1 Brulard, Théo, La Hesbaye. Étude géographique d’économie rurale (Bibliothèque de l'Institut de géographie Paul Michotte, Université catholique de Louvain, B 10; Louvain [1962]) 73–4 and 101. On the pagus of the Hesbaye, see Piot, C., ‘Les Pagi de la Belgique et leurs subdivisions pendant le moyen ǎge,’ Mém. Acad. Belg. (Cour.) 39.1 (1876) 2.107–35 and Vanderkindere, Léon, La formation territoriale des principautés belges au moyen ǎge (Brussels 1901–2) II 128–58. J. Coenen (‘La topographie de nos monastères romans,’ Leodium 14 [1921] 26–35) commented on both the fertility of this region and the persistance of large properties as factors promoting the establishment of monasteries from the seventh to the twelfth centuries, in contrast to the poorer land and smaller holdings north of the linguistic frontier, which was settled by monks (especially from the new orders) in the twelfth century.Google Scholar

2 Kempeneers, A., ‘Exploration des substructions de la villa romaine de Bertrée,’ Bull. Inst. liégeois 12 (1874) 1–26, with a map. Miller, Konrad, Itineraria romana (Stuttgart 1916) 59–61; Brulard, , Hesbaye 107. There are several references to the road as agger publicus and via regia in the twelfth century in Boeren, P. C., Jocundus, biographe de saint Servais (The Hague 1972) 151 n. 2, 152 n. 4, 180 n. 1.Google Scholar

3 van der Essen, Léon, Atlas de géographie historique de la Belgique , Carte III: Le duché de Lothair et le marquisat de Flandre à la fin du XI^e siècle (1095) (Brussels – Paris 1932). Kempeneers, , Bull. Inst. liégeois 12.1, however, referred to it as part of the duchy of Brabant.Google Scholar

4 For brief accounts of the foundation and early history of Bertrée, see Halkin, J., ‘Les prieurés clunisiens de l'ancien diocèse de Liège,’ Bull. Soc. Liège 10 (1896) 185ff.; Monsticon belge (Bruges – Gembloux – Liège 1890ff.) II.1, 110; Baix, F., in DHGE 8 (1935) 1106–8; and Stiennon, J., ‘Cluny et Saint-Trond,’ Anciens pays 72–3. These historians all accept the foundation date of 1124, which is based upon the charter of Bishop Adalbero of Liège (n. 5 infra); but the letter of the founder (n. 15 infra), which was copied with and apparently written at the same time as Adalbero's charter, suggests that there were already monks at Bertrée in 1124. Adalbero's charter may therefore refer to events which had already taken place, and present as a single event a process of foundation which covered several years: cf. V. H. Galbraith, ‘Monastic Foundation Charters of the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries,’ Cambridge Historical Journal 4.3 (1934) 205–22 and 296–8.Google Scholar

5 Cluny V 332–7 and 352–3 nos. 3974–7 and 3999. Of these documents, nos. 3974–5 are printed from copies made by Lambert de Barive from the originals and now in the Collection Moreau in the Bibliothèque nationale, Paris; nos. 3976–7 and 3999 are printed from the originals: cf. Halkin, Bull. Soc. Liège 10.236–7 nos. 3–6 listing other editions of these documents.Google Scholar

6 The two places named Avernas, of which one was to the northwest and the other to the northeast of Bertrée, were distinguished in the twelfth century as great (or superior) and small Avernas but were later known by the seigneurial names of Balduinus (Avernas-le-Bauduin) and Crassus (Cras-Avernas): Kempeneers, Bull. Inst. liégeois 12.3 n. 1. The reference here is probably to Great Avernas (Avernas-le-Bauduin), since Walter had already given Small Avernas (Cras-Avernas) to St. Laurence at Liège: see pp. 168–9 infra. Google Scholar

7 The gold penny is referred to in Cluny V 336 no. 3976 as ‘pro censu’ and in Cluny V 353 no. 3999 as ‘ad perpetuum hujus privilegii suaeque libertatis monimentum’ (where the editor substituted ‘liberalitatis’ in place of the manuscript reading ‘libertatis,’ which presumably refers to the freedom of Bertrée, mentioned in the previous lines, from all monasteries other than Cluny). Numismatists have long argued whether or not there was a real gold currency in the Low Countries in the twelfth century: see A. Wauters, ‘Le monnayage de For en Belgique au XII^e et au XIII^e siècle,’ Bulletin mensuel de numismatique et d'archéologie 2 (1882–3) 122–7 (citing several examples and concluding that they were real coins, not simply ‘monnaies de compte’) and J. Chestret de Haneffe, ‘Numismatique de la principauté de Liège et de ses dépendances (Bouillon, Looz) depuis leurs annexions,’ Mém. Acad. Belg. (Cour.) 50 (1890) 160 (dating the earliest gold coins of Liège from the mid-fourteenth century). More recently, Grierson, P., ‘Le sou d'or Uzès,’ Moyen Ǎge 60 (1954) 302–5 and Blanchet, A., ‘Le denier et l'obole d'or redevances médiévales,” Recueil de travaux offert à M. Clovis Brunei (Mém. et doc. pub. par la Soc. de l'École des Chartes 12; Paris 1955) I 147–51, have independently stressed the widespread use of real gold coins not as normal currency but specifically in order to make symbolic payments, as with the monks of Bertrée, who presumably took the requisite amount of gold to the moneyer of Liège and had a coin struck with the stamp normally used for a silver penny. Since the value of gold was between ten and twelve times that of silver (cf. Wauters, Bull. mensuel 2.125, citing an alternative payment of one gold or twelve silver pennies in 1182, and Grierson, Moyen Ǎge 60.305), the resulting coin was approximately equal in value to the annual census from one serf on Walter's estate at Cras-Avernas (see p. 198 infra). I am indebted for the references in this note to Professor Grierson, whose article on ‘Oboli de Musc’,’ English Historical Review 66 (1951) 75–81, should also be consulted.Google Scholar

8 The districtio is difficult to define precisely and probably varied from region to region, including both jurisdiction and the fine and punishment arising therefrom. Perrin, Ch.-E. Recherches sur la seigneurie rurale en Lorraine d'après les plus anciens censiers (IX^e–XII^e siècle) (Pub. de la Fac. des Lettres de l'Univ. de Strasbourg 71; Paris 1935) 751, defined it as applying to criminal jurisdiction; Boeren, P. C., Étude sur les tributaires d’Église dans le comté de Flandre du IX^e au XIV^e siècle (Uitgaven van het Institut voor middeleeuwsche Geschiedenis der Keizer Karel Universiteit te Nijmegen 3; Amsterdam 1936) 57, called it ‘le pouvoir coercitif au nom de l'immuniste’; Verriest, Léo, Institutions médiévales. Introduction an Corpus des records de coutumes et des lois de chefs-lieux de l'ancien comté de Hainaut I (Mons–Frameries 1946) 115, said that it was used in a general sense, almost equivalent to bannum, and incorporated jurisdictional rights; Raymond Byl, Les jurisdictions scabinales dans le duché de Brabant (des origines à la fin du XV^e siècle) (Université libre de Bruxelles: Travaux de la Fac. de phil. et lettres 17; Brussels – Paris 1965) 54, defined it even more broadly as the power to keep order. On the districtio in other parts of Europe, Otto, Eberhard, Adel und Freiheit im deutschen Staat des frühen Mittelalters (Neue deutsche Forschungen: Abt. mittelalterliche Geschichte 2; Berlin 1937) 178, called it ‘die königliche Zwangsgewalt über freie Leute’; Brancoli Busdraghi, Piero, La formazione storica del feudo lombardo come diritto reale (Quaderni di ‘Studi senesi’ 11; Milan 1965) 178–83, argued that in Italy it originated in ‘private’ rather than ‘public’ jurisdiction; Bruhat, L., Le monachisme en Saintonge et en Aunis (XI^e et XII^e siècles) (La Rochelle 1907) 165, called it ‘souvent un droit de justice levé sur les voleurs’ and cited examples of its division, as at Bertrée, where it seems to have been primarily a financial due and to have been distinct from the justicia; Magnou-Nortier, E., La société laïque et l'Église dans la province ecclésiastique de Narbonne de la fin du VIII^e à la fin du XI^e siècle (Pub. de l'Univ. de Toulouse — Le Mirail A 20; Toulouse 1974) 143.Google Scholar

9 The nature of the restauratio is uncertain, but it was clearly a regular financial due. Perrin, Recherches 768, cited an example from the censier of Gorze referring to the reconstruction of a seigneurial grange after a fire; but here it probably derived from a customary levy for the upkeep of the church, on which see Louis Thomassin, Ancienne et nouvelle discipline de l'Église (<e>ed. M. André; Bar-le-Duc 1864–7) VII 64–71, citing examples mostly from the later Middle Ages; Pollock, Frederick and Maitland, F. W., The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I (2nd ed.; Cambridge 1898) I 613, on the obligation in England to repair and provide for the church; and Luc Genicot, ‘L’église un grand document de pierre,’ L'archéologie du village médiéval (Louvain – Ghent 1967) 64.ed. M. André; Bar-le-Duc 1864–7) VII 64–71, citing examples mostly from the later Middle Ages; Pollock, Frederick and Maitland, F. W., The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I (2nd ed.; Cambridge 1898) I 613, on the obligation in England to repair and provide for the church; and Luc Genicot, ‘L’église un grand document de pierre,’ L'archéologie du village médiéval (Louvain – Ghent 1967) 64.' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=The+nature+of+the+restauratio+is+uncertain,+but+it+was+clearly+a+regular+financial+due.+Perrin,+Recherches+768,+cited+an+example+from+the+censier+of+Gorze+referring+to+the+reconstruction+of+a+seigneurial+grange+after+a+fire;+but+here+it+probably+derived+from+a+customary+levy+for+the+upkeep+of+the+church,+on+which+see+Louis+Thomassin,+Ancienne+et+nouvelle+discipline+de+l'Église+(ed.+M.+André;+Bar-le-Duc+1864–7)+VII+64–71,+citing+examples+mostly+from+the+later+Middle+Ages;+Pollock,+Frederick+and+Maitland,+F.+W.,+The+History+of+English+Law+Before+the+Time+of+Edward+I+(2nd+ed.;+Cambridge+1898)+I+613,+on+the+obligation+in+England+to+repair+and+provide+for+the+church;+and+Luc+Genicot,+‘L’église+un+grand+document+de+pierre,’+L'archéologie+du+village+médiéval+(Louvain+–+Ghent+1967)+64.>Google Scholar

10 Chorveda here probably refers to various types of work on the seigneurial reserve, though in some areas it referred specifically to ploughing: see Polyptyque de l'abbé Irminon (<e>ed. B. Guérard; Paris 1844) I 644–6; Verriest, Léo, Le servage dans le comté de Hainaut. Les sainteurs. Le meilleur catel (Mém. Acad. Belg. [8°] 2.6; Brussels 1910) 34 and 52–5; Perrin, , Recherches 749; Genicot, , Économie I 93–121 (esp. 113–4) and ‘Les premiers mentions de droits banaux dans la région de Liège,’ Bull. Acad. Belgique 5.54 (1968) 56–65, saying that the earliest references to banal rights (corvey, tallage) in the diocese of Liège dated from the last third of the eleventh century and reflected both the economic expansion and the growing power of the lords in this period.ed. B. Guérard; Paris 1844) I 644–6; Verriest, Léo, Le servage dans le comté de Hainaut. Les sainteurs. Le meilleur catel (Mém. Acad. Belg. [8°] 2.6; Brussels 1910) 34 and 52–5; Perrin, , Recherches 749; Genicot, , Économie I 93–121 (esp. 113–4) and ‘Les premiers mentions de droits banaux dans la région de Liège,’ Bull. Acad. Belgique 5.54 (1968) 56–65, saying that the earliest references to banal rights (corvey, tallage) in the diocese of Liège dated from the last third of the eleventh century and reflected both the economic expansion and the growing power of the lords in this period.' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Chorveda+here+probably+refers+to+various+types+of+work+on+the+seigneurial+reserve,+though+in+some+areas+it+referred+specifically+to+ploughing:+see+Polyptyque+de+l'abbé+Irminon+(ed.+B.+Guérard;+Paris+1844)+I+644–6;+Verriest,+Léo,+Le+servage+dans+le+comté+de+Hainaut.+Les+sainteurs.+Le+meilleur+catel+(Mém.+Acad.+Belg.+[8°]+2.6;+Brussels+1910)+34+and+52–5;+Perrin,+,+Recherches+749;+Genicot,+,+Économie+I+93–121+(esp.+113–4)+and+‘Les+premiers+mentions+de+droits+banaux+dans+la+région+de+Liège,’+Bull.+Acad.+Belgique+5.54+(1968)+56–65,+saying+that+the+earliest+references+to+banal+rights+(corvey,+tallage)+in+the+diocese+of+Liège+dated+from+the+last+third+of+the+eleventh+century+and+reflected+both+the+economic+expansion+and+the+growing+power+of+the+lords+in+this+period.>Google Scholar

11 There was a mill at Abolens, five kilometers southeast of Bertrée, from the Middle Ages until the First World War: Piton, E., ‘Histoire de Trognée,’ Bull. Inst. liégeois 57 (1933) 89; and the term Bavigneis in the charter probably refers to this rather than to Bavengnée as proposed by Halkin, Bull. Soc. Liège 10.185.Google Scholar

12 Silva, as contrasted with foresta, meant a wood situated within a domain, according to Stiennon, Étude 350. When modified by nutrita or pastilis, it meant the same as pascuum, that is, an area suitable for grazing animals: ibid. 304. The areas of woods in the Hesbaye, which may have been considerable in the early Middle Ages, were rapidly cleared: Brulard, Hesbaye (n. 1 supra) 107–8.Google Scholar

13 See pp. 203, 220–2 infra on the advocacy of Bertrée.Google Scholar

14 The remains of the seal were on the original charter copied by Lambert de Barive: Cluny V 332 n. 1. See pp. 170–3 infra on the list of witnesses and the date.Google Scholar

15 Cluny V 335 no. 3975. The editor remarked (335 n. 1) that in the copy of the original this piece was transcribed after no. 3974 without a separate number.Google Scholar

16 Cluny V 335–7 no. 3976.Google Scholar

17 Both here and in the following document (Cluny V 337 no. 3977), the house from which monks were sent to Bertrée is called Cossiacum, which apparently refers to the Cluniac priory of Coincy, south of Soissons and west of Reims, although its name in Latin is normally spelled with an n (Coin-, Con-). Cossiacum is etymologically acceptable for Coincy, however, and is found in a charter of ca. 1080 in Cluny IV 687 no. 3557. Cuissy (Cussiacum) was founded in 1117 and was Premonstratensian from about 1122: C.-L. Hugo, Sacri et canonici ordinis Praemonstratensis annales (Nancy 1734–6) I.1 preuves lxi–lxiv; but though it had dealings with Cluny in 1139, there is no reason to believe Peter the Venerable would have entrusted Bertrée to it in the 1120s. Coincy, on the other hand, is known to have had some connections in this area, since its Prior Giles in 1120 witnessed the settlement of a dispute concerning St. Savior at Valenciennes, which was certainly Cluniac and may have been a dependency of Coincy: Miraeus–Foppens, II 815–6 and 957–8; Gallia christiana (3rd ed.; Paris 1715–1865) 3.31; and Duvivier, Charles, Actes et documents anciens intéressant la Belgique (Brussels 1898) 112–3. For help with several points in this note I am indebted to Professors John Benton of the California Institute of Technology, Joseph Lynch of Ohio State University, and Ludo Milis of the University of Ghent.Google Scholar

18 Cluny V 337 no. 3977. According to the editor (335 n. 5) nos. 3976 and 3977 are ‘en original sur le měme parchemin.’Google Scholar

19 Cluny V 352–3 no. 3999.Google Scholar

20 On the general synod in the diocese of Liège, see p. 211 infra. The phrase per bannum means under threat of excommunication and is used in the same sense, also in connection with the episcopal synod, in the document from Beaurepart 340–1 (n. 131 infra).Google Scholar

21 The Letters of Peter the Venerable (<e>ed. Giles Constable; Harvard Historical Studies 78; Cambridge, Mass. 1967) I 230 ep. 89.ed.+Giles+Constable;+Harvard+Historical+Studies+78;+Cambridge,+Mass.+1967)+I+230+ep.+89.>Google Scholar

22 On Gerard, see in particular Boes, Gustave, L'abbaye de Saint-Trond des origines jusqu’à 1155 ([Tongres] 1970) 239–44; also Halkin, , Bull. Soc. Liège 10.188–9 and Stiennon, J., Anciens pays (n. 4 supra) 73–7. On Gerard's father Gislebert, see n. 51 infra. Google Scholar

23 He is said to have been at Cluny at the time of his election: Halkin, , Bull. Soc. Liège 10.188 n. 1.Google Scholar

24 Gesta abbatum Trudonensium, Cont. II 2.8 (PL 173.239a and, better, <e>ed. C. de Borman; Liège 1877, II 31–2).ed.+C.+de+Borman;+Liège+1877,+II+31–2).>Google Scholar

