Charter A Week 31: Ring Out Those Wedding Bells

By this point, things are going well for Charles. He’s been undisputed king for coming on a decade, the last major Viking raid was four years ago, relations with his cousin Louis seem pretty OK, most of the major magnates are on board (apart from the Aquitanians, who were never really all that on board with any of the West Frankish Carolingians anyway). There is one major question, though: who will succeed him?

DD CtS no. 56 (19th April 907, Attigny)

In the name of the holy and indivisible Trinity. Charles, by the gracious favour of divine clemency king.

If We follow the customs of ancient kings and imitate the habits of the fathers who came before and benignly receive the counsels of Our followers, We far from doubt magnify royal honour, and We indubitably believe that this will benefit Us.

Hence, let it be learned by all those faithful to the holy Church of God and to Us, present and future that when We and Our counsellors were dealing with the realm’s affairs, they brought to Our attention Our marriage, saying usefully that it would be suitable if a worthy spouse were at the royal side, from whom, by God’s largess, a breed of sons might proceed, for the whole realm’s benefit.

And thus, incited by their admonitions and persuaded by their counsel, We joined to Ourself in the bond of marriage a certain girl from a noble bloodline, named Frederuna, only insofar as by the common consent of Our followers, with God, as We believe, co-operating, in accordance with the laws and states of those who came before, and We established her as consort of the realm.

Wherefore, disposing to enrich her, by royal custom, from Our own goods, We concede to her two fiscs, to be constantly possessed in the name of dowry and disposed of at will, that is, Corbeny in the county of Laon, with the cell which is named in honour of the blessed apostle Peter, where the body of the confessor of Christ Marculf rests; and one church in Craonne; moreover Ponthion, in the district of Perthois, on the rivers Sault and Brusson. We present both through this present authority and We transfer them from Our right into her right and property and dominion and We consign them to be held perpetually.

Wherefore, We commanded this edict of royal munificence be made and given to Our said beloved spouse Frederuna, through which We order and in ordering command that she should perpetually have, hold and possess the aforesaid fiscs, to wit, Corbeny and Ponthion, as they are presently seen to pertain to Us, in their entirety, that is, with the aforesaid churches and bondsmen of both sexes, lands cultivated and uncultivated, vineyards, woods, meadows, pastures, waters and watercourses, mills, fisheries, mobile and immobile goods, roads in and out, and all legitimate borders justly and legally pertaining to it; and let her have the firmest free power in everything to do whatever she wishes henceforth.

But that this dowry of Our largess and corroboration of concession might obtain continual vigour of firmness, having been confirmed below with Our own hand, We ordered it signed with Our signet.

Sign of Charles, most glorious of kings.

Ernust the notary witnessed and subscribed on behalf of Bishop Anskeric [of Paris].

Given on the 13th kalends of May [19th April], in the 10th indiction, in the 15th year of the reign of lord Charles, most glorious of kings, in the 10th his restoration of the kingdom’s unity.

Enacted at the palace of Attigny.

Happily in the name of God, amen, amen.

I’ve put down my thoughts on Charles and Frederuna’s relationship elsewhere. I do think that no matter what the political motives were which lay behind it, it eventually grew into a genuine bond of affection. I also think that the purely political motives are fairly subdued. Frederuna’s family appears to have been respectable, but not one of the first-rank magnate families – a brother became bishop of Châlons, she may have had another brother who became archbishop of Trier but this is at best unproven – so an alliance with her relatives is unlikely to have been very significant. It may just have been that she was pretty enough, noble enough, and of the right age to be fertile, exactly like the diploma says.

Whatever the motivation behind the match itself, Charles pulled out all the stops celebrating it:

DD CtS no. 57 (21st May 907, Le Gros Dizy)

In the name of the holy and indivisible Trinity. Charles, by the gracious favour of divine clemency king.

If We devote the influence of Our Munificence to sacred places given over to divine worship, We are in every way confident that it will benefit Us both in prosperously passing through the present life and in more happily obtaining perpetual life.

Wherefore, let the religiosity of all those faithful to the holy Church of God and Us, present and future, that Anskeric, venerable bishop of the town of Paris, approaching the presence of Our Serenity, recounted in a happy voice before the presence of Our followers that the church of Notre-Dame, that is, of the aforesaid town, over which the same bishop is recognised as presiding, was nearly destroyed by Northman attacks and reduced almost to nought by their habitual cruelty.  Hence, through the intervention of certain princes attending on Our presence, that is, Our most beloved spouse Frederuna and as well Our beloved Abbess Gisla [of Nivelles], and the venerable Count Robert [of Neustria] and Countess Adele [his wife], moreover Counts Altmar [of Arras] and Erchengar [of Boulogne], and Robert, beloved of Us, he humbly sought that We might deign to concede as compensation for the forsaken church the abbey named Saint-Pierre de Rebais and once named Jerusalem, sited in the county of Meaux, which the same bishop is recognised to have held until now in benefice, through a precept of Our authority, so that it might be sustenance for the same bishop and his successors, by which they might be able to fulfil more freely the duties of Our service.

Therefore, knowing the counsels of the aforesaid princes to be sound, We acquiesced to their beneficent requests, and by the common consent of Our followers, We concede by royal authority the said abbey of Saint-Pierre, by which it might become a perpetual support for the church of Notre-Dame of the town of Paris alone and the bishops of the same place. Wherefore We commanded this precept of Our authority be made and We commanded it be given to the said church of the blessed Mary through the hand of the bishop of the same place Anskeric, through which We transfer the aforesaid abbey into his right and dominion, and We concede it to be perpetually possessed in its entirety, and with all legitimate borders justly and legally pertaining to it, on the terms that the aforementioned bishop Anskeric and as well his successors should constantly have, quietly hold, securely possess and freely dispose of the aforesaid goods, and have the firmest quiet power in everything to do whatever they want for the common advantage of the church.

And that this concession of Our authority might be held more firmly and be conserved for all time by Our successors and in God’s name obtain continual vigour of firmness, We confirmed it below with Our own hand, and We commanded it to be sealed with Our signet.

Sign of Charles, most glorious of kings.

Ernust the notary witnessed on behalf of Bishop Anskeric.

Given on the 12th kalends of June [21st May], in the 10th indiction, in the 15th year of the reign of lord Charles, most glorious of kings, and the 10th of his restoration of the kingdom’s unity.

Enacted in the estate of Le Gros Dizy.

Happily in the name of God, amen.

As I’ve said before, this is a nice little family portrait of the great and the good of the realm. It might not even be everyone there. We know from another diploma that Richard the Justiciar and his entourage were hanging around the royal court at this period, and it seems likely to me that they would have been there to celebrate the wedding. If they were – and, frankly in light of the people in the charter above, even if they weren’t – these acts display that Charles’ court still had a reasonable degree of pull in the kingdom at large.

Charter a Week 30: A Property Transaction in Three Acts

Technically speaking, I’m spoiling you today, because this week’s Charter A Week is in fact not one, but three charters. In fact, as you’ll see, that’s probably overselling them. Most medievalists are familiar with the concept of the chirograph, where two copies of the same charter are written on the same piece of parchment with the word chirographum in the middle which is then cut through so each party can have a copy of the transaction which can be compared against the other. Here, though, something more complicated is happening:

DD CtS no. 54 (7th September 906, Laon)

In the name of the holy and indivisible Trinity. Charles, by the gracious favour of divine clemency king.

Whatever We confer by Our clemency on places given over to divine worship at the suggestion of Our followers, We should truly trust God to repay Us thereafter.

