All’s Fair in Love and Holy War: A Response to My Critic

One of the things that makes being an academic often seem slightly unreal is that you spend a lot of time feeling like you’re screaming into the void. You craft articles by conducting the research, honing the argument in conference papers, writing and re-writing variations of the same words over again until by some curious alchemy they are transmuted into something resembling coherence, before scurrying off to the library to get the last footnote just right. You benefit from/endure the advice of anonymous peer reviewers. You edit, and edit some more, and question your intelligence and sanity when at the very last minute you spot a ghastly spelling mistake that somehow escaped the ministrations of the past half year or more of work. At last, you finally place it into the journal’s online submission system, and away into the aether it goes. And then, if you’re anything like me, in the quiet moments in the middle of the night, you ask yourself whether there was in fact any point to the exercise, whether any of that work will make any difference, and if anyone, anywhere, will ever read your labour of love.

This is why my first emotional reaction to reading a chapter criticising my work was joy. In this piece, ‘Holy wars’? ‘Religious wars’?: The perception of religious motives of warfare against non-Christian enemies in ninth-century chronicles’, in the recent volume Early Medieval Militarisation[1], Professor Hans-Werner Goetz spends a couple of pages (pp. 214-216) discussing an article of mine (‘“Those same cursed Saracens”: Charlemagne’s campaigns in the Iberian Peninsula as religious warfare’, Journal of Medieval History 42 (2016), pp. 405-428). I think it’s fair to say that he’s not a fan of it. Nonetheless, the excitement of opening the volume, seeing my name in print and realising that someone somewhere had read my work and thought it worth their time demolishing it was very real.

My attention was drawn to this chapter for a couple of reasons. These begin with the fact that Hans-Werner Goetz is a major scholar whose work on medieval frontiers and perceptions of other religions I have greatly benefited from. But also, this isn’t the first time that my article has attracted the attention of Professor Goetz in print, having featured previously in his ‘Glaubenskriege? Die Kriege der Christen gegen Andersgläubige in der früh- und hochmittelalterlichen Wahrnehmung’, Frühmittelalterliche Studien, 59 (2019), 67-114, specifically at pp. 99-102. Given this, I thought it might be useful for me to take some time to respond to Goetz’ concerns, not least because he raises some interesting questions about the relationship between war and religion in the early medieval period.

The argument in my original article, which you can read in full here, runs as follows:

1. Charlemagne’s wars in the Iberian Peninsula, which include both the disastrous invasion of 778 and the campaigns conducted by his son Louis the Pious as king of Aquitaine in the 790s and 800s, are normally understood as secular affairs, opportunistic wars of expansion. This is because the most important primary sources, particularly the Royal Frankish Annals, don’t depict them as religious conflicts.

2. This is quite striking when compared to wars against other non-Christian neighbours such as the Saxons, where Charlemagne deliberately targeted sites of worship such as the Irminsul and forced the population to convert to Christianity at the point of a sword, imposing multiple laws defining what it meant to be a Christian.

3. However, by looking at a wider range of sources that relate to Carolingian warfare in the Iberian Peninsula in this period, we can see a more complicated picture, where defending and even expanding the Christian faith are key motives for these campaigns. These sources are:

  • a. The Continuations of the Chronicle of Fredegar, compiled during the reign of Charlemagne’s father, which celebrate his ancestors in their wars against Muslims.
  • b. A letter of Pope Hadrian I to Charlemagne discussing the 778 expedition.
  • c. The liturgies of war contained within the Sacramentaries of Gellone, Angoulême and Arles.
  • d. Charters from Charlemagne, granting land to the Hispani on the Spanish March in about 780 and 801.
  • e. A letter of Alcuin from around 790 concerning Charlemagne’s expansion of the Christian world, including in the Iberian Peninsula.
  • f.  A poem by Theodulf from 796 calling upon Charlemagne to bring the Arabs to Christ.
  • g. A letter from Charlemagne to Bishop Elipandus of Toledo from around 794, saying that he had sought to liberate the Christians of al-Andalus from Saracen rule.
  • h. Ermold the Black’s praise poem of Louis the Pious (written 824-6), which has Louis declare that if the defenders of Barcelona in 801 were Christian, there would be no need for him to go to war against them.