25 Saint-Trond I 49 no. 38.Google Scholar

26 Simenon, G., ‘Notes pour servir à l'histoire des paroisses qui dépendaient de l'abbaye de Saint-Trond,’ Bull. Soc. Liège 17 (1908) 1–269.Google Scholar

27 Statuts, chapitres généraux et visites de l'ordre de Cluny (<e>ed. G. Charvin; Paris 1965ff.) I 338 (four monks and a prior in 1274) and 454 (five monks, a conversus, and a prior in 1289).ed. G. Charvin; Paris 1965ff.) I 338 (four monks and a prior in 1274) and 454 (five monks, a conversus, and a prior in 1289).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Statuts,+chapitres+généraux+et+visites+de+l'ordre+de+Cluny+(ed.+G.+Charvin;+Paris+1965ff.)+I+338+(four+monks+and+a+prior+in+1274)+and+454+(five+monks,+a+conversus,+and+a+prior+in+1289).>Google Scholar

28 Brief accounts of Walter are found in Poullet, A., ‘Les seigneurs de Trognée,’ Leodium 20 (1927) 58 and Piton, , Bull. Inst. liégeois 57.91–2, as parts of general histories of Trognée, about which very little is known before the fourteenth century. ‘Johannes de Trudenlegen, homo nobilis,’ who made a grant to St. Trond in 1077, renewed in 1138 (Saint-Trond I 46–7; cf. Poullet, Leodium 20.58) may have been from Trognée (cf. Gysseling, , Woordenboek II 979), but the identification is uncertain. A document of 1223 (o.s. 1222) in the Archives de l'État at Namur, no. 3356, was witnessed by ‘Radulphus miles de Truigniis,’ which was misprinted ‘Tringniis’ in Barbier, Victor, Histoire du monastère de Géronsart (Namur 1886) 222 no. 15 and therefore rendered ‘Trignée’ (Tiriniacus) in Roland, C.-G., Toponymie namuroise (Ann. Soc. Namur 23; Namur 1899) 451; but it probably refers to Trognée.Google Scholar

29 Miraeus–Foppens, I 364–5 and Saint-Lambert 46–8.Google Scholar

30 Miraeus–Foppens, I 276–7; cf. Saint-Laurent 192–3, and Halkin, J., ‘Albéron I^er évěque de Liège (1123–1128),’ Bull. Soc. Liège 8 (1894) 335–6.Google Scholar

31 See n. 6 supra on Avernas. The so-called county of Steppe or Steppes was, like that of Dongelberg (see n. 97 infra), a judicial circumscription: see Piot, Pagi (n. 1 supra) 120 n. 5 (citing this charter), who remarked elsewhere (vii n. 3 and 113) on the loose use of the term comitatus as equivalent to pagus minor, and Vanderkindere, Formation (n. 1 supra) 132 and 147–8, saying (148) that ‘Le comitatus de Steppes n’était certainement qu'un ressort des évěques de Liège dans le pays de Looz.’Google Scholar

32 See p. 189 infra on the striking reference here to the bishop as ‘specialis provisor et pastor’ of Walter ‘tamquam liberi hominis, sicut et ceterorum liberorum hominum principatus proprii.’ This wording justifies the use of the term principality for the area over which the bishop exercised political authority in the early twelfth century: cf J. Lejeune, ‘Les notions de “Patria” et d’ “episcopatus” dans le diocèse et le pays de Liège du XI^e au XIV^e siècle,’ Anciens pays 3–53, who criticized (11) the use of this term (and, more generally, the distinction between the ecclesiastical and political positions of the bishop) in the eleventh century.Google Scholar

33 See n. 8 supra on the districtio. This passage suggests that the ‘homines qui de terra censuali ejusdem praedii sunt beneficiati’ were not themselves rent-paying laborers or censuales, on whom see p. 201 infra, but rather holders of lands paying rents.Google Scholar

34 The precise definition of the bonuarium (Fr. bonnier), the fundamental agricultural unit of the Franks, was called ‘le désespoir des statisticiens modernes’ by L. Musset, ‘Observations historiques sur une mesure agraire: le bonnier,’ Mélanges d'histoire du moyen ǎge dediés à la mémoire de Louis Halphen (Paris 1951) 541, who argued that it varied from region to region and had no fixed extent. In different dictionaries it is defined as approximately one-quarter of an acre and as approximately four acres. For the region of Liège and Namur, however, scholars seem agreed that it was somewhat over two acres: de Bruyne, P., ‘Les anciens mesures liégeoises,’ Bull. Inst liégeois 60 (1936) 297 (basing himself principally on post-medieval sources); Genicot, Économie I xxxiii–iv; cf. also Robert Fossier, La terre et les hommes en Picardie jusqu’à la fin du XIII^e siècle (Paris–Louvain 1968) 217 n. 116, on the bonuarium in Picardy, where it was somewhat larger, between three and four acres.Google Scholar

35 Halkin, , Bull. Soc. Liège 8.348–9 no. 4.Google Scholar

36 Miraeus–Foppens, III 28–9; cf. Misonne, D., ‘Chapitres séculiers dépendant d'abbayes bénédictines au moyen ǎge dans l'ancien diocèse de Liège,’ La vita comune del clero nei secoli XI e XII. Atti della settimana di studio, Mendola, settembre 1959 (Pubblicazioni dell'Università cattolica del Sacro Cuore 3 S.: Scienze storiche 2–3; Milan 1962) I 427–30.Google Scholar

37 Veldunt in the county of Huy is not listed in Gysseling, Woordenboek, and was presumably a very small place; cf. n. 162 infra. Its name implies that it was located in a plain, perhaps at the foot of some hills: cf. Carnoy, Albert, Origines des noms des communes de Belgique (Louvain 1948–9) II 691–3 (s.n. Veldegem, Veldonk, Veltem). On the county of Huy, which extended on both sides of the Meuse and included parts of the Condroz as well as the Hesbaye, see Piot, Pagi (n. 1 supra) 117–8.Google Scholar

38 A quandrant was equivalent to a quartarius and officially meant a quarter of a mansus, but it was often used loosely for an indefinite measure of land: Perrin, Recherches (n. 8 supra) 767.Google Scholar

39 Miraeus–Foppens, I 277. The numbers, except for Henrico V, are written out in words.Google Scholar

40 Cluny V 334. The numbers, except for Heinrico quarto, are in figures. The reference to Henry as IV rather than V applies to the imperium rather than the regnum, since he was the fifth king but fourth emperor of that name. Henry III was called the second emperor in the Gesta sancti Servatii composed at Maastricht in the early twelfth century: Wilhelm, Friedrich, Sanct Servatius (Munich 1910) 24 n. 106 and 145. There are other documents referring to Henry V as Henry IV in Miraeus–Foppens, II 816–7; Lahaye, L., Inventaire analytique des chartes de la collégiale de Saint-Jean l'Évangéliste à Liège (Brussels 1921–31) I 6–8 nos. 10–11; and, from outside the Empire, in Johnson, Charles and Cronne, H. A., Regesta regum Anglo-Normannorum II: Regesta Henrici primi (Oxford 1956) 193 no. 1427. The reference to the episcopal synod (see p. 211 infra) suggests that this charter was drawn up in May.Google Scholar

41 Halkin, , in Bull. Soc. Liège 8.349. The numbers are all in figures.Google Scholar

42 Giry, Arthur, Manuel de diplomatique (Paris 1894) 118–9.Google Scholar

43 de Marneffe, Edgar, Styles et indictions suivis dans les anciens documents liégeois (Brussels 1896) 10–11.Google Scholar

44 Strubbe, E. I. and Voet, L., De Chronologie van de Middeleeuwen en de moderne Tijden in de Nederlanden (Antwerp – Amsterdam 1960) 53 and 497. According to Actes des comtes de Flandre, 1071–1128 (<e>ed. Fernand Vercauteren; Brussels 1938) lxxxvii–ix, eleven out of thirteen dateable acts of the counts of Flanders between 1071 and 1128 used the style of Christmas and two the style of Easter.ed.+Fernand+Vercauteren;+Brussels+1938)+lxxxvii–ix,+eleven+out+of+thirteen+dateable+acts+of+the+counts+of+Flanders+between+1071+and+1128+used+the+style+of+Christmas+and+two+the+style+of+Easter.>Google Scholar

45 Marneffe, De, Styles 16.Google Scholar

46 It may be a corruption either of XIV for the imperial year (starting April 13, 1124) or of XIX for the regnal year (starting January 5, 1124).Google Scholar

47 The dates and other information about the archdeacons are derived from de Theux, J., Le chapitre de Saint Lambert à Liège (Brussels 1871–2), of which I 109–214 are concerned with the twelfth century, and for officers, from de Marneffe, E., ‘Tableau chronologique des dignitaires du chapitre Saint-Lambert à Liège,’ Analectes 25 (1895) 433–85 and 26 (1896) 318–425.Google Scholar

48 The dates, when not otherwise specified, are from Strubbe and Voet, Chronologie. Google Scholar

49 Namur cxvii–xxii.Google Scholar

50 Baerten, J., Het graafschap Loon (11de–14de eeuw) (Maaslande Monografieen 9; Assen 1969) 33 and 253.Google Scholar

51 Baerten, J., ‘Les origines des comtes de Looz et la formation territoriale du comté,’ Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire 43 (1965) 469–79 and Loon 35; cf. Namur cvi and Stiennon, Ancien pays (n. 4 supra) 74–6. Gislebert belonged to a cadet branch of the house of Looz, took the title of count of Duras in 1111, and was advocate of the abbey of St. Trond. See p. 166–7 and nn. 21–4 supra on his son Gerard, who became prior of Bertrée and abbot of St. Trond.Google Scholar

52 Cf. Roland, C.-G., ‘Les seigneurs et comtes de Rochefort,’ Ann. Soc. Namur 20 (1893) 113–24, dating him 1106–47; Namur civ and (on the family of Montaigu, to which the founder of the Cluniac priory of St. Séverin in Condroz belonged) cxxvi–vii; also Notre-Dame 106–7 and 110; Stiennon, , Ancien pays (n. 4 supra) 83–84; and Dereine, , Chanoines 142.Google Scholar

53 Notre-Dame 110 n. 13.Google Scholar

54 See pp. 173–8 infra. Google Scholar

55 The phrases ‘et multi alii’ and ‘de familia Ecclesiae,’ which are printed together in the text, should be separated, the first phrase referring to many other noble men and the second part to the following list of episcopal ministeriales, who served (as some of their names show) in various functions at Liège and in administering the bishop's estates: see Poncelet, Œuvres III cxl and cxlix.Google Scholar

56 On the family of de Ponte (de Pont), which had charge of the bridge over the Meuse from the early eleventh century, see Kurth, Godefroid, La cité de Liège au moyen-ǎge I (Paris 1910) 163 n. 3; Ganshof, François-L., Étude sur les ministeriales en Flandre et en Lotharingie (Brussels 1926) 146–7; and Poncelet, , Œuvres III cxxxix, cxl, cxlvii–viii, esp. cxlviii on Theoderic, who was the last member of the family to appear as a ministerial in the famitia of the bishop.Google Scholar

57 On the family of de Prato (de Pré or Preit), who were the hereditary seneschals of the bishops of Liège, see Ganshof, Étude 140–1, and Poncelet, Œuvres III cxxxvi and cxli–ii.Google Scholar

58 These two brothers were the sons of Hugh of Beaufort: Goethals, Félix-Victor, Histoire généalogique de la maison de Beaufort-Spontin (Brussels 1859) 13–14; Ganshof, , Étude 144–5; Poncelet, , Œuvres III cxl and cxlix, stressing the importance of the bishop's property at Huy. In spite of their ministerial status, they were clearly influential and prosperous. In 1127 they established an oratory dedicated to the Virgin and to St. John, out of which developed the abbey of Solières: Solières 11–12 no. 1 (see p. 191 infra); Berlière, Ursmer, Monasticon belge (n. 4 supra) II 188; Dereine, , Chanoines 79–80; André Joris, La ville de Huy au moyen ǎge (Bibliothèque de la Faculté de philosophie et lettres de l'Université de Liège 152; Paris 1959) 200 and n. 320.Google Scholar

59 Ganshof, , Étude 161 and Poncelet, , Œuvres III cxl and cxlv.Google Scholar

60 Marneffe, De, Analectes 25.445 and 26.423.Google Scholar

61 Poncelet, Œuvres III xcvii n. 1, commented on the apparently special character of this and the following group, which included witnesses who were not normally with the bishop and may have been land-owners or functionaries from the region of Bertrée, brought by Walter in order to witness the foundation charter.Google Scholar

62 Adelo and his nephew William of Namur (cited from 1101 to 1131) were advocates of the episcopal domain at Namur: Genicot, , Économie II 11, who lists him in the table of noble families in the first half of the twelfth century, and Waulsort I 352 n. 5.Google Scholar

63 Gerard appears on documents of 1107, 1132, and 1136 in Afflighem 34, 79, 91 nos. 17, 47, 56.Google Scholar

64 Ganshof, , Étude 158.Google Scholar

65 Genicot, , Économie II 24 n. 3, with specific reference to Godescalc. On the family of Morialmé, see in particular the two articles by Roland, C.-G., ‘Histoire généalogique de la maison de Rumigny-Florennes,’ Ann. Soc. Namur 19 (1891) 59–304 and ‘Les seigneurs de Morialmé avant le quinzième siècle,’ ibid. 35 (1922) 1–81, in which he corrected some points in his previous article.Google Scholar

66 Godescalc, who was provost of the cathedral of Liège in the early eleventh century and probably the founder of the collegiate church of St. Bartholomew there, is said to have been connected with the family: Gallia christiana 3.914 B; but Roland, Ann. Soc. Namur 35.7–12, suggested that this traditional association may be incorrect. The documents relating to the foundation of St. Bartholomew are full of confusions, since in a charter of Bishop Raginerus dated 1031 Godescalc appears as founder and as the uncle of Bishop Hezelo (probably Herman, of which Hezelo is a diminutive) of Toul (1019–26), of whom there is also a charter dated 1031 referring to the foundation of St. Bartholomew and to Godescalc as his nephew: see (for the charter of Raginerus) Miraeus–Foppens, II 809–10 and Thys, E., ‘Notice sur l’église primaire de St-Barthélemi à Liège,’ Bull. Inst. liégeois 11 (1872) 408–10; (for the charter of Hezelo) Daris, Joseph, Notices sur les églises du diocèse de Liège (Liège 1867–94) VI 178–9 and Paquay, Jean, La collégiale Saint-Barthélemy à Liège (Analecta ecclesiastica leodiensia 1; Liège 1935) 90; cf. Poncelet, , Œuvres III cxlviii, who discussed the anomalies of Hezelo's charter, and also Roland, Ann. Soc. Namur 35.6–7. Most scholars are inclined to date the provostship of Godescalc and the foundation of St. Bartholomew (and the charter of Raginerus) considerably earlier: Thys, Bull. Inst. liégeois 11.369–72 (citing de Theux); de Marneffe, Analectes 25.436–7; Paquay, , Saint-Barthélemy 5; but Charles Lays, Étude critique sur la Vita Balderici episcopi Leodiensis (Bibliothèque de la Faculté de philosophie et lettres de l'Université de Liège 110; Liège 1948) 45, still dated Godescalc as provost from 1016 to 1031. He is well-known to historians for the fact that Bishop Durandus of Liège (1021–5) was his serf: Anselm, Gesta episcoporum Leodiensium 36 (MGH SS 7.209) and Reinerius of St Laurence, Vita Wolbodonis 20 (ibid. 20.570); cf. Poncelet, É., ‘Da la condition des personnes dans la société du moyen-ǎge particulièrement au pays de Liège,’ Bull. Soc. Liège 28 (1937) 73. He was a prominent figure, and if he belonged to the family of Morialmé, he would show its importance in the early eleventh century.Google Scholar

67 Bresslau, H., ‘Exkurse zu den Diplomen Konrads II.,’ Neues Archiv 34 (1909) 425–6; cf. the analysis in Édouard Poncelet, Inventaire analytique des chartes de la collégiale de Saint-Pierre à Liège (Brussels 1906) 3. The authenticity of this document was questioned by Bresslau (loc. cit. 414–5) and by Gysseling, Woordenboek 714, who considered it a forgery of the mid-twelfth century, but it was apparently not questioned in Stiennon, Étude 248–52 and 266.Google Scholar

