1. Treatments of the foundation are provided by Auvry, Claude, Histoire de la congrégation de Savigny, ed. Laveille, A., 3 vols., Société de l'histoire de Normandie 30 (Rouen, 1896–1899), 1:139–163;Google ScholarBuhot, Jacqueline, “L'abbaye normande de Savigny, chef d'ordre et fille de Cîteaux,” Le moyen âge 46 (1936): 1–19;Google Scholar and Hill, Bennett D., English Cistercian Monasteries and Their Patrons in the Twelfth Century (Urbana, Ill., 1968), pp. 82–85.Google Scholar Among the primary sources on the foundation may be noted the life of Vital by Fougères, Etienne de, in Sauvage, Eugene P., ed., “Vitae BB. Vitalis et Gaufridi primi et secundi abbatum Saviniacensium,” Analecta Bollandiana 1 (1882): 355–410;Google Scholar an account of the event by Vitalis, Ordericus in his Historia ecclesiastica 8.27Google Scholar, for which see Marjorie, Chibnall, ed., The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, 6 vols. (Oxford, 1969–1981), 4:330–333;Google Scholar and the Chronicon Savigniacense, in Baluze, Stephan, Miscellanea novo ordine digesta, 2d ed., corrected by Mansi, J. D., 4 vols. (Lucca, 1761–1764), 1:326–329.Google Scholar

2. Savigniac filiation is but one aspect of the congregation's history which has not yet received definitive study. Conflicting information is to be found in Buck, Victor De, “De BB. Gaufrido et Serlone, abbatibus, Guilelmo, novitio, et Adelina abbatissa, Saviniaci in Normannia,” Acta sanctorum (Brussels, 1853), 10, 8:1019–1041;Google ScholarDionysius, Sammarthani, ed., Gallia Christiana in provincias ecclesiasticas distributa, 2d ed., corrected by Paulus, Piolin, 16 vols. (Paris, 1874–1876), 11:552–555;Google ScholarJanauschek, Leopold, Origines Cisterciensium (Vienna, 1877), p. 96;Google Scholar Auvry, 2:381–382; Guilloreau, Léon, “Les fondations anglaises de l'abbaye de Savigny,” Revue Mabillon 5 (1909): 290–335;Google Scholar Buhot, pp. 15–16; and Hill, Bennett D., “The Beginnings of the First French Foundations of the Norman Abbey of Savigny,” The American Benedictine Review 31 (1980): 130–152.Google Scholar

3. See, for example, the words of praise offered by Thurstan of Bayeux, archbishop of York, in a letter of 1132 to William of Corbeuil, archbishop of Canterbury, quoted by William, Dugdale, ed., Monasticon anglicanum, 2d ed., 6 vols. in 8 (London, 1817–1846), 5:294:Google Scholar “Et si videatur evangelium emortuum et impossibile in nobis, intueamur monachos Saviniacenses et Clarevallenses, qui nuper venerunt ad nos, quam clare reluxit evangelium in illis, ut si dici fas est, utilius sit eos imitari quam evangelium recitare; cum vero videtur sancta conversio eorum, quasi reviviscere judicatur evangelium in illis… Non igitur, o pater, unquam possibile videatur tenere regulam beati Benedicti, quandoquidem talia Deus nobis ministravit exemplaria qui sanctis virtutibus praecesserunt nos ut sequamur illos.” (And if the gospel should seem dead and impossible in us, let us look at the monks of Savigny and Clairvaux who have recently come to us. The gospel shines so brightly in them that—if it is permissible to say so—it would be more useful to imitate them than to read the gospel. For their mode of life seems holy indeed, just as if the gospel were judged to live again in them… And so, father, since it might not ever seem possible to adhere to the Rule of Blessed Benedict, God has provided us with such examples as these monks who surpass us in the holy virtues, so that we might follow them.) (The translations appearing in this study are by the authors.) On the authenticity of this letter, see Knowles, David, The Monastic Order in England, 2d ed. (Cambridge, 1963), p. 756;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Nicholl, Donald, Thurstan, Archbishop of York (1114–1140) (York, 1964), pp. 251–258.Google Scholar

4. Auvry, Claude, Histoire de la congrégation de Savigny, ed. Laveille, A., 3 vols. (Rouen, 1896–1899).Google Scholar

5. On the date of the union, see Lambert, M., “La date de l'affiliation de Savigny et de Trappe à ľordre de Cîteaux,” Collectanea ordinis Cisterciensium reformatorum 3 (1936–1937): 231–233.Google Scholar Lambert's study represents a synthesis of arguments previously presented by De Buck, p. 1016; Cooke, Alice M., “The Settlement of the Cistercians in England,” The English Historical Review 32 (1893): 668–669;Google Scholar and others proving that the union was effected 17 September 1147 rather than at the Council of Reims in 1148, as earlier sources had suggested.