Therefore, let the skill of all those faithful to the holy Church of God and Us, both present, to wit, and future, know that Our most beloved follower Robert, abbot of the monastery of the nourishing bishop and confessor of Christ Amandus, approaching Our Serenity, made known to Our Highness that he had sought from the monks of the aforesaid abbey certain of their goods, once given by that most blessed pontiff Amandus to his monks and confirmed for their particular uses by royal and imperial precepts, but needful and useful to him in Our service, sited in the district of Laonnais: that is, the cell which is called Barisis with everything pertaining to it, that they might concede the same goods to him in benefice for his lifetime alone. But lest his petition should seem absurd and burdensome, and lest he should hence incur the offence of God and His most dear of priests Amandus, and lest he be seen to inflict any harassment on the servants of God because of this act and lest in the course of receiving these stipendiary goods necessary resources fail them, insofar as it can be done, he requested from Our Mildness that We might consign from that abbey and from his demesne the estate which is called Dechy with all of the goods pertaining to it to their particular needs, and that We should deliver it up perennially from the present day to benefit their uses.

We proffered assent, thinking his request just and reasonable, and We commanded this precept of Our authority be made about this matter, and We gave it to the same monks, through which We enact and wish to firm in perpetuity that the said estate of Dechy, which We concede to them at present with everything pertaining to it, should be yielded forever to their demesne, and after the death of Our follower Robert, the cell of Barisis with everything legally pertaining to it should be recalled to their dominion without contradiction from any abbot.

In addition, We decree that whatever was bestowed on the same holy congregation by emperors and kings, Our predecessors, or any good people, in any districts or territories, as We previously confirmed in Our edict made for the same monks at the petition of Archbishop Fulk [of Rheims], should also in the same way now endure perennially undisturbed under the fullest tutelage of immunity.

And that this precept of Our Royal Majesty might obtain inviolable firmness, We confirmed it below with Our own hand, and We commanded it be sealed with the impression of Our signet.

Sign of Charles, most glorious of kings.

Ernust the notary subscribed on behalf of Bishop Anskeric [of Paris].

Given on the 7th ides of September [7th September], in the 9th indiction, in the 14th year of the reign of Charles, most glorious of kings, in the 9th of his restoration of the kingdom’s unity.

Enacted at the castle of Laon.

Happily in the name of God, amen.

DD RR no. 46 (24th September 906, Saint-Amand)

In the name of God, Robert, abbot of the monastery of the nourishing bishop and confessor of Christ Amandus, to the beloved brothers of the same abbey.

We wish it to be known to many that I sought from you some of your goods, given by that most blessed pontiff Amandus to his monks and confirmed for your particular uses by royal and imperial precepts, but needful and useful to me in the service of our lord and master King Charles, sited in the district of Laonnais: that is, the cell which is called Barisis with everything pertaining to it, that you might concede the same goods to me in benefice for my lifetime alone. Because I wish to do nothing presumptuously or by force, as I ought not to, but rather having before my eyes the just judgement of God, and lest I incur the offence of His most holy and dearest priest Amandus, and lest I inflict any harassment on you thereby, I sought and accepted the aforesaid goods by a precarial grant in right of benefice.

And, lest in the course of receiving these stipendiary goods necessary resources should fail you because of this act, insofar as it can be done, I requested from the lord king Charles that he might despatch from that abbey and from Our demesne the estate which is called Decy with everything pertaining to it to your particular needs, and deliver it up perennially from the present day and confirm it to benefit your uses by a precept of his authority, that is, after an agreement had been confirmed between us that I should hold in usufruct, develop and improve the said goods which I accepted from you as long as I live, and not alienate or diminish anything from them; rather, I should endeavour in every way to add and improve therein whatever I can in any fashion, and each year I should have 12 pennies paid on the feast of Saint Amandus, which is the 7th kalends of November [26th October], in vestiture.

After my departure from this light, whenever God wills it, let the aforesaid cell of Barisis in its entirety be recalled to your dominion without contradiction from any abbot. No less should the estate of Dechy be held from this day without any prejudice under your dominion in perpetuity.

But in pursuit of firmness, we had two documents written, made in your manner, which We confirmed below with Our own hand, that they might endure stable and undisturbed, and We had them strengthened by the hands of good men.

Enacted at Elnon, in the monastery of Saint-Amand, in the 14th year of the reign of the glorious king lord Charles, on the day of the 7th kalends of October [4th September].

Sign of Abbot Robert.

[Column 1:] S. Bishop Robert [of Noyon]. S. Count Altmar [of Arras]. S. Count Odilard [of Laon]. S. Count Hilmerad. S. Count Richer [of Astenois]. Count Erlebald [of Châtresais].

[Column 2:] S. Ralph. S. Letrand. S. Eilfred. S. Frodo. S. Walter. S. Ingelmar.

[Column 3:] S. Hugh. S. Rainard. S. Madelgaud. S. Ermenfred. S. Rainald. S. Hagano.

I, Hucbald the notary, related and subscribed this.

800px-saint-amand-les-eaux_-_tour_de_l27abbaye_280229
One of the surviving bits of Saint-Amand (source)

DD RR III.1 (24th September 906, Saint-Amand)

To the venerable in Christ Abbot Robert of the monastery of the nourishing bishop and confessor of Christ Amand, we, the brothers of the congregation of the same abbey.

We wish it to be known to many that you sought from us some of our goods, given by that most blessed pontiff Amandus to his monks and confirmed for our particular uses by royal and imperial precepts, but needful and useful to you in the service of our lord and master King Charles, sited in the district of Laonnais: that is, the cell which is called Barisis with everything pertaining to it – that is, Vallemont, Haidulphi cortis, Bouvincourt, Mactaldi cortis, Normezières, Fresnes, Pierremande, Mennessis, Cessières, Marcilly, Hauteville, Persicus – that is, that we might concede the same goods to you in benefice for your lifetime alone. Because you wish to do nothing presumptuously or by force, as you ought not to, but rather having before your eyes the just judgement of God, and lest you incur the offence of His most holy and dearest priest Amandus, and lest you inflict any harassment on us thereby, you sought and accepted the aforesaid goods by a precarial grant in right of benefice.

And, lest in the course of receiving these stipendiary goods necessary resources should fail us because of this act, insofar as it can be done, you requested from the lord king Charles that he might despatch from that abbey and from your demesne the estate which is called Decy with everything pertaining to it to our particular needs, and deliver it up perennially from the present day and confirm it to benefit our uses by a precept of his authority, that is, after an agreement had been confirmed between us that you should hold in usufruct, develop and improve the said goods which you accepted from us as long as you live, and not alienate or diminish anything from them; rather, you should endeavour in every way to add and improve therein whatever you can in any fashion, and each year you should have 12 pennies paid to us on the feast of Saint Amandus, which is the 7th kalends of November [26th October], in vestiture.

After your departure from this light, whenever God wills it, let the aforesaid cell of Barisis in its entirety be recalled to our dominion without contradiction from any abbot. And as well, let the estate of Dechy be held from this day without any prejudice under your dominion in perpetuity. And on the anniversary of your demise, a great feast shall be prepared from that estate of Dechy in memory of you, after solemn masses and offerings for you have been carried out.

But in pursuit of firmness, we had two documents written, made in the same manner, which We confirmed below with Our own hand, that they might endure stable and undisturbed, and We had them strengthened by the hands of good men.

Enacted at Elnon, in the monastery of the blessed Amandus in the 14th year of the reign of the glorious king lord Charles, on the day of the 7th kalends of October [4th September].

Prior Ricfred.

[Column 1:] S. Theobert the priest. S. Ageric the priest. S. Ludio the priest. S. Motgis the priest. S. Eligius the priest. S. Madalgar the priest.

