Charter a Week 57: North or South?

Bear with me here. I said last time that the mid-930s was a problematic time to be focussing on whilst running a series which looks at charters, and this week is a case in point. It doesn’t help that my plans for the 933 charter were completely ruined when writing up the commentary for my charter from a few weeks ago. You see, originally my choice for a 933 charter was a no-brainer. However, doing the reading around the charter of Bishop Godeschalk of Puy that I put in the 931 slot, it turns out that it is by no means clear that my 933 choice was actually from 933, and rather more likely that it wasn’t. I had a look at other options, but none of them were very inspiring. So, I thought, I don’t often get into the weeds of technical diplomatic here – why not look at this act’s problematic dating, and explain which this fairly dry discussion matters to our knowledge of the period?

D RR no. 21

In the name of the holy and indivisible Trinity.

Ralph, by God’s grace pious, invincible and ever august king of the Franks and Aquitanians and Burgundians.

Since ‘there is no power but of God’, who (as is written) ‘doth establish kings upon their throne’, it thus follows entirely that those on high should humble themselves below His powerful hand and that the ministers of their realm ought to conduct themselves in accordance with His will.

Wherefore let it be known to all carrying out duties to the realm in time both present and future that I, solicitous to restore to wholeness the state of religion, decreed that the abbey of Tulle should be renewed in a Regular way of life, as once it was. It is sited in the district of Limousin, on the river Corrèze, built in honour, that is, of the most blessed lord Martin. In this place, by God’s largess, the ancient reverence is preserved to this day by new miracles.

By the prayers of the noble man Adhemar, who has until this point held that place, and also at the suggestion of Count Ebalus [Manzer], I commended the same place to a certain religious abbot named Aimo to restore a Regular way of life; and I made it subject to the abbey of Saint-Savin. However, because experience proved that this subjection was an obstacle to religion, wishing to take complete care of that same religion, by wiser counsel We decreed that, in accordance with ancient custom, it should be held under the protection – as opposed to the domination – of the king alone.

However, no-one may decide to do this against the laws of the realm. Seeing that the most excellent emperors are read to have changed their decrees whenever the situation made it necessary and – as the apostle adduces – ‘there is made of necessity a change in the law’, We therefore by the authority of this Our precept establish this monastery, with everything which now pertains to it or which might fall to it hereafter, should endure such that they might be subjected to the domination of no-one save only the holy Rule.

Furthermore, after the death of Our most faithful and beloved lord Odo [of Cluny], who succeeded the aforesaid venerable Aimo, and after Adacius, whom the same venerable Odo asked be ordained to supply a replacement for him, let them have permission in accordance with the Rule of St Benedict to elect from amongst themselves whomsoever they, through wiser counsel, choose.

And let neither king nor count nor bishop nor any other person presume to disturb their goods nor give them to anyone; and let no-one at all dare to dominate them. Let them receive after his death the whole part of the abbey which the aforesaid Adhemar, by the abbot’s consent, retained. When he dies, let whomsoever they communally wish have mundeburdum and legal oversight.

In addition, We concede the right of immunity and the reverence which now and previously has been divinely observed in that holy place, such that no-one should undertake to inflict any violence on either it or the goods pertaining to it. As for the rest, let both the abbot and the monks together – as if before the eyes of God – conserve a regular way of life.

But that this Our precept might persevere undiminished, We signed it in the name of the Creator on High with Our signet.

Sign of the most glorious king Ralph.

Godfrey the priest, on behalf of Bishop Ansegis [of Troyes], witnessed and subscribed.

Enacted at Anatiacus, on the ides of [most copies: September; one copy: December] [13th September/December], in the third indiction, in the 11th year of the reign of the most glorious King Ralph.

So, what’s the problem here? The problem is the fact that the elements of the diploma’s dating clause don’t add up. The third indiction (a Byzantine system – figuratively and literally – to do with Roman tax collection) ought to be 930; the 11th year of the reign of King Ralph ought to be 933. How do we tell which is which? There are a few methods. First, we might note that scribes tend (although by no means universally) to be more confident about the regnal year than the indiction. This would point us towards 933. Second, though, we might look to contextual elements. Take Abbot Aimo, for instance. Aimo is last attested at Tulle in May 931, and this again pushes us towards 933.