While individually each would be a thin reed to base an entire argument, in accumulation they become increasingly convincing.

4. Based on these perspectives from within and without the court, Frankish wars in al-Andalus in the reign of Charlemagne can be characterised as holy wars, because they were presented as wars to protect and expand the Christian church in Francia and in the Iberian Peninsula. This does not mean those were the only motivations for those conflicts, but they were a major one, and the dominant explanation provided in contemporary or near contemporary sources.

5. I speculate that the reason the annals avoid much of this religious language is that with the exception of the capture of Barcelona in 801, the majority of the campaigns in the Iberian Peninsula did not go particularly well. While this was never desirable, it was particularly embarrassing if you had previously raised the stakes by making it a war of faith. Therefore, annalists linked to the court played down the religious fervour that surrounded the expeditions.

As mentioned above, Hans-Werner Goetz has disagreed with this article in two separate publications. Both resemble each other closely, often sentence-by-sentence and footnote-by-footnote, so unless specified I’m going to treat them as the same text. His broad argument is that the category of ‘holy war’ is not a meaningful one in the early medieval world, because all of culture and society was so imbued with religion that there was no other type of war. All conflicts were justified and legitimised by the faith so the idea of a war of religion is a modern anachronism. This is an idea I find extremely interesting and which I want to discuss later.

However, Professor Goetz has also disagreed with my article on more specific grounds and, with your indulgence reader, I would address them first, if only because anyone who read his pieces would fairly walk away under the impression that I am a poor scholar indeed. But let’s start with places where we both agree. Goetz begins by saying that my work ‘still pre-assumes (setzt voraus) that Charlemagne’s wars were religiously motivated’. Basing my work on assumptions would indeed be unfortunate. However, prior scholarship for several decades tended to assume the opposite, and it was this prior scholarship which the case that I made was responding to. The professor also notes that ‘the fact that the Saracens are recognised and judged as non-Christians’ is not proof that wars against them were holy wars. I agree! My argument was that the apparently ‘secular’ ethnic labels often used in the sources such as ‘Saracen’ or ‘Agarene’, were in fact imbued with Biblical significance, implying that they were non-Christian and antithetical to Christianity; but this was not meant to be evidence for holy war, but rather against standard arguments that the language of the annals is secular on the matter. In the longer German treatment, Goetz argues that we cannot use the religious motivations that the biography of Louis the Pious written by the anonymous author known as ‘the Astronomer’ attributes to Louis for his campaigns against al-Andalus, because they are too late. I agree and did not use it in my article for precisely that reason.

Turning to the pieces of evidence underpinning my argument listed under point 3 above, Goetz only mentions b, c, d and g; and I will deal with these in order. With regards to Hadrian’s letter to Charlemagne on the eve of the campaign of 778 (b), he argues that the Pope’s language comparing the Saracens to Pharaoh in the Bible says nothing about his motivations and was applied to every war. I disagree. The reference to Pharaoh is relevant because Hadrian notes that the reason he and the Egyptians drowned is because ‘they did not believe in God’. Charlemagne will triumph because he is Christian and the Saracens are not. Goetz’ argument is not strengthened by the examples of other wars he himself lists where similar comparisons were made. These include the statement in the Life of Bishop Athanasius of Naples c.7 that God helped the people of Naples defeat the Saracens and cast them down like Pharaoh. However, insofar as this language is also being used to describe non-Christian enemies this comparison would seem to support my case better than his. The other examples listed in fn.193 of the German article are all considerably later but also don’t strike me as entirely convincing in this context. Henry of Latvia describing the conversion of Baltic pagans as being akin to the casting down of Pharaoh does not scream secularity to me. I am not intimately familiar with Otto of Freising or William of Newburgh and so won’t comment on them. Nonetheless, I would argue that two of the four examples which Goetz chose to prove that comparisons to Pharaoh did not have connotations of holy war actually do look like precisely that. 