[Column 2:] S. Stephen the priest. S. Hildebrand the priest. S. Rodualus the deacon. S. Magenard the priest. S. Gerard the deacon. S. Everbern the priest.

[Column 3:] S. Rather the priest. S. Mainer the priest. S. Blitgar the deacon. S. Dumher the deacon. S. Winebert the subdeacon. S. Lideric the subdeacon. S. Fredenod the subdeacon.

I, Hucbald the notary, related and subscribed this.

So what we have here isn’t an identical copy of an exchange: it’s both sides of a contract, confirmed by a royal diploma. This isn’t as odd as it sounds. There are a fair few Carolingian royal diplomas from the ninth century confirming exchanges, and if I had to guess I’d say that charters like those of Robert of Neustria and the monks formed the basis of those transactions but weren’t subsequently preserved because they weren’t as authoritative as a royal diploma. This raises interesting questions about why there were preserved, though. I can’t think of any other examples of this where we still have all the documents – perhaps some of my learned readers can help?

In any case, these charters are not just rare diplomatic birds, they also provide important insight into West Frankish politics at this point. The first thing to note is that, despite his by-name, Robert of Neustria – for it is he – wasn’t just limited to Neustria in terms of his power-base. Saint-Amand was an important abbey in the kingdom’s north-east, and as its abbot Robert was able to draw on its resources. Not, however, its ideological resources. Note that the scribes felt the need to reclad the transaction in appropriately royal garb for Charles’ diploma, but with Robert’s charter they just changed the pronouns from the monks’ own act. For one of the first so-called ‘territorial princes’, Robert’s authority is not visibly either territorial or princely…

Robert’s charter does, however, shed some light on the composition of the royal court. The witnesses there are all figures from the royal court rather than Robert’s own entourage. We’ve already met Odilard of Laon last week, and from our past and future narrative sources, we know that Altmar of Arras and Erlebald of Châtresais were Charles’ allies. What we seem to have here, then, are some of the more important people at Charles’ court at the time. The problem is, this isn’t a full snap-shot. We have a witness list full of – insofar as we can place them – entirely north-eastern figures, but the transaction is also taking place in the north-east, and the witnesses are thus probably being selected not just for prestige but for relevance. That is, there is probably a selection bias against people who don’t come from the area, meaning that although we can say that Charles appears fairly well-planted in the north-east, we can’t say he isn’t outside of that region. The witness list hides one other bit of foreshadowing, though. See that guy Hagano who susbscribes last in the third column? We’ll see him again in future…

Charter a Week 29: Carolingian Normandy

The coast of the English Channel is a highway for ships. This has, as we’ve seen, already caused the Carolingian kings some problems, and it will, spoiler warning, continue to do so in future. The extent to which Charles the Simple could exert any control over Rouen at this time is the subject of some debate. Anything we know here comes from the archaeology: there was a new street plan laid out at some point in the late ninth century, but who was behind it we don’t know. Pierre Bauduin thinks that there was a modus vivendi between the Vikings and the people of Rouen in place by the 890s; Jacques le Maho thinks that the Franks were able to kick out the Vikings under King Odo. And then there’s this:

DD CtS no. 51 (17th December 905, Laon) = ARTEM no. 2045 = DK 6.xv

In the name of the holy and indivisible Trinity. Charles, by the gracious favour of divine clemency king.

Whoever takes great care to serve the king’s faithful commands should advance honoured by his gift.

Therefore, let the entirety of all those faithful to the holy Church of God and Us, to wit, present and future, know that the venerable bishop Ralph [of Laon] and Count Odilard [of Laon], coming before the presence of Our Highness, made an appeal that We might concede to a certain deacon, Our chancellor Ernust, certain bondsmen of Our property to be held perpetually.

In short, We freely assented to their petitions, and We donate to him these bondsmen from the fisc of Pîtres on the river Seine, in the district of Roumois, to be possessed in right of property, whose names are as follows: Enguerrand, Hildegard, Blismodis, Engelhard, Engelmund, another Enguerrand, Ingelburgis, Ermengard, Elemburgis, Amalberga, and Dominic; and We consign, transfer and make a disposition of them from all right and power into the right and power of the same deacon Our chancellor Ernust, so that from this day forth, with no-one contradicting, he might have, hold and possess them in perpetuity, and freely do through this precept of Our authority whatever he wants to do, and dispose of them at will.

But that this edict of Our Magnitude might be held more firmly and be believed more truly and be guarded and observed more inviolably, having been confirmed below with Our own hand, We commanded it be sealed by Our signet.

Sign of Charles, most glorious of kings.

Ernust the notary wrote this down and subscribed on behalf of Bishop Anskeric [of Paris].

Given on the 16th kalends of January [17th December], in the 10th indiction, in the 13th year of the reign of Charles, most glorious of kings, in the 8th of the restoration of the kingdom’s unity.

Enacted at Laon.

Happily in the name of God, amen.

cw 29 905
The original diploma, from Diplomata Karolinorum as linked above.

What’s important about this diploma is that Pîtres is directly downstream from Rouen. It’s maybe half a day’s walk, probably gentler by ship. This act, though, seems to suggest that five years before Charles officially recognised Rollo’s control, he was able to control the royal fisc in what would become Normandy. So what’s going on? Who’s in charge in Rouen – the Normans or the Franks?

Well, there are a few potential options. First, this act is issued in Laon with the local bishop and a local count as intercessors, and it only concerns mancipia (slaves, sort-of) rather than real property. This raises the possibility that the whole transaction is going on in Laon and that Enguerrand, Hildegard et al. could be refugees from Pîtres rather than still living there.

This is possible, but I prefer a second possibility. There is an underlying assumption behind discussions of Rollonid control over Rouen c. 900 that either the Franks or the Vikings were in control. That is, if Rollo was already based in Rouen by 905 then it couldn’t possibly be the case that Charles the Simple (or Robert of Neustria, or whoever) could get anything done there, and vice-versa. Yet historians have at the same time been emphasising the role which Rollo’s ties to the Frankish world played in the concession of Rouen and the surrounding region. There is a tension here.

In fact, if Rollo had decided to settle down, why wouldn’t this involve making deals with local royal agents such as fiscal overseers? There’s no reason to assume that Rollo would have been able to lock the kings out of all the fiscal property on the lower Seine. Assuming that royal and Rollonid power in early Viking Rouen could co-exist lets us untangle several problems: first, it explains why Charles could dispose of property in the Roumois in this diploma. Second, it means that we don’t have to envision a very short time for Rollo to establish himself in Rouen. Third, if there were this longer history between Charles and Rollo, it helps explain the generous grants made by the treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte – Rollo might not have been completely reliable, but neither was (e.g.) Robert of Neustria. But both had proven themselves reliable enough in the past to be worth rewarding when it was opportune to do so.

Charter a Week 28: This Church was a Steal!

After 903, we are definitely at the point where trying to do conventional narrative is basically impossible, at least until the double-whammy of happenings in 911. With that in mind, let’s turn our attention to what’s going on the provinces… As we saw with Geilo, the bishops of Langres were big deals, and they stayed so into the tenth and (as we’ll see) the eleventh centuries. So what’s up with them?

