early campaigns of the Hundred Years War throughout the late 1330s and early 1340s, fighting in Hainault, Flanders, and Brittany. In 1342 he led a cavalry charge at the Battle of Morlaix in Brittany that ran into a cleverly concealed English trap, a hidden ditch disguised in the ground, and was captured and taken to Goodrich Castle in England. Lacking property substantial enough to fund a quick ransom, he was eventually allowed to return to France to raise the money. Later, having impressed King Philip VI sufficiently to be entrusted with a far more important mission, Charny was tasked with recovering the port of Calais, which England had seized after the Battle of Crécy in 1346. In 1349 he made contact with a Lombard mercenary named Aimery of Pavia, the English-appointed captain of the city guard, who offered to sell him entry into Calais for 20,000 gold crowns. The plot had been betrayed to Edward III of England, who instructed Aimery to proceed, take the money, and spring an ambush. On the night of 31 December 1349, Charny arrived with his force, paid Aimery, entered the city with a small group of knights, and walked straight into Edward's waiting troops. He was wounded, captured for the second time, and spent a year in English captivity.
4. What did Charny do about the man who had betrayed him at Calais?
Once King John II of France paid Charny's ransom and he was free, Charny turned his attention to Aimery of Pavia with cold deliberation. There was a truce in force between England and France at the time, which meant that taking military action against an English-appointed official would have been a violation of it. Charny's solution was to treat the matter as entirely personal rather than political: he tracked down Aimery, conducted a night raid on his castle, and captured him in his bed. He brought him to Saint-Omer, which was Charny's base, and there had him publicly executed. His body was beheaded, quartered, and the pieces displayed on the town gates as a warning to oath-breakers. A scholar who has studied the episode notes that, as if to underline the private nature of the act, Charny took possession only of Aimery himself and not of his castle or its contents, scrupulously observing the boundary between personal vengeance and a prohibited act of war. The episode tells us much about how Charny understood honour: the betrayal at Calais was not simply a military defeat but an assault on the personal bond between a knight and his word, and it demanded a personal reckoning.
5. What was the Company of the Star, and what was Charny's role in it?
In 1351 King Jean II of France, acutely aware that England’s Order of the Garter founded by Edward III in 1348 had given English chivalry a prestige and coherence that French knighthood lacked, established the Company of the Star as a French counterpart. Charny was a founding member and one of its most prominent figures. The Company was conceived on an ambitious scale, intended to enrol up to five hundred knights who would swear oaths of loyalty and meet twice yearly at the royal palace of Saint-Ouen near Saint-Denis. Charny was commissioned to write a set of questions on points of chivalric conduct for the Company's debates, posing detailed dilemmas about the ethics of war and tournament that were intended to be discussed and resolved collectively by the members. The Company's existence was brief and ended in disaster. Some eighty of its members were killed at the Battle of Mauron in 1352, and the catastrophe of Poitiers in 1356, which cost France both its king and Charny's own life, destroyed whatever remained of the enterprise. The Company of the Star lasted barely a single year of effective existence.
6. What did Charny write, and what makes his works significant?
Charny was the author of at least two works that survive with certainty. The first is a semi-autobiographical poem known as the Book of Geoffroi de Charny, which draws extensively on his own experience as a knight and contains vivid descriptions of crusading, tournament life, and the moral demands of the fighting man's vocation. The second is his set of questions on chivalry prepared for the Company of the Star, presenting dozens of specific and often intricate dilemmas about the ethics of war, tournament, and ransom for debate. A third text, a prose treatise known as the Book of Chivalry and long attributed to him, is now believed by scholars to have been written by his son Geoffroi II de Charny, who died in 1398. What makes his writings remarkable is that they come from a man who had actually lived everything he described. Charny was not a courtier reflecting on an ideal he had read about; he was a veteran of pitched battles, sieges, crusade, and prolonged captivity who brought direct experience to the question of what knighthood actually demanded. His insistence that the worthiness of a knight could only be measured by the real dangers he had faced and the real suffering he had endured gave his work a moral seriousness that later chivalric manuals rarely matched.