Goetz also dismisses the sacramentaries (c), writing that ‘people prayed to God for assistance before every war’. This is true, but not every sacramentary contains a mass specifically for wars against non-Christians, in the case of that of Gellone against ‘the infidel people’, in that of Angoulême ‘the pagans’. These are highly unusual masses, and in the case of the Sacramentary of Arles, the relevant mass had to be added to the manuscript at a later date than the other liturgical texts. All three of these sacramentaries are to be located in Aquitaine or Septimania, where the most likely non-Christians to be encountered were Muslims. That of Gellone may have belonged to Count William of Toulouse, who spent much of his career battling al-Andalus.

Nor is Goetz impressed by the charters (d), stating that ‘the granting of charters and donations to individual followers is a completely normal procedure’. In this case, though, what is significant is the unusual content of these documents. Charlemagne explains that he is giving the land because the recipients have had to flee the oppression of the Saracens in their homes in al-Andalus. The reason they are oppressed is that they are Christian, and the Saracens are ‘the enemies of the Christians’. The reason that Charlemagne is helping them is because they are his fellow Christians and they take part ‘in the unity of the faith’. In turn, they would perform military service, fighting with Charlemagne against their shared enemy the Saracens, who were their enemy because the Saracens hate Christians. This is strengthened by a charter from the 790s which rewards a soldier named John with land because he had killed ‘the heretic or infidel Saracens’. In fn. 49 (fn. 197 of the German article), Goetz claims that I explain the presence of Arab or Berber sounding names among the charter beneficiaries as ‘a misconception of the scribes’. However, my argument was somewhat different: I suggest that this points to the possibilities for nuance and complexity, where grandiose rhetoric and ideology meet reality. I don’t think even the most hardcore scholar of holy war would doubt that there were places where lines blurred at the edges, as any historian of the crusades could tell us.

In the longer German treatment, Goetz states that Charlemagne was more concerned with heretics than with non-Christians. This refers to Charlemagne’s letter to Elipandus (g), where the Frankish king informs the Adoptionist bishop of Toledo that whereas before he had striven to save them ‘from worldly bondage’, that is, being ruled by Saracens, but now that he knows they are heretics, he will leave them to their fate. Moreover, in this letter Charlemagne claims that his motivation for his earlier wars against al-Andalus, including the invasion of 778, was to save the Christian population, his co-religionists, who were being oppressed because of their religion. If that’s not a religious war, I don’t know what is. Further, Charlemagne’s statement that he felt less inclined to wage war on the Saracens now that he knew he wouldn’t be saving his fellow catholic Christians again seems to me to fall on my side of the ledger.

Goetz finally observes that in 778 Charlemagne treated the Muslims of Zaragoza gently, while sacking the Christian Basque city of Pamplona. The reason Zaragoza got off lightly is that Charlemagne didn’t conquer it. It was never in Carolingian hands. The ruler, Husayn al-Ansari, refused to let the Franks in and they were balked by the mighty Roman walls of the city. Pamplona may have been sacked because it was perceived to be in rebellion, something Charlemagne was never gentle in his dealings with. In any case, as the ignominious example of the Fourth Crusade demonstrates, religious military campaigns can be vulnerable to mission creep.

Roland duels the giant Ferragut in an illustrated Grandes Chroniques de France (source)

Having said all that, Hans-Werner Goetz does raise an interesting point. Religion suffused medieval society to the point that it was the air that it breathed. Kings begged for divine aid in their endeavours and sought the help of their advisors who were learned in such matters. Spin doctors legitimised conflicts as being pleasing to God, encouraging people to believe that their cause was just and that they would triumph. Those engaged in battle beseeched the heavens for survival. He also notes that unlike the idea of a ‘just war’, there is no clear category of ‘religious war’ in the sources.