Cartulaire de Saint-Bénigne no. 1.157 (3rd June 904) = ARTEM no. 151

In the year of the Lord’s Incarnation 903, in the 6th indiction, in the month of September, when, in the name of the holy and indivisible Trinity, I, Argrim, by the favour and succour of the mercy of our same holy saviour humble bishop of Langres, residing in the bosom of the same mother church in general synod, along with those faithful to that church and to Us, of every order, that is, abbots, archdeacons, priests, monks, deacons and other ministers of the churchly order, and also lay followers, was settling the affairs and advantages of the churches committed to Our Unworthiness with pastoral solicitude, insofar as Our ability and understanding allowed; and was giving an equal amount of attention* to disposing that what was legitimately established should endure undisturbed; and, if anything, perchance, could be found to be twisted and without authority, with divinity propitious was busying myself to get it back in line, amongst other endeavours of Our reckonings, which everyone together sweated to fortify and confirm with ecclesiastical sanctions, and We were sorrowing over the destitutions of certain churches pertaining to Our diocese and seeking how, with the Lord’s help, they could be restored by a common vow, the case of the church of the holy martyr of Christ Vincent sited in the castle of Dijon was aired and considered by us, for it seemed at that time to be destitute of necessities and widowed of a ruler and nearly brought down to nothing.

When We sought a recoverer and diligent restorer for it, amongst Our other good-willed followers, there presented himself someone fully devoted to Us and rightly cooperating with Our intention, an archdeacon of Our church named Rather, along with his nephew named Aldefred, saying that they wanted to receive and restore the same church, as far as they could, and were prepared to increase it from their own goods, as befit them, if We would succour it by an increase of Our beneficence and assist it so that it could enjoy legitimate stability in future times.

Favouring them with a resolution of pious generosity, with everyone cleaving to Our Goodwill, in honour and love for God and Saint Vincent, and for the eternal salvation and remuneration of Our soul and of Our predecessors and those who will come after Us in the sacred governance of pastors, and for an assiduous and unfailing remembrance in the prayers in the same church, We consigned and bestowed a certain manse of Our power and authority to the same place of Saint-Vincent, with the serving-people duly dwelling there, and with the vineyards, lands and all the goods beholden to it, sited near the suburbs of the aforesaid castle of Dijon, in the estate which is called Fontaine-lès-Dijon, to benefit that church perpetually as Our alms. Furthermore, Our aforesaid followers, to wit, Archdeacon Rather and his aforesaid nephew Aldefred, giving to that church for divine love another manse sited in the district of Oscheret, in the estate of Seroiches, with what is thereon, and 5 serving-people, and dwellings and meadows, and everything beholden to it, as is laid out in the charter of donation, asked that that church and the aforesaid things and the entrance-hall next to it be conceded and given to them in benefice for their lifetimes, on the condition that they should restore it as far as they could and respect it with due honour and have in it a necessary refuge whilst they lived. After their death, the same goods should no less serve the same church in perpetual stability.

We freely did this, with the assent of all Our men, and We conceded that they might hold the same church with these goods more certainly and securely in future times through this constitution of Our Liberality, which We strengthened with Our own hands and gave to be confirmed by everyone.

I, Argrim, poor bishop of the holy church of Langres, strengthened and subscribed. Prior Otbert subscribed. Archdeacon Isaac subscribed. Alberic the levite subscribed. The unworthy priest Helgaud subscribed. Archdeacon Pazus subscribed. Deacon Fulculf subscribed. Deodatus the priest subscribed. Bernard, under-sacristan of Saint-Mammès, subscribed. Deacon Gozelm subscribed. Archdeacon Arnald subscribed. Arnald the priest subscribed. Everard the levite subscribed. Subdeacon Lambert subscribed. Ursino the priest subscribed. Ingelbert the levite subscribed. Arembert subscribed. Christian the priest subscribed. Garemagnus the levite subscribed. Dominic the priest subscribed. Subdeacon Warner subscribed. Winerand the priest subscribed. Deodatus the priest subscribed. Alexander the priest subscribed. Seguin the priest subscribed. Letulf the levite subscribed. Gozelm the acolyte subscribed. Aimbald subscribed. Robert subscribed. Alger subscribed. Eilbert subscribed. Wandalmar the acolyte subscribed. Witbert subscribed. Archembald subscribed. Gisleher subscribed. Eldulf the levite subscribed. Ferlagius the levite subscribed. Ermenald subscribed.

I, Siric, an unworthy priest, wrote and subscribed this tenancy agreement.

Given in the month of June, on the 3rd nones of the same month [3rd June], in the 7th indiction, in the 8th year of the reign of King Charles.

*The phrase is praeponderans aequo libramine, ‘weighing on an even scale’, which I have taken as a poetic flourish for ‘considering similarly’, but could as well refer to the manner of Argrim’s dispositions.

01511
Original document taken from ARTEM, as given above.

This is at first glance fairly straightforward. The church of Saint-Vincent in Dijon has gone to rack and ruin, Archdeacon Rather – who as prior of Saint-Etienne in Dijon is in a position to know – has volunteered to rebuild it and has devoted some funds for its upkeep, which Argrim, to help them out, adds to.

There is, of course, more going on. First, Saint-Vincent is far from destitute – it was at the time owned by the monks of the abbey of Saint-Bénigne, who still resented having their church usurped in the mid-eleventh century; and who were able, eight years later, to get Argrim’s successor to restore Saint-Vincent to them. So Rather is actively trying to get control of someone else’s church here. Even more, as we will see more of on Wednesday, Rather was particularly able to benefit from this kind of transaction under Argrim. Given Argrim’s slightly tenuous hold on the bishopric, the support of a major archdeacon must have been significant, and these transactions suggest that Rather was able to exact quite a price for that support.

The other thing that I want to flag up regarding this charter is its form. This document takes the form of a synodal record, something quite unusual in the tenth century. It’s not unknown (this being why as far as I can tell no-one else has ever commented on its unusual degree of employment by the bishops of southern Burgundy), but outside of the Church province of Lyon it’s hard to find tenth-century examples of this charter form (as opposed to records of synods themselves, which are more frequent). Why might this be? Well, we’ve already seen that provincial synods were particularly prominent in late-Carolingian Burgundy, and this seems to be a case of ‘as above, so below’ – what happens on a provincial level being reproduced on a diocesan one. There’s something else which makes the charters of the bishops of Langres particularly interesting – but we’ll leave that for another time…

Charter a Week 27, Part 2: Courting the Crowd in Poitou

This one is being written in a bit of a hurry – I was down in London for the last two weekends on research trips and, somehow, although I have a full buffer of regular blog posts, Charter A Week has fallen behind; and I also have marking to do… So, let’s get straight into it:

CC no. 1.81 (14th May 903, Poitiers) = ARTEM no. 1580 = Plus anciens documents de Cluny no. 3

It was decreed by the custom of the fathers of old and the law of all Roman citizens in the orb of the world that worldly princes, preserving legal precepts, should destroy the false and seek the right with judicial power.

Whence it should be known to the whole world that, while the venerable count lord Ebalus was residing with his entourage in the city of Poitiers, on the day before the ides of May [14th May], the advocate of the monastery of Notre-Dame et Saint-Junien de Nouaillé, Waldo by name, was present there, calling before the lord count and his princes for a right judgement concerning Hildebert of Limoges, who by the flame of greed and worldly malice had very unjustly taken the wood of Notre-Dame which is commonly called Bouresse away from the aforesaid monastery.

The lord count and all his magnates, hearing this, questioned him as to why he had done this. Responding, he said that he had a better right to the property.

Then the Poitevins arose, and for love of Saint Mary and Saint Junian (albeit at the count’s command) declared that he should not separate from them until he had judged rightly thither. Everyone bore witness that for two or three hundred years, that monastery had been vested with this property, and that a certain Leodegar had just possession of it until now by gift of all the brothers of that place.