7. What were the central ideas of Charny's writings on chivalry?
Charny's conception of chivalry was demanding, hierarchical, and deeply religious. He organised the activities of fighting men into an ascending scale of honour: those who jousted in tournaments stood higher than those who merely fought in minor skirmishes, those who took part in full-scale wars stood higher still, and those who went on crusade for the faith stood at the summit. At each level, honour was proportional to the danger faced and the hardship endured: the man who had risked most, suffered most, and kept his conduct honourable throughout deserved the greatest respect. He was sharply critical of the men of his own generation who sought the reputation of knights without accepting the cost, living softly, pursuing wealth and pleasure, and avoiding genuine danger. He compared the life of a true knight repeatedly to that of a monk, arguing that both were forms of total dedication to a vocation that left no room for comfort or self-indulgence. He also insisted, unusually for the period, that love of a worthy woman was not a distraction from the knightly life but a positive spur to it, since the desire to be worthy of a noble lady's esteem was itself a motive toward excellence.
8. What was Charny's connection to the Shroud of Turin?
Charny is the first person for whom there is documented historical evidence of possessing the cloth now known as the Shroud of Turin, a linen fabric bearing a faint double image of a man that has been identified by its devotees as the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. Around 1353 Charny founded a collegiate church at his modest fief of Lirey, near Troyes in Champagne. By around 1356 reports were circulating that a cloth said to bear the imprint of Christ's crucified body was being displayed there, attracting pilgrims. The Bishop of Troyes, Henri de Poitiers, declared it a forgery and suppressed the showings. Charny himself died at Poitiers before the controversy could develop further, and he never left any written explanation of where the cloth came from or what he believed it to be. A medieval pilgrim badge recovered from the Seine and now in the Cluny Museum in Paris shows two clergy displaying a cloth bearing the distinctive double image of a body, flanked by the heraldic arms of the Charny and Vergy families, providing strong evidence of the connection. Whether Charny believed the cloth to be an actual relic of the Passion or a devotional image of a different kind remains unknown.
9. What happened at the Battle of Poitiers, and how did Charny die?
In September 1356 King Jean II of France marched south to intercept the Black Prince, Edward of Woodstock, who was leading a large English and Gascon army on a devastating chevauchée through the Loire valley. Before the battle was joined, negotiations were held in which both sides attempted to find terms that would avoid the slaughter. It was Charny who made the last and most chivalric of these attempts, proposing that the dispute be settled by a formal combat of one hundred knights on each side, with the entire army of the losing party bound to withdraw. The proposal was rejected, and the battle began. Charny held the Oriflamme, the sacred vermilion battle standard of the French crown, carried only in the most serious engagements and whose bearer was understood to be offering no quarter and accepting none. The French attack failed catastrophically. The chronicle of Sir John Chandos describes the final moments: Charny fought gallantly close to the king, surrounded by English and Gascon men at arms who cut through the French formation. He was killed with the banner of France still in his hands. The chronicler Froissart recorded his death as an act of exemplary fidelity, the image of a knight who had spent his life arguing that honour required exactly this.
10. How was Charny remembered, and what is his legacy?
Charny was buried hastily near the battlefield at a Franciscan convent, but in 1370, fourteen years after his death, his remains were reinterred with honour in Paris. The reputation he had built in his lifetime outlasted him conspicuously. Jean Froissart, the great chronicler of the age, described him as the most worthy and valiant of all the knights of his time. His writings on chivalry were taken seriously by scholars for centuries and have attracted renewed scholarly attention in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, recognised as the most authentically personal expression of the chivalric ideal to survive from medieval France. The cloth he had displayed at Lirey passed after his death into the custody of his widow Jeanne de Vergy, who lived until 1428, and eventually through various hands to the House of Savoy and in 1578 to Turin, where it has remained ever since. His legacy is therefore threefold: as a soldier whose life demonstrated what the chivalric ideal actually demanded of the men who professed it, as a writer who articulated that ideal with honesty and rigour, and as the first custodian of a relic that has generated more sustained controversy than almost any other object in the history of Christianity.