1. This forged privilege, attributed to either Pope Hadrian I or Hadrian II, has never been given a critical edition. It is found in the twelfth-century cartulary of Montier-en-Der, document no. 6, fols. 7v–8v. The cartulary is in Chaumont, Archives départementales de la Haute-Marne [henceforth Arch. Haute-Marne] 7 H 1. Below, I cite documents in the cartulary by their number in my forthcoming edition and also indicate where they are presently available in print—if they are. An inadequate edition of about a third of the documents in the cartulary was published by Lalore, Charles, “Chartes de Montiérender,” in Collection des principaux cartulaires du diocèse de Troyes, vol. 4, Cartulaire de l'abbaye de la Chapelle-aux-Planches, chartes de Montiérender, de Saint-Etienne et de Toussaints de Châlons, d'Andécy, de Beaulieu et de Réthel (Paris: Ernest Thorin, 1878).Google ScholarSee also Neiske, Franz, “Konvents- und Totenlisten von Montier-en-Der,” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 14 (1980): 245–46.Google Scholar

2. For the transformations of this period, see Tellenbach, Gerd, The Church in Western Europe from the Tenth to the Early Twelfth Century, trans. Reuter, Timothy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993);CrossRefGoogle ScholarConstable, Giles, The Reformation of the Twelfth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996);Google ScholarCowdrey, H. E. J., The Cluniacs and the Gregorian Reform (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970);Google Scholarand Engen, John van, “The ‘Crisis of Cenobitism’ Reconsidered: Benedictine Monasticism in the Years 1050–1150,” Speculum 61 (1986): 269–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Given the central importance of Leo IX in the history of the reformed papacy, he has been very little studied by modern scholars. One of the few full-length studies is that by Petrucci, Enzo, Ecclesiologia e politica di Leone IX (Rome: ELIA, 1977);Google Scholarhe concentrates on the pope's view of the relations between the Roman pontiff and the Greek Orthodox Church, the emperor, and the cardinals. Leo's contemporary biography has recently been edited by Parisse, Michel, La Vie du pape Leo IX (Brunon, évêque de Toul) (Paris: Belles Lettres, 1997).Google Scholar

4. An old history of the house, still the only full-length study of the monastery, remains useful for its overall chronology of events;Bouillevaux, R. A., Les Moines de Der (Montier-en-Der, 1845).Google Scholar

5. Documents no. 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22. The two privileges of Charlemagne (nos. 18–19) have never received a modern critical edition—probably because the editor of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica edition of his charters attributed them to Charles the Bald, while the editors of Charles the Bald's charters attributed them to Charlemagne. They are printed in, respectively, Bouillevaux, Les Moines de Der, 321–22, no. F;and Lalore, “Chartes de Montiérender,” 120, no. 3.Google ScholarThe privileges of Louis the Pious are printed in Migne, J.-P., ed., Patrologiae cursus completus: Series latina [1844–1865; hereafter PL] 104: 1017–18, 1204–5, 1162–66.Google ScholarThe privileges of Charles the Bald are printed in Giry, Arthur, Prou, Maurice, and Tessier, Georges, eds., Recueil des actes de Charles le Chauve, roi de France (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1943–1955), 1:198–201, no. 70; 1: 495–98, no. 191; 1: 499–501, no. 192; 1: 515–17, no. 202; 2: 356–58, no. 382.Google ScholarThe privilege of Boso is printed in Maurice Prou, “Un Diplôme faux de Charles le Chauve pour l'abbaye de Montier-en-Der,” Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 40 (1915): 223–24 n. 1.Google Scholar

6. Their sojourn there is known from charters of Pope Formosus, of the archbishop of Vienne, and of Louis the Blind of Provence; ed. d'Achery, Luc, Spicilegium sive collectio veterum aliquot scriptorum qui in Galliae bibliothecis delituerent (Paris, 1723), 3:360–62, 366–67. There are no medieval copies of any of these charters now in existence, although d'Achery presumably used them for his edition.Google Scholar

7. “Gesta episcoporum Tullensium,” 33, Monumenta Germaniae Historica [henceforth MGH] Scriptores [henceforth SS] 8:640; “Miracula Sancti Bercharii,” MGH SS 4:487. For the context of this reform, see Parisse, Michel, “L'Abbaye de Gorze dans le contexte politique et religieux lorraine à l'époque de Jean de Vandières (900–974),” in Parisse, Michel and Oexle, Gerhard, eds., L'Abbaye de Gorze au Xe siècle (Nancy: Presses universitaires de Nancy, 1993), 63.Google Scholar