Then Hildebert, bound by princely judgement and legal examination, after an inquest had been carried out by his followers who were there, recognised that he had not acted well, and legally restored what he had unjustly stolen.

Accordingly, both Abbot Warin and the monks of the place and Waldo the advocate found it necessary that they should receive this notice from him, and it is clear that this was done, and it was enacted in the presence of these people.

Sign of Count Ebalus. Sign of Viscount Maingaud [of Poitiers]. Sign of Frotgar. Sign of Aimeric. Sign of Bego the pupil. Sign of Hucbert. Sign of Erland. Sign of Adrald. Sign of Savaric. Sign of Arbald. Sign of Viscount Atto [of Melle]. Sign of Amalric. Sign of Reinfard the vicar. Sign of Rainer the scribe.

Given in the month of May, in the 6th year of the reign of King Charles [the Simple].

Emmo, having been asked to do so, wrote and subscribed this.

15801
Image taken from ARTEM as given in the link above.

This is Ebalus Manzer (‘the Bastard’), count of Poitiers, of whom we have yet to see much. He is seen here overseeing a typical court, the nature of which has sometimes been idealised and shouldn’t be. Note above all, it’s a comital stitch-up – what is presented as a kind of mass rally of support is actually jussu comitis, at the count’s order. This is also a kind of interplay of formal and informal aspects which the legalistic terminology and formal diction shouldn’t blind us to.

Also, it’s interesting that it’s Viscount Hildebert of Limoges who’s on trial here. Limoges wouldn’t really be part of the Poitevin mouvance until rather later in the century – links are there, as on this occasion, but they’re a bit tenuous. That Ebalus apparently has the power to compel him in this regard is interesting. Again, the ‘Poitevins’ must play a role here – it’s phrased as though it’s a formal declaration of piety, but I wonder in light of what they’re actually saying (‘you ain’t gonna leave before we let you’) I wonder if Ebalus has orchestrated Hildebert’s subjection to a mob in order to force his hand…

Source Translation: Lothar-what-now?

This actually was a regular charter of the week, until I realised that I had been misreading the date and placing it too early… So enjoy this week’s plethora of acts, and we’ll be back with non-translated material next week!

Meanwhile in the East Frankish kingdom, Arnulf of Carinthia has died and Zwentibald of Lotharingia has been overthrown then killed. Their successor is Arnulf’s other son, this one legitimate, Louis the Child. Per his name, he’s a child. This means that the kingdom is in the hands of his minders, above all Archbishop Hatto of Mainz and Bishop Adalbero of Augsburg. This could in theory create problems, but they seem to have dealt with it relatively successfully:

DD LtC no. 20 (24th June 903, Forchheim)

In the name of the holy and indivisible Trinity. Louis, by the favour of divine clemency king.

If We clemently assent to and piously take care the petitions of Our followers which they suggest to Us for the profit of the churches committed to them, We are clearly confident that this will benefit Us both in the state of the present realm and to happily obtain the prize of the future kingdom.

On which account, let the general company of all Our followers, to wit, present and future, know that Salomon [III], the venerable bishop [of Constance] and abbot of the abbey of Sankt Gallen, who was first substituted by royal power in place of Abbot Bernhard – whose abbatial office was taken from him because of his crimes, because he supported Bernard [the bastard son of Charles the Fat], an alien invader of the realm, in resisting royal majesty – and then elected by the common consideration  of all the brothers serving the Lord therein, because he endeavoured to manage them will in both divine and human affairs, in accordance with the Rule of Saint Benedict, in Our general assembly held at Forchheim, through the advice of Our followers, that is, the chief men who were present there, gathered from the sundry corners of Our realm, whose names are as follows: the venerable bishops Hatto [of Mainz], Waldo [of Freising], Adalbero [of Augsburg], Erchanbald [of Eichstätt], Theodulf [of Chur], Tuto [of Regensburg], and Einhard [of Speyer], and Counts Conrad [the Elder], Gebhard, duke of the realm which many call Lothar’s; Burchard, margrave of the Thuringians; Adalbert [of Babenberg]; Burchard, margrave of Churrhaetia; Liutpold, duke of the Bavarians; Papo; Odalric; Conrad [the Younger]; Hugh; Reginpold; Adalgoz; Roger; Burchard, son of Walaho; Liutfred; Godedank; Ernust and Erlolf – by the intervention and consultation, as was said before, of all of these Our followers and many others, the aforesaid Salomon, Our beloved bishop, asked Our Clemency that We might fortify all the privileges conceded to the aforesaid abbey by Our pious father of good memory, that is, the august emperor Arnulf [of Carinthia], and by his other predecessors, that is, his great-grandfather Emperor Louis [the Pious] and his son Louis [the German], the most glorious of kings, and also his paternal uncle the august emperor Charles [the Fat], by the authority of Our writing.

We freely assented to the advice of Our said beloved bishop and Our aforementioned followers, and We complied with and rejoiced in their just and reasonable petition, and We receive that abbey with the brothers soldiering for the Lord in it under the tutelage of Our immunity, and whatever the aforesaid emperors or kings of the Franks conceded, We confirmed completely and in every way by this writing, decreeing and establishing that no public judge or any person of higher or lower order should presume either to hear cases or exact peace-money or make a halt or claim hospitality in the churches, estates, places or fields of that monastery, nor distrain through force the men both free and servile dwelling on the land of the same abbey, or to take securities, nor dare to unreasonably disturb them; and let whatever should be investigated in respect of that monastery by a legal inquest with oaths required from the noble men dwelling in each county where an inquest of this sort should be carried out be carried out in such a manner as was conceded to the nearby monastery of Reichenau in carrying out their inquests.

And because this petition was made particularly for a privilege of election for the same brothers by the above-written bishop and abbot and by them and all his above-written friends, although We should wish all the statutes laid out above to be valid and firm (and they ought rightly so to be), We firmly establish with the power divinely bestowed on Us that the brothers of the oft-said monastery should from this day forth hold secure power to elect an abbot from amongst themselves, as long as such a one can be found amongst them who can order and rule a monastic way of life well, in accordance with the Rule of Saint Benedict.

And that the present page of this privilege might endure firm for eternity and beyond, and be more truly believed and diligently conserved by all Our followers, We confirmed it with the inscription of Our own hand and We commanded it be authenticated by Our seal.

Sign of lord Louis, most serene of kings.

Ernust the chancellor witnessed and subscribed on behalf of Archchaplain Thietmar.

Given on the 8th kalends of July [24th June], in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 903, in the 6th indiction, in the 4th year of the reign of lord Louis.

Enacted at Forchheim.

Happily, amen.

(This is an original diploma, but I can’t find a reproduction of it…)

1024px-ballonkathedrale01_edit
Instead, a propos of nothing, it turns out that the abbey of Sankt Gallen, which received this diploma, has a hot-air balloon shaped like it (source)

Those really long lists of petitioners are important. They represent a kind of team-building exercise, a public demonstrate of everyone involved’s consent to Louis’ regime. But it’s one of those names in particular that I want to point out specifically today, that being Gebhard.

Gebhard was a member of the kin-group historians call the ‘Conradiner’, a powerful family in the East Frankish kingdom. He had been part of the 899 meeting in Sankt-Goar which had led the plot to overthrow Zwentibald, and his status in this diploma as ‘duke of the kingdom which many call Lothar’s’ must reflect part of the reward for doing that.

But, ‘the kingdom which many call Lothar’s’ is a bit of a funny thing to be a duke of, no? His colleagues are all the rulers of some straightforwardly-described things: peoples, like the Bavarians; or places, like Churrhaetia, all of which have apparently-uncomplicated names. (How uncomplicated they were in practice is entirely another question, but apparently at least the chancery scribes knew what they were talking about there in a way they evidently don’t with Lotharingia.)