6. A similarity to Cîteaux is argued by Auvry, 2:168–178, and Buhot, pp. 104–121. Resemblance to Cluny is emphasized by Hill, , English Cistercian Monasteries, pp. 90–104Google Scholar, and Suydam, Mary, “Origins of the Savignac Order: Savigny's Role Within Twelfth- Century Monasticism,” Revue Bénédictine 86 (1976): 94–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Cîteaux's achievement of exempt status was a gradual process, but the year 1184 usually is cited as the salient date within it. See Lekai, Louis J., The Cistercians: Ideals and Reality (Kent, 1977), p. 68.Google Scholar Further discussions of the process are provided by Mahn, J.-B., L'ordre cistercien et son gouvernement des origines aux milieu du XIII^e siècle (1098–1265), 2d ed. (Paris, 1951), pp. 119–155;Google Scholar and Pfurtscheller, Friedrich, Die Privilegierung des Zisterzienser-ordens im Rahmen der allgemeinen Schutz- und Exemptionsgeschichte vom Anfang bis zur Bulle “Parvus Fons” (1265): Ein Überblick unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Schreibers “Kurie und Kloster im 12. Jahrhundert” (Bern, 1972).Google ScholarHill, , English Cistercian Monasteries, pp. 80–115Google Scholar, argues that the union of Savigny with Cîteaux was a chief cause of Cistercian spiritual decline in the second half of the twelfth century, largely because of Savigniac divergence from previous Cistercian norms, as in the case of exemption, and the resultant desire of Cistercian houses for similar privileges.

8. The best treatment of the complex subject of exemption remains Schreiber, Georg, Kurie und Kloster im 12. Jahrhundert: Studien zur Privilegierung, Verfassung und besonders zum Eigenkirchenwesen der vorfranziskanischen Orden vornehmlich auf Grund der Papsturkunden von Paschalis II. bis auf Lucius III. (1099–1181), ed. Ulrich, Stutz, Kirchenrechtliche, Abhandlungen65–68 (Stuttgart, 1910);Google Scholar there is a useful summary of Schreiber's major points in Knowles, pp. 583–586. For present purposes, it should be noted that a general grant of exemption eventually came to include the following: (1) The abbot would be freed in some particular from the obligation to be blessed by the diocesan in his cathedral and to make a profession of canonical obedience to him; in all cases he would be freed from the requirement to make an oath of obedience, but he might also be permitted to be blessed in the abbey church, to choose the officiating prelate, or to apply directly to the pope for consecration. (2) The monastery would be freed from the bishop's excommunication and from general interdicts. (3) The abbot would be allowed to invite any bishop to perform ordinations and consecrations requiring episcopal status in the celebrant. (4) The bishop would be forbidden to claim hospitality for himself and his retinue from the monastery while on diocesan visitation, or the right to celebrate mass or hold ordinations in the abbey church. (5) The abbot would be exempt from attendance at diocesan synods, from observing their decrees, and from paying their taxes. (6) The abbot would have the right to wear some or all of the insignia pontificalia (episcopal vestments). Before the reign of Alexander III, there was no certainty as to which of these privileges caried the others with it and thus involved a general episcopal exemption. The papal formulae regarding exemptions were also uncertain: when, at the end of a bull, the customary phrase salva in omnibus diocesani episcopi canonica reverentia (saving in all things the canonical reverence due the diocesan bishop) was replaced by salvo sedis apostolicae auctoritate (saving the authority of the apostolic see), the usage was generally thought to confer exemption; but only Alexander III put an end to the ambiguity in this formulation by inserting the words nullo mediante (with no intermediary), which were intended to specify full exemption.