To take the second point first, while avoiding anachronism is an important part of comprehending the past, historians apply categories and ideas familiar to us but unfamiliar to the period all the time when it helps us to analyse and understand the past in ways that the people who wrote our sources were not consciously able to. A nice example here is economic history, which uses methods and concepts developed by modern economists in order to build up a sense of how resources, labour and exchange interacted to underpin the medieval world in ways that would not have been articulated at the time, but which reveal something real about the period that we can use. This applies to other topics related to the world of ideas and identities. Studying subjects such as gender and sexuality requires that we both understand the way they were categorised in the past and relate them to our own concepts in the present. Sticking purely to the intellectual constructions we find in our sources traps us in the worldview of the sorts of people wrote those sources. Those include few women, poor people or slaves. To get their history, our history, the history of the vast majority of human beings alive at the time, we need to be able to read our sources against the grain, and to ask questions which cut across the purpose and mindset of their writers.

But I would also suggest that there are points where we can in fact see people from the early middle ages categorising a particular war as specifically religious. When Pope Leo IV exhorted a Frankish army in 852 going to war against the Saracens, he famously promised them ‘that the kingdom of heaven will be given as a reward to those who shall be killed in this war’. This was because they were ‘fighting for the truth of the faith and the salvation of the soul, and the defence of the country of the Christians’. The Pope draws an implied distinction between this type of war and other types of wars. Unlike other campaigns the Franks might find themselves on, this one would see them win the ultimate prize because they were fighting for a holy cause. The same point was made by Pope John VIII in 878 in a reply to the bishops of West Francia who had asked for clarification on this. John wrote ‘those who, out of love to the Christian religion, shall die in battle fighting bravely against pagans or unbelievers, shall receive eternal life’. The Pope emphasises that this is because of the nature of the cause and of the enemy being fought. Again, this distinguishes between a religious war and other sorts of conflict.

The statements made by Leo and John are old chestnuts in scholarly circles because it is unusual to have anyone be this explicit on the matter in the early medieval world. But we might also be able to identify holy wars by the behaviour of those who undertook it. There were any number of possible reasons that Charlemagne might want to conquer the Saxons that would not involve religious motivations, ranging from a desire for a more secure frontier, military glory or expanded resources. None of those explanations would require the Frankish king to destroy Saxon cultic sites or forcibly convert the population to Christianity. Such a policy was if anything more likely to inspire resistance and rebellion. His father, Pippin the Short, had not felt the need to do such things when he invaded Saxony in 747 and 758. The way Charlemagne prosecuted the war against the Saxons was specifically shaped by his motivations. This was a holy war in a way that Pippin’s had not been, and his behaviour and that of his men and his opponents was different because of it.

This is where I think the concept of ‘holy war’ comes in useful, because by identifying it as a meaningful category, we can use it to draw up hypotheses and make predictions about people in the past. This is not to say that all religiously driven warfare was the same, or that all people involved in it had no other motivations. The past is complicated. People are complicated. But, by having ‘holy war’ in our tool box, we can understand and interpret patterns of behaviour that would be otherwise baffling if we didn’t have it.

I want to close this post by expressing my gratitude to Hans-Werner Goetz. If he had not taken the time to seriously consider and respond to my work, I might not have been motivated to think about this topic in this way, and clarify in my own mind why ‘holy war’ strikes me as an interesting and meaningful topic. Scholarship makes better progress through friction. So thank you, Professor Goetz, for making me feel less like a voice screaming into the void.

[1] Edited by Ellora Bennett, Guido M. Berndt, Stefan Esders and Laury Sarti (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2021).

Charter a Week 2: The Synod of Troyes and Papal Monasteries

The big story of 878 – indeed, the big story of the entire reign of the short-lived Louis the Stammerer (notoriously, one scholar spent their PhD studying Louis’ reign for longer than Louis had actually reigned… I’ve read that PhD thesis, actually, it’s quite good) – was the synod of Troyes. Pope John VIII, beset by Italian factional politics, journeyed to Arles and then to Troyes, where he held a lengthy synod with all of the Gaulish bishops and crowned King Louis. Today’s charter is one of several documents from this synod, and I’ve chosen it because it shows just how big the synod was, and illustrates an important port about papal monasteries.