68 In this celebrated document Arnulf referred to his acquisition of Morialmé and granted to Waulsort annual rents in honor of the Virgin and in memory of Count Eilbert of Florennes († 977), who was said to be buried at Waulsort and to have given Florennes to Arnulf's ancestors. The most recent editions are in Waulsort 349, and by Daniel Misonne in both ‘La charte d'Arnoul de Morialmé en faveur de l'abbaye de Waulsort,” Ann. Soc. Namur 53 (1965) 70–1 and Eilbert de Florennes. Histoire et légende. La Geste de Raoul de Cambrai (Université de Louvain: Recueil de travaux d'histoire et de philologie 4.35; Louvain 1967) 148–9. Despy, , Waulsort 209–15, and Gysseling, , Woordenboek 714, regarded it as a forgery of the mid-twelfth century; but Misonne, Ann. Soc. Namur 53.67–79 and Eilbert 29–40, vigorously defended both its authenticity and the traditional view that the seigneurie of Morialmé derived from the breakup of the domains of the lords of Florennes and that Arnulf belonged to a cadet branch of that family: cf. Roland, Ann. Soc. Namur 19.103 and 35.12ff., who said that before 1086 the lordship of Morialmé formed part of the lordship of Florennes and was associated with the advocacy of Hanzinne, which belonged to St. Médard at Soissons, and Genicot, Économie I 91, who followed the dates proposed by the Abbés Clausset and Mauclet, Auvelais et Arsimont (Les communes namuroises 1.1–3; Namur 1905) 27 (which may be somewhat too early) and said that Auvelais belonged to the family of Rumigny-Florennes at the end of the tenth century and passed to the cadet branch of Morialmé about 1010, when the property of Arnulf II of Rumigny was divided among his children.Google Scholar

69 Namur, Grand séminaire, MS 44 fol. 198^r; cf. Faider, Paul, Catalogue des manuscrits conservés à Namur (Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques de Belgique 1; Gembloux 1934) 473–6, and Gysseling, , Woordenboek 714, who dated the script of the notice ‘comm. 12e.’Google Scholar

70 Saint-Nicaise 173–5. The charter specified that two parts of Senzeilles and Soumoy were mortgaged and could be redeemed by the abbey for thirty marks. The grant was confirmed in an abbreviated form, omitting the reference to Damprémy and putting in place of Nauloys simply ‘half of Auvelais and the church with its belongings’, by Pope Pascal II in 1113: Varin, Pierre, Archives administratives de la ville de Reims (Paris 1839–52) I.1 261–4 (JL 6347); cf. ibid. 289 (JL 7796), where Innocent II in a general privilege for St. Nicasius in 1136 confirmed among other property the altars of Morialmé and Senzeilles in the diocese of Liège.Google Scholar

71 Gallia christiana 9.212, putting his abbacy between those of John, to whom the latest reference is in 1138, and Nicholas, who became abbot in 1139.Google Scholar

72 Delisle, L., ‘Manuscrits légués à la Bibliothèque nationale par Armand Durand,’ Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes 55 (1894) 647. This section was added in the mid-thirteenth century to the main manuscript (Paris, B.N., MS n. a. 1. 583), which dates from about 1172. It records Arnulf's death as occuring after that of William of St. Thierry (who died September 8, 1148 or soon after: cf. n. 242 infra) and before 1152 (Delisle 649–50).Google Scholar

73 Roland, , Ann. Soc. Namur 35.15–20. If the charters of 1086 and 1087 are not authentic, however, there may have been only one Arnulf, who made a grant to Brogne in the early twelfth century, entered St. Nicasius in 1113, and died about 1150. Roland suggested in an earlier article, ‘Les plus anciens avoués de Fosses,’ Ann. Soc. Namur 29 (1910) 105–10, that Arnulf I or II (he said Arnulf I in Ann. Soc. Namur 35.17) may have been a brother of Wiger of Fosses, who appears with a brother named Arnulf and four sons named Arnulf, John, Walter, and Adelard on a document in 1095: J. Barbier, ‘Documents extraits du cartulaire du chapitre de Fosses,’ Analectes 4.397–8 no. 1; but the argument is based on the alleged descent of the advocacy of Fosses in the family from 1095 until 1176, when an unspecified Godescalc (who is presumed by Roland to be Godescalc of Morialmé) is described as advocate of Fosses in a charter of Bishop Ralph of Liège (Analectes 1.360–1), and the identities cannot be regarded as proved.Google Scholar

74 Duvivier, , Actes (n. 17 supra) 271–2. On Ingrannus, who was abbot of St. Médard from 1148 to 1177, see Gallia christiana 9.416–7. For a report to Pope Eugene III in 1148 on another dispute concerning Hanzinne between St. Médard and Canon Baldwin of Liège, see Wibald of Corvey, Ep. 97, Monumenta Corbeiensia (<e>ed. P. Jaffé; Bibliotheca rerum germanicarum 1; Weimar 1864) 171–3.ed.+P.+Jaffé;+Bibliotheca+rerum+germanicarum+1;+Weimar+1864)+171–3.>Google Scholar

75 On Arnulf III, see Roland, , Ann. Soc. Namur 35.27–9, who dated him from the time of this charter, at the latest, until about 1170. He appeared in 1178 on a charter for Waulsort (Waulsort 392 no. 42 and n. 1) as a kinsman of Raingard of Morialmé, whose son became a monk at Waulsort.Google Scholar

76 Cf. Roland, , Ann. Soc. Namur 35.20–23. It is possible that there were two contemporary Godescalcs, one of Jauche and one of Morialmé, but only marriage to a Morialmé heiress satisfactorily explains how Godescalc of Jauche held a property held before and after him by Arnulf II and Arnulf III of Morialmé.Google Scholar

77 His floruit therefore corresponds approximately with that of his brother Walter, who appears from 1096 to 1124.Google Scholar

A. References to Godescalc as ‘of Jauche’: (1) 1092: Miraeus–Foppens, III 310 and Flòne 285; cf. J. G. Dereine, Chanoines 62, on the date; (2) about 1092: Jean Schoonbroodt, Inventaire analytique et chronologique des chartes du chapitre de Saint-Martin à Liège (Liège 1871) 2 no. 2; cf. Notre-Dame 111 n. 2; (3–4) 1096: (a) C.-F. J. Le Carpentier, Histoire généalogique des Païs-Bas ou histoire de Cambray et du Cambresis (Leiden 1664) III 701–2 and Afflighem 14 no. 7; (b) Schoolmeesters and Bormans, CR Comm. 4.1 111 n. 2, referring to a charter for St. Martin at Liège; (5) 1108: Saint-Trond I 33; (6) 1124?: Paris, B.N., MS n. a. 1. 2588 no. 4 (charter of Lambert of Maizeret concerning the church of Franquenée); (7) 1124: Hugo, Annales (n. 17 supra) I preuves li–lii, and Galliot, Histoire générale … de Namur (Liège 1788–91) V 313–15; (8) 1127: Floreffe 12 no. 5; (9) 1129: Notre-Dame 111 no. 7. To these can be added three unverified references for 1051 and 1093 in Le Carpentier, Histoire 701, of which the former (a document for St. Andrew at Compiègne) is considered false by Tarlier Jules and Wauters Alphonse, Géographie et histoire des communes belges. Province de Brabant: Canton de Jodoigne (Brussels 1873) 312, and for 1098, ibid. 312, where the references to 1092 and 1096 apparently refer to nos. 2–4 above.

B. References to Godescalc as ‘of Morialmé’: (10) 1123: the grant by Walter of Trognée to St. Laurence at Liège (p. 168 and n. 30 supra); (11) 1127: Solières 12 no. 1 (n. 58 supra); (12) 1131: Saint-Laurent 217 and J. Closon, ‘Alexandre Ier de Juliers, évěque de Liège 1128–1135,’ Bull. Soc. Liège 13 (1902) 470; (13) 1133: Charles Piot, Inventaire des chartes des comtes de Namur (Brussels 1890) 2 no. 4, and C.-G. Roland, ‘Chartes namuroises inédites [III],’ Ann. Soc. Namur 30 (1911) 249–51 no. 27.

78 Barbier, Analectes 4.401 no. 3; cf. Clausset, and Mauclet, , Auvelais (n. 68 supra) 27–33 and Genicot, Économie I 91, on the acquisition of this and other property at Auvelais by the abbey of Floreffe. De Theux, Chapitre (n. 47 supra) I 153, mentions only one Gerard among the canons of St. Lambert in the twelfth century, who was magister in 1148 (Miraeus–Foppens, III 668) and a cardinal in 1150, but Gerard of Morialmé, canon of St. Lambert, witnessed a charter in 1154 which recorded and confirmed the foundation in 1134/45 of the priory of Hamme, a dependency of St. Nicasius at Reims, by (his uncle) Arnulf of Morialmé and John of Geest-Saint-Remy: Polyptyche de l'abbé Irminon (n. 10 supra) II 113; Varin, Archives I.1 331; and Saint-Nicaise 181–5. In 1154/5 Gerard entered the abbey of Floreffe, to which he gave the allod of Villers-deux-Églises with the approval of his brother Philip of Tinlot and his heirs: V. Barbier, Histoire de l'abbaye de Floreffe (2nd ed.; Namur 1892) II 17 nr. 30; cf. Clausset, and Mauclet, , Auvelais 33, and, on Philip of Tinlot, Beaurepart 341, where he came second on the list of liberi homines on a document of 1155. Gerard's grant was confirmed in the 1170s, through the hand of Godescalc of Morialmé (his cousin) by his sister Emma and her husband Simon of Thiméon (who appears with other members of the family on charters of 1133 [n. 77 supra no. 13] and 1152 [n. 74 supra] and who may have been the Simon of Senzeilles who appeared in 1163 and 1166: see Roland, , Ann. Soc. Namur 35.24–5) and their sons Wericus, Simon, and Henry: Floreffe 22–3 no. 34 (dated about 1188) and Barbier, Floreffe II 33 no. 54 (dated about 1177); cf. Roland, , Ann. Soc. Namur 35.25, dating it about 1170. In about 1178/89, however, the grant was contested by Emma's and Simon's son Henry, who renounced his claims together with his sister, his brother Daniel (a canon of St. Lambert: see de Theux, Chapitre I 174, with references from 1178 to 1192), and his wife and children: Namur 66–7 no. 30. Gerard appears as the donor of Villers-deux-Églises in the necrology of Floreffe under the day October 17: Barbier, J., ‘Nécrologe de l'abbaye de Floreffe,’ Analectes 13 (1876) 262. Two charters of 1147 and 1164 for Florennes show that Bertha and her husband Gerard and Philip (perhaps of Tinlot) and his wife Hezecha, and their children, held property at Villers and may have also been related to the family: Berlière, Ursmer, Documents inédits pour servir à l'histoire ecclésiastique de la Belgique I (Maredsous 1894) 20–2 nos. 14 and 16; cf. Roland, , Ann. Soc. Namur 35.24.Google Scholar

79 Roland, , Ann. Soc. Namur 35.26–7. In 1140 he witnessed a charter of Bishop Adalbero II of Liège: Galliot, Namur V 326 and Saint-Lambert 65 no. 29.Google Scholar

80 Roland, , Ann. Soc. Namur 35.29–37.Google Scholar

81 The most serious objection is that the document referring to the advocacy of Hanzinne (p. 177 and n. 74 supra) implies that it passed directly from Arnulf II to Godescalc of Jauche to Arnulf III. A document of 1160 in the same collection, however, refers to some property at Hanzinne which was invaded ‘for Godescalc of Morialmé,’ who seems to be later than Godescalc I: Duvivier, Actes (n. 17 supra) 274. And Godescalc I would have had a long life if the succession passed directly from him to Arnulf III. If so, the dominus Godescalc of the 1138 charter (n. 78 supra) never held the lands in his own name, and the 1140 charter (n. 79 supra) refers to Godescalc I.Google Scholar

82 Omitting questionable affiliations and doubtful members of the family, the genealogy can be reconstructed as follows: Google Scholar

83 On the taking of names from the place of residence (‘Wohnsitzbezeichnungen’) in the eleventh and twelfth centuries and the consequent association of members of the same family (and sometimes the same individual) with different place names, see Schmid, K., ‘Zur Problematik von Familie, Sippe und Geschlecht, Haus und Dynastie beim mittelalterlichen Adel. Vorfragen zum Thema “Adel und Herrschaft im Mittelalter’,’ Zeitschrift für Geschichte des Oberrheins 105 (1957) 31–2.Google Scholar

84 There is no satisfactory history of the family, but cf. Carpentier, Le, Histoire III 701–6; Tarlier and Wauters, Géographie 312; Roland, Ann. Soc. Namur 35.22–3, who stressed the importance of its advocacies, among which he cited Landen, Nodrange, and Petit-Hallet in 1116 (n. 91 infra), Bomal and Mont-St-André in 1245, Ottoncourt, Petit-Hallet, and Nodrange also in 1245, and Autre-Église in 1269; Piton, E., ‘Au pays de Landen,’ Bull. Inst. liégeois 63 (1939) 15, who referred to its ‘vast domain’ in the duchy of Brabant, close to the regions of Liège and Namur, in the thirteenth century; Bonenfant, P. and Despy, G., ‘La noblesse en Brabant aux XII^e et XIII^e siècle,’ Moyen Ǎge 64 (1958) 64; and especially Despy, G., ‘Une domaine seigneurial au bas moyen ǎge. La terre de Jauche dans la seconde moitié du XV^e siècle,’ Moyen Ǎge 69 (1963) 867–81, who attributed the maintenance of the family patrimony from the eleventh to the fifteenth century above all to its matrimonial alliances and policy of placing daughters and younger sons in religious houses.Google Scholar

85 See n. 77 supra. He was without question the most prominent member of the family at this time.Google Scholar

86 The brothers Segard and Arnulf ‘de Joches’ who appear on a charter of 1087 for Hasnon (Miraeus–Foppens I 515) and are mentioned by Le Carpentier, Histoire III 701, with two further references to Segard in 1103 and 1105, as members of the family of Jauche, probably came from Chocques, not from Jauche, which was invariably spelled with an a or au in its Latin forms: see Gysseling, , Woordenboek I 234.Google Scholar

87 Recueil des chartes de l'abbaye de Stavelot-Malmedy I (<e>edd. J. Halkin and C.-G. Roland; Brussels 1909) 243–4 no. 119.edd. J. Halkin and C.-G. Roland; Brussels 1909) 243–4 no. 119.' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Recueil+des+chartes+de+l'abbaye+de+Stavelot-Malmedy+I+(edd.+J.+Halkin+and+C.-G.+Roland;+Brussels+1909)+243–4+no.+119.>Google Scholar

88 Gesta abbatum Gemblacensium, 62 (fol. 46) (MGH SS 8.547) and Roland, C.-G., Recueil des chartes de l'abbaye de Gembloux (Gembloux 1921) 46 no. 36.Google Scholar

89 Miraeus–Foppens, I 672. He may be the same Hilduin who is cited in 1110 and 1127, without references, by Tarlier and Wauters, Géographie 312.Google Scholar

90 Carpentier, Le, Histoire IV 82; cf. Wauters, Alphonse, Table chronologique des chartes et diplǒmes imprimés concernant l'histoire de la Belgique II (1101–1190) (Brussels 1868) 203.Google Scholar

91 Saint-Lambert 52; cf. Roland, Ann. Soc. Namur 35.22, who assumed that he was a member of the family and cited this document as evidence of its possession of these advocacies.Google Scholar

92 Cartulaire de St Bavon à Gand (<e>ed. C. P. Serrure; Ghent [1836–40] [printed but not published]) 41 no. 35 (1154); Brussels, Archives de l'État, Arch. ecc. 8292 (cartulary of Heylissem) no. 7 (1155) and Photo 95 (1179); Afflighem 167 no. 108 (1160); Miraeus–Foppens, I 186 (1160); Averbode, Archives, A32 (1172: see p. 184 and n. 108 infra) and A80 (1180). It is not certain that these (and the 1138 charter) refer to the same man. Tarlier and Wauters seem to posit a single Reiner of Jauche who was the son of Hildewin and brother of Henry the canon (see n. 95 infra). In addition to the evidence in the 1138 charter that there were two Reiners, father and son, however, both the time-gap between 1138 and 1154 and the fact that Reiner appears last among the liberi on the 1155 charter and fourth in 1179 suggest that he was a younger man than the miles Reiner of 1138.Google Scholar

93 La chronique de Gislebert de Mons (<e>ed. L. Vanderkindere; Brussels 1904) 53–4 and 337 n. 3. He died in 1184. The Gerard of Jauche who appeared in 1190 (Ronse, Archives de l'État, abbaye de Ninove, fonds De Smet 65, printed in Corpus chronicorum Flandriae [<e>ed. J. de Smet; Brussels 1837–41] II 803) may be either this Gerard (the son of Reiner of Jauche and Ida of Mons) or the Gerard (the son of Reiner of Jauche and Richildis) of the 1138 charter.ed.+L.+Vanderkindere;+Brussels+1904)+53–4+and+337+n.+3.+He+died+in+1184.+The+Gerard+of+Jauche+who+appeared+in+1190+(Ronse,+Archives+de+l'État,+abbaye+de+Ninove,+fonds+De+Smet+65,+printed+in+Corpus+chronicorum+Flandriae+[ed.+J.+de+Smet;+Brussels+1837–41]+II+803)+may+be+either+this+Gerard+(the+son+of+Reiner+of+Jauche+and+Ida+of+Mons)+or+the+Gerard+(the+son+of+Reiner+of+Jauche+and+Richildis)+of+the+1138+charter.>Google Scholar