So far, it’s sounding like 933 is a pretty solid choice for a date. But wait! There’s one key element we have to talk about here, and that’s the place at which the act was issued, Anatiacus. The act’s editor, Dufour, plumped for Anizy-le-Château, roughly halfway between Soissons and Laon. However, Jean-Pierre Brunterc’h pointed out that Anizy’s Latin form is always something like Anisiacus – it’s always got that first i and a following s, not an a and a t. He pointed instead towards Ennezat, a centre for assemblies under the Guillelmid dukes and – crucially – a place whose Latin orthography fits Anatiacus notably better. The problem now is that by dint of his itinerary, Ralph cannot have been at Ennezat at any point in 933. However, as we’ve seen, thanks to the reference to Abbot Aimo, 930 is also out. Brunterc’h therefore proposes 931, a time when we know that Ralph was in the Auvergne and one which requires the scribes who wrote the later copies in which this act survives to have simply misplaced a minim, turning ‘the IXth year’ into the ‘XIth year’ (as well, perhaps, as the ‘IVth indiction’ into the ‘III indiction’), something known to have happened elsewhere.

That such changes to the no-longer-surviving original might have been made are indicated by other signs this charter has been tampered with. This is, for reasons we’ll discuss below, an unusual document anyway, which makes our job harder; but the sections in first person singular (‘I’) rather than first person plural (the royal ‘We’) are very suspicious to my mind, and may have been added later. (I doubt, though, that it was much later.) Similarly, the reference to miracles at Tulle strikes me as a later addition – we know from a letter of Odo of Cluny to the brothers at Saint-Martin of Tours that Tulle was experiencing a surge of miracles at this time, but as a former canon of Saint-Martin himself I don’t think any act in which Odo was so heavily involved would have made quite so much of them at Tulle. For these reasons, I think December 931 (as Brunterc’h suggests) is the most plausible date, although it’s far from conclusive.

Why does this matter? It matters because this act is crucial evidence for Ralph’s involvement with the Aquitanian elite, and that involvement looks very different depending on whether this diploma comes from Ennezat in 931 or Anizy in 933. I covered the Ennezat side in my previous installment of Charter A Week, so you can go there for the details; but the short version is that if it’s from there he appears as a regional peacemaker in the wake of the disturbances following the death of the last Guillelmid duke of Aquitaine Acfred. If it’s from Anizy, it’s a different story. In 933, Ralph’s attention was firmly focussed on attacking and defeating the persistent northern rebel Count Heribert II of Vermandois, in pursuit of which goal he besieged Château-Thierry and Ham. In this context, Adhemar and Ebalus Manzer are most likely north to provide Ralph with military support. This would be far from unprecedented – the most clear-cut example comes from the reign of Ralph’s successor Louis IV, where Ebalus’ son William Towhead is unambiguously attested doing just that for the new king – but in that case this diploma would be firm evidence that connections between the king and the Aquitanian magnates were less arms-length than often supposed.

Whether the act is from 931 or 933, though, one important thing remains unchanged. The unusual preamble and titulature Ralph is given here has usually – and in my view correctly – been taken to show the influence of Odo of Cluny on the drafting of the diploma. We’ve noted the importance of Odo to Ralph’s regime at this time in previous posts, but this is quite a dramatic departure for West Frankish diplomatic, and is an interesting view of a road ultimately not taken, where Cluniac  – or, better, Odonian – ideology became a crucial part of West Frankish kingship.

Charter A Week 51/2: A Sad, Angry Gesture of Defiance

Acfred of Aquitaine was not a well man. When his brother died in 927, Acfred himself was in poor health. This is one of the reasons that, as we saw last week, Ralph of Burgundy was able to gobble up big parts of Acfred’s duchy. Still, Acfred might not have been able to carry on the fight he had begun the year before during the defence of Nevers, but he could still get his revenge from his sickbed, with a little bit of Deific help:

Sauxillanges no. 13 (11th October 927, Sauxillanges)

In the name of the holy and indivisible Trinity.

Acfred, by the bestowal of divine mercy duke of the Aquitanians.

Let it be known to all administering the care of God’s holy Church, that is, present and future, and as well all the famous men of the Earth that I, Acfred, a most humble servant of the servants of God, considering the disaster of human fragility, in order that the pious and merciful Lord might deign to mitigate something from the enormity of my crimes, both for myself and for my father Acfred and my mother Adelinda and my uncles William and Warin and my brothers Bernard and William and for all my kinsmen and followers and friends, restore a certain small portion to my Creator, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, from the land which He deigned to bestow through his bountiful clemency on my relatives and my most unworthy self, so that it might be built in His name, held in His honour, and governed under the shadow of His majesty, such that no count, nor bishop, nor abbot, nor any of Our progeny, or any mortal might dominate the same land, nor should the land be subject to any of the saints, nor to angelic spirits, but to the Lord alone, who lives and reigns in perfect Trinity, and the ministers allotted to the church therein should expect no protection and no ruler from saints or men. Nor should any judicial power presume to inflict any force on them or distrain them, or exact anything dishonest or unjust from them. Rather, let them serve God Almighty alone, and live in His name; and if they are questioned in any matter, let them make a claim through Him; and let the serfs and tenants who live on the land be subject to Him. If they are accused or questioned or rebuked, let them seek no other protector or governor except our lord Jesus Christ and the ministers of the church who are established therein at that time. 