9. See Cowdrey, H. E. J., The Cluniacs and the Gregorian Reform (Oxford, 1970), pp. 22–63;Google Scholar and Hunt, Noreen, Cluny Under Saint Hugh, 1049–1109 (Notre Dame, 1968), p. 46.Google Scholar

10. Auvry, 1:204; Hill, , English Cistercian Monasteries, p. 92.Google Scholar

11. Hunt, p. 20; Cowdrey, pp. 4–8. Cowdrey rightly observes, however, that the foundation charter of Cluny was actually silent on the specific subject of exemption, which was later “superimposed” upon it.

12. Buhot, pp. 9–10, gives a transcript of the charter as found in the since destroyed cartulary of Savigny, then in the Archives de la Manche; the pertinent words are “totam forestam meam de Savigneio… ita solutam ab omni calumpnia omnium mortalium tam episcoporum quam clericorum et laicorum omnium quietam et liberam” (my whole forest of Savigny … free from every claim of all persons—as much of bishops as all other clerics and laymen—free and quit).

13. Texts in Sammarthani, , ed., Gallia Christiana 11Google Scholar, Instrumenta 110–111. Henry I's charter is also analyzed by Johnson, Charles and Cronne, H. A., eds., Regesta regum Anglo Normannorum 1066–1154, 4 vols. (Oxford, 1913–1969), 2:107 (no. 1015).Google Scholar It contains the following formula: “Quam nimirum donationem… ita ab omni tam clericorum quam laicorum infestatione absolvo ut contra hoc mee concessionis decretum nemo sit qui servos Dei inibi commorantes inquietare vel audeat vel presumat. Quam nimirum quietem et tranquillitatem eidem sancte et individue Trinitatis ecclesie Turgisius Abrincensis sedis episcopus ab omni consuetudinum episcopalium exactione ratam et inviolabilem possidendam concessit.” (I free this gift from every disturbance, as much of clerics as of laymen, so that there should be no one who, against this decree of my grant, should either dare or presume to disturb the servants of God living there. Turgisius, bishop of the see of Avranches, has granted to the same church of the holy and indivisible Trinity this peace and tranquility from every exaction of episcopal dues, to be possessed firm and inviolable.) These words seem to refer to monetary and labor exactions, not to the spiritual jurisdiction of the ordinary. Thus, they would relate to the question of Savigny's feudal immunity, not to its ecclesiastical exemption.

14. Text in Martène, Edmund and Durand, Ursin, Thesaurus novus anecdotorum, 5 vols. (Paris, 1717), 1:336,Google Scholar reprinted in Migne, PL 163:397. Jaffé, Philip, Regesta pontificum Romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum MCXCVIII, corrected and enlarged by Wattenbach, W., Loewenfeld, S. et al. , 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1885–1888)Google Scholar (hereafter cited as JL), catalogued this bull as no. 6501 (4802). This register is apparently the source for the dating of the document at 1112–1116. Auvry, 1:163–167, treats this text as a papal confirmation of Savigny's founding, as do Buhot, p. 6, and Hill, , English Cistercian Monasteries, p. 85.Google Scholar Auvry, 1:204, and Hill, , English Cistercian Monasteries, p. 92Google Scholar n. 37, suggest that this bull effected episcopal exemption.

15. de Fougères, Étienne, Vita Vitalis 2.12, ed. Sauvage, , p. 380.Google Scholar There also exists a bull issued by Calixtus on 9 September 1119 and addressed to the bishops of Avranches and Le Mans, the count of Mortain, and the lords of neighboring fiefs, which is a conventional notification that the papacy had taken the monastery of Savigny under its protection: JL 6738 (4942), text in Martène, Edmund and Durand, Ursin, Veterum scriptorum et monumentorum historicorum, dogmaticorum, moralium amplissima collecto, 9 vols. (Paris, 1724–1733), 1:659Google Scholar, reprinted in Migne, PL 163:1120–1121.

16. Buhot, p. 107. The text of the bull (JL 7223 [5220]) is given by Martène, and Durand, , Thesaurus, 1:361–362Google Scholar, reprinted in Migne, PL 166:1241.

17. Text of the bull (JL 8673 [6104]) in Martène, and Durand, , Veterum scriptorum, 1:775–776Google Scholar, reprinted in Migne, PL 179:917–918. The original survives as Paris, Archives nationales L 966, No. 5.

