rapina of the civilians, is the felonious and forcible taking, from the person of another, of goods or money to any value, by violence or putting him in fear. 1. There must be a taking, otherwise it is no robbery. A mere attempt to rob was indeed held to be felony so late as Henry IVth's time; but afterwards it was taken to be only a misdemeanor, and punishable with fine and imprisonment; till the statute 7 Geo. II. c. 21. which makes it a felony (transportable for seven years) unlawfully and maliciously to assault another, with any offensive weapon or instrument;—or by menaces, or by other forcible or violent manner, to demand any money or goods; with a felonious intent to rob. If the thief, having once taken a purse, returns it, still it is a robbery: and so it is whether the taking be strictly from the person of another, or in his presence only; as where a robber by menaces and violence puts a man in fear, and drives away his sheep or his cattle before his face. 2. It is immaterial of what value the thing taken is: a penny, as well as a pound thus forcibly extorted, makes a robbery. 3. Lastly, the taking must be by force, or a previous putting in fear; which makes the violation of the person more atrocious than privately stealing. For, according to the maxim of the civil law, "qui vi rapit, fur improbior effe videtur." This previous violence, or putting in fear, is the criterion that distinguishes robbery from other larcenies. For if one privately steals sixpence from the person of another, and afterwards keeps it by putting him in fear, this is no robbery, for the fear is subsequent: neither is it capital as privately stealing, being under the value of twelvepence. Not that it is indeed necessary, though usual, to lay in the indictment that the robbery was committed by putting in fear: it is sufficient, if laid to be done by violence. And when it is laid to be done by putting in fear, this does not imply any great degree of terror or affright in the party robbed: it is enough that so much force or threatening, by word or gesture, be used, as might create an apprehension of danger, or induce a man to part with his property without or against his consent. Thus, if a man be knocked down without previous warning, and stripped of his property while senseless, though strictly he cannot be said to be put in fear, yet this is undoubtedly a robbery. Or, if a person with a sword drawn begs an alms, and I give it him through mistrust and apprehension of violence, this is a felonious robbery. So if, under a pretence of sale, a man forcibly extorts money from another, neither shall this subterfuge avail him. But it is doubted, whether the forcing a higler, or other chapman, to sell his wares, and giving him the full value of them, amounts to so heinous a crime as robbery.

This species of larceny is debarred of the benefit of clergy by statute 23 Hen. VIII. c. 1. and other subsequent statutes; not indeed in general, but only when committed in a dwelling-house, or in or near the king's highway. A robbery, therefore, in a distant field, or footpath, was not punished with death; but was open to the benefit of clergy, till the statute 3 and 4 W. and M. c. 9. which takes away clergy from both principals and accessories before the fact, in robbery, whereofever committed. See Law, No. clxxvi. 20.

Robert Bruce, king of Scotland, in 1306; a renowned general, and the deliverer of his country from a state of vassalage to the English. See Scotland.