8. “Vita Bercharii, S.,” in Bollandists, eds., Acta sanctorum ( 1863–1940), Oct. 7:1010–18.Google ScholarThe author was Adso, one of the reforming monks from Toul and the second abbot after the monastery's reform ( 960–92). Adso is now best known for his book on the Antichrist. Its development is discussed by Verhelst, D., “La Préhistoire des conceptions d'Adson concernant 1'Antichrist,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 40 (1973): 52–103.Google ScholarSee also Landes, Richard, Relics, Apocalypse, and the Deceits of History: Ademar of Chabannes, 989–1034 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993), 149.Google Scholar

9. For example, document no. 21 of the cartulary, a forged charter attributed to Charles the Bald, was confected on the basis of an authentic 857 charter of that king (no. 16), with additions drawn from an 876 charter of Boso (no. 20) and a 980 charter of King Lothair (no. 27). This falsified document has been studied by Prou, “Un Diplôme faux,” 215–45. It is printed in Giry, Recueil des actes de Charles le Chauve, 2:575–80, no. 475. Charles's authentic 857 charter is in Giry, Recueil des actes de Charles le Chauve, 1:495–99, no. 191. For Boso's charter, see Prou, “Un Diplôme faux,” 223–24 n. 1. For Lothair's charter, see Halphen, Louis and Lot, Ferdinand, eds., Recueil des actes de Lothaire et de Louis V, rois de France (954–987) (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1908), 101–3, no. 44. Giles Constable points out that most forged medieval documents include at least some authentic elements;Google Scholar“Forgery and Plagiarism in the Middle Ages,” Archiv für Diplomatik 29 (1983): 10.Google Scholar

10. Amy Remensnyder, G., Remembering Kings Past: Monastic Foundation Legends in Medieval Southern France (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1995).Google ScholarOn the efforts of monks of the central Middle Ages to recreate their past, see also Geary, Patrick J., Phantoms of Remembrance: Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millennium (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994).Google ScholarIt is possible that the founding documents of Der, issued by Kings Childeric II and Theoderic III in the late seventh century (documents nos. 1–2), were also improved in the tenth century. These documents are printed in MGH Diplomata imperii, 30–31, 49–50, nos. 31, 55. Their falsity was argued by Levison, Wilhelm, “Die Merowingerdiplome für Montiérender,” Neues Archiv 33 (1908): 745–62.Google Scholar

11. Document no. 33; printed in Lalore, “Chartes de Montiérender,” 145–47, no. 20.Google Scholar

12. The “second” cartulary is in Arch. Haute-Marne, 7 H 2. Its charters, totaling only about two-thirds as many as in the first cartulary compiled in the 1120s, date from the 1130s through the end of the thirteenth century. For the success (not entirely intentional) of the Cistercians in out-competing longer-established monasteries for the generosity of their secular neighbors, see Constance Bouchard, Brittain, Holy Entrepreneurs: Cistercians, Knights, and Economic Exchange in Twelfth-Century Burgundy (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1991), 170–84.Google Scholar

13. “Gesta episcoporum Tullensium,” MGH SS 8:643. For the election of Milo in the context of the politics of Count Odo II, see Bur, Michel, La Formation du comté de Champagne, v. 950–v. 1150 (Nancy: Universite de Nancy II, 1977), 172.Google Scholar

14. See, for example, documents no. 55–56, fols. 50r–51r in the cartulary; neither of these documents has been edited.Google Scholar

15. Document no. 72; printed in Pflugk-Harttung, J. v., Acta pontificum Romanorum inedita, 3 vols. (Tübingen, 1881–86; rpt. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1958), 1:15–16, no. 18.Google ScholarThis bull is summarized by Jaffé, Philip, Regesta pontificum Romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum MCXCVIII, rev. ed. Wattenbach, Wilhelm (Leipzig, 1885–1888; henceforth J-W), 1:537, no. 4216 (3208).Google Scholar

16. Document no. 70; printed in Pflugk-Harttung, Acta pontificum, 1:17–18, no. 22; summarized in J-W, 1:537, no. 4222.Google Scholar

17. Documents no. 71–72; printed in Pflugk-Harttung, Ada pontificum, 1:15–16, nos. 18, 20; summarized in J-W, 1:537, nos. 4216, 4218. The count of Nevers was the redoubtable and long-lived William I ( 1040–98). For this count, see Constance Bouchard, Brittain, Sword, Miter, and Cloister: Nobility and the Church in Burgundy, 980–1198 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1987), 342–46.Google Scholar