18. Buhot, p, 107. Lucius II issued three other privilegia to monasteries on 5 December 1144. In one, in favor of Saint Martin de Campis in the diocese of Paris, the corresponding phrase reads salva sedis apostolice auctoritate et diocesani episcopi canonica iustitia (saving the authority of the apostolic see and the canonical jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop) (see Migne, PL 179:919). In the other two, on behalf of Notre Dame in Foucarmont and Saint Andrew in Gouffern (a house of the Savigniac congregation), the text reads only salva apostolice sedis auctoritate (saving the authority of the apostolic see) (see Johannes, Ramackers, ed., Papsturkunden in Frankreich, Folge, Neue, vol. 2Google Scholar, Normandie, Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, philologisch-historiche Klasse, Folge, Dritte, No. 21 [Göttingen, 1937, pp. 89Google Scholar [no. 25] and 90 no. 26] respectively). This variance suggests that some significance was attached to the difference in phrasing, but it cannot be certain that the omission of reference to the episcopal authority was necessarily intended to confer complete exemption.

19. Suydam, pp. 97–98.

20. Hill, pp. 104–105.

21. JL 9139 (6357). Text in Martène, and Durand, , Veterum scriptorum, 1:807Google Scholar, reprinted in Migne, PL 180:1282, and in De Buck, , “De BB. Gaufrido,” p. 1018.Google Scholar

22. JL 9175. Text in Ramackers, , ed., Papsturkunden, 2:125–126 (no. 55).Google Scholar The original survives as Paris, Archives nationales L 966, No. 6.

23. Suydam, p. 98.

24. The texts are listed above, n. 17.

25. Accounts of the English resistance are given by Hill, , English Cistercian Monasteries, pp. 105–107;Google ScholarPowicke, F. M., “The Abbey of Furness,” in The Victoria County History of the County of Lancaster, ed. Farrer, William and Brownbill, J., 8 vols. (London, 1906–1914), 2:114–115;Google ScholarDelisle, Léopold, “Documents Relative to the Abbey of Furness, Extracted from the Archives of the Abbey of Savigny,” Journal of the British Archeological Association 6 (1851): 419–424;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and, most fully, Guilloreau, Léon, “Le démêlé entre Serlon, abbé de Savigny, et Pierre d'York, abbé de Furness,” Revue catholique ďhistoire, ďarchéologie et de litterature de Normandie 25 (1916): 127–141.Google Scholar

26. JL 9235 (6418). Text in Martène, and Durand, , Thesaurus, 1:404–406;Google ScholarDe Buck, , “De BB. Gaufrido,” pp. 1018–1019;Google Scholar and Guilloreau, pp. 137–138. The original survives as Paris, Archives nationales L 966, No. 7.

27. JL 9351 (6495). Text in Martène, and Durand, , Veterum scriptorum, 1:813Google Scholar, reprinted in Migne, PL 180:1398.

28. Lekai, p. 68.

29. Auvry, 1:361.

30. JL 9867 (6793). Text in Martène, and Durand, , Thesaurus, 1:433–434Google Scholar, reprinted in Migne, PL 188:1054–1055, and in Sheehy, Maurice P., Pontificia Hibernica: Medieval Papal Chancery Documents concerning Ireland, 640–1261, 2 vols. (Dublin, 1962–1965), 1:11–12.Google Scholar

31. Guilloreau, p. 137.

32. Martène, and Durand, , Thesaurus, 1:434;Google ScholarSheehy, , Pontificia 1:12.Google Scholar

33. JL 9868. Text in Ramackers, , ed., Papsturkunden, 2:155–157 (no. 75).Google Scholar

34. JL 9962. Text in Ramackers, , ed., Papsturkunden, 2:165–166 (no. 80)Google Scholar.

35. JL 9991. Text in Ramackers, , ed., Papsturkunden, 2:167 (no. 81).Google Scholar The original survives as Paris, Archives nationales L 966, No. 8.

36. Knowles, p. 585.

37. Ibid., p. 584, and, more fully, Pacaut, Marcel, Alexandre III: Étude sur la conception de pouvoir pontifical dans sa pensée et dans son oeuvre (Paris, 1956), pp. 295–300.Google Scholar

38. Text in Walther, Holtzmann, ed., Papsturkunden in England, 3 vols. (Berlin and Göttingen, 1936–1952)Google Scholar, Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, philologisch-historische Klasse, Dritte Folge 15, vol. 2, pt. 2, p. 366 (no. 174). It is discussed by Hill, , English Cistercian Monasteries, pp. 107–409;Google ScholarLeclercq, Jean, “Ěpîtres d'Alexandre III sur les cisterciens,” Revue Bénédictine 69 (1954): 73;Google Scholar and Lekai, p. 410. In 1169 Alexander addressed another bull to the Cistercian order as a whole, calling attention to alarming tendencies of its houses to seek possessions forbidden by the order's regulations. See Lekai, p. 49, and Leclercq, Jean, “Passage supprimé dans une épître d'Alexandre III,” Revue Bénédictine 67 (1952): 149–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39. JL 10781. Text in Ramackers, , ed., Papsturkunden, 2:198–202 (no. 109).Google Scholar The original survives as Paris, Archives nationales L 966, No. 10.