94 Hugo, Annales (n. 17 supra) I preuves cxxvi–vii; Wolters, M. A., Notice historique sur l'ancienne abbaye d'Averboden (Ghent 1849) 85–6 no. 5, granting to Averbode their allod at Wahanges; and Flǒne 317, witnessing as nobiles viri a charter of Bishop Henry of Liège.Google Scholar

95 Brussels, Archives de l'État, Arch. ecc. 4607 (cartulary of Afflighem) no. 11. Since no other members of the family of Jauche named Stephan are known in the twelfth century, the remote possibility cannot be ruled out that this and the 1172 charter refer to the same man, in which case Reiner (II) was the son of Henry of Jauche. Other persons called ‘of Jauche,’ whose relationships cannot be established, are: (1) the brothers Gislen and Baldwin of Jauche, who appear as nobiles viri in 1146: Afflighem 117 no. 75; (2) Henry of Jauche, canon of St. Lambert and later archdeacon of Brabant and provost of St. Lambert from 1169 to 1178: De Oorkonden der Abdij Tongerloo (<e>ed. M. A. Erens; Tongerloo 1948–52) I 19 no. 11 (1159); London, British Museum, Add. MS 17396 (cartulary of St. Laurence, Liège) fol. 9^v (formerly 32^v) (1160); Galliot, Namur (n. 77 supra) V 348–9 (1163); Rolduc 25–6 no. 16 (1164); cf. de Marneffe, Analectes 26.415; (3) Hugh of Jauche in 1185 and 1186: Saint-Lambert 106–7 nos. 63–4; and (4) ‘Iohannes de iace. et Walterus. Henricus frater eius de iace’ (which may refer to two or to three persons), who appear as lay nobles on two charters of 1188/9 in Brussels, Archives de l'État, Arch. ecc. 8292 nos. 32–3, and ‘Documents relatifs à l'abbaye norbertine de Heylissem,’ Analectes 25 (1895) 263.ed. M. A. Erens; Tongerloo 1948–52) I 19 no. 11 (1159); London, British Museum, Add. MS 17396 (cartulary of St. Laurence, Liège) fol. 9v (formerly 32v) (1160); Galliot, Namur (n. 77 supra) V 348–9 (1163); Rolduc 25–6 no. 16 (1164); cf. de Marneffe, Analectes 26.415; (3) Hugh of Jauche in 1185 and 1186: Saint-Lambert 106–7 nos. 63–4; and (4) ‘Iohannes de iace. et Walterus. Henricus frater eius de iace’ (which may refer to two or to three persons), who appear as lay nobles on two charters of 1188/9 in Brussels, Archives de l'État, Arch. ecc. 8292 nos. 32–3, and ‘Documents relatifs à l'abbaye norbertine de Heylissem,’ Analectes 25 (1895) 263.' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Brussels,+Archives+de+l'État,+Arch.+ecc.+4607+(cartulary+of+Afflighem)+no.+11.+Since+no+other+members+of+the+family+of+Jauche+named+Stephan+are+known+in+the+twelfth+century,+the+remote+possibility+cannot+be+ruled+out+that+this+and+the+1172+charter+refer+to+the+same+man,+in+which+case+Reiner+(II)+was+the+son+of+Henry+of+Jauche.+Other+persons+called+‘of+Jauche,’+whose+relationships+cannot+be+established,+are:+(1)+the+brothers+Gislen+and+Baldwin+of+Jauche,+who+appear+as+nobiles+viri+in+1146:+Afflighem+117+no.+75;+(2)+Henry+of+Jauche,+canon+of+St.+Lambert+and+later+archdeacon+of+Brabant+and+provost+of+St.+Lambert+from+1169+to+1178:+De+Oorkonden+der+Abdij+Tongerloo+(ed.+M.+A.+Erens;+Tongerloo+1948–52)+I+19+no.+11+(1159);+London,+British+Museum,+Add.+MS+17396+(cartulary+of+St.+Laurence,+Liège)+fol.+9v+(formerly+32v)+(1160);+Galliot,+Namur+(n.+77+supra)+V+348–9+(1163);+Rolduc+25–6+no.+16+(1164);+cf.+de+Marneffe,+Analectes+26.415;+(3)+Hugh+of+Jauche+in+1185+and+1186:+Saint-Lambert+106–7+nos.+63–4;+and+(4)+‘Iohannes+de+iace.+et+Walterus.+Henricus+frater+eius+de+iace’+(which+may+refer+to+two+or+to+three+persons),+who+appear+as+lay+nobles+on+two+charters+of+1188/9+in+Brussels,+Archives+de+l'État,+Arch.+ecc.+8292+nos.+32–3,+and+‘Documents+relatifs+à+l'abbaye+norbertine+de+Heylissem,’+Analectes+25+(1895)+263.>Google Scholar

96 (1) 1107: Miraeus–Foppens, III 26, and Afflighem 33–4 no. 17; cf. Stiennon, Étude 300–1; (2) 1125: Afflighem 67 no. 38; (3) 1134: Miraeus–Foppens, I 174–5; (4) 1134/45: Saint-Nicaise 183; and (5) 1142: Miraeus–Foppens, II 1164–5 (Brussels, Archives de l'État, Photo 143).Google Scholar

97 Cf. Tarlier, and Wauters, , Géographie 126, and Bonenfant, and Despy, , Moyen Ǎge 64.63. On the so-called county of Dongelberg, see Vanderkindere, Formation (n. 1 supra) 132 and 147–8; cf. nn. 31 supra and 162 infra. Google Scholar

98 Niermeyer, J. F., Onderzoekingen over luikse en maastrichtse Oorkonden en over de Vita Baldrici episcopi Leodiensis (Groningen 1935) 203. Gysseling, , Woordenboek 278, considered this charter a forgery of about 1146, but its authenticity was apparently accepted by Stiennon, Étude 299–300. Henry and William may have been too young to participate actively in this undertaking, but in 1107 they joined their father in granting some property to Afflighem (see n. 96 supra no. 1).Google Scholar

99 Reimbald was a canon of St. John the Evangelist at Liège in the early twelfth century, a canon of St. Lambert in 1116, provost of St. John the Evangelist from 1126 to 1140, provost of the Holy Cross and dean of St. Lambert from 1141 until his death in 1149: Stiennon, Étude 300, and the introduction to the Libellus de diversis ordinibus et professionibus qui sunt in aecclesia (<e>edd. G. Constable and B. Smith; Oxford 1972) xv–xvi.edd.+G.+Constable+and+B.+Smith;+Oxford+1972)+xv–xvi.>Google Scholar

100 Lahaye, , Saint-Jean (n. 40 supra) I lxviii; cf. U. Berlière, ‘Frédéric de Laroche, évěque d'Acre et archévěque de Tyr. Envoi de reliques à l'abbaye de Florennes (1153–1164),” Revue bénédictine 23 (1906) 501–13 and 27 (1907) 123–5. These references may be to different men, but the association with the house of St. John at Liège suggests their identity. Berlière proposed that the abbot of Florennes, Drogo of Tinlot, was a brother of Gerard of Morialmé, the canon of St. Lambert (511); and though they were probably not brothers (see n. 78 supra), a relationship between them is not impossible, since Gerard had a brother named Philip of Tinlot.Google Scholar

101 Chartes de Gembloux (n. 88 supra) 53 no. 44 (1123); F.-J. Raymackers, ‘Recherches historiques sur l'ancienne abbaye de Parc [1],’ Revue catholique 16 (6.1; 1858) 405 no. 2 (1129); Duvivier, Actes (n. 17 supra) 271–2 (1152); with his sons (who are unnamed and may be the sons of his brother Henry, who follows as witness): Saint-Nicaise 183 (1134/45); with his wife and three sons: London, British Museum, Add. MS 17396 fols. 10^v–11^v (formerly 33^v–34^v) (1147), cf. Daris, Notices (n. 66 supra) XI 185; Saint-Laurent 205 (reading Albert for Gerard); and Gessler, J., ‘Extraits du cartulaire de Saint-Laurent de Liège, conservé à Londres,’ Leodium 31 (1938) 60; with his sons William and Gerard: Saint-Nicaise 183 (about 1150).Google Scholar

102 Rolduc 24–5 no. 16 (1164: as pastor of the church of St. Peter at Warsage); Brussels, Archives de l'État, Arch. ecc. 8292 no. 20 (1173/4); Saint-Lambert I 98 no. 58 (1178); London, British Museum, Add. MS 17396 fols. 22^r–23^r (formerly 45^r–46^r) (1183); Averbode, Archives, A55 (ca. 1183: as canon and precentor of St. Lambert); Brussels, Archives de l'État, Arch. ecc. 8292 no. 28 (1183/8); Saint-Lambert I 106 and 115 nos. 63 (1185), 64 (1186), 70 (1189); Miraeus–Foppens, 1190 (1189), cf. Lahaye, Saint-Jean (n. 40 supra) I 24–5 no. 30, etc; cf. de Marneffe, Analectes 26.415, citing him as precentor from 1192 to 1203/7 and archdeacon from 1193 to 1196.Google Scholar

103 Together: Brussels, Archives de l'État, Arch. ecc. 10965 (cartulary of Villers) no. 1 (1160); separately: ibid., Photo 1 (= Arch. ecc. de Mons; Gerard in 1165); Arch. ecc. 4607 no. 19 (William in 1168); Averbode, Archives, A32 and 34–5 (William in 1172/3 and 1174). These may refer to William I, but since he was alive in 1101 and appeared for the last time with certainty in 1154, they probably refer to his son.Google Scholar

104 The Dongelberg genealogy can be presented thus: Google Scholar

The descent of Reiner (II) of Jauche, which is shown in italics, is very doubtful, and he was probably the son of the miles Reiner of Jauche (see n. 92 supra). Other persons called ‘of Dongelberg’ whose relationship is uncertain are (1) Alelmus, who witnessed the charter of Reiner of Jauche in 1138: Le Carpentier, Histoire (n. 77 supra) IV 82 (see n. 90 supra) and (2) Henry, who witnessed a charter of Bishop Ralph of Liège in 1183: Oorkonden de Tongerloo I 50–2 no. 32.

105 The importance of family in medieval society has been stressed by many scholars, including, recently, Newman, W. M., Les seigneurs de Nesle en Picardie (XII ^e–XIII ^e siècle) (Bibliothèque de la Société d'histoire du droit des pays flamands, picards et wallons 27; Paris 1971) I 7.Google Scholar

106 Cf. Schmid, , Zs. f. die Geschichte des Oberrheins 105.1–62; Duby, G., ‘Une enquěte à poursuivre. La noblesse dans la France médiévale,’ Revue historique 206 (1961) 1–22, esp. 9–11; Bullough, D., ‘Early Medieval Social Groupings: The Terminology of Kinship,’ Past and Present 45 (1969) 3–18, esp. 17, who stressed the ‘revival’ of agnatism in the eleventh century and ‘the growing “self-consciousness” of the upper strata of society in post-Carolingian Europe.” In England in the thirteenth century, ‘a dynastic view’ was taken of the family, ‘regarding it primarily as a chain of ancestors and descendants extending through time, rather than as a contemporary group of kinsmen,’ according to Plucknett, T. F. T., Legislation of Edward I (Ford Lectures 1947; Oxford 1949) 128–9.Google Scholar

107 The reference to the castle of Morialmé in Arnulf II's charter of 1113 for St. Nicasius at Reims (n. 70 supra) is the earliest reference to a noble castle in the region of Namur known to Genicot, Économie II 29–30; and during the twelfth century, members of the family seem increasingly to have taken their names from this center of power. Thus when Godescalc of Jauche married the sister and heiress of Arnulf II, he tended (though not exclusively) to be called ‘of Morialmé’ rather than ‘of Jauche.’ On the adoption of hereditary geographical cognomina from a fief or allod, see Tellenbach, G., ‘Zur Erforschung des hochmittelalterlichen Adels (9.–12. Jahrhundert),’ XII^e Congrès international des sciences historiques. Rapports I: Grands thèmes (Horn – Vienna [1965]) 324–5, and Duby, G., ‘Structures de parenté et noblesse. France du Nord. XI^e–XII^e siècles,’ Miscellanea mediaevalia in memoriam Jan Frederik Niermeyer (Groningen 1967) 155, who said that it marked a feeling of belonging ‘à une “maison,” à une lignée, à une race, organisée de manière strictement agnatique et gouvernée par les règles de primogéniture’; and Fossier, Picardie (n. 34 supra) 511 and 546, who dated the spread of the practice in Picardy between 1125 and 1175.Google Scholar

108 Saint-Nicaise 181–5 (cf. n. 78 supra), where the first grant (1134/45) was witnessed by William of Dongelberg and his brother Henry and his sons, the confirmation (about 1150) by William and his sons William and Gerard, and the entire charter (1154) by Gerard of Morialmé and others; (2) Duvivier, Actes (n. 17 supra) 271–2 (cf. n. 74 supra); and (3) Averbode, Archives, A32. If this reconstruction is correct, William may have been a first cousin of Reiner and Stephan. Whether or not Thomas was also a relation is unknown, but Incourt was referred to as part of the county of Dongelberg in 1079 (Saint-Laurent 214–5) and Walter of Trognée in 1125 gave his property at Veldunt to the house of St. Peter there (see pp. 169–70 and nn. 35–8 supra).Google Scholar

109 Cf. Vanderkindere, , Formation (n. 1 supra) II 167–8 on the significance of family-groups’ witnessing important documents.Google Scholar

110 See Tellenbach, , Rapports du XII^e Congrès I 318; Leyser, K., ‘The German Aristocracy from the Ninth to the Early Twelfth Century,’ Past and Present 41 (1968) 25–53, esp. 32–4 (including a bibliography of Schmid's work to date); Bullough, Past and Present 45.3–18; Lordship and Community in Medieval Europe (<e>ed. F. L. Cheyette; New York 1968) esp. the articles by Bosl and Schlesinger; van Luyn, P., ‘Les milites dans la France au XI^e siècle,’ Moyen Ǎge 77 (1971) 5–51 and 193–238, esp. 206.Google Scholar

111 See Guilhiermoz, P., Essai sur l'origine de la noblesse en France au moyen ǎge (Paris 1902), who stressed the role of knighthood and argued that there was no privileged hereditary nobility in France before the twelfth century; cf. Bloch, M., ‘Sur le passé de la noblesse française. Quelques jalons de la recherche,’ Annales d'histoire économique et sociale 8 (1936) 366–78, where he said that the potentes before the twelfth century constituted a ‘classe de fait, non de droit, ou … classe “sociale” plutǒt que “juridique” ” (367) and argued that the nobility in France took form in the late twelfth century. R. W. Southern, The Making of the Middle Ages (New Haven 1953) 110, said that ‘Between the eleventh and the thirteenth centuries there is no nobility of blood.’Google Scholar

112 Most of the historians cited in n. 110 are German and those in n. 111 French. There are signs of a rapprochement, however, in the works of Duby cited nn. 106–7 supra. Google Scholar

113 See in particular the works of Poncelet (which have attracted less attention than they deserve) in Œuvres and in Bull. Soc. Liège 28.45–77 (n. 66 supra), where he said ‘On naissait noble; on devenait chevalier’ (64); Verriest, L., ‘Les faits et la terminologie en matière de condition juridique des personnes au moyen ǎge. Serfs, nobles, villains, sainteurs,’ Revue du Nord 25 (1939) 101–27 and Questions d'histoire des institutions médiévales. Noblesse, chevalerie, lignages (Brussels 1959) 129–40 and 149, who maintained that maternal birty was the determining factor in social status; Genicot, Économie II 22–3, who put primary emphasis on birth, without denying the importance of lordship and liberty (see also his articles cited n. 155 infra); Bonenfant and Despy, Moyen Ǎge 64.27–66, who tended to emphasize lordship as the ‘constant’ in nobility in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (59–60); and Despy, G., ‘Sur la noblesse dans les principautés belges au moyen ǎge,’ Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire 41 (1963) 471–87, who surveyed some of these different opinions.Google Scholar

114 Lyna, J., ‘Les “homines de Casa Dei” du très ancien droit liégeois,” Leodium 17 (1924) 34–8 (quoted passage on 35). The example of Walter, however, disproves Lyna's suggestion that these nobiles were ministerial who had won independence and established property rights over their benefices.Google Scholar

115 Guilhiermoz, Essai 153 n. 43 (among other evidence concerning the liberi homines in the diocese of Liège); Poncelet, Œuvres III civ–v, cx–xi, cxviii–ix, who said that the terms illustres, nobiles, liberi, franci, and gentils were apparently used interchangeably to distinguish the nobility from the clergy and the ministeriality (and, later, from the milites and cives who replaced the ministerial [cxiv–v and cxxv–lxi]) and that the distinction in the Bertrée charter between the liberi and ‘les grands vassaux princiers’ was therefore not significant, though later (cxxviii) he conceded that there were varying degrees of liberty (cf. also his article in Bull. Soc. Liège 28.45–77, which deals with the same issues); Genicot, Économie II 24, who denied that the Bertrée charter showed either that the counts had a special status among the nobles or that the liberi homines were not noble and who pointed out that Godescalc belonged to an important family and that Count Lambert of Montaigu appeared among the liberi homines on a charter of 1140; and Verriest, Questions 61 n. 40, citing Walter as an example of an individual who was called both noble and liber. Google Scholar

