^{page 301 note 1} In writing this article I have received invaluable help from three sources. M. J. Monteil, Conservateur des Manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Interuniversitaire, Section Médecine, of Montpellier was of the utmost kindness in arranging for photocopies of the MS. in his care to be made and sent to me. Mile. A. Genevois of the Institut d'Histoire et de Recherche des Textes at Paris provided the essential link in tracing back Labbe's source to its present home. As ever I have benefited from my discussions with Professor C. N. L. Brooke, though the errors are entirely my own. The MS. at Montpellier is catalogued very summarily in Catalogue Général des Manuscrits des Bibliothèques Publiques des Departements, Quarto Ser., Paris 1849Google Scholar, i. 408; some aspects of it are discussed in Delamare, R., Le ‘De Officiis Ecclesiasticis’ de Jean d'Avranches, Paris 1923, xv–xviiiGoogle Scholar. On the Bouhier library see A. Ronsin, La Bibliothèque Bouhier (Mém. de l'Acad. des Sciences, Arts et Belles Lettres de Dijon, cxviii, 1971), esp. 226, 240.

^{page 301 note 2} P. Labbe and G. Cossart (eds.), Sacrosancta Concilia ad Regiam Editionem Exacta, Paris 1671–2, x. 310–1; F. Pommeraye, Sanctae Rotomagensis Ecclesiae Concilia, Rouen 1677, 94–96; G. Bessin, Concilia Rotomagensis Provinciae, Rouen 1717, 64–66; J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova el Amplissima Collectio, Florence/Venice 1759–98, xx. 397–9.

^{page 302 note 1} Labbe, x. 311–2, Mansi, xx. 400; Böhmer, H., Kirche und Staat in England und in der Normandie im XI und XII Jahrhundert, Leipzig 1899, 63–64 n. argued for an English origin for these canons on two grounds. The first was the similarity between c. 2 and c. 8 here and cc. 3 and 11 of Winchester in 1070 (for which see below, n. 2). To this it might well be replied that equally close parallels can be found with Norman canons. The second was the incompatibility of c. 5 with what he conceived as a Norman policy in the duchy of widespread parochial ministrations by monks. This was a misinterpretation of the nature of the grant of parish churches to monasteries, grants which are anyway equally widespread in England after the Conquest.Google Scholar

^{page 302 note 2} H. Spelman, Concilia … Orbis Britannici, London 1639, 1664, ii. 12; Labbe, x. 312, 352; Mansi, xx, 400–2. Their attribution to 1070, first made by Böhmer, is supported by examining the manuscript tradition in Brooke, C. N. L., ‘Archbishop Lanfranc, the English Bishops, and the Council of London of 1075’, Studia Gratiana XII (1967), 58–59Google Scholar n. Cotton Tiberius C i is best described in Ker, N. R., A Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon, Oxford 1957, no. 197.Google Scholar

^{page 302 note 3} Pommeraye, 103–8, with Dom A. Godin's notes on 521–31; Bessin, 67–74; Mansi, xx. 559–68.

^{page 303 note 1} Teulet, A., Layettes du Trésor des Chartes, Paris 1863–1875, i. 25 no. 22; but see 307 n. 4 below.Google Scholar

^{page 303 note 2} The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, ed. Chibnall, M., Oxford 1969-, iii. 24–34; Labbe, x. 391–5.Google Scholar

^{page 303 note 3} R. Somerville, The Councils of Urban II (Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum, Suppl. i 1972), 38–39 n.

^{page 303 note 4} Catalogue Général des Manuscrits, Octavo Ser., i. 164.

^{page 303 note 5} The text of the Avranches MS. was printed by the Abbé Desroches, ‘Annales Religieuses de l'Avranchin’;, Mémoires de la Societé des Antiquaires de Normandie, 2nd Ser., iv (1844), 422–7. Although the general coincidence of its readings with those cited by Pommeraye and Godin from a Mont St. Michel MS. is very close, some minute particulars led M. de Bouard (‘Sur les Origines de la Trève de Dieu en Normandie’, Annales de Normandie, ix (1959), 178) to hold that the two MSS. are distinct. On the Vatican MS. see ibid., 179 n. There are traces of two other MSS. in A. Lognon, Pouillés de la Province de Rouen (Receuil des Historiens de France, New Ser., Pouillés, ii, 1903), 74–75 (notes from a volume in the Chapter Library) and BN MS. fr. 20968, fol. 107 (from a cartulary of Lisieux).