In order that He who mightily created me from the mud of the Earth, clemently gave me the breath of life and mercifully restored me with the ruined world and gave me knowledge of Him and caused me, a sinner, to reach this age and conceded as much as pleased Him to me from His goods might know that I have restored to Him some small part of the land which He deigned to bestow upon me, and in honour of the twelve apostles who, obeying the Father’s command, believed in their heart and professed with their mouths His son, our lord Jesus Christ, I establish twelve monks therein, who should give unceasing praise to the Lord, the Creator of all, day and night, and humbly and devotedly beseech Him for the state of the Church and ask for mercy for Our sins and those of all Christians with many prayers. 

And thus let all the faithful men of the holy Church of God know that I restore to God, Creator of all, in the district of Auvergne, in the county of of Brioude and in Tallende, in the vicariate of Usson and in Ambron

  1. in the first place my indominical curtilage which is called Sauxillanges, with two churches, one constructed in honour of St Peter and the other in honour of St John the Evangelist, and my indominical house, and the indominical wood, and five mills with manses, fields, meadows, woods, vineyards, and and from all which beholds or is seen to behold to that curtilage, and all appendages which are seen to pertain to it, that is:
    1. in Gignat, one church constructed in honour of St Julian with everything pertaining to it; 
    2. and in Chargnat, a church constructed in honour of St Remedius, with everything pertaining to it; and four manses in that villa, with one shed;
    3. and in Brand, three manses and one house with a vineyard; 
    4. in Merdantio three houses with a close;
    5. in Vinzelette one house with a vineyard;
    6. in Lachaux, one house with a vineyard; 
    7. in Montaigner, one shed; 
    8. in Castellum, four sheds and a close; 
    9. in Usson, four manses with vineyards; 
    10. in Mons-Moriacus, two manses, two sheds;  
    11. in Brenat, two manses, one shed;
    12. in Montbenoit, five manses, four sheds; 
    13. at Le Say, three manses, three sheds; 
    14. at Illa Calma, one shed; 
    15. in Sacot, two manses, one shed; 
    16. in Jarrige, four manses, three sheds; 
    17. in Riberia, one shed; 
    18. in Genestogilla, two manses, one shed; Sperendeus has one manse; 
    19. at Mansionem-Guntardi, two manses; 
    20. at Mansionem-Baseni, two manses, two sheds; 
    21. at Le Montel, two manses; 
    22. in Le Picondry, two manses, four sheds; Balfred has two manses; Gozbert has one shed, Armand has one manse, Rodina has two manses, Dacbert one manse, Gadlindis one manse, the children of Sicbert, one manse, Siegfried, one manse, Gozbert, one shed; 
    23. at Le Theil, six manses, four sheds; 
    24. at Lemovicas, one manse, nine sheds; 
    25. in Charel, five manses, one shed; 
    26. in Illa Buffaria, one manse, three sheds; Benedict has one manse; 
    27. in l’Équinlerie, three sheds, Adalbert and Ingilbald have one sheds; Aldegaud, one shed; two sheds for the fishermen; Bernard, one shed; Peter, one shed;
    28. in Poius Lacpatricius, one shed;
    29. Victriarius, one shed;
    30. in le Cros, one shed; Ingirand has one shed;
    31. in Saint-Quentin-sur-Sauxillanges, two sheds with a church;
    32. between Condamina and Conros, twelve sheds;
    33. in Crizilonus, one manse, three day-labour’s worth of vines; 
    34. in Caldemaisons, one manse, one shed.

I, an unworthy and most wretched sinner, restore all the abovesaid in their entirety, cultivated or uncultivated, sought or whatever should be sought, with churches, manses, fields, meadows, woods, vineyards, curtilages, gardens, tree-plantations, incomes and renders, waters and watercourses, with mills, with male and female serfs pertaining to the same curtilage who are there now or who will, with the Lord multiplying, be born afterwards, to the Lord, just and a justifier of sinners, that everything might be governed and protected under the defence of His living name, and the monks established therein should bend the knee to Him alone, adore Him, invoke Him as their sole ruler, and that the serfs and tenants pertaining to it all should do the same. 