116 Cf. von Dungern, O., ‘Comes, liber, nobilis in Urkunden des 11. bis 13. Jahrhunderts,’ Archiv für Urkundenforschung 12 (1932) 181–205, who said, ‘Im 12. und 13. Jahrh. finden wir im ganzen Reich Grafen die heute mit, morgen ohne den Titel genannt werden’ (182), and Clay, Charles, Early Yorkshire Charters VIII: The Honour of Warenne (Yorkshire Archaeological Society: Record Series, Extra Series 6; [Wakefield] 1949) 46–7, who cited seven charters showing that ‘The name of an earl in the reign of Henry I could be written in the witness clause of royal charters without the distinctive word signifying his comital rank.’Google Scholar

117 Bonenfant, and Despy, , Moyen Ǎge 64.32–4. Their suggestion that the terminology varied according to the source of the document (and thus that someone might refer to himself as liber homo, dominus, or miles but be called nobilis by an ecclesiastic and miles by his overlord) is not confirmed by the example of Walter of Trognée, who was called both liber homo and dominus by the bishop of Liège.Google Scholar

118 Poncelet, , Œuvres III cx–xii, and Bull. Soc. Liège 28.54; Rupert of Deutz in the preface to his Commentaria in evangelium sancti Iohannis (<e>ed. R. Haacke; CCL: Continuatio mediaeualis 9; Turnhout 1969) 1, said that his temerity in commenting on John was compared by his critics to the pride of a new man who sought to insert himself into, or even rise above, the ancient nobility. Cf. Genicot, L., ‘Noblesse et principautés en Lotharingie du XI^e au XIII^e siècle,’ Scrinium Lovaniense. Mélanges historiques Étienne van Cauwenbergh (Université de Louvain: Recueil de travaux d'histoire et de philologie 4.24; Gembloux–Louvain 1961) 192, commenting on the relatively small number of ‘free and noble’ families in the region of Namur and Hainault, and Georges Duby, La société aux XI^e et XII^e siècles dans la région mǎconnaise (Paris 1953) 235, who said that in the Mǎconnais after 1035 the term nobilis vanished as an ‘étiquette sociale’ and was replaced by miles. In the Carolingian period, according to D. Bullough, ‘Europae Pater: Charlemagne and His Achievement in the Light of Recent Scholarship,’ English Historical Review 85 (1970) 76–8, the term nobilis ‘was used in different senses simultaneously.’Google Scholar

119 Cf. Grundmann, H., ‘Freiheit als religiöses, politisches und persönliches Postulat im Mittelalter,’ Historische Zeitschrift 183 (1957) 23–53, with references to previous literature, and Bosl, Karl, ‘Freiheit und Unfreiheit. Zur Entwicklung der Unterschichten in Deutschland und Frankreich während des Mittelalters,’ Frühformen der Gesellschaft im mittelalterlichen Europa (Munich – Vienna 1964) 180–203. Postan, M. M., Cambridge Economic History I (2nd ed.; Cambridge 1966) 605, said that ‘Studies now under way [into the variations of personal status] threaten yet further inroads into classical doctrine of freedom and unfreedom.’Google Scholar

120 Waitz, Georg, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte , V (2nd <e>ed. Karl Zeumer; Berlin 1893) 436–8; Guilhiermoz, , Essai 151–4, 349ff., 437, 458; Ganshof, , Étude (n. 56 supra) 10, 258–9, 269–70.ed.+Karl+Zeumer;+Berlin+1893)+436–8;+Guilhiermoz,+,+Essai+151–4,+349ff.,+437,+458;+Ganshof,+,+Étude+(n.+56+supra)+10,+258–9,+269–70.>Google Scholar

121 Genicot, , Économic II 46; cf. I 47, II 25, citing Walter's grant to Cluny of property ‘ita libere sicut ipse tenebat’ as evidence of his noble status and freedom from ban and justice, and 55, on the significance of non-dependency to the concept of freedom, and, generally, II 32–59, emphasizing the sharp distinction between nobility and ministeriality in the twelfth century; also his article in Bull. Acad. Belgique 5.54, 56–65 (n. 10 supra,) in which he stressed the growing distinction in Lorraine between those who were free from (the nobiles and liberi) and those who were subject to banal obligations.Google Scholar

122 Poncelet, , Œuvres III cxxviii, and Bull. Soc. Liège, 28.53; Ganshof, , Étude (n. 56 supra) 263 n. 1, who (while insisting that the nobiles constituted the only class with full liberty) recognized that there were classes below them, but above serfs, with varying degrees of liberty.Google Scholar

123 Cf. von Dungern, , Archiv f. Urkundenforschung 12.199–200; Otto, , Adel und Freiheit (n. 8 supra) passim esp. 195–210 Bosl;, Frühformen 183–5; Maria van Winter, Johanna, Ministerialiteit en Ridderschap in Geldre en Zutphen (Bijdragen van het Instituut voor middeleeuwse Geschiedenis der Rijksuniversiteit te Utrecht 31; Groningen 1962) 228, distinguishing Edilfreie from Königsfreie; and Müller-Mertens, Eckhard, Karl der Grosse, Ludwig der Fromme, und die Freien. Wer waren die Liberi homines der karolingischen Kapitularien (742/743–832)? (Forschungen zur mittelalterlichen Geschichte 10; Berlin 1963). It is my impression that Hoch- and Vollfreiheit are equivalent and refer to full noble libertas as distinct from Gemein- or Königsfreiheit, which refer to the functional freedom (what Bosl called ‘free unfreedom’ or ‘unfree freedom’) of dependents who were called free but were under the protection of the king. Cf. Grundmann, Hist Zs. 183.27–33, on various views of freedom as ‘eine herrschaftlich begründete, privilegierte Sonderstellung,’ and Genicot, Économie II 23–4, on the distinction between Gemeinfreie and Vollfreie (those who were free from the lordship of others and possessed ban and justice), of which he denied the validity in the Namurois.Google Scholar

124 Bloch, , Annales 8.368–9; Schreiner, Klaus, Sozial- und standesgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den Benediktinerkonventen im östlichen Schwarzwald (Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für geschichtliche Landeskunde in Baden-Württemberg B 31; Stuttgart 1964) 34, concluding that liberi and ingenui were only just above serfs in this area; cf. Duby, Rev. hist., 226.1–5, summarizing the work of Genicot and questioning his view that all free men were noble.Google Scholar

125 Cf., on the Carolingian period, Müller-Mertens, , Karl der Grosse , who concluded that the liberi homines were a distinct group (neither Gemeinfreie nor Königsfreie) protected by the king and, more generally, that ‘Liberi waren alle, die nicht servi waren,’ that is, that all who were not servi were equal before the king (143), and Bullough, , Eng. Hist. Rev. 85.59–105, who said that there was a class of liberi between the nobles and peasants (84). On the Black Forest region, see Schreiner, Untersuchungen; on Italy, Giovanni Tabacco, I liberi del re nell'Italia carolingia e postcarolingia (Biblioteca degli ‘Studi medievali’ 2; Spoleto 1966); and, on England, Poole, Austin L., Obligations of Society in the XII and XIII Centuries (Ford Lectures 1944; Oxford 1946) 12.Google Scholar

126 Vanderkindere, L., ‘Liberté et propriété en Flandre du IX^e au XII^e siècle,’ Bull. Acad. Belgique 1906, 151–73, and Pirenne, H., ‘Liberté et propriété en Flandre du VII^e au XI^e siècle,’ ibid. 1911, 496–523, who was primarily concerned with the origins of the urban bourgeoisie rather than with the character of rural society.Google Scholar

127 Lyna, J., ‘Les Liberi au moyen-ǎge,’ Leodium 15 (1922) 64–8 and 74–80 and ‘Les “liberi” et les “nobiles”,’ ibid. 19 (1926) 85–91 and 95–102, where he recognized (90) (as in his article cited n. 114 supra) that in the thirteenth century liber was used to designate nobles, including ministerials, whose social inferiority he denied (100).Google Scholar

128 Verriest, , Rev. du Nord 25.113–21 and Questions (n. 113 supra) 61–2 and 129, where he argued that the liberty of nobles was of a special sort and that there were also non-noble liberi. Google Scholar

129 Poncelet, , Bull. Soc. Liège 28.54; Bonenfant, and Despy, , Moyen Ǎge 64.28 and 40–2, who agreed with Poncelet that ‘La noblesse n’était qu'une aristocratie parmi les libres de la principauté’ (42); Despy, Revue belge 41.482; cf. Duby, Rev. hist. 226.4–5, reviewing some of these works.Google Scholar

130 Miraeus–Foppens, I 276 (see n. 32 supra). So far as I know, only Poncelet, Œuvres III civ, has emphasized the interest of this passage.Google Scholar

131 Duvivier, , Actes (n. 17 supra) 271–2 (see n. 74 supra) and Beaurepart 340–1, where the term may apply simply to the nobility but implies a special status.Google Scholar

132 This topic needs detailed study. The only general discussion, and that very brief, is in Waitz, , Verfassungsgeschichte (n. 120 supra) V 458–9. On the Low Countries, cf. Ganshof, Étude (n. 56 supra) 9–10; Poncelet, Œuvres III xcvii–ix, who said that the number, status, and origin of witnesses varied according to the act and that they were listed in various ways, but usually in order of their juridical status, with the clergy first and then the nobles and ministerials, with witnesses of low rank identified only by Christian name or as alii quamplures; van Winter, Ministerialiteit 58–61. Bloch, M., ‘Un problème d'histoire comparée. La ministérialité en France et en Allemagne,’ Mélanges historiques (Paris 1963) I 520, doubted the view that all ministerials and members of the familia were servile and commented, ‘La disposition des souscriptions qui, au bas des chartes lotharingiennes, obéit d'ordinaire à un ordre hiérarchique, laisse place … à bien des hésitations: libres et serfs ne pouvaient-ils ětre confondus dans une měme section, s'ils appartenaient, les uns comme les autres, au měme personnel?” During the course of the twelfth century, various new classifications, such as milites, scabini, cives, urbani, and burgenses appeared.Google Scholar

133 This distinction is also clear in literary sources, such as Wibald, Ep. 201 (ed. Jaffé [n. 74 supra] 319).Google Scholar

134 Cf. Oorkondenboek van het Sticht Utrecht tot 1301 (<e>edd. S. Muller, A. C. Borman, and others; Utrecht – The Hague 1920–59) I 274 no. 298 (1121); Solières 12 no. 1 (1127); Die Urkunden Lothars III. und der Kaiserin Richenza (edd. E. von Ottenthal and H. Hirsch; MGH Dipl. 8; Berlin 1927) 15 no. 12 (1128 for St. Servatius at Maastricht) and 17 no. 14 (1128 for Conrad of Hagen, cf. n. 136 infra); and Hugo, , Annales (n. 17 supra) I.1 preuves cxxvii (1149) and ccxci (1134). The phrase nobiles et liberi, which is used, for instance, in Die Urkunden Konrads III. und seines Sohnes Heinrich (<e>ed. F. Hausmann; MGH: Dipl. 9; Vienna – Graz – Cologne 1969) 48 and 132 nos. 30 and 74, and Oorkondenboek … Utrecht I 376 no. 416 (1156) is ambiguous, since the et may suggest either similarity or distinction.edd.+S.+Muller,+A.+C.+Borman,+and+others;+Utrecht+–+The+Hague+1920–59)+I+274+no.+298+(1121);+Solières+12+no.+1+(1127);+Die+Urkunden+Lothars+III.+und+der+Kaiserin+Richenza+(edd.+E.+von+Ottenthal+and+H.+Hirsch;+MGH+Dipl.+8;+Berlin+1927)+15+no.+12+(1128+for+St.+Servatius+at+Maastricht)+and+17+no.+14+(1128+for+Conrad+of+Hagen,+cf.+n.+136+infra);+and+Hugo,+,+Annales+(n.+17+supra)+I.1+preuves+cxxvii+(1149)+and+ccxci+(1134).+The+phrase+nobiles+et+liberi,+which+is+used,+for+instance,+in+Die+Urkunden+Konrads+III.+und+seines+Sohnes+Heinrich+(ed.+F.+Hausmann;+MGH:+Dipl.+9;+Vienna+–+Graz+–+Cologne+1969)+48+and+132+nos.+30+and+74,+and+Oorkondenboek+…+Utrecht+I+376+no.+416+(1156)+is+ambiguous,+since+the+et+may+suggest+either+similarity+or+distinction.>Google Scholar

135 Cf. Osnabrücker Urkundenbuch I: Die Urkunden der Jahre 772–1200 (<e>ed. F. Philippi; Osnabrück 1892) 185, 186–7, 188–9 nos. 213–14 (1096) and 216 (1097): ‘ex nobilibus … ex liberis autem’; Hugo, Annales (n. 17 supra) I.1 preuves cclxxiii (1124, Liège): ‘laici nobiles et principes. … aliique tam liberi quam de familia’; Regesta historiae Westfaliae (<e>ed. H. Erhard; Münster, 1847ff.) II.1 4–5 no. 198 (1126, Corvey): ‘laicis tam nobilibus quam liberis et ministerialibus’; Westfälisches Urkundenbuch: Addimenta (ed. R. Wilmans; Münster 1877) 39 no. 40 (partially destroyed document of 1137/40): ‘nobilibus et liberis et ministerialibus.’ Cf. Miraeus–Foppens, I 174–5, where the distinction between the ‘signa liberorum’ and ‘signa quorumdam nobilium’ on a charter of Godfrey of Lorraine in 1134 is less certain.ed.+F.+Philippi;+Osnabrück+1892)+185,+186–7,+188–9+nos.+213–14+(1096)+and+216+(1097):+‘ex+nobilibus+…+ex+liberis+autem’;+Hugo,+Annales+(n.+17+supra)+I.1+preuves+cclxxiii+(1124,+Liège):+‘laici+nobiles+et+principes.+…+aliique+tam+liberi+quam+de+familia’;+Regesta+historiae+Westfaliae+(ed.+H.+Erhard;+Münster,+1847ff.)+II.1+4–5+no.+198+(1126,+Corvey):+‘laicis+tam+nobilibus+quam+liberis+et+ministerialibus’;+Westfälisches+Urkundenbuch:+Addimenta+(ed.+R.+Wilmans;+Münster+1877)+39+no.+40+(partially+destroyed+document+of+1137/40):+‘nobilibus+et+liberis+et+ministerialibus.’+Cf.+Miraeus–Foppens,+I+174–5,+where+the+distinction+between+the+‘signa+liberorum’+and+‘signa+quorumdam+nobilium’+on+a+charter+of+Godfrey+of+Lorraine+in+1134+is+less+certain.>Google Scholar

136 Urkunden Lothars III. 17 no. 14 (1128): ‘ex principibus laicis et reliquis nobilibus ac liberis,’ and 20–1 no. 16 (1129 for St. Pantaleon in Cologne): dukes, counts palatine, counts, liberi; Notre-Dame 110 no. 7 (1129, Liège): comites, liberi; Mainzer Urkundenbuch I (ed. Manfred Stimmung; Darmstadt 1932) 293 no. 385 (forgery of the second quarter of the twelfth century) and 500 no. 582 (1133): comites, liberi; Urkunden Konrads III. 452 no. 260 (1151 for Ebrach): principes, liberi; Namur 20–2 no. 8 (1152): comites, liberi; Beaurepart 341 (1155, Liège): two counts followed by a list of liberi; etc. The counts are also set off from other laymen, but not explicitly from liberi, in a charter of Bishop Adalbero of Liège in 1126, <e>ed. Halkin, Bull. Soc. Liège 8.352.ed.+Halkin,+Bull.+Soc.+Liège+8.352.>Google Scholar

137 Waitz, , Verfassungsgeschichte (n. 120 supra) V 458–9, who suggested that the liberi were small landholders without knightly equipment, which he associated with noble rank.Google Scholar

138 Floreffe 12 no. 5 and Solières 12 no. 1 (see n. 77 supra nos. 8 and 11).Google Scholar

139 Roland, Ann. Soc. Namur 30.251 no. 27 (see n. 77 supra no. 13).Google Scholar

140 Floreffe 22–3 no. 34 (see n. 78 supra) for the charter of Simon of Thiméon, and Schoolmeesters, E., ‘Les regesta de Raoul de Zaehringen, prince-évěque de Liège 1167–1191,’ Bull. Soc. Liège , 1.190–1 and 193–4 nos. 87 and 91.Google Scholar

141 Brussels, Archives de l'État, Arch. ecc. 8292 no. 7, and Averbode, Archives A32 (cf. p. 184 supra).Google Scholar

142 Chartes de Gembloux (n. 88 supra) 53 no. 44 (William I); Flòne 317 (William I and his brother Henry of Jauche); London, British Museum, Add. MS 17396 fols. 10^v–11^v (formerly 33^v–34^v) (William II and his brother Gerard); Brussels, Archives de l'État, Photo 1 (Gerard).Google Scholar