^{page 303 note 6} L. Delisle, ‘Cartulaire Normand de Philippe-Auguste, Louis VIII, Saint Louis et Phillipe-le-Hardi’, Mém. de la Soc. des Antiq. de Normandie, 2nd Ser., vi (1852), 1, 273 and Bibliotheca Bigotiana Manuscripta, Rouen 1877, 31–34; Coutumiers de Normandie, ed. E. J. Tardif (Societé de l'Histoire de Normandie, 1881, 1896), i. xiv, ii. liii.

^{page 303 note 7} The uncertainty on the feast of St. Bartholomew is very ancient; among the earlier sources are two texts, the Breviarium Apostolorum which commemorates him on 24 August, and the Notitia de Locis Sanctorum Apostolorum which gives 25 August. Both were prefaced to the Martyrology of St. Jerome, and the MSS. of the text proper differ among themselves. The mid-eighth century Calendar of St. Willibrord and the other Anglo-Saxon liturgical calendars almost without exception take 25 August (Acta Sanctorum, November II (2), 2, 464, 466; English Benedictine Kalendars Before A.D. 1100, ed. F. Wormald (Henry Bradshaw Soc, lxxii, 1933), 37, 51, 65, 79, 93 135, 149, 205, 247, 261). The other influential martyrologies from Bede to Usuard and beyond take 24 August, the date also used in Norman liturgical MSS. before the Conquest: Quentin, H., Les Martyrologes Historiques du Moyen Age, Paris 1908, 54Google Scholar, 360, 437, 483, 584; Leroquais, V., Les Sacramentaires et les Missels Manuscrits des Bibliothèques Publiques de France, Paris 1924, i. 135, 177.Google Scholar

^{page 304 note 1} English Benedictine Kalendars Before A.D. 1100, 23, 191, 107.

^{page 304 note 2} Bishop, E. and Gasquet, F., The Bosworth Psalter, London 1908, 73–74Google Scholar; Memorials of St. Dunstan, ed. W. Stubbs (Rolls Series, 1874), 136–7. Although it is overwhelmingly likely that the only surviving pre-Conquest calendar of Christchurch (BM Arundel 155) originally followed the usual practice of the other Saxon calendars, the entries for 24 and 25 August were erased in the thirteenth century and re-written to put St. Bartholomew on 24 August and St. Ouen on 25 August, a reversal which can be seen in progress in Eadwine's psalter of the mid-twelfth century: English Benedictine Kalendars Before A.D. 1100, 177; The Canterbury Psalter, ed. James, M. R., London 1935Google Scholar, fol. 3. The change was widespread later, though not universal: English Benedictine Kalendars After A.D. 1100, ed. F. Wormald (Henry Bradsaw Soc., lxxvii, lxxxi, 1939, 1946), i. 75, ii. 51, 70, 86. The explanation for this second change, which took St. Ouen from the 24th to the 25th, may lie in the rise of an active cult of St. Ouen at Canterbury, which was promoted by both Osbern and Eadmer. This centred upon the supposed relics whose Invention, with perhaps some miracles, was written by Eadmer: Wilmart, A., ‘Edmeri Cantvariensis Cantoris Nova Opuscula’, Revue des Sciences Religieuses, XV (1935), 185–6Google Scholar, 362–70; id., ‘Les Reliques de Saint Ouen a Cantorbéry’, Analecta Bollandiana, li (1933), 285–92; N. R. Ker, ‘Un Nouveau Fragment des Miracles de St. Ouen a Cantorbéry, Analecta Bollandiana, lxiv (1946), 50–53; Southern, R.W., St. Anselm and his Biographer, Cambridge 1963, 239–40, 286–7, 370–1. Canterbury's claim was naturally denied in Rouen, while Malmesbury and Boursy also claimed some of his relics.Google Scholar

^{page 305 note 1} Studia Gratiana, XII (1967), 58–59 n.Google Scholar

^{page 305 note 2} Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel, ed. Plummer, C., Oxford 1892–9, i. 288–9Google Scholar.