Moreover, I, a most unhappy man, beseech the mercy of God Almighty that He might grant to me that this same remain in His holy service and be ruled and governed under the protection of His name; and that after my death, in whatever way it please Him I should end my days, none of my heirs, whether son or daughter, if I have one, or any mortal, should presume to do anything because of what is written above. If anyone so presumes, let them know themselves traitors, and let them receive the judgement of damnation from the Lord for such presumption, with everyone looking on, and let them be delivered with Dathan and Abrion and as well with Judas the betrayer into the deepest inferno, and let all the curses which are contained in the Old and in the New Testament come upon them, because they, in present or in future, desire to twist these goods which are written above from God and His saints and the monks who desire to serve the Lord for the state of the world and the salvation of the living, unless they come to their senses and make amends and come to penitence and satisfaction. Let no-one now or in future attempt to do such things. 

And that this uncertain matter might obtain firmer vigour in times to come, I decided to confirm it below with my own hand, and let it be strengthened by the hands of other noble men.

Sign of Count Acfred, duke of Aquitaine, who asked this charter be made and affirmed. Sign of Viscount Robert [of Clermont]. Sign of Guy the listener. Sign of Viscount Dalmatius [I of Brioude]. Sign of Bertrand. Sign of Theotard. Sign of Matfred. Sign of Armand. Sign of Viscount William. Sign of Eustorgius. Sign of another Viscount William. Sign of Rigald. Sign of Hugh. Sign of Leotald. Sign of Erlebald, prior of the church of Saint-Julien de Brioude. Sign of Cunebert, dean of the same church. Warraco the priest was present. Sign of Gozbert.

Enacted on the 5th ides of October [11th October], at Sauxillanges, in the 5th year in which the unfaithful Franks dishonoured their king Charles [the Simple] and chose Ralph as their prince.

In Christ’s name, Ragenbert the priest, although unworthy, wrote this at Acfred’s command. 

1280px-Galeries_sud_et_ouest_de_l'ancien_monastère

There’s not a lot of Sauxillanges left, and it’s definitely not tenth-century. (source)

To start with, we need to comment on the diplomatic because this charter is not entirely kosher. The big list of properties there is a mid-tenth century estate survey document which has been bolted into the middle of the act, and its likely other parts of this charter were also touched up at a later date (Acfred being described as ‘duke of Aquitaine’ rather than ‘duke of the Aquitanians’ is a case in point.

This charter is yet another act where my analysis isn’t really going to add anything to Geoffrey Koziol’s, so I will simply summarize his arguments: Ralph and Odo had taken Cluny, the abbey of St Peter and St Paul, away from Acfred. Acfred, quite simply, refounded Sauxillanges without such extraneities, without celestial traitors, for God alone who, he hoped, would see the justice of his cause. (I might note that Acfred’s revenge was not simply going to be posthumous – he does still envisage the possibility of having children, so this isn’t quite a deathbed bequest.) With God on his side, and no-one else – no-one else was needed – the monks and dependents of Sauxillanges would prosper and so – please Lord? – would Acfred.

I would like, though, to make special note of the reference to Charles the Simple. William the Younger (insofar as we have his charters) didn’t do this, dating simply by Ralph. This is clearly something special Acfred picked out. (He clearly took the loss of Cluny personally.) Not that it would have helped Charles the Simple, though, not least because although I think Acfred plumped for this choice in a way William didn’t, the general sense is in the air. Even Ebalus Manzer of Poitiers, whom as we have seen was on generally good terms with Hugh the Great at the very least, was dating his charters by Charles’ reign at this point, and doing so in not terribly flattering terms towards the anti-Charles rebels. Even if Acfred had lived, therefore, Charles probably couldn’t have expected any help from him.

Acfred, though, died soon afterwards. The Guillelmid community in the Auvergne, as we have seen in a different context, persisted; but the Guillelmid family did not. Even worse (from Acfred’s point of view), charters for Sauxillanges continued to refer to it as the abbey of St John. Acfred’s rage against the dying light was, ultimately, futile.  

Blogging at the BnF 1: Aides-Memoires in Eleventh-Century Tours

There’s nothing like Paris in the spring: swearing at a microfilm reader because the zoom function won’t focus properly. Yes, this month your humble blogger is in one of his least favourite major world cities, working his way through a fearsome array of Early Modern charter collections, and discovering that, whilst there are people out there who care about the endless undated chart-notices of dispute settlements from eleventh-century western France, he’s not one of them… In any case, what that means is that this month the blog will be doing something different. Rather than the usual stately progress of one post every Thursday, I’ll be putting something up every time I find an unpublished document interesting enough to blog about. (Of course, if it’s really interesting I might hold it back for publication down the line…)