143 The question of whether there were ranks and grades within the aristocracy, and if so whether they were associated with titles, is uncertain: see, for various parts of Europe, Werner, K. F., ‘Untersuchungen zur Frühzeit des französischen Fürstentums (9.–10. Jahrhundert),’ Die Welt als Geschichte 18 (1958) 256–89, 19 (1959) 146–93, 20 (1960) 87–119 (cf. Duby, Rev. hist. 226.13–15); Leyser, Past and Present 41.41; Tellenbach, , Rapports du XII^e Congrès I 323, who referred to the European nobility before the thirteenth century as ‘ein Geburtsstand mit mehreren Stufen.’ Genicot, Économie II 24–5, however, said that in the region of Namur at this time there were no juridical distinctions among the nobiles (including the counts) and that the social distinctions were less marked than in some neighboring regions (cf. Scrinium Lovaniense [n. 118 supra] 195, where he called the principes ‘les premiers parmi les nobles’). According to Poncelet, Œuvres III cxx–i, the positions of duke, marquis, and count were ranks in an administrative hierarchy and the titles princeps and baro in the eleventh and twelfth centuries referred to the great vassals or principal advisers of a sovereign. Ganshof, Étude (n. 56 supra) 269–70, suggested that the principes constituted an upper rank of the aristocracy. All the witnesses to a charter of 1142 in Saint-Trond 63 no. 47 are listed as principes, however; and the fact that some counts were ministerials in the twelfth century (see Westfälisches Urkundenbuch: Addimenta 28 no. 25; Wibald, Epp. 152, 156, 165 [ed. Jaffé (n. 74 supra) 257, 261, 273–4]) suggests that they may have had an administrative but not a social pre-eminence over untitled liberi. Google Scholar

144 On the pressures to accept dependent status under great lords, see Genicot, Scrinium Lovaniense (n. 118 supra) 191–206. The position of the liberi might in certain respects be compared to that of the gentry in England, but their position was less secure and they lasted, as a distinct group, for a shorter time, since they more or less disappeared in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, when they were amalgamated into the undifferentiated ranks of the nobility.Google Scholar

145 In the mid-twelfth century Trognée was listed among the possessions of St. Lambert at Liège (Saint-Lambert 75 and 78; cf. Poullet, Leodium 20.59), and Walter's great-grand-nephew Godescalc III of Morialmé was called ‘ligius homo noster’ by Bishop Ralph of Liège in 1188 (see p. 192 and n. 140 supra), but the documents relating to Walter do not refer to him as the bishop's vassal.Google Scholar

146 Cluny V 332–3 no. 3974. Bishop Adalbero in his letter to Peter the Venerable (ibid. V 353 no. 3999) referred to the church of Bertrée ‘quam [Walterus] in allodio suo sitam liberaliter possedit’ and asked that he return it to Walter in the same state of freedom ‘ut sicut eam liberam de manu domini Walteri suscepistis.’ Cf. Genicot, Économie II 25.Google Scholar

147 The precise meaning of the term allod is uncertain and probably varied from region to region and period to period: cf. Perrin, Recherches (n. 8 supra) 752, on Upper Lorraine; Dubled, H., ‘ “Allodium” dans les textes latins du moyen ǎge,” Moyen Ǎge 57 (1951) 241–9 who (using documents principally from Alsace) said it meant inherited (and, by the twelfth century, usually free) property; Genicot, Économie I 65ff. and 144–5, who stressed allods’ free disposition up to the thirteenth century (69–72), inheritability and divisibility (of both land and seigneurial rights) among heirs (73–4; cf. II 26), and tenure by nobles from the tenth to the twelfth century, after which they tended to split up and to be held by peasants (65, 75–8; cf. II 76–7). J. C. Holt, ‘Politics and Property in Early Medieval England,’ Past and Present 57 (1972) 6, said that ‘In Normandy the word alodium, whatever its sense in other parts of the continent, meant, not land held free of seigneurial services, but land held by hereditary right.’Google Scholar

148 Poncelet, , Œuvres III cvi–vii and cxxxiii n. 2; Bonenfant, and Despy, , Moyen Ǎge 64.47 Soenen, M., ‘À propos de “ministeriales” brabançons propriétaires d'alleux aux XII^e et XIII^e siècles,” Hommage au Professeur Paul Bonenfant (1899–1965) (Brussels 1965) 139–49; and Joris, A., ‘Conversion d'alleux en censives et pratiques testamentaires dans la région liégeoise au XII^e siècle,” Miscellanea Niermeyer (n. 107 supra) 217–25; cf. Genicot, , Économie II 76–7, who said that most allods were ‘noble’ in the Namurois, though they were sometimes held by milites in the twelfth century.Google Scholar

149 Bormans, Stanislas, Les seigneuries allodiales du pays de Liège (Liège 1867) 6–9.Google Scholar

150 In France, the bishop of Laon was recognized as having jurisdiction over those holding allods in the town: see the charter of Louis VI in 1128 in Luc d'Achéry, Spicilegium (2nd ed.; Paris 1723) III 482; cf. Luchaire, Achille, Louis VI le Gros. Annales de sa vie et de son règne (1081–1137) (Paris 1890) 196–8 no. 425; Giry, Arthur, Documents sur les relations de la royauté avec les villes en France de 1180 à 1314 (Paris 1885) 14–19 no. 3, for a confirmation of this charter by Philip Augustus in 1189/90.Google Scholar

151 These historians, mostly French and English (cf.n. 111 supra), therefore tend to insist that miles should be translated as ‘knight’ rather than as ‘soldier,’ in spite of the wise words on this point of Maitland, F. W., Domesday Book and Beyond (Cambridge 1897) 8.Google Scholar

152 The rank and prestige of the milites in northern and eastern France rose sharply during the second half of the eleventh century: see Duby, Société (n. 118 supra) 230–45; Lemarignier, J.-F., Le gouvernement royal aux premiers temps capétiens (987–1108 ) (Paris 1965) 133; Luyn, Van, Moyen Ǎge 77.5–51 and 193–228. In southern France, however, miles was an occupational term denoting a fighting man: see Lewis, Archibald, The Development of Southern French and Catalan Society, 718–1050 (Austin, Texas 1965) 235–6 and 301, and Magnou-Nortier, Société (n. 8 supra) 252–4, who said that in the diocese of Narbonne the ordo militum which formed after the year 1000 lost its homogeneity in the second half of the century, when the term miles was without social significance. Recent research on the milites in Saxony and Bavaria in the early Middle Ages suggests that they were not all of low estate and that fighting was considered a characteristic activity of the nobility: Leyser, K., ‘Henry I and the Beginnings of the Saxon Empire,’ English Historical Review 73 (1968) 1–32 and Störmer, Wilhelm, Früher Adel. Studien zur politischen Führungsschicht im fränkisch-deutschen Reich vom 8. bis 11. Jahrhundert (Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 6.1–2; Stuttgart 1973) 157–99; but in the Empire generally the milites remained professional fighters, usually of relatively low rank, and were not called nobilis or distinguished by the ceremony of dubbing until at least a century after it was customary in northern France: see van Winter, J. M., ‘“Uxorem de militari ordine sibi imparem”,’ Miscellanea Niermeyer (n. 107 supra) 113–24, who discussed the various uses of the term miles in the late tenth and eleventh centuries, and Ministerialiteit (n. 123 supra) 229, where she argued that in the eleventh and twelfth centuries ministerials were used for military service and that nobiles and liberi no longer fought, and J. Bumke, Studien zum Ritterbegriff im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert (Heidelberg 1964) 94, who showed that in German epic poetry until the second half of the thirteenth century the term Ritter meant an unfree servant. Likewise in Italy, according to Brancoli Busdraghi, Formazione (n. 8 supra), 50, 89–96, the milites were of low social origin, although free, and were marked by a function or profession rather than by a personal tie of dependence. The knightly order in the Empire was officially ‘closed,’ excluding the sons of serfs and clerics, by Frederick Barbarossa in 1186, but in fact it remained open until the mid-thirteenth century: see Otto, E., ‘Von der Abschliessung des Ritterstandes,’ Historische Zeitschrift 162 (1940) 19–39, who argued that Frederick's decree reflected the rising prestige of knights in the Empire. See also the article (which appeared too late for full use here) of Flori, J., ‘Chevaliers et chevalerie au xi^e siècle en France et dans l'Empire germanique,” Moyen Ǎge 82 (4.31; 1976) 125–36, who analyzes the unpublished dissertation of J. Johrendt, ‘ “Milites” und “Militia” im 11. Jahrhundert’ (Nuremberg 1971).Google Scholar

153 Poncelet, Œuvres III cxii, cxiv–cxxx, clxxxviii, and clxi–ccxi, who said that members of the political corps (clergy, nobility, ministerials) were preferred as witness — ‘Il ne suffisait pas, en effet, de servir à cheval moyennant concession d'un bénéfice, pour faire partie de la familia’ — and who argued that the nobiles and milites fully fused only about 1400; cf. Bull. Soc. Liège 28.62–8.Google Scholar

154 Miraeus–Foppens, IV 514–15; Hugo, , Annales (n. 17 supra) I.2 626–7; and Beaurepart 334. Two men described as both miles and liber homo witnessed a charter of Bishop Henry of Liège in 1147: Saint-Lambert I 70; cf. Verriest, Questions (n. 113 supra) 125 n. 19, who cited this as an example of noble milites. Google Scholar

155 Genicot, Économie II 63–77, also viii, where he posited a basic distinction between the free and hereditary nobles, on the one hand, and the servile ministerials and milites, on the other (cf. Despy, Revue belge 41.481–2), and his articles on ‘Nobiles, milites et villici au XI^e siècle. Le cas de Francon de Liroux,’ Namurcum 31 (1957) 25–8, where he showed the close relations between the villici and milites and their power as a group, and in Bull. Acad. Belgique 5.54, 56–65 (n. 10 supra). Even after 1150 the milites remained distinct from the liberi, and the nobilitas and militia did not fully merge until the fourteenth century (Économie II 77–84). On the position of the ministerials at Stavelot and Corvey, to the south of Liège and Namur, in 1148–9, see Wibald, Epp. 104, 150, 152, 156, 165, 201 (ed. Jaffé [n. 74 supra] 180–2, 238–9, 257, 261, 273–4, 319), which show that in spite of their wealth (including the tenure of allods) and power (serving as counts) their status was servile and distinct from that of the liberi. Google Scholar

156 Bonenfant, and Despy, , Moyen Ǎge 64.36–9; cf. Soenen, , Hommage Bonenfant 139–49.Google Scholar

157 Winter, Van, Ministerialiteit (n. 123 supra) 229.Google Scholar

158 Fossier, , Picardie (n. 34 supra) 538–41 and 659, where he said that, ‘Née au X^e siècle, la chevalerie est longtemps restée un métier plus qu'un état.’Google Scholar

159 The milites appeared as a class of witnesses, together with clerics and servientes (and thus apparently almost as the equivalent of the usual laici or nobiles), on a charter of 1116: Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Köln I (<e>edd. L. Ennen and G. Eckertz; Cologne 1860) 498–9 no. 37; and they were listed together with nobiles on an important charter of Archbishop Hellinus of Trier in 1152: Gallia christiana 13 instr. 509. There is a reference under the year 1137 in the chronicle of Eberheim 28 to ‘quidam nobilis miles libere conditions’ (MGH SS 23.445); but this was written in the thirteenth century and may reflect later usage.edd.+L.+Ennen+and+G.+Eckertz;+Cologne+1860)+498–9+no.+37;+and+they+were+listed+together+with+nobiles+on+an+important+charter+of+Archbishop+Hellinus+of+Trier+in+1152:+Gallia+christiana+13+instr.+509.+There+is+a+reference+under+the+year+1137+in+the+chronicle+of+Eberheim+28+to+‘quidam+nobilis+miles+libere+conditions’+(MGH+SS+23.445);+but+this+was+written+in+the+thirteenth+century+and+may+reflect+later+usage.>Google Scholar

160 Cf. Verriest, Questions (n. 113 supra) 53 and 112–13, who questioned (against Genicot) whether the two groups fully fused in the Namurois. Since knighthood was a personal rather than an hereditary qualification, according to Verriest, however, nobles could be knights and were sometimes referred to simply as milites (123 n. 8, 125, 141–2).Google Scholar

161 Cf. Duby, Rev. hist. 226.4, who suggested (on the basis of the works of Genicot, Bonenfant, and Despy) that not all milites in the Low Countries were of servile origin and that some may have been younger sons of noble families, who thus formed a ‘basse noblesse de souche’ (as contrasted with a ‘nouvelle basse noblesse’) as found elsewhere in Europe, and also his article in the Miscellanea Niermeyer (n. 107 supra) 158–9, where he said that miles and nobilis were synonymous in the region of Cambrai by the third quarter of the twelfth century.Google Scholar

162 In a charter of Bishop Henry of Liège in 1079, Incourt was said to lie in the county of Dongelberg: Saint-Laurent 214–5. If Veldunt was near Incourt, it may have come to Walter through his Dongelberg connection.Google Scholar

163 The fact that he called himself ‘of Trognée’ implies that he held lands or exercised power there, but the surviving documents give no information aside from his gift to Bertrée of one half of the wood of Trognée. He may have held it from the bishop or chapter, in whose possession it appeared later (see n. 145 supra). On the scattered holdings of nobles in the early Middle Ages, which later tended to be replaced by estates concentrated around a single power center, see Schmid, Zs. f. die Geschichte des Oberrheins 105.42 and 52–3.Google Scholar

164 The wording of the charter suggests that the church had existed for some time, but Halkin, Bull. Soc. Liège 10.257, printed a vidimus of 1324 which contains a fragment of a charter of 1124 implying that Walter built the church just before he gave it to Cluny (cf. Halkin's remarks on 185 and n. 3). This fragment, however, appears to be a slightly altered paraphrase of Walter's foundation charter, and the phrase ‘in suo proprio fundavit allodio’ probably applied to the priory rather than the church.Google Scholar

165 Genicot, , Économie I 29–30. On the size of the bonuarium in the regions of Liège and Namur, see n. 34 supra. Google Scholar

166 The charter does not say what happened when the serfs died with heirs. On the estates of the abbey of St. Trond, a few miles north of Bertrée, male serfs paid twelve pennies and female serfs six pennies annually in the 1130s: Gesta abb. Trud. 13.10 (<e>ed. de Borman [n. 2 supra] I 240) giving details of the various payments at death (cf. n. 177 infra).ed.+de+Borman+[n.+2+supra]+I+240)+giving+details+of+the+various+payments+at+death+(cf.+n.+177+infra).>Google Scholar

167 Poncelet, , Œuvres III cxxv n. 5, and cxxvi n. 1.Google Scholar

168 Cluny V 332 no. 3974, referred to performing only fealty to Walter and fealty and service to the prior, but it is clear that similar obligations were intended.Google Scholar

169 The terms homo, fidelitas, and beneficium were used of all classes of society, and not only of nobles, in the Low Countries and other parts of Europe: see Guilhiermoz, Essai (n. 110 supra) 323ff., who remarked on the similarity of terms used for vassals and for serfs; P. Petot, ‘L'hommage servile. Essai sur la nature juridique de l'hommage,” Revue historique de droit français et étranger, 4.6 (1927) 68–107, with a bibliography on the resemblances between vassals and serfs; and Perrin, Recherches (n. 8 supra) 607–8, on the fealty owed to a lord by all his dependents. The conductores of the tithes of Bertrée, for example, who performed fidelitas both to St. Peter (Cluny) and to Walter, were presumably laborers who promised to divide the tithes fairly between the two owners: Cluny V 336 no. 3976.Google Scholar

170 Poncelet, , Œuvres III cxxvii, and Bull. Soc. Liège, 28.70–2; Verriest, , Rev. du Nord 25.121–2.Google Scholar

171 On ecclesiastical estates they were called homines ecclesiae or de casa Dei: cf. Ganshof, , Étude (n. 56 supra) 177 n. 5 and 236; Lyna, , Leodium 17.34–8; see p. 194 supra on their holding of fiefs.Google Scholar

172 Cf. Perrin, , Recherches (n. 8 supra) 753, who defined the familia as the ‘ensemble des individus attachés à un seigneur … par un lien de sujétion héréditaire,’ and, on the region of Liège, Poncelet, , Œuvres III cxxv, who stressed that the familia included censuales and serviles as well as ministerials.Google Scholar

173 Ganshof, , Étude (n. 56 supra) 233.Google Scholar

174 Verriest, , Questions (n. 113 supra) 23–35; Despy, , Rev. belge 41.476.Google Scholar

175 Bonenfant, and Despy, , Moyen Ǎge 64.50 n. 71.Google Scholar

176 Poncelet, , Œuvres III cxxxix–lvii, and Bull. Soc. Liège, 28.57–62. The terms ministerialis and familia disappeared after 1203 and 1214 respectively; and after 1221 the milites replaced the ministerials as a political and social group. Cf. Genicot, Économie II 77–8 (see n. 155 supra).Google Scholar