Lotharingia is in fact an interesting case where there is a clear sense of what it is not but not necessarily a clear sense of what it is. The identity of Lotharingia would become clearer over the tenth and eleventh centuries, but for the moment it seems awfully like regional distinctiveness has arisen before anyone has a very particular idea of how or why the region is actually distinctive…

Charter a Week 27, part 1: Robert’s Back!

The split between Robert and Charles didn’t last forever. In 903, the Neustrian ruler was back in the West Frankish king’s good graces. Quite why then is a little bit open to question. My preferred answer is that there are hints in the sources that 903 was a time when Viking attacks were starting up again – in that year, Tours was burned down by two leaders named Bard and Eric – and Charles, being basically unable to lead an army out of a wet paper bag, needed his most experienced anti-Viking commander to help. This doesn’t really explain why he wouldn’t turn to Richard, who had form fighting Vikings as well, but it’s the best answer I’ve got. Another possibility is that the death of Charles’ mother Queen Adelaide in around 902 had opened the way to reconciliation. But what did the reconciliation look like?

DD CtS no. 47 (5th June 903, Melay) = ARTEM no. 3043 = DK 6.xiv

In the name of the holy and indivisible Trinity. Charles, by the gracious favour of divine clemency king.

If We pay heed to the petitions of servants of God and things advantageous to churches, and bring them into effect, We are confident that the Lord will make repayment for it.

Therefore, let the profit and skill of people both present and future know that the venerable Count Robert, truly beloved of Us, abbot of the monastery of the holy martyr of Christ, the champion and Our special patron Dionysius and his companions came before Our Clemency and made known a certain little abbey in the realm of Our most beloved kinsman Louis, that is, Lièpvre in the Vosges, which the late venerable abbot Fulrad of the aforesaid monastery had bestowed on the most holy Dionysius and the brothers serving him by charters’ firmness and the authority of precepts; and which the aforesaid brothers had always held from then for their own uses with one salt-pan and one saline in the township of Marsal; and he humbly appealed to Our Clemency that We might deign to renew and confirm the aforesaid goods through a precept of Our authority against abbots to come, so that the brothers might be able to hold the aforesaid goods for all time without any disturbance or invasion or division from any abbot.

And thus, assenting to the prayers of the aforesaid Count Robert, in accordance with what is contained in the testament of the venerable abbot Fulrad and in the privilege of the apostolic lord Leo [III], We perpetually confirm by a precept of Our authority the aforesaid goods for the monks of the aforesaid monastery of Saint-Denis, both for food stipends and for the lighting and for the reception of the poor, reminding and invoking future abbots that they should guard inviolably what We have conceded and strengthened. May he who hears and observes this precept receive an eternal reward, but let anyone who violates it, if they do not come to their senses, remain bound by the chains of the anathema concerning the confirmed goods in the privilege of the apostolic lord Leo.

But that this precept, written after the fashion of a privilege, might be more truly believed and more fully observed, We confirmed it below with Our own hand and We commanded it to be sealed by Our ring.

Sign of Charles, most glorious of kings.

Ernust the notary related and subscribed on behalf of Bishop Anskeric [of Paris].

Given on the nones of June [5th June], in the 6th indiction, in the 11th year of the reign of Charles, most glorious of kings, in the 6th of his restoration of unity to the kingdom.

Enacted at the estate of Melay.

Happily in the name of God, amen.

CW 27 903
Original diploma taken from dMGH as above.

Once again, this charter has been analysed by Koziol, and in this instance he’s basically right. The Saint-Denis diploma came as the culmination of a series of acts for Robert (I didn’t translate them because there are some minor questions of authenticity over their surviving versions), where he was restored to Charles’ grace over the course of the Easter celebrations. The big difference between my reconstruction and Koziol’s is that I don’t think Robert had prior claim to any of the abbeys he received, so when Charles presented him with the major Parisian abbeys of Saint-Denis and Saint-Germain-des-Prés, these were bribes not restorations.

This diploma is also a reminder of how wide-spread these abbey’s resources were. When anyone talks to you about ‘narrowing horizons’ and ‘territorial consolidation’ in the tenth century then, well, they might have a point, but it’s evidently not in terms of the extent of landholding. As you can see if you click through to the map, the cell of Liepvre is in the middle of Alsace; but Robert has to take it into account along with the closer-to-home estates in the Paris Basin. Also interesting is that Charles apparently has no problems confirming an estate in Louis’ kingdom. Unlike when he did the same to Zwentibald, though, here Louis is marked as being the king and being, officially at least, well-regarded. The dynamics at play here are a little shadowy to me, honestly. Maybe it’s something as simple as Charles keeping his hand in re: claims to Lotharingia…

Charter a Week 26: An Aquitanian at King Louis’ Court

This week, the south. We haven’t seen much of Louis the Blind since his election in 890. So far, things have been going pretty well for him. In 900, he was asked to become king of Italy and a little later, emperor. This is going to go very badly for him (see: Louis the Blind), but for the moment it’s still working out. Winter 902 sees him back in Provence, giving a diploma to a very familiar figure…

DD Provence no. 41 (11th November 902, Vienne) = ARTEM no. 2485 = DK 9.iv

In the name of the holy and indivisible Trinity. Louis, by grace of God emperor augustus.

Let the industry of all Our followers, to wit, present and future, know that William [the Pious], the famous duke and margrave, approaching Our Excellence, earnestly requested that We might concede to some of Our followers, to wit, Bernard and Theobert, what seemed just and legal, that is, an abbey named in honour of Saint Martin, which is named Ambierle, pertaining to the county of Lyon, lying in the district of Roannais, with everything justly and legally pertaining to it, and there are in total thirty manses along with dependents of both sexes, completely and entirely, which could be legally done through a precept of Our authority.

Proffering assent to his prayers, We decreed this precept of Our Serenity be made, through which let Our aforesaid followers Theobert, and also Bernard, be able to possess in future times all that which is covered above, which is just and legal, along with male and female serfs, vineyards, meadows, cottages, pastures, woods, fields, waters and watercourses.

We concede all of the aforesaid to Our aforesaid followers and We give it into their dominion, as can be legally done, so that they might have power hereafter to do whatever they wish, that is, sell, cede, donate, exchange and freely bequeath to their heirs, remote from disturbance from any power.

And that this might be held more truly, We confirmed it with Our own hand, and We commanded it be signed by Our seal.

Sign of lord Louis, most serene of august emperors.

Arnulf the notary witnessed on behalf of Archbishop and Archchancellor Ragemfred [of Vienne].

Given on the 3rd ides of November [11th November], in the year of the Lord 902, in the 5th indiction, in the second year of the imperial rule of lord emperor Louis.

Enacted publicly at Vienne.

Happily in the name of God, amen.

CW 26 902
Diploma photo taken from dMGH as above.

Yes, it’s the Trans-Ararian Fluidity Zone again. William the Pious, who is count in Lyon, shows up in almost as many diplomas of Louis the Blind as of Charles the Simple (which is to say, one versus two). To some extent this is inevitable: William, not least, is married to Louis’ sister Engelberga. As count in Mâcon as well, William is plugged into that network of Burgundian bishops we’ve seen before – and in fact this will become very evident in a few years time. For the moment, though, what we are seeing is William operating as much in one kingdom as in another, and helping his followers do the same. The Theobert in the diploma is generally accepted to be Count Theobert of Apt, who had been an important figure in Louis’ court but is on the way out. He will, however, find a new life in William’s domains, helped along not least by his possession of Ambierle as per this act. There’s more to say about how things go on the borderlands between Provence, Transjurance Burgundy and the West Frankish kingdom – but that will wait for a later blog post.