Robert, king of France, named the Wise and the Pious, came to the crown in 996, after the death of Hugh Capet his father. He was crowned at Orleans, the place of his nativity, and afterwards at Rheims, after the imprisonment of Charles of Lorraine. He married Bertha his cousin, daughter of Conrad king of Burgundy; but the marriage was declared null by Gregory V.; and the king, if we can give credit to Cardinal Peter Damien, was excommunicated. This theme made such a noise in France, that all the king's courtiers, and even his very domestics, went away from him. Only two continued with him; who were so deeply impressed with a sense of horror at whatever the king touched, that they purified it with fire: this scuffle they carried so far, as to the very plates on which he was served with his meat, and the vessels out of which he drank. The same cardinal reports, that as a punishment for this pretended incest, the queen was delivered of a monster, which had the head and neck of a duck. He adds, that Robert was so struck with astonishment at this species of prodigy, that he lived apart from the queen. He contracted a second marriage with Constance, daughter of William count of Arles and Provence; but the arrogant disposition of this princess would have totally overturned the kingdom, and thrown it into confusion, had not the wisdom of the king prevented her from meddling with the affairs of the state. He carefully concealed from her whatever acts of liberality he showed to any of his domestics. "Take care," said he to them, "that the queen don't perceive it." it." Henry duke of Burgundy, brother of Hugh Capet, dying in 1022, without lawful issue, left his dukedom to his nephew the king of France. Robert invested his second son Henry with this dukedom, who afterwards coming to the crown, resigned it in favour of Robert his cadet. This duke Robert was chief of the first royal branch of the dukes of Burgundy, who flourished till 1361. This dukedom was then re-united to the crown by King John, who gave it to his fourth son Philip the Bold, chief of the second house of Burgundy, which was terminated in the person of Charles the Fair who was slain in 1477. King Robert was so much esteemed for his wisdom and prudence, that he was offered the empire and kingdom of Italy, which, however, he declined to accept. Hugh, called the Great, whom he had had by Constance, being dead, he caused his second son Henry I. to be crowned at Rheims. He died at Melun, July 25, 1231, at the age of 60. Robert was, according to the knowledge of the times, a wise prince. Helgund, friar of Fleury, relates, in his life of him, that, to prevent his subjects from falling into the crime of perjury, and incurring the penalties which followed thereon, he made them swear upon a shrine from which the relics had been previously removed, as if intention did not constitute perjury! and long after similar reasoning was adopted. Robert built a great number of churches, and procured a restitution to the clergy of the tithes and wealth which the laylords had made themselves masters of. The depredations were such, that the laity possessed the ecclesiastical treasuries by hereditary titles; they divided them among their children; they even gave benefices as a dowry with their daughters, or left them to their sons as lawful inheritance. Although Robert was pious, and although he respected the clergy, yet it was evident that he opposed the bishops with firmness and resolution, of which, for many ages, they had no examples. Luther's archbishop of Sens had introduced into his diocese the custom of proving by the eucharist persons accused as guilty of any crime. The king wrote to him in the following strong terms:—"I swear (says he) by the faith I owe to God, that if you do not put a stop to the gross abuse complained of, you shall be deprived of your priesthood." The prelate was forced to comply. He punished, in 1022, the Manicheans, canons of Orleans, by burning them at the stake. There are, however, recorded of him some less severe actions, which it is right to mention. A dangerous conspiracy against his person and government having been discovered, and the authors taken into custody, he seized the moment when their judges had met to sentence them to death, to cause an elegant repast to be served up to them. Next day they were admitted to the eucharist. Then Robert told them, that he gave them their pardon, "because none of those can die whom Jesus Christ came to receive at his table." One day when he was at prayers in the chapel, he perceived a thief, who had cut off the half of the fringe of his mantle, proceeding to take the remainder; "Friend (says he with a pleasant countenance), be content with what you have already taken, the rest will very well serve some other." Robert cultivated, and was a patronizer of the sciences. There are several hymns wrote by him, which still continue to be sung in the church. His reign was happy and tranquil. According to some authors, he instituted the order of the Star, commonly attributed to King John.

Robert of France, second son of Louis VIII. and brother to St Louis, who erected in his favour Artois into a royal peerage in the year 1237. It was during this time that the unlucky difference between Pope Gregory IX. and the emperor Frederic II. took place. Gregory offered to St Louis the empire for Robert; but the French nobility, having met to deliberate on this proposal, were of opinion that he ought to reject it. He gave the pope for answer: "That Count Robert esteemed himself sufficiently honoured by being the brother of a king, who surpassed in dignity, in strength, in wealth, and in birth, all other monarchs in the world." Robert accompanied St Louis into Egypt, and fought with more bravery than prudence at the battle of Maimoune, on the 9th of February 1250. In his pursuit of the cowards through a certain small village, he was killed by stones, sticks, and other things which they threw at him from the windows. He was an intrepid prince, but too passionate, dogmatical, and quarrelsome.