177 Gesta abb. Trud. 13.10 (ed. de Borman [n. 24 supra] I 240–1). The familia at St. Trond included all the men and women who had been given or had given themselves to the abbey in servum or in ancillam and who paid an annual census capitis (see n. 166 supra) and a mainmorte; cf. Hansay, Alfred, Étude sur la formation et ‘organisation économique du domaine de l'abbaye de Saint-Trond depuis les origines jusqu’à la fin du XIII^e siècle (Université de Gand: Recueil de travaux publiés par la Faculté de philosophie et lettres 22; Ghent 1899) 108–9 and Simenon, Guillaume, Le servage à l'abbaye de Saint-Trond (offprint of Revue apologétique July–August 1903; Brussels 1903) 5 and 13–20, who cited contemporary charters showing that the actual census paid was often only one or two pennies and that the mainmorte was often not paid at all.Google Scholar

178 Cf. Poncelet, , Œuvres III ccxvii–viii, and Bull. Soc. Liège 28.76–7, who said that serfs disappeared owing to the combined effects of manumission, prescription, and the process of becoming sainteurs and tributarii. The same appears to have been true in the neighboring regions of the Namurois, where serfs benefited from the declining fortunes of landlords and from rising prices (see Genicot, Économie I 201ff., esp. 248–9 on the effects of devaluation), and of Hainault, where there were never very many homines de corpore, according to Verriest, Servage (n. 10 supra) passim; Institutions (n. 8 supra) 168ff., esp. 177; Rev. du Nord 25.114–5. Likewise in Picardy, freedom tended to prevail and serfdom to disappear after the twelfth century: Fossier, Picardie (n. 34 supra) 558.Google Scholar

179 Genicot, , Bull. Acad. Belgique 5.54, 56–65 (n. 10 supra).Google Scholar

180 These rights were taken over by St. Laurence and by Bertrée, and in the foundation charter of Bertrée the advocate, unless summoned by the prior, had no authority over those who belonged to the altar and paid a census there. The extent of the corvée, of which Walter granted half to the monks and of which the other half belonged to St. Laurence, is unknown. At St. Bertin, according to Fossier, Picardie (n. 34 supra) 218–20, the ranks of agricultural dependents were based on the varying amounts of corvée.Google Scholar

181 According to Boeren, Étude (n. 8 supra) 22 and 44, they were ‘objets du dominium d'une église,’ and their status was ‘une guarantie durable contre le danger du plein servage laïque.’Google Scholar

182 Cf. Stiennon, , Étude 305–7, and C. Wirtz, ‘Le problème de la condition juridique des tributaires d’église en Belgique. Une question mal posée,’ Annales de la Société royale d'archéologie de Bruxelles 50 (1956–61) 275–96, for recent surveys of this dispute. The most vigorous protagonist of the ‘free’ school is Verriest, who maintained that the serfs of saints (sainteurs) were different from the serfs of lay lords, even if they were subject to comparable obligations: Institutions (n. 8 supra) 186–9 and 204–15, where he argued that the same burdens could be either free or servile, and Rev. du Nord 25.118–9; and who said that subjection was different from serfdom, which was an hereditary juridical status rather than a social or economic positon: Servage (n. 10 supra) 171–248; Institutions 168–71; Rev. du Nord 25.126–7. Boeren, , Étude 9–10, 81, 106, on the other hand, said that they should be called tributarii rather than sainteurs and that their status was definitely servile, though they had advantages over other serfs.Google Scholar

183 The absence at Cras-Avernas of differential census-rates for men and women, which was normal for censuales, likewise suggests that their status was not the same.Google Scholar

184 Cf. Bloch, , Mélanges (n. 132 supra) I 290–2, and, on censarii (rent-paying peasants) in England, Poole, Obligations (n. 125 supra) 25.Google Scholar

185 Genicot, , Économie I 239–49, who emphasized that seigneurial incomes suffered when these rents, which usually started low, decreased in value as prices rose; cf. Duby, Georges, L’économie rurale et la vie des campagnes dans l'Occident médiévale (Paris 1962) II 436–46.Google Scholar

186 In view of the fact that the annual land-rent at Veldunt was six pennies per bonuarium, the annual head-rent of ten pennies at Cras-Avernas, if it was paid, was more than nominal.Google Scholar

187 He witnessed as a lay noble in 1096, and the last known reference to him is in Bishop Adalbero's letter to Peter the Venerable in 1128.Google Scholar

188 Cluny V 332 and 334 no. 3974. In Walter's letter to Peter the Venerable (Cluny V 336 no. 3976), this is summarized as ‘pro salute animȩ meȩ.’Google Scholar

189 Halkin, , Bull. Soc. Liège 8.348.Google Scholar

190 Genicot, , Économie I 46.Google Scholar

191 Cluny V 353 no. 3999.Google Scholar

192 Cluny V 332–3 and 336 nos. 3974 and 3976.Google Scholar

193 Cluny V 334 no. 3974; cf. Genicot, L., ‘Empire et principautés en Lotharingie du X^e au XIII^e siècle,’ Annali della Fondazione italiana per la storia amministrativa 2 (1965) 99–100, who commented on the system of standing guarantor for a grant as a means for nobles to extend their ‘protection.’Google Scholar

194 The basic book on Frankish advocacy is Félix Senn, L'institution des avoueries ecclésiastiques en France (Paris 1903), which should be supplemented, for the Low Countries, by Pergameni, Charles, L'avouerie ecclésiastique belge des origines à la période bourguignonne (Ghent 1907) and de Moreau, E., Histoire de l'Église en Belgique II: La formation de l'Église médiévale du milieu du X^e aux débuts du XII^e siècle (2nd ed.; Museum Lessianum: Section historique 2; Brussels [1945]) 222–8, and, for Alsace, by Dubled, H., ‘L'avouerie des monastères en Alsace au moyen ǎge,’ Archives de l'Église d'Alsace 26 (2.10; 1959) 1–88. I have not seen Morin, O., Les avoueries ecclésiastiques en Lorraine (Nancy 1907). On the rise in social rank of advocates in Lorraine in the eleventh century, see Perrin, , Recherches (n. 8 supra) 671–7, and my article on ‘The Liber memorialis of Remiremont,’ Speculum 47 (1972) 270, and in Bavaria, Störmer, Früher Adel (n. 152 supra) 435.Google Scholar

195 Many monasteries had more than one advocate, owing to different arrangements made at the time properties were acquired and to the appointment of sub-advocates by a single advocate (known as a major or over-advocate) who was too highly placed or too busy to perform the duties of the position himself.Google Scholar

196 Cf. Pergameni, , Avouerie 74–103.Google Scholar

197 Hirsch, Hans, Die Klosterimmunität seit dem Investiturstreit (Weimar 1913), of which chapter 2 was translated in Mediaeval Germany 911–1250 (<e>ed. Geoffrey Barraclough; Oxford 1948), where he said (166) that, ‘With this exception [Engelberg], the monasteries which arose under the banner of libertas during the Investiture Controversy, all fell, as a result of the advocacy, into one degree or another of dependence on the secular power’; Mayer, Theodor, Fürsten und Staat (Weimar 1950) esp. 1–62 and 185–214; cf. Jakobs, Hermann, Die Hirsauer (Kölner historische Abhandlungen 4; Cologne – Graz 1961) 161–3; Wollasch, Hans-Josef, Die Anfänge des Klosters St. Georgen im Schwarzwald (Forschungen zur oberrheinisehen Landesgeschichte 14; Freiburg im B. 1964) 81–92; Störmer, , Früher Adel (n. 152 supra) 436–56; Fossier, Picardie (n. 34 supra) 496–7, 515, 524–8, who commented that since monastic lands were less extensive in Picardy than in Flanders and Burgundy, advocacies were proportionately less important as a source of noble power.ed.+Geoffrey+Barraclough;+Oxford+1948),+where+he+said+(166)+that,+‘With+this+exception+[Engelberg],+the+monasteries+which+arose+under+the+banner+of+libertas+during+the+Investiture+Controversy,+all+fell,+as+a+result+of+the+advocacy,+into+one+degree+or+another+of+dependence+on+the+secular+power’;+Mayer,+Theodor,+Fürsten+und+Staat+(Weimar+1950)+esp.+1–62+and+185–214;+cf.+Jakobs,+Hermann,+Die+Hirsauer+(Kölner+historische+Abhandlungen+4;+Cologne+–+Graz+1961)+161–3;+Wollasch,+Hans-Josef,+Die+Anfänge+des+Klosters+St.+Georgen+im+Schwarzwald+(Forschungen+zur+oberrheinisehen+Landesgeschichte+14;+Freiburg+im+B.+1964)+81–92;+Störmer,+,+Früher+Adel+(n.+152+supra)+436–56;+Fossier,+Picardie+(n.+34+supra)+496–7,+515,+524–8,+who+commented+that+since+monastic+lands+were+less+extensive+in+Picardy+than+in+Flanders+and+Burgundy,+advocacies+were+proportionately+less+important+as+a+source+of+noble+power.>Google Scholar

198 Schmid, , Zs. f. die Geschichte des Oberrheins 105.44.Google Scholar

199 Genicot, , Annali 2.122 and 124, cf. 98–9, showing how all except royal monasteries in Lorraine came to depend upon the territorial princes in the second half of the twelfth century, and in Scrinium Lovaniense (n. 118 supra) 191–206, studying the ways in which the nobles in Lorraine established control over their principalities; cf. Dubled, , Arch. de l'Église d'Alsace 26.10. The fact that the nobility made use of monastic advocacies to extend their territorial powers, however, does not mean that religious houses were founded and endowed exclusively to promote the secular interests of noble families, some of which beggared themselves by the liberality of their gifts: see Genicot, , Économie I 43, and Bonenfant and Despy, Moyen Ǎge 64.57.Google Scholar

200 Ulens, R., ‘La politique des comtes de Looz,’ Fédération archéologique et historique de Belgique 29 (Congrès de Liège 1932): Annales 5.55–7, and Stiennon, Étude 222–5 and 294–9.Google Scholar

201 Baerten, , Rev. belge 43.486 (n. 51 supra), who also suggested (1242) that the counts of Duras may have succeeded the counts of Avernas as advocates of St. Trond. Other examples of advocacies sought by powerful families are found in Miraeus–Foppens, I 536 (duke of Brabant, about 1150), 541 (count of Flanders, about 1165), II 970 (count of Louvain, 1154), etc.Google Scholar

202 Hansay, , Étude (n. 177 supra) 110–21, who cited among others examples of advocacies retained by donors in 1144 and 1146 (116–7).Google Scholar

203 Gesta abb. Trud. 4.12, 5.4, 13.10 (<e>ed. de Borman [n. 24 supra] I 63, 67–9, 210–11).ed.+de+Borman+[n.+24+supra]+I+63,+67–9,+210–11).>Google Scholar

204 Duvivier, , Actes (n. 17 supra) 271–4 (cf. p. 176 and n. 74 supra).Google Scholar

205 Cauchie, Alfred, La querelle des investitures dans les diocèses de Liège et de Cambrai (Louvain 1890–1) and Bonenfant, P., ‘La Basse-Lotharingie avant et après le Concordat de Worms. Observations tirées de la crise liégeoise de 1119–1123,’ Fédération archéologique et historique de Belgique 32 (Congrès d'Anvers 1947): Annales 1.95–104, who studied the dispute following the death of Bishop Otbert in 1119 and the eventual election of Adalbero, the brother of Duke Godfrey of Louvain.Google Scholar

206 Vanderkindere, Formation (n. 1 supra) II 184–94, who stressed the importance of the diploma of Otto II excluding all public powers from the lands of the bishop; Sproemberg, H., ‘Lüttich und das Reich im Mittelalter,’ Beiträge zur belgisch-niederländischen Geschichte (Forschungen zur mittelalterlichen Geschichte 3; Berlin 1959) 346–66, esp. 353–4 on the cooperation of the emperor and the bishop against the dynasts; Lejeune, Anciens pays (n. 32 supra) 3–53, esp. 11 and 19 on the identity of the patria and episcopatus. Google Scholar

207 Cauchie, , Querelle I 62 and II 118.Google Scholar

208 Sproemberg, H., in Wilhelm Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter: Deutsche Kaiserzeit I (ed. R. Holtzmann; Tübingen 1948) 716; Dereine, C., ‘L’école canonique liégeoise et la réforme grégorienne,’ Miscellanea Tornacensia (ed. J. Cassart; Brussels 1951) I 79–94, esp. 85–8; Fuhrmann, H., ‘Das Reformpapsttum und die Rechtswissenschaft,’ Investiturstreit und Reichsverfassung (<e>ed. Josef Fleckenstein; Vorträge und Forschungen 17; Sigmaringen 1973) 189.ed.+Josef+Fleckenstein;+Vorträge+und+Forschungen+17;+Sigmaringen+1973)+189.>Google Scholar

209 Sproemberg, in Wattenbach–Holtzmann, Geschichtsquellen, I 758–9 and Dereine, Chanoines 39–54.Google Scholar

210 Reimbald of Liège, Opera Omnia (<e>ed. C. de Clercq; CCL: Continuatio mediaeualis 4; Turnhout 1966) 130 and 136 lines 214–5, 383–4, 395–6.ed.+C.+de+Clercq;+CCL:+Continuatio+mediaeualis+4;+Turnhout+1966)+130+and+136+lines+214–5,+383–4,+395–6.>Google Scholar

211 Dereine, , Misc. Tornacensia I 85 (putting the number of houses in the late eleventh century at about 50, with 700–800 canons) and Chanoines 44 (putting the figure at about 40 houses in 1070); Misonne, Vita comune (n. 36 supra) I 412 n. 2.Google Scholar

212 Silvestre, H., ‘Sur une des causes de la grande expansion de l'ordre canonial dans le diocèse de Liège aux X^e et XI^e siècle,’ Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire 31 (1953) 65–74, who contrasted the ‘épiscopète’ attitude of the canons with the ‘épiscofuge’ attitude of the monks (66); cf. Dereine, , Misc. Tornacensia I 88–9.Google Scholar

213 Joris, A., ‘Observations sur la proclamation de la trěve de Dieu à Liège à la fin du XI^e siècle,’ La paix (Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin 14–15; Brussels 1961–2) I 503–45.Google Scholar

214 Gaier, C., ‘Analysis of Military Forces in the Principality of Liège and the County of Looz from the Twelfth to the Fifteenth Century,’ Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History 2 (1965) 223–5, said that the bishop’ forces were reduced to between five and six hundred in the fourteenth century and collapsed in the fifteenth, and also, Art et organisation militaires dans la principauté de Liège et dans le comté de Looz au Moyen Ǎge (Mém. Acad. Belg. [8°] 2.59.3; Brussels 1968) 238 n. 2. Lejeune, , Anciens pays (n. 32 supra) 13, put the figure for the twelfth century at between four and five hundred mounted soldiers, a force which was comparable with that of the king of France.Google Scholar

215 Miraeus–Foppens, , I 682–3, and Saint-Lambert I 56–8.Google Scholar

216 Namur cxxxvi, referring to ‘a violent feudal reaction’ in the diocese of Liège following Otbert's death in 1119; cf. the works cited n. 205 supra and Gaier, Art 234–7 on the siege of Huy in 1119–20.Google Scholar

217 See esp. the articles by Genicot cited n. 199 supra. Google Scholar

218 Genicot, L., ‘Haut clergé et noblesse dans le diocèse de Liège du XI^e au XV^e siècle,’ Adel und Kirche. Gerd Tellenbach zum 65. Geburtstag dargebracht von Freunden und Schülern (Freiburg – Basle –Vienna 1968) 237–58 and Kupper, J. L., ‘La politique des ducs de Zähringen entre la Moselle et la mer du Nord dans la seconde moitié du XII^e siècle,’ Moyen Ǎge 78 (1972) 427–66, who studied in particular the election of Ralph of Zähringen, the brother of Duke Berthold IV, as bishop of Liège in 1167 and the subsequent growth of Zähringen influence in the diocese.Google Scholar

219 The standard works on the chapter of St. Lambert are those of de Theux and de Marneffe (n. 47 supra). On the disputed question of whether or not Henry V was a canon of Liège, see the appendix by K. Morrison to Imperial Lives and Letters of the Eleventh Century, tr. Theodor Mommsen and Karl Morrison (New York 1962) 201–3, who questioned the authenticity of the charter of 1107 referring to Henry as a canon and suggested that he simply entered the confraternity of the chapter.Google Scholar

220 Wibald, , Ep. 57 (<e>ed. Jaffé [n. 74 supra] 135).ed.+Jaffé+[n.+74+supra]+135).>Google Scholar

221 Wibald, , Epp. 300 and 330 (<e>ed. Jaffé [n. 74 supra] 427 and 461).ed.+Jaffé+[n.+74+supra]+427+and+461).>Google Scholar

222 Vos, J., Lobbes, son abbaye et son chapitre (Louvain 1865) I 381. The concept of decline from ages of gold to silver to bronze was applied to the first three abbots of St. Laurence at Liège in the Historia monasterii S. Laurentii Leodiensis 16–17, <e>edd. E. Martène and U. Durand, Amplissima collectio 4 (Paris 1729) 1067B.edd.+E.+Martène+and+U.+Durand,+Amplissima+collectio+4+(Paris+1729)+1067B.>Google Scholar