Charter a Week 25: Richard the Justiciar’s Time in the Limelight

After Robert of Neustria’s departure from court in summer 900, he stayed away for several years. Charles, whose favouring of Richard the Justiciar had probably instigated the conflict in the first place, continued to favour Richard. Although he continued to build up wider alliances, it was unquestionably Richard who held the dominant place at court:

DD CtS no. 38 (22nd April 901, Troyes)

In the name of the holy and indivisible Trinity. Charles, by grace of God king.

If We freely give a hearing to the petitions of servants of God, We copy works of royal excellence and through this We do not doubt that We will gain possession of the prize of eternal life.

Therefore, let the industry of all the faithful of the holy Church of God, to wit, present and future, know that Our follower, the venerable, the most noble of counts, and as well abbot of the monastery of Saint-Germain d’Auxerre, Richard [the Justiciar], approaching the clemency of Our Highness, sought from Our Munificence that We might concede certain goods from the same abbacy to the monks of the same most holy place for use in the stipends of the monks; to wit, twenty little manses sited in the district of Auxerrois, in the estate which is called Irancy, which Walcaud and Leotard used to hold in benefice.

Lending the ears of Our Sublimity to his right salutary requests, which are beneficial for Our soul, We conceded the aforementioned goods to the same sacrosanct place, and We commanded this precept of Our Magnitude be made and given to them concerning it, through which We confirm that the same goods should eternally serve their uses, and, disturbed by no-one, no abbot, nor any officer or judicial power, We decree in entrusting them to them that they be perennially possessed, on the authoritative terms that they should possess the freest judgement in anything whatever they should decree be done with the same things for their needs, and that the aforesaid monks, faithfully and worthily thinking upon this largess, should not desist from beating the pious ears of God Almighty with continuous prayers for Our safety and the state of Our whole realm and the salvation of Our beloved and faithful Richard.

And that this largess might be held more firmly through many times to come and be more diligently be conserved in perpetuity by all God’s faithful, confirming it below with Our own hand, We commanded it be signed with the impression of Our signet.

Given on the 10th kalends of May (22nd April), in the 3rd indiction, in the 9th year of the reign of and 3rd year of the restoration of unity to the kingdom by Charles, most serene of kings.

Enacted and confirmed at the city of Troyes.

Happily in the name of God, amen.

1280px-auxerre_-_abbaye_saint-germain_-_2
The abbey of Saint-Germain-d’Auxerre as it appears today (source)

This is one of the five royal diplomas Richard petitioned for between summer 900 and spring 903 (out of a total of 11 surviving acta). It was issued at Troyes, well outside of Charles’ usual travel range. The 22nd April in 901 was just after Easter – the implication seems to be that Charles went to visit Richard in Burgundy for Eastertide, an idea perhaps reinforced by a diploma purporting to have been issued in Autun in March 901. As it currently stands, it is an obvious forgery; but if real information is underlying that dating clause, it could support this suggestion.

In any case, this diploma shows how high Richard’s star was at court in the early 900s. His description as venerabilis et nobilissimus comes, set et fidelis noster necnon et abbas monasterii Sancti Germanii is a very high-flown bit of titulature, and his inclusion in the prayer clause is very unusual in Charles’ diplomas. This is a remarkable bit of favour.

Richard’s time in the spotlight would come to an end relatively shortly. Next week, however, we’ll be taking a quick peek outside the West Frankish kingdom.

Charter a Week 24, Part 2: Guilt and Negotiation

Robert of Neustria wasn’t doing nothing whilst Charles built up his allies in the north. In September 900 he issued one of the most peculiar magnate charters of the whole late-Carolingian period. Buckle in, people, because this is a long one:

DD RR no. 42 (13th September 900, Tours)

In the name of the holy and indivisible Trinity. We, verily, Robert, by grace of God Almighty abbot of the flock of the famous confessor of Christ the blessed Martin and as well count.

We desire for it to be well-known and manifest to all the faithful of Christ and the catholic Church and as well chiefly and above all the abbots of the aforesaid flock of the blessed Martin, Our successors, that the aforesaid venerable flock over which We are seen to preside undertook to gain recompense from Our Paternity and Our Guidance and Piety through a venerable deacon of that flock, Adalelm by name, humbly and tearfully lodging a complaint, namely, for a lost spiritual good. He said that Our predecessor, lord Odo, Our brothers, at that time abbot of the aforesaid flock, thereafter a most pious king of the Franks, We know not whether by the instigation or guile of certain of his so-called followers or seduced by the ruthless greed of his, as We said, so-called followers, without consulting the canons of Saint-Martin, to whom the role of giving out alms and hospitality specially pertained, had at his own pleasure and in accordance with his own fancy conceded all the goods pertaining to the hospice for the poor, which the ready devotion of divers of the faithful of Christ through the course of many times since passed bestowed on the same Saint-Martin, that is, to the little cell of Saint-Clément, to perpetually feed the poor there in alms and for the future remedy of all of the faithful who bestowed the same goods, to wit, present and to come, to one of Our canons, then his follower, as if they were his own goods, to be held in right of benefice, that they might be treated separately from those which provide food for the brothers and alms for the poor and thereafter serve him alone. Then We, succeeding him in the same governance, permitted the same goods of the poor to remain in benefice in Our time, subject to the same perilous invasion. Because of this, all the general kindness for guests and alms for the poor – which in olden days were studiously dispersed in the monastery of the blessed Martin to the poor, the wanderer, and the pilgrim for kings and all the orders of the holy Church of God and also for the magnates of the realm and as well, as We said, for those who bestowed the same goods and all the catholic faithful, both living and who have paid death’s due – had completely disappeared. In addition, all the general hospitality remained destroyed.

Therefore We, carefully considering this very lamentable complaint of this venerable flock and the danger We were in by pondering it in Our mind’s deepest contemplation, began to keenly and carefully consider what is asserted by the voice of Truth: ‘I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not’ [Matthew 25:43], ‘I was an hungered, and ye gave me nought to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink (and so on)’ [Matthew 25:42]; ‘and inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me’ [Matthew 25:45], ‘depart from me into the eternal fire’ [Matthew 25:41].

Whereupon We were struck down with a mighty terror, for We had stolen hospitality away from the poor for Our personal use, We also began to consider what We also believe without doubt: that the very Christ himself is taken in in the poor and the wanderer, as he himself said: ‘I was a stranger and ye took me in; naked, and ye clothed me’ [Matthew 25:36]. He later made this manifest to us in the clearest of ways, when he showed himself in Heaven amongst the most blessed host of angels cloaked with half of the blessed Martin’s cloak, saying ‘Martin, though yet a catechumen, clothed me in this garment’ [Sulpicius Severus, Vita Martini, III.3], ‘I was an hungered and ye gave me something to eat (and so on)’ [Matthew 25:36].