18. Document no. 81, printed in PL 146: 1310–11, no. 30. For the date, see J-W, 1:576, no. 4570.Google Scholar

19. Documents no. 79–80. The first was printed in Pflugk-Harttung, Acta pontificum, 1:44, no. 44, and the latter in Morelle, Laurent, “Examen de trois privilèges pontificaux du Xle siècle en faveur de Montier-en-Der,” Les Cahiers haut-marnais 161 (1985): 40–41, no. 3. They are summarized in J-W, 1:589, nos. 4718–19. Morelle calls document no. 80 false, a conclusion with which I disagree, as indicated below.Google Scholar

20. Documents no. 74–75, printed in Morelle, “Examen de trois privilèges,” 30–38, nos. 1–2; summarized in J-W, 1:566, no. 4465, and 1:551, no. 4354.Google Scholar

21. Morelle, “Examen de trois privilèges,” 23–29. He points out the many similarities of certain phrases to those found in genuine charters of Alexander II, but concludes that the three identical charters were all confected using those genuine charters as a model, whereas I conclude that Alexander's chancery used a few phrases similar to those that had been used before, by that same chancery, in creating a genuine charter for Der, which the monks then copied and attributed to two additional popes.Google Scholar

22. However, Santifaller, L. reached the opposite conclusion, that the charter of Alexander II was false and the other two genuine, although it is not clear on what basis he decided this; Saggio di un elenco dei funzionari, impiegati e scrittori della Cancelleria Pontificia dall'inizio all'anno 1099, Archivio Muratoriano 56 (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il medio evo, 1940), 2:541.Google Scholar

23. All three are in Arch. Haute-Marne, 7 H 15.Google Scholar

24. Morelle, who labels Alexander's bull false, considers the style of its handwriting an indication that the scribe was attempting to give an air of specious solemnity; “Examen de trois privilèges,” 23. There are several eleventh-century original charters from Montier-en-Der to which the handwriting of the forgeries can be compared, in Arch. Haute-Marne, 7 H 25.Google Scholar

25. Adrien Arcelin thought this an anomaly in the general style of papal bulls, which was established by IX, Leo and continued until modern times; Les Bulles pontificates des archives de la Haute-Marne (Paris, 1866), 23.Google ScholarHe said that Alexander II's bull (no. 80) had a similar seal, but it does not have one now, and he may well have been mistaken. The care with which some eleventh-and twelfth-century forgers created false papal bulls would have misled their contemporaries as well as modern scholars. One early-twelfth-century abbot of Soissons confessed on his death-bed that he had forged a number of papal privileges, a confession that would not have been necessary if they were obviously false; see Constable, “Forgery and Plagiarism,“ 8.Google Scholar

26. Document no. 5, printed in Pflugk-Harttung, Acta pontificum, 1:9–10, no. 11; he dates it to 993 and attributes it to John XV. However, it is attributed to John VI in J-W, 1:246, no. 2141. Incidentally, the inspiration to attribute a privilege to an early “Pope John” was doubtless due to the fact that the monks had in their archives a copy of a privilege—though worded very differently—that Pope John IV had issued for the monastery of Luxeuil in the first decade of the seventh century. Document no. 167, printed in Pardessus, J. M., Diplomats, chartae, epistolae, leges aliaque instrumenta ad res Gallo-francicas spectantia (Paris, 1849), 2: 67–69, no. 299; summarized in J-W, 1:228, no. 2045.Google Scholar

27. Document no. 6, fols. 7v–8v in the cartulary. This purported papal charter of the late eighth century is attributed to both Hadrian II and Hadrian III in J-W, apparently without the realization that it is the same charter; 1:375,426, nos. 2949,3398.Google Scholar

28. Document no. 52, printed in PL 143: 613–14, no. 15; summarized in J-W, 1:532, no. 4173 (3175).Google Scholar

29. Document no. 70; see above. For a discussion of the process by which a cartulary scribe selected and copied documents, see Morelle, Laurent, “De l'original à la copie: Remarques sur l'evaluation des transcriptions dans les cartulaires médiévaux,” in Guyotjeanin, Olivier, Morelle, Laurent, and Parisse, Michel, eds., Les Cartulaires (Paris: École des chartes, 1993), 91–102.Google Scholar

30. Document no. 78, printed in Pflugk-Harttung, Acta pontificum, 1:45, no. 45; summarized in J-W, 1:591, no. 4760. For Bishop Pibo, see “Gesta episcoporum Tullensium,” MGH SS 8:646–48.Google Scholar