MGH Conc. 5, no. 9L (18th August 878, Troyes) = JE no. 3176

Bishop John, servant of the servants of God, to all bishops throughout all the provinces of Gaul, abbots, priests, and all similar orders given over to divine ministry, as well as counts, viscounts, vicars, hundredmen (vicarii, centenarii), judges, and everyone established in positions of power, and all the people and similarly the whole general Church. With God Almighty the Creator in our midst, in the year of the Incarnation of our lord Jesus Christ 878, on the 15th kalends of September [18th August], in the 11th indiction, happily in the Lord, in the presence of lord Louis [the Stammerer], most serene of kings, residing in the present council.

Amongst the beginnings of other complaints, let it be known to all celebrating a synodal council for the state of the holy Church of God at the town of Troyes, Archbishop Hincmar of Rheims, Archbishop Ansegis of Sens, Archbishop Aurelian of Lyon, Archbishop Rostagnus of Arles, Archbishop Sigebod of Narbonne, Archbishop Theodoric of Besançon, Archbishop Otrand of Vienne, Archbishop Frothar of Bourges, Archbishop Adalald of Tours, Archbishop John of Rouen, Archbishop [sic] Isaac of Langres, Bishop Otulf of Troyes, Bishop Ingelwin of Paris, Bishop Hadebert of Senlis, Bishop Berno of Châlons-sur-Marne, Bishop Hincmar of Laon, Bishop Girbald of Chalon-sur-Saône, Bishop Rainelm of Noyon, Bishop Odo of Beauvais, Bishop Walter of Orléans, Bishop Macarius of Lodève, Bishop Alaric of Béziers, Bishop Theotard of Girona, Bishop Frodoin of Barcelona, Bishop John of Cambrai, Bishop Berner of Grenoble, Bishop Arnulf of Turin, Bishop Rainelm of Meaux, Bishop Agenulf of Mende, Bishop William of Limoges, Bishop Radbert of Valence, Bishop Gislebert of Chartres, Bishop Hildebald of Soissons, Bishop Egfrid of Poitiers, Bishop Adalbert of Thérouanne, Bishop Agilmar of Clermont, Bishop Adalgar of Autun, Bishop Lambert of Mâcon, Bishop Abbo of Nevers, Bishop Aetherius of Viviers, Bishop Ratfred of Avignon, Bishop Walafrid of Uzès, Bishop Gerbert of Nîmes, Bishop Abbo of Maguelone, Bishop Radbert of Valence (*), Bishop Gerald of Amiens, Bishop Wandelmar of Toulon, Bishop Leutgar of Carcassonne, Bishop Audesind of Elne, Bishop Waldric of Ampurias, Bishop Waltbert of Reôme [Porto], Bishop Leo of Rennes; let it be known to all the aforesaid that in times gone by, when We went by sea to Arles to deal with the affairs of all the churches there, recollecting the monastery of Saint-Pierre in which rests the body of the blessed Egidius, in Flavian Valley in the county of Nîmes, within the limits of Septimania, which valley the late king of the Goths Flavius [Wamba] gave to the aforesaid blessed Egidius, and Saint Egidius in turn gave as a donation entirely to the apostolic see of Rome.  Since, though, a large distance separates this abbey from Our church, because We did not want to send a legate there due to Our other cares, the bishop of Nîmes presumed with great temerity to usurp that monastery. But when We sought in Our archive the muniments of charters, We found the precept given by the blessed Egidius.