The first thing to go up, then, is something I came across in MS Lat 5441(4), a collection of the charters of Marmoutier made in the late seventeenth century(ish). The charters of the two major abbeys of the city of Tours, Saint-Martin and Marmoutier, are in a fairly chaotic state, and there are all kinds of things from them that have never seen the light of print. This charter, dating from 1044, is one of them.

marmoutier
Marmoutier today; I believe it’s a girls’ school, actually…

How do I know it dates from 1044? Because when describing when the transaction took place, it begins ‘this is the exchange which took place when Count Geoffrey captured the city of Tours’. This phrase is actually the only dating element, but it’s relatively common in Marmoutier practice: there are several examples of Marmoutier scribes dating charters by newsworthy events, from Hugh Capet destroying a local fortification to King Lothar invading Lotharingia.

What’s particularly interesting about this is the lack of precision. As someone who’s recently lost several bets to his colleagues about when such-and-such a song was a number 1 hit (I could have sworn that Pretty Fly For A White Guy was no. 1 in 2000…), ‘the year when event x occurred’ is no guarantee that you’ll get the right year. But of course, for these purposes, you don’t need exactitude: it doesn’t matter exactly when the transaction took place, so long as you can say ‘oh yeah, when Count Geoffrey took over, I remember that land sale…’ There’s a kind of ‘memory palace’ effect at work here, associating something big with something small so that the one prompts the recollection of the other. It’s a neat little trick to ensure that your transaction can enjoy a few decades of permanence, as long as there are people around to remember it…

The transcription of the document follows; obviously it’s not a formal edition, but if you want the text, here it is:

BnF MS Lat 5441(4)

Fol. 57:

In illa rerum conuersione et mutabilium commutatio=/ne quae facta est cum comes GAUSFREDUS TU=/RONORUM Ciuitatem cepisset aliorum ad alios/ incolarum ad extraneous possessiones & hereditates Deo/ cuique iusta tribuente, transierunt. Unde factum est/ vt prefati comitis satelles quidam nomine andreas/ cognomento ARRIBATUS omnia que fuerant/ Rainaldi IUUENIS civis olim Turonici sortiretur/ Sed quoniam mentis humane auditas limites de=/dignatur habendi et concessa fastidiens in non con=/cessa caeco ruit impetu ambitu, miles ille in terram/ quamdam Sancti Martini Maioris Monasterii, Sapalicum nomine/ quam naturaliter et antiquitus solidam quietamque/

Fol. 58:

Tenebat, violentas inferre manus moliens, totam/ prorsus sibi illam quibusdam quod est ejus generis ho/minum, occasionum preiudiciis vindicare nitebatur./ loci autem Illius monachi conatibus iniustis ob=/viare jus suus reclamando illius iniusticiam ra=/tione convincendo, querelas iustas apud memoratum/ comitem persepe deponendo, stagebant. Tandem/ pars utraque concordie favens in hanc hommuni/ decreto venere sententiam, ut permissu domini/ alberti abbatis maioris monasterii fratrum dimidiam in/ ipsa terra consistentis luci partem, reliqua omnia/ Sancto Martino sicut antea Libere possidente, invita/ duntaxat sua pretaxatus andreas possideant, ita ta=/men ut neque vendat neue donet, neque dissipet quic/quam de sua illa parte, sed tantum ad sua necessaria/ id est ad se calefaciendum vel domum suam, vel vineas/ meliorandas inde accipiat et cetera conseruet & de=/fendat, post mortem uero eius id ipsum in sancti Martini/ dominium redeat, luci uidelicet pars concessa, et ut ali/quam beneficii huius gratiam mercedem maioris mo=/nasterii c [space of around 11 characters, presumably ‘comes gaufridus’ or something] retribueret, sepefato sancto post suum/ itidem decessum x agripennos vinearum dedit, ad locum/ qui dicitur Monasteriolum et II. pratorum ad mem=/breolam. Hec omnia asensu & auctoramento/ comitis Gauzfr{e}idi (e crossed out w/ i) et Vxoris eius comitisse AGNE=/TIS. facta sunt prima[?]tibus ipsis et hugone archiepiscopo/ VESANTIAE, et domno abbate ALBERTO, aliis/que quamplurimis clericalis monastici laïcalis/ ordinis, quorum aliquos firmitatis gratia huic sub=/scripsimus noticiae.

3 cols:

Col. 1:

Domnus Airardu

Walterius precentor

Petrus canonicus

Warnerius maior

Col. 2:

Rainaldus maior.

Ricardus maior.

Rotbertus maior.

Otbertus senior.

Col. 3:

otbertus iunior

Arnulfus malus finis

Rotbertus caput lupi

Martinus furnerius