40. Ramackers, , ed., Papsturkunden, 2:202.Google Scholar

41. JL 10829 (7262). Text in Martène, and Durand, , Veterum scriptorum, 1:859–860Google Scholar, reprinted in Migne, PL 200 200–201.

42. Text in Ramackers, , ed., Papsturkunden, 2:249–250 (no. 157).Google Scholar The original survives as Paris, Archives nationales L 966, No. 12.

43. JL 12987. Text in Ramackers, , ed., Papsturkunden, 2:267–268 (no. 175).Google Scholar The original survives as Paris, Archives nationales L 966, No. 14.

44. JL 14728, 14939, 14748. Texts in Ramackers, , ed., Papsturkunden, 2:316–317 (no. 215), 329–330 (no. 233), 318 (no. 218).Google Scholar The original of the third bull survives as MS Paris, Bibliothèque nationale lat. 9215, No. 96.

45. JL 15107. Text in Ramackers, , ed., Papsturkunden, 2:336–341 (no. 242).Google Scholar

46. Ramackers, , ed., Papsturkunden, 2:341.Google Scholar

47. Pfurtscheller, pp. 106–107.

48. In a privilegium issued to Savigny on 7 November 1187 (JL 16037, text in Ramackers, , ed., Papsturkunden, 2:380–383 [ no. 287]Google Scholar) Pope Gregory VIII once again reverted to the original formula used by Lucius II, salva sedis apostolice auctoritate (saving the authority of the apostolic see).

49. Vatican MS Reg. 946, fols. 72v–74v. The text is printed by Haskins, Charles Homer, Norman Institutions (Cambridge, 1918), pp. 340–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

50. Haskins, p. 340. The content suggests a relatively early date within these limits.

51. “Abbatia Savigneii in episcopatu Abrincensi sita debet episcopo Abrincensi sollennem processionem et annuam procurationem et tam episcopo quam ecclesie Abrincensi canonicam obedientiam, quam abbas cum benedicendus est in ecclesia Abrincensi publice profitetur. Dedicatio autem ecclesie Savigneii et consecratio eius et ordinationes monachorum ad solum episcopum Abrincensem pertinent. Abbas vero Savigneii et abbas Sancti Michaelis de Monte et alii abbates diocesis Abrincensis et omnes principales persone conventualium ecclesiarum episcopatus Abrincensis debent interesse processioni Abrincensis ecclesie ad recipiendum cum honore episcopum Abrincensem redeuntem a sua consecratione, vel debent mittere duos de dignioribus ecclesiarum suarum pro se si non possunt interesse.” Ibid., pp. 342–343.

52. The major components of a general grant of exemption not mentioned in the Avranches notice are (1) freedom from the bishop's excommunication and from general interdicts and (2) freedom of the abbot from the requirement to attend diocesan synods. Savigny had been granted the right to continue celebrating services during time of interdict as early as the reign of Pope Paschal II (see above, pp. 3–4 and nn. 14–5). Pope Eugenius III granted the same privilege to all Cistercian houses in a bull of 1152 (see Lekai, p. 68, and Pfurtscheller, pp. 106–107). Mahn, p. 94 n. 2, suggests that Eugenius might have made this grant in order to establish parity between Cistercian and Savigniac houses regarding the privilege and thereby to smooth the process of unification. In 1169, moreover, Alexander III granted to all Cistercian houses, including Savigny, freedom from episcopal excommunication (see Lekai, p. 68, and Pfurtscheller, pp. 107- 108). The freedom from attendance at diocesan synods was necessarily conceded to Savigniac abbots under the terms of a bull issued by Pope Innocent II on 10 February 1132, which granted this privilege to all Cistercian abbots (see Pfurtscheller, p. 99).