Then, We sought it from Bishop Gerbert of Nîmes, who sits in the present council, through Our advocate Deusdedit, duke of Ravenna. The same Gerbert wanted to vindicate his claim through a precept of lord [pope] Nicholas [I], which he secretly obtained by fraud from the apostolic see as if it concerning his own property; and through a precept which he had falsely received from a certain king of the Franks, which had no proper validity. But I admonished all the bishops and judges of Rome and the provinces to speak and act in accordance with true law in this matter, under the anathema of excommunication. Then Archbishop Rostagnus of Arles and Archbishop Sigebod of Narbonne and Archbishop Heribert of Embrun, Bishop Walbert of Porto, Bishop Pascal of Amelia, Bishop Radbert of Valence, Bishop Leodoin of Marseilles, Bishop Aetherius of Viviers and other bishops of Provence, and the judges, John, duke and representative of Ravenna, Ardus, Adbert, Gislefred, Ardrad, Godulf and no few other provincial judges, as they heard the precept read, quickly understood that the apostolic judgement of lord Nicholas was only an excuse. Protesting, they said that this monastery could not be defended with that precept, and immediately judged that Bishop Gerbert should restore the aforesaid monastery to Us and should pay to me the penalty for his invasion of the abbey. Because of his poverty, We acquit him from the penalty, if he sins no more; and We received the monastery in its entirety, sending Our advocate Duke Deusdedit there, who accepted concerning this matter the physical handover of all the goods of the aforesaid monastery from the aforesaid Bishop Gerbert.

Also because of this, supported by divine assistance, I and all the bishops of this council, by the authority of our lord Jesus Christ, through which and through whom and in whom are all things [see Romans 11:36], curse and interdict and forbid by excommunication under every anathema that none of Our successors in this holy apostolic see which, by God’s action, We serve should at any place or time present or future, nor any emperor nor king or any worldly power, should be able to give in benefice, exchange, or concede for a census anything from the same goods in future times; nor should any pontiff of the same diocese to whose parish [i.e. diocese] the place itself pertains, nor any count of the same power dare to accept anything from within that monastery’s immunity. And in addition, let no-one be permitted in any way to inflict any diminution or force on any of this.

Rather instead, We confirm at the present council all of this at the said monastery, with all its appendages and the throne and other places and the mobile and immobile goods which are known to have been bestowed there through the largess of the God-fearing, for Amelius, priest and archdeacon of the church of Uzès. In respect of this matter, We commend to you this notice to be managed and protected and well-established, in such a way that they, receiving from you each and every year 10 silver solidi and 12 pennies by way of a pension for ecclesiastical reasons, should endeavour to give the support of pious paternity to the same monastery against all who trouble it (**).

 ‘No-one, brothers, should doubt that the apostolic Church, from whose rules it is not proper for us to deviate, is the mother of all churches; and just as the Son of God came to do the will of the Father [see John 6:38], thus should you fulfil the wish of your mother which is the Church, whose head, as was said before, is the church of Rome.’ [Pseudo-Calixtus, Letter 1, cap. 2]

‘Our father, therefore, is without doubt God Who created Us, and Our mother the Church, who renewed us spiritually in baptism, and thus whoever steals the riches of Christ and the Church is a fraud and a plunderer, and will be considered to be a murderer in the sight of the Just Judge. It is written of this: Whoever steals his neighbour’s riches commits iniquity; so whoever takes away riches or goods from the Church commits sacrilege. Like Judas, who embezzled the riches which by the command of the Saviour (in whose place bishops stand) he should have distributed in Church uses, that is, to the poor, whom the Church ought to feed, they are made not only a thief but a bandit and a sacrilege. Indeed, concerning such people, that is, those who plunder, defraud or steal the Church’s means, the Lord threatens everyone, speaking through a prophet and saying: “Keep not thou silence, O God: hold not thy peace, and be not still, O God” [Psalm 83:1], and so on.’ [Pseudo-Lucius, cap. 7]

In the letter of Pope Symmachus: ‘As long as by the Lord’s disposition, the doctrine of the catholic faith remains that of the saviour, no bishop of the apostolic see is permitted to transfer an ecclesiastical estate, however great or small, to anyone’s right by a perpetual alienation or exchange.’ [Psuedo-Symmachus,  502 Synod of Rome, cap. 4]

And from a letter of Pope Simplicius: ‘That no bishop should be permitted to in any way alienate or commute the estates of their office or anything of their right. Whoever tries to do this, should be punished by the loss of his rank.’ [see Pseudo-Symmachus, 502 Synod of Rome, heading of cap. 6] Also in the same: ‘Whoever attacks an estate of the Church and accepts it into his own right: or if any priest or deacon or defender subscribes the gift, let them be struck with anathema.’ [see above, heading for cap. 7]