31. Scholars once assumed that monastic exemptions putting monks directly under Rome rather than their diocesan bishops formed a precedent, going back to Cluny's foundation in 909 if not indeed before, for the Gregorian development of hierarchy. Rosenwein, Barbara H. has recently made clear, however, that Cluny's relationship to Saint Peter was much more a spiritual than a political or institutional connection; To Be the Neighbor of Saint Peter: The Social Meaning of Cluny's Property, 909–1049 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1989).Google Scholar

32. Document no. 60, printed in Pflugk-Harttung, Acta pontificum, 1:16, no. 19; summarized in J-W, 1:537, no. 4217.Google Scholar

33. For his family, see Simmonnet, J., Essai sur l'histoire des sires de Joinville ( 1008–1386) (Langres, 1875).Google Scholar

34. For earlier relations between the monastery and the lords of Joinville, see documents no. 33–34, printed in Lalore, “Chartes de Montiérender,” 145–47, 152–53, nos. 20, 23.Google Scholar

35. Documents no. 91–92, on fols. 78v–80r of the cartulary, printed in abbreviated form in Lalore, “Chartes de Montiérender,” 166–67, 178–79, nos. 39, 52.Google Scholar

36. Document no. 77, printed in PL 143:818–19, no. 11; summarized in J-W, 1:551, no. 4353.Google Scholar

37. See document no. 37, printed in Lalore, “Chartes de Montierender,” 156–57, no. 27.Google Scholar

38. Bernard, Auguste and Bruel, Alexandre, eds., Recueil des chartes de l'abbaye de Cluny (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1876–1903), 4:472–74, nos. 3377–78.Google ScholarThis property, located at Margerie, was eventually returned to Montier-en-Der by the papal legate at the 1081 Council of Meaux. See document no. 67, printed in Lalore, “Chartes de Montiérender,” 185–87, no. 56.Google Scholar

39. Document no. 82, printed in Lalore, “Chartes de Montiérender,” 180–82, no. 54.Google Scholar

40. Documents no. 67–68, printed in Lalore, “Chartes de Montiérender,” 182–87, nos. 55–56. For this assembly, see Bur, La Formation de Champagne, 223. For the developing role of papal legates in the eleventh century, see Robinson, I. S., The Papacy, 1073–1198: Continuity and Innovation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 146–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41. Documents no. 84, 86, fols. 73r–74r and 74v–75v in the cartulary. Document no. 84, in which Geoffrey gave the monks the church at Wassy, is printed in Simmonnet, Essai sur l'histoire de Joinville, 22–23.Google Scholar

42. Document no. 116, fols. 92r–93v in the cartulary, printed in Simmonnet, Essai sur l'histoire de Joinville, 33–34.Google Scholar

43. For parallels with this process at other contemporary monasteries, see Rosenwein, Barbara H., Head, Thomas and Farmer, Sharon, “Monks and Their Enemies: A Comparative Approach,” Speculum 66 (1991): 764–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44. Victor III's privilege is document no. 76, printed in Pflugk-Harttung, Acta pontificum, 1:26, no. 29; summarized in J-W, 1:656, no. 5344. Pflugk-Harttung dates the privilege to 1057 and assigns it to Victor II rather than Victor III, because it was copied in the cartulary next to the forged privilege of Victor II (no. 77, discussed above). A date of 1087, however, is assumed by J-W and argued by Morelle, “Examen de trois privilèges,” 26 n. 5. Paschal II's privilege is document no. 123, printed in Pflugk-Harttung, Acta pontificum, 1: 70–71, no. 77; summarized in J-W, 1:705, no. 5827 (4356). The privilege of Honorius II is not in the first cartulary of Montier-en-Der, but the original is in Arch. Haute-Marne, 7 H 15, printed in Pflugk-Harttung, Acta pontificum, 1:131, no. 148; summarized in J-W, 1:829, no. 7258. Pflugk-Harttung's edition is faulty, because he filled in lacunae, where the original is worn away, from an eighteenth-century copy now in the same liasse. But the gaps in the original were already there in the eighteenth century when the copyist worked, so he had to use guesswork. The gaps in the original are supplied more reliably by the monks' second, thirteenth-century cartulary; Arch. Haute-Marne, 7 H 2, fols. 19v–20r.Google Scholar

45. Documents no. 151–52; edited in Robert, Ulysse, Bullaire du pape Calixte II (Paris, 1891; rpt. Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1979), 316–18, nos. 494–95; summarized in J-W, 1:819, nos. 7152–53 ( 5178–79).Google Scholar