^{page 305 note 3} Studia Gratiana, XII (1967), 56–58 on 1075; 1076 is found in Bodleian Lib., MS. Junius 121, an eleventh century MS. from Worcester, and has a full dating clause.Google Scholar

^{page 305 note 4} This council is of course chiefly famous for the climax of the primacy dispute between Canterbury and York; the documents have often been discussed. Full texts and bibliographic information will be included in Councils and Synods, Part i (forthcoming); meanwhile the essential text is best printed in Facsimiles of English Royal Writs to 1100, ed. Bishop, T. A. M. and Chaplais, P., Oxford 1957, pl. xxix n.Google Scholar

^{page 305 note 5} The fundamental study of the Norman texts is that of E. J. Tardif, ‘Études sur les Sources de l'Ancien Droit Normand …’, Congrès du Millénaire de la Normandie, Rouen 1912, i. 570–619. Unhappily I was unable to consult this work while preparing my article.

^{page 306 note 1} L. Delisle, ‘Canons du Concile tenu à Lisieux en 1064’, Journal des Savants (1901), 516–21; Ecclesiastical History of Orderic, ii. 284 n. 4.

^{page 306 note 2} See above, 305 n. 3.

^{page 306 note 3} Somerville, Councils of Urban II, passim.

^{page 306 note 4} Studia Gratiana XII (1967), 56 (a conclusion for which there is now yet further evidence).Google Scholar

^{page 306 note 5} All but one of the existing MSS. of 1102 seem to derive ultimately from Eadmer: Historia Novorum in Anglia, ed. M. Rule (Rolls Ser, 1884), pp. 141–4. Of 1108 there are at least five distinct but very closely related versions.

^{page 306 note 6} Studia Gratiana xii. 58–59; Intravit was printed in Böhmer, H., Die Fälschungen Erzbishof Lanfranks von Canterbury, Leipzig 1902, 165–73; a new edition of Lanfranc's letters is in preparation.Google Scholar

^{page 307 note 1} Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, ed. R. Howlett (Rolls Ser., 1884–9), IV. 43.Google Scholar

^{page 307 note 2} See above 303 nn. 1–6, and the graphic pages of the Abbé Desroches in Mém. de la Soc. des Antiquaires de Normandie, 2nd Ser., iv (1844), 421, 428.

^{page 307 note 3} Chronicles of the Reign of Stephen…, iv. 212; most fully discussed in Foreville, R., L'Église et la Royauté en Angleterre sous Henri II Plantagenet, Paris 1943, 118–9, 143–5.Google Scholar

^{page 307 note 4} The text is printed, and an addition at the foot identified as being in the hand of a known royal scribe, in P. Chaplais, ‘Henry II's Reissue of the Canons of the Council of Lillebonne …’, Journal of the Society of Archivists, iv (1973), 627–32.

^{page 307 note 5} The text is presented with minimal emendation, preserving the original spelling and division of canons, though the numbers are mine. The numerous parallels with other English and Norman councils to be found in the canons will be found in the apparatus to the forthcoming edition in Councils and Synods, Part i.

^{page 308 note 1} There is some obscurity in this canon, but if, as the context seems to demand, the feast of St. John is a major one the reference is presumably to St John the Baptist, whose feast is celebrated on 24 June. This only falls in the week after Whitsun week when Easter is very late, either on 23, 24 or 25 April. It did not fall on 23 April between 976 and 1139, or on 25 April between 1014 and 1109. However it fell on 24 April in 1071, and again in 1082. It is easy to see how the memory of a recent event and the prospect of another could provoke such a reference, and this might be thought to add a little more weight to the suggested date of 1072 for the council. I owe this argument to the kindness of Professor Brooke.