Also in the canons: ‘If a bishop makes a testament and bequeaths anything from the property of the Church’s right, let it not be valid except in the sole case that he makes it good from the means of his own right.’  [Council of Agde 506, cap. 51]

Therefore, both I and all the bishops of this council separate, damn and excommunicate under every anathema all those who plot against this monastery of the apostolic see and this priest [Amelius] (if anyone becomes an adversary and perpetrates such a crime) from the communion of the body of Christ and the company of Christ’s brotherhood and from the association of all Christians. Let them be cursed in the city and cursed in the field [Deuteronomy 28:16]’, ‘cursed be the fruit of their land [Deuteronomy 28:18]’. Let them be cursed within and without. ‘Let the heaven which is over their head be brass and the land on which they tread be iron [Deuteronomy 28:23]’. Let their prayers before God come as a sin [see Psalm 109:7]. Like Dathan and Abiron, let them go living into the inferno. Let everyone who abets them, or takes a meal with them, or knowingly decides to hear their accursed songs (***), be joined in this curse with Judas Iscariot, the betrayer of the Lord. Let their water putrify, let their wine boil, let blight consume their bread, let worms eat their garments. What more? Let all the curses of the Old and New Testaments come upon them, until they come to worthy satisfaction and suitable penance with the mother Church.

John of the apostolic see of Peter the Apostle says farewell to all the churches of Christ who observe this.

Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, confirms this. Ansegis, archbishop of Sens, confirms this. Aurelian, archbishop of Lyon, confirms this. Rostagnus, archbishop of Arles, confirms this. Sigebod, archbishop of Narbonne, confirms this. Theodoric, archbishop of Besançon, confirms this. Otrand, archbishop of Vienne, confirms this. Frothar, archbishop of Bourges, confirms this. Adalald, archbishop of Tours, confirms this. Berno, bishop of Châlons, confirms this. John, archbishop of Rouen, confirms this. Hadebert, bishop of Senlis, confirms this. Isaac, archbishop of Langres, confirms this. Ingelwin, bishop of Paris, confirms this. Otulf, bishop of Troyes, confirms this. Hincmar, bishop of Laon, confirms this. Hildebald, bishop of Soissons, confirms this. William, bishop of Limoges, confirms this. Gislebert, bishop of Chartres, confirms this. Radbert, bishop of Valence, confirms this. Girbald, bishop of Chalon, confirms this. Rainelm, bishop of Noyon, confirms this. Abbo, bishop of Maguelone, confirms this. Odo, bishop of Beauvais, confirms this. Gerbert, bishop of Nîmes, confirms this. Walter, bishop of Orléans, confirms this. Walafrid, bishop of Uzès, confirms this. Macarius, bishop of Lodève, confirms this. Ratfred, bishop of Avignon, confirms this. Alaric, bishop of Béziers, confirms this. Aetherius, bishop of Viviers, confirms this. Theotard, bishop of Girona, confirms this. Abbo, bishop of Nevers, confirms this. Frodoin, bishop of Barcelona, confirms this. Lambert, bishop of Mâcon, confirms this. John, bishop of Cambrai, confirms this. Adalgar, bishop of Autun, confirms this. Berner, bishop of Grenoble, confirms this. Agilmar, bishop of Clermont, confirms this. Arnulf, bishop of Turin, confirms this. Hadebert, bishop of Senlis, confirms this. Rainelm, bishop of Meaux, confirms this. Egfrid, bishop of Poitiers, confirms this. Agenulf, bishop of Mende, confirms this.

George, secretary of the holy Roman church, who completed and closed the abovewritten judgement, after the subscription of the witnesses and the making of the gift.

Count Raymond confirms this. Viscount Berengar confirms this. Aimeric confirms this. Olunbellus confirms this. Theotrand confirms this. Gozelm confirms this. Viscount Emenus confirms this. Viscount Odo confirms this. Count Hugh confirms this.           