Therefore, considering that not only had We not given to either Christ or Saint Martin from Our own goods that from which the poor might be restored, but in fact had also, as We related, stolen by Our own will and judgement that which the highest devotion of the faithful endeavoured to confer on God Almighty and Saint Martin to sustain the needy for the remission of their sins, despoiling Christ and Saint Martin and clothing Ourself alone, We began once more to be terribly sorry, and, blaming Ourself alone with bitter invective, We decided enough. We know, in addition, that all the good which are bestowed upon churches to sustain the faithful are alms for the poor – but also the price of sins. As the Lord said through the prophet, ‘they eat up the sin of my people’ [Hosea 4:8], and it is also written, ‘Whoso robbeth his father or his mother, death is the penalty’ [Proverbs 28:24/Exodus 21:15]. Moreover, We know that our father is Christ, who redeemed us, and our mother is the holy Church, who spiritually birthed us by Christ through the font of holy baptism. Therefore, whosoever takes anything away from Christ and the Church, from the goods bestowed on them by the faithful, from which the poor should be fed and clothed, will without doubt die an everlasting death, as Ananais and Saphira died, they who unjustly stole something from what they had of their own free will promised they would give to the poor.(*)

Therefore, stirred up by so many terrible spiritual warnings and such great terrors, so that We and Our aforesaid lord and Our brother the lord king Odo, in whose time general hospitality and the taking-in of the poor first disappeared from the monastery of the blessed Martin by his negligence, which was as fearful and grave as We recalled above, should not be struck down on the Day of Judgement by the sentence of the Just Judge saying ‘Because you did this, depart into the eternal fire’ [see Matthew 25:41], We made provision for our souls; and, with the counsel of Our followers, with swift and very ready devotion do restore the aforementioned cell of the blessed martyr Clement, which pertains to the hospice for the poor, with all the goods pertaining to it, from which the poor should be fed, to the old custom and order, and return it to the control of the brothers, with this point of plan and ordering: that Walter, the pupil of the aforesaid Adalelm who was the chief encourager and assistant of this holy work on behalf of all the brothers, might through this testament of Our authority and also the consent of the brothers quietly hold, order and possess all these goods for as long as he lives for the use of the poor and his own people. But after Walter’s death, let the brothers always have permission for themselves, as was ordained in olden times, to elect in accordance with the needs of the moment one of the brothers of the same flock, one who is foremost in total honesty and generosity, who hates all avarice, and who might be a most pious comforter to paupers and pilgrims, who should readily render due comfort from the same goods to his fellow brothers and should similarly not deny due aid to the poor. To him, through Our consent and that of Our successors as abbots of Saint-Martin, let them commit the hospice of the poor. And thus, let what the holy fathers, Our predecessors, moved by the Holy Spirit, established be forever done with the aforesaid goods, remain ever undisturbed.

Concerning this matter, We humbly beg all Our successors as abbot of Saint-Martin that, as We are ruined and condemned by Our obstinacy and that of Our brother, and We judge and accuse Ourself before the divine presence, so too should they see and completely beware that they do not presume to despoil Christ and Saint Martin (in the form of their poor) as We did. Rather, let them vest and permit this restoration of Our authority to endure forever inviolate.

Next, holy bishops, to wit, Archbishop Erbern of Tours, Bishop Raino of Angers, Fulcher of Nantes, Berno of Orléans, Anskeric of Paris, Otger of Amiens, embraced and confirmed Our free will and very ready consent in this matter (which is very salutary and profits our souls both temporally and spiritually) with the power to bind and loose bestowed on them by the Lord in the person of the blessed Peter, prince of the apostles, in his following words: ‘whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven. Truly, depending on the assurance of this power, they closed the gates of Heaven with the chains of anathema for all those whose greedy malice is a barrier and who wish to transgress this Our authority and restoration or correction, but also all those who consent and urge them on in this fault. Thus let them be cursed everywhere, and let all the curses with which God Almighty cursed those ‘who said unto Lord God, “depart from us, for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways”’ [Job 21:14] and ‘Let us take to ourselves the houses of God in possession’ [Psalm 83:13] come upon them: ‘let death seize upon them and let them go down quick into Hell’ [Psalm 55:16]. Let their part and inheritance be the torment of eternal fire, and let them receive the sentence and summit of eternal damnation with Dathan and Abiram, Judas and Pilate and all others who violate or transgress holy law, unless they quickly come to their senses and set themselves right from temerity of this sort.

And that, in God’s name, this might be believed more certain to have been done by Us and be conserved forever inviolate, We corroborated it with Our own hands with the sign of the holy Cross, and We asked the aforementioned bishops and Our followers to subscribe and affirm this authority.

Sign of the holy cross of lord Robert, most glorious of abbots, who asked this holy authority to be made and confirmed.

Erbern, by God’s mercy archbishop [of Tours], subscribed this authority. I, Raino, bishop of Angers, subscribed with my own hand. Fulcher, bishop of Nantes, subscribed. Berno, although unworthy bishop of Orléans, subscribed. Anskeric, bishop of Paris, at the request of Count Robert, confirmed this authority. Otger [of Amiens], episcophilax, strengthened this. I, Abbot Aimo [of Cormery] subscribed.

Sign of Viscount Atto [of Tours]. Sign of Viscount Guarnegaud [of Blois]. Sign of Viscount Fulk [the Red, of Angers]. Sign of Viscount Rainald. Sign of Maingaud the vassal. Sign of Walcher. Sign of Bernuin. Sign of Adalard. Sign of Eric. Sign of Ernust. Sign of Gerard. Sign of Walter. Sign of Alberic. Sign of Erwig. Sign of Wandalbert. Sign of Gundacer. Sign of Suger. Sign of Eudo. Sign of Berard. Sign of Teudo. Sign of Guy. Sign of Robert. Sign of another Walter. Sign of Landric. Sign of Blado. Sign of Odo.

The authority of this restitution was given on the ides of September [13th September], in the city of Tours, in the 3rd year after the death of the lord king Odo, in the reign of the lord king Charles.

I, Archenald, a levite of the flock of the blessed Martin, having been asked to do so, wrote and subscribed this.

(*) It’s not a specific quotation, but it’s remarkably reminiscent of some of the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals – we saw John VIII using Pseudo-Lucius saying much the same thing a few months back…

vieux_tours2c_place_du_grand_marchc3a92c_c3a9glise_saint-clc3a9ment
The church of Saint-Clément, which was demolished in the nineteenth century after having served as a wheat warehouse. (source)

First, the witness list. We’re looking here at most of Robert’s important fideles, the viscounts who run the Neustrian March on his behalf as well as most of the prominent local bishops. (Noticeably, the bishop of Le Mans is missing…) What we have here, it seems, is an emergency meeting convoked to decide what exactly to do about Robert’s sudden exclusion from court.

This isn’t to say that Robert is operating from a position of strength; far from it. Being appropriately penitential can do wonders for your authority in the Carolingian world, but this is quite excessive: not merely Robert but also Odo come in for criticism – both are presented as greedy, negligent, and easily-swayed by bad advice. The implication is that he has had to submit to pressure from the canons.

Note also in the witness list the presence of Bishops Anskeric of Paris and Otger of Amiens, both of whom are allies of Charles not Robert. I haven’t even tried to translate episcophilax, which is a unique word. Etymologically, it is derived from a Greek word meaning a guard or sentinel. The closest parallel from this time is a late tenth century reference to a crisonphilax (sic), a word used by Harmer, the author of the Miracula Sancti Maurilii to describe a treasurer, presumably a ‘gold-guarder’.  Episcophilax, then, would seem to be a ‘guard-bishop’ – an ‘episcopal ombudsman’? Either way, I think it’s fair to see Anskeric and Otger as part of a royal delegation to Robert, using their authority to bolster the canons’ position.

The whole charter is remarkably authoritative. It’s one of the few private charters from the period to have strong liturgical overtones: that bit about ‘paying death’s due’ comes from a Saint-Martin mass for the salvation of the living and the dead. But this bolsters the authority of Saint-Martin rather than of Robert. By storming out of Charles’ court, losing his closeness to the king, Robert had opened himself up politically.