Robert II. Count of Artois, son of the preceding, surnamed the Good and the Noble, was at the expedition into Africa in 1270. He drove the rebels from Navarre in 1276. He brought a very powerful assistance to Charles I. king of Naples, of which kingdom he was regent during the captivity of Charles II. He defeated the Aragonians in Sicily in 1289, the English near Bayonne in 1296, and the Flemish at Furnes in 1298. But having in 1302 imprudently attempted to force these last, when encamped near Courtray, he received no less than 30 wounds; and in that expedition lost both his honour and his life. He was a brave, but passionate and fierce man, and good at nothing but pugilistic encounters. Mahaud his daughter inherited the dukedom of Artois, and gave herself in marriage to Otho duke of Burgundy, by whom she had two daughters, Jane wife of Philip the Long, and Blanche wife of Charles the Fair. In the mean time Philip, son of Robert II., had a son.

Robert III. who disputed the dukedom of Artois with Mahaud his aunt; but he lost his suit by two sentences given in against him in 1302 and 1318. He wished to revive the process in 1329, under Philip of Valois, by means of pretended new titles, which were found to be false. Robert was condemned the third time, and banished the kingdom in 1331. Having found an asylum with Edward III. king of England, he undertook to declare him king of France; which proved the cause of those long and cruel wars which distracted that kingdom. Robert was wounded at the siege of Vannes in 1342, and died of his wound in England. John, son to Robert, and count of Eu, was taken prisoner at the battle of Poitiers in 1356, and terminated his career in 1387. His son Philip II., high constable of France, carried on war in Africa and Hungary, and died in 1397, being a prisoner of the Turks. He had a son named Charles, who died in 1472, leaving no issue.

Charles of Anjou, surnamed the Wise, third son of Charles the Lame, succeeded his father in the kingdom of Naples in 1309, by the protection of the popes, and the will of the people, to the exclusion of Charobert son of his eldest brother. He aided the Roman pontiff again. against the emperor Henry VII., and, after the death of that prince, was nominated in 1313 vicar of the empire in Italy, in temporal matters, unless a new emperor was elected. This title was given him by Clement V. in virtue of a right which he pretended to have to govern the empire during an interregnum. Robert reigned with glory 33 years, eight months, and died on the 16th of January 1343, aged 64. "This prince (says M. De Montigny) had not those qualities which constitute heroes, but he had those which make good kings. He was religious, affable, generous, kind, wise, prudent, and a zealous promoter of justice." He was called the Solomon of his age. He loved the poor, and caused a ticket to be placed upon his palace, to give notice when he meant to distribute from the throne. He had no other passion but a very great love for learning. He used to say, that he would rather renounce his crown than his study. His court soon became the sanctuary of the sciences, which he encouraged equally by his example and his bounty. This prince was versed in theology, jurisprudence, philosophy, mathematics, and medicine. Bocace says, "that since the days of Solomon we have not seen so wise a prince upon the throne." For a great part of his life he had no taste for poetry; he even despised it, as, in his opinion, unworthy of a man of learning. A conversation which he had with Petrarch, however, undeceived him; he retained this poet at his court, and attempted himself to write some poems, which are still extant. He was forced to engage a little in war, for which he possessed no great talents; alluding to which, may be seen on his tomb a wolf and a lamb drinking out of the same vessel. Philip of Valois refrained from giving battle in 1339, by the repeated advice which this prince gave him, who was a great friend to France, both from inclination and interest. He detested quarrels among Christian princes, and had studied the science of astrology, not so much to know the course of the stars, as to learn by this chimerical science the hidden things of futurity. He believed that he read in the grand book of heaven a very great misfortune which would befall France if Philip hazarded a battle against the English.

Robert the First, called the Magnificent, duke of Normandy, second son of Richard II., succeeded in 1028 his brother Richard III., whom it is reported he poisoned. He had early in his reign to suppress frequent rebellions of several of the great vassals. He re-established in his estates Baudouin IV., count of Flanders, who had been unjustly deprived of his possessions by his own son. He forced Canute king of Denmark, who was also king of England, to divide his possessions with his cousins Alfred and Edward. In the year 1035, he undertook barefooted a journey to the Holy Land; on his return from which he died, being poisoned at Nice in Bithynia, leaving as his successor William his natural son, afterwards king of England, whom he had cauled before his departure to be publicly acknowledged in an assembly of the states of Normandy.