 (*) The MGH notes say that Radbert shows up here twice. The form of the name is different each time (Radbertus Vallensis episcopus vs Rotbertus Valentinensis episcopus) so I wonder if that’s right. In context I’d suspect a bishop of Le Puy or Sion, but neither of those appears to be correct, so I am somewhat mystified.

(**) This passage is somewhat obscure. What I think it means is that Amelius (who is presumably being addressed) should give the Provençal bishops (?) the aforesaid pension per annum and in return they will support him against the bishop of Nîmes. If anyone has a better idea, I’d like to know it!

(***) Cantica maledicta seems like it should be biblical, but I can’t find it.

Before we get into this properly, a little excursus on how I write these things. My commentary (including the hyperlinks in the charter) is actually done in more-or-less the order you read it on the page, which means that, as I write this at mid-afternoon, it’s about three or four hours later than I wrote the bit on the top and since then I have been on a whirlwind excursion through papal diplomatic and the medieval history of the abbey of Saint-Gilles.

IMG_20180808_141412.jpg
Courtesy not least of these gentlemen.

The upshot is that French-language scholarship largely believes that this bull was forged at the end of the eleventh century whereas German-speaking scholars think that, despite some interpolation, it’s a largely-accurate product of the late ninth century.  I’m going with the Germans here because a lot of the context seems to me to be better placed earlier than later, so my comments will be on that basis(*); but bear in mind that this could all be coming two-hundred-odd years after its nominal date.

Anyway, the first thing to point out about the synod of Troyes is that it’s flippin’ huge. Around 50 bishops, plus laymen, plus the king. Assuming all these notables brought a small retinue, let’s say about 10 people each, we’re talking around 600 people and probably rather more, on the order of thousands. And look where they’re from! Italy, the Spanish March, Provence, Burgundy… About the only missing people are the suffragans bishops of Tours and Rouen, and the former are mostly in rebellion and the latter disrupted owing to Viking attack.

So Pope John has a captive audience here for the little sermon which finishes the text. These quotations – and the reason this diploma gets so much attention from canon law scholars – are from a group of materials known as the Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries, which are ninth century and from Frankish Gaul and anything else about their origin is both highly technical and extremely controversial. That said, the citations here are a good idea of its content: decrees, largely forged, of classical and Late Antique popes. So what are they being used for? My best guess involves taking the core narrative of the charter seriously, which may well be a dangerous thing to do; but they all concern how a bishop can’t alienate the goods pertaining to his office, so they might be put there to show why the grant of Pope Nicholas I, which Gerbert of Nîmes was using to prove his entitlement to Saint-Gilles, was invalid. It is possibly unsurprising that the active late ninth-century papacy had the best lawyers…

But what I really wanted to point out about this charter is how it relates to papal jurisdiction over subordinate monasteries. By the late ninth century, a reasonable number of abbeys have been given directly to Rome (although we won’t get to the most famous example until later on…). There’s some question about how serious this is – it’s not like the pope’s going to come a-knocking at the door, so what does subjecting your monastery to him involve? And what this indicates is that, actually, the pope might come a-knocking at the door. Admittedly having him show up in Septimania in person to start making complaints is unusual, but, as surviving papal letters indicate, the popes were concerned about institutions under their jurisdiction, and they did make an effort to keep an eye on them.

(*) [EDIT: People on Twitter have raised questions about this, and so I thought it best to show my reasoning. On one hand, the Flavian Valley bit is, as we scholars say, well dodge, and the whole thing’s clearly been tidied up. On the other hand, the list of bishops, the roles of Deusdedit and John suggest that the interpolator knew quite a lot about the 870s specifically. Moreover, the list of Pseudo-Isidorean citations is about how the Pope can’t grant the monastery away, which fits the 870s but is unlikely when the popes are kicking up a storm about how very in charge they are in the late eleventh century. Finally, per Amy Remensynder, the diplomatic of the act fits well with others from the time of John VIII. So I think the balance of probability is that there’s a genuine act of 878 underlying reasonably closely the version as we have it; but on the gripping hand this absolutely doesn’t prove beyond reasonably doubt that it isn’t falsified or outright forged.]