223 Vos, Lobbes I 380. The sense of the passage seems to require (a) a break after Joseph, which is not marked in the Latin, and (b) that the archdeacons were educated at Liège although the text reads Lobiensis. Google Scholar

224 On episcopal synods, see Thomassin, , Discipline (n. 9 supra) V 355–70; Schreiber, Georg, Kurie und Kloster im 12. Jahrhundert (Kirchenrechtliche Abhandlungen 65–8; Stuttgart 1910) I 215–24; and for further bibliography Pontal, O., Les statuts synodaux (Typologie des sources du moyen ǎge occidental 11 [A–III.1∗]; Turnhout 1975).Google Scholar

225 See Paquay, J., ‘Les synodes au diocèse de Liège,’ Leodium 15 (1922) 7–2?; also Lejeune, , Anciens pays (n. 32 supra) 18 n. 81 and 24–32; Gaier, C., ‘Documents relatifs aux domaines hesbignons de l'abbaye de Saint-Denis en France,” Bull. Acad. Belgique 127 (1961) 178–9; Joris, La paix (n. 213 supra) I 530–2. Most of these cite the unpublished thesis, which I have not seen, of G. Davenne, ‘Les synodes épiscopaux à Liège du X^e au XIII^e siècle’ (1947), who gives the earliest reference in 915 and mentions forty-one known meetings from 1013 to 1100, sixty-eight from 1100 to 1200, and eleven from 1200 to 1245. On the times of meeting, see Chartes du XII^e siècle de l'abbaye de Villers-en-Brabant (<e>ed. E. de Moreau; Analectes 2.7; Louvain 1905) 7 n. 2, citing E. de Marneffe.Google Scholar

226 Namur cxxxv.Google Scholar

227 Joris, , La paix (n. 213 supra) I 532, who considered them the principal tribunal for the enforcement of the Peace and Truce of God. In character they probably resembled the electoral assemblies, in which the populus played a role beside the clergy throughout the twelfth century in Liège: see Bonenfant, Féd. arch. 32: Annales 1.98–9; and they may have served a broader function as an institutional expression of the emerging sense of corporatism in the diocese: see Sproemberg, Beiträge (n. 206 supra) 356.Google Scholar

228 Miraeus–Foppens, III 28–9. Cf. the placitum christianitatis in 1155, which was attended by archdeacons, abbots, liberi homines, and members of the familia (Beaurepart 341), which shows that the institution was still functioning, apparently effectively, in the middle of the twelfth century, and also the reference in a letter written in 1157 by Abbot Walter of St. Laurence to Wibald, Ep. 468 (ed. Jaffé [n. 74 supra] 600) and the allusion to the judicial activities of the bishop in Wibald's Ep. 189 of 1149 to Peter the Venerable (ibid. 309).Google Scholar

229 Cf. Halkin, , Bull. Soc. Liège 8.324.Google Scholar

230 Adalbero described it in a charter for Cornelimünster near Liège as the general synod ‘which by the grace of God I first celebrated in the church of St. Lambert’: Hugo, Annales (n. 17 supra) I.1 preuves cclxxiii, and Beaurepart 332; cf. Daris, Joseph, Histoire du diocèse et de la principauté de Liège depuis leur origine jusqu'au XIII^e siècle (Liège 1890) 477; Roland, , Ann. Soc. Namur 20.118–19 (n. 52 supra); Namur cvii n. 7.Google Scholar

231 Certainly before 20 May, when a charter for Floreffe ‘decreed in the general synod’ was ‘confirmed in the same convent’: Hugo, Annales (n. 17 supra) I.1 preuves li–ii and Galliot, Namur (n. 77 supra) V 313–15; and probably, according to Daris (see n. 230 supra), earlier in the month.Google Scholar

232 Those of Namur (whose assiduous attendance at episcopal synods is mentioned in Namur cvi–vii), Looz (see n. 50 supra), Duras (see n. 51 supra), Montaigu (see n. 52 supra), Chiny, Luxemburg, Limburg, Viane, and Salm.Google Scholar

233 See n. 61 supra. Google Scholar

234 Dereine, , Chanoines 105–245, esp. 237–8, and Libellus de diversis ordinibus (n. 99 supra) xviii–xix.Google Scholar

235 Gesta abb. Trud. 6.8 (ed. de Borman [n. 24 supra] I 79); and nn. 202–3 supra. Google Scholar

236 See pp. 216–19 infra on the Cluniacs; cf. also the interesting remarks of Coenen (n. 1 supra) on the different types of land settled by different monastic orders.Google Scholar

237 Canivez, Joseph-Marie, L'ordre de Cǐteaux en Belgique des origines (1132) au XX^e siècle (Forges lez-Chimay 1926) 65–113.Google Scholar

238 Dereine, , Chanoines, passim , esp. 23–7, studying among others the foundations of Flǒne, Saint-Gilles, Neufmoustier, and Rolduc. É. Poncelet, ‘La cessation de la vie commune dans les églises canoniales de Liège,’ Annuaire d'histoire liégeoise 4.5 (1952) 613–48, however, showed that common life on the whole continued in the old houses until the late twelfth century.Google Scholar

239 Cauchie, A., ‘Lettre de Frédéric, archévěque de Cologne, à Albéron I^er, évěque de Liège, concernant l’établissement des Prémontrés (1125),’ Analectes 35 (1909) 285–8, who stressed the success of St. Norbert in this region.Google Scholar

240 Monumenta Bambergensia (ed. Philip Jaffé; Bibliotheca rerum germanicarum 5; Berlin 1869) 377 (dated 1111/20) and Oorkondenboek … Utrecht (n. 134 supra) I 245–6 no. 265 (dated 1102–12); cf. Dereine, Misc. Tornacensia (n. 208 supra) I 92–3 and Chanoines 94–7; Stiennon, J., ‘Hézelon de Liège, architecte de Cluny III,’ Mélanges offerts à René Crozet (<e>edd. P. Gallais and Y.-J. Riou; Poitiers 1966) I 349.edd.+P.+Gallais+and+Y.-J.+Riou;+Poitiers+1966)+I+349.>Google Scholar

241 Letters of Peter the Venerable (n. 21 supra) II 157–9.Google Scholar

242 Poncelet, A., ‘Vie ancienne de Guillaume de Saint-Thierry,’ Mélanges Godefroid Kurth (Bibliothèque de la Faculté de philosophie et lettres de l'Université de Liège 1–2; Liège – Paris 1908) I 85–6; Déchanet, J.-M., Guillaume de Saint-Thierry. L'homme et son œuvre (Bruges 1942) 9, 13–14, 17, 53, 125.Google Scholar

243 Delisle, , Bibl. École des Chartes 55.646–7 (n. 72 supra).Google Scholar

244 Of the three recruits to Signy, only William of St. Thierry is not certainly of noble birth, and he was described in an early Vita as ‘clarus gene [re]’: Poncelet, Mélanges Kurth I 89.Google Scholar

245 Rousseau, F., ‘Tours domaniales et tours de chevaliers, églises et cimitières fortifiés dans le Namurois,’ Ann. Soc. Namur 46 (1951–2) 233–68; cf. also his analysis in the Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 64 (1969) 565–6 of the article (which I have not seen) of L. Genicot, ‘La tour seigneuriale et l’église romane de Wierde,’ Ann. Soc. Namur 54 (1967) 109–56.Google Scholar

246 ‘Documents concernant Sautour et Aublain, extraits du cartulaire de l'abbaye de Floreffe,’ Analectes 8 (1871) 365–6; cf. Schoolmeesters, Bull. Soc. Liège I 190–1 no. 87 (n. 140 supra). See also the reference to the hereditary possession of a church by members of the family of Morialmé in the 1170s in the charter in Barbier, Floreffe (n. 78 supra) II 33 no. 54.Google Scholar

247 Cluny V 336 no. 3976.Google Scholar

248 Cf. Dillay, M., ‘Le régime de l’église privée du XI^e au XIII^e siècle dans l'Anjou, le Maine, la Touraine. Les restitutions d’églises par les laïques,’ Revue historique de droit français et étranger 4.4 (1925) 253–94; Hartridge, R. A. R., A History of Vicarages in the Middle Ages (Cambridge 1930) 12, who discussed the distinction between the duties attached to the altaria and the property attached to the ecclesia; Olivier Guillot, Le comte d'Anjou et son entourage au XI^e siècle (Paris 1972) I 183, who found the earliest reference to the distinction between the powers of the count and of the bishop in Anjou in 1055. More generally on the distinction between the spiritual and secular aspects of ecclesiastical office, see Benson, R. L., The Bishop-Elect (Princeton 1968) 204–50.Google Scholar

249 Cf. Dereine, , Chanoines , 53–92, who concluded on the basis of five examples (St. Séverin in 1091, Flǒne in 1092, St. Adalbert at Liège in 1107, Rolduc in 1108, and St. Leonard at Liège in 1112) that grants of the cura animarum to monks and regular canons were ‘entièrement conforme aux usages du diocèse’ (72) and that the bishops were guided by geographical considerations in granting extensive parochial rights to remote houses and less extensive rights to those within the jurisdictions of old chapters. In the grant to St. Leonard at Liège in 1112, however, Bishop Otbert reserved the rights of St. Mary and its daughters: Niermeyer, Onderzoekingen (n. 98 supra) 205–6; and in a charter issued the same year confirming St. Peter at Incourt to St. Laurence at Liège, Otbert specified that the priest should receive the spiritual care of the parish from the hand of the archdeacon: Miraeus–Foppens, III 29.Google Scholar

250 Cf. the settlement by Bishop Alexander in 1130 of a dispute between Floreffe and the Archdeacon John, which arose out of an ambiguity in a charter of Bishop Adalbero (Miraeus–Foppens, IV 359): the abbot of Floreffe was to receive the cura animarum of both the brothers and of the laity from the hand of the bishop and to entrust it ‘either to one of the brothers or to someone of good repute,’ who was to be responsible only to the abbot and free from any synod, council, archdeacon, or dean except in the case of a major crime like homicide or adultery, in which the archdeacon was to sit with the abbot in judgment and to receive half of the fine: Barbier, Floreffe (n. 78 supra) II 7–8 no. 10.Google Scholar

251 See Solières, in 1127: Solières 12 no. 1 (cf. Dereine, Chanoines 80); Géronsart in 1134: Barbier, Géronsart (n. 28 supra) 213–14 (cf. Dereine, Chanoines 83 n. 1 and 92); cf. Waulsort 366 no. 30 on the presbyteratus and cura. Google Scholar

252 See Waulsort, in 1153: Waulsort 365–6 no. 30.Google Scholar

253 Gaier, , Bull. Comm. royale 127.180–8, cf. 168–9 (n. 225 supra): the bishop established that the patrimony of the priest should consist of twelve bonuaria free of dues, a curtis for a house and barn, one third of all except the demesne tithes (which belonged to St. Denis), and the oblations given in church. The new incumbent was Henry of Leez, the future bishop of Liège, to whom this is the earliest known reference as a canon.Google Scholar

254 Cluny V 335 and 336 nos. 3975–6.Google Scholar

255 Cf. Renardy, C., ‘Recherches sur la restitution ou la cession de dimes aux églises dans le diocèse de Liège du XI^e au début du XIV^e siècle,’ Moyen Ǎge 76 (1970) 205–61, esp. 213 and 216, who said that the restitutions of tithes in the diocese of Liège began in the 1120s and was largely inspired by the reformed canons.Google Scholar

256 Beaurepart 340–1 (see n. 131 supra).Google Scholar

257 Notre-Dame 117–18 no. 10. The tithe had originally been granted by Provost Liebert of Huy to a miles named Anselinus and remained in lay hands until it was eventually redeemed for the use of the canons by one of their number, on condition, however, that he held it for his lifetime and that after his death it would be held by someone else in return for an annual payment of ten shillings on his anniversary. Gerard of Jauche abandoned various tithes to the abbey of Ramée in 1216: A. Wauters, ‘Analectes de diplomatique,’ CR Comm. 4.7 (1880) 151.Google Scholar

258 On the spread of Cluniac monasticism in the diocese of Liège and in the Low Countries generally, see Halkin, , Bull. Soc. Liège 10.155–293 (whose conclusions are summarized in de Moreau, Histoire [n. 194 supra] II 179); Sabbe, É., ‘La réforme clunisienne dans le comté de Flandre au début du XII^e siècle,’ Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire 9 (1930) 121–38; Berlière, U., ‘Coup d’œil historique sur l'ordre bénédictin en Belgique,’ Mélanges publiés par les abbayes bénédictines de la congrégation belge à l'occasion du XIV^e centenaire de la fondation du Mont-Cassin, 519–1929 (Maredsous – Louvain – St-André-lez-Bruges 1929) 184–5; Hallinger, Kassius, Gorze–Kluny (Studia Anselmiana 22–25; Rome 1950–1) 477 and 491–2; Stiennon, , Anciens pays (n. 4 supra) 57–86 and Mélanges Crozet (n. 240 supra) I 350–2, where he revised the date of the foundation of Aywaille from 1088 to 1086. On the relations of this movement with other reform movements in the Empire, see Josef Semmler, Die Klosterreform von Siegburg (Rheinisches Archiv 53; Bonn 1959) 123–5.Google Scholar

259 See in particular Hallinger, , Gorze–Kluny, passim , and Feine, H. E., ‘Klosterreform im 10. und 11. Jahrhundert und ihr Einfluss auf die Reichenau und St. Gallen,’ Aus Verfassungs- und Landesgeschichte. Festschrift … Theodor Mayer (Constance 1954–5) II 79–81, who stressed that Cluniac influence first reached Germany in the second half of the eleventh century.Google Scholar

260 Silvestre, , Rev. belge 31.73 (n. 212 supra) emphasized the relatively pro-episcopal attitude of the reform movement in Lorraine as contrasted with that of Cluny.Google Scholar

261 Stiennon, , Anciens pays (n. 4 supra) 59.Google Scholar

262 Rupert of Deutz, who came from Liège, wrote in his Carmina 4: ‘Spectate, rogo, Cluniacenses / Fundere bonum semper odorem; / Nam papa michi sumptus ab illis’ (MGH Libelli de lite 3 [Hannover 1897] 628). The pope was Urban II and the poem written probably in the late eleventh century. Cf. Sabbe, Rev. belge 9.126–7 and 136–7, who stressed the initiative of the local nobility rather than of Cluny itself in the expansion of Cluniac monasticism into the Low Countries.Google Scholar

263 Stiennon, Étude 281–6 (dating the introduction in 1103); Anciens pays (n. 4 supra) 61 (and n. 17, revising the date to about 1106); Mélanges Crozet (n. 240 supra) I 350. Some interesting evidence of Cluniac liturgical influence is given by R. Haacke in the introduction to his edition of Da divinis officiis of Rupert of Deutz, who was a monk of St. Laurence (CCL: Continuatio mediaeualis 7 [Turnhout 1967] xvii).Google Scholar

264 Cluny V 353 no. 3999.Google Scholar

265 Cluny V 332–4 no. 3974.Google Scholar

266 Cluny V 336 no. 3976.Google Scholar

267 Cluny V 353 no. 3999, where he referred to the prospective superior of Bertrée as a procurator or agent, presumably of the abbot of Cluny.Google Scholar

268 See n. 7 supra. Google Scholar

269 Such provisions were not unusual in grants to Cluny: see Cluny V 236 and 281 nos. 3885 and 3927, both dating from the first half of the twelfth century.Google Scholar

270 Cluny V 337 no. 3976. In his letters to Peter the Venerable the bishop made no reference to this promise at the time of the foundation, and it is possible that Walter misunderstood Peter's intention in the matter.Google Scholar

271 Cluny V 335–7 and 352–3, nos. 3976–7 and 3999.Google Scholar

272 Cluny V 337 no. 3976.Google Scholar

273 Dereine, Chanoines 165, estimated that about seven clerics, fifteen conversi, and twelve conversae (as at Neufmouster) was average for an independent house of regular canons.Google Scholar

274 Peter the Venerable, Statuta 41–2, Consuetudines benedictinae variae (<e>ed. G. Constable; Corpus consuetudinum monasticarum 6; Siegburg 1975) 75.ed.+G.+Constable;+Corpus+consuetudinum+monasticarum+6;+Siegburg+1975)+75.>Google Scholar

275 In his first letter to Peter the Venerable (Cluny V 337 no. 3977) Adalbero said that the monks from Coincy were sent ‘tanquam ex vestra parte.’Google Scholar

276 Ibid. Adalbero was particularly upset at the failure to send a suitable permanent procurator. He appears in any case to have been none too pleased that Walter gave Bertrée to monks from outside the diocese, and he may therefore have been not entirely sorry when the plan seemed to fail and may have hoped that if the property were returned Walter would make a more satisfactory disposition.Google Scholar

277 Cf. Schreiber, , Kurie (n. 224 supra) II 254–81, giving examples of papal documents limiting the power of advocates, and Perrin, Recherches (n. 8 supra) 676–7, who dated the movement to regulate advocacies from the middle of the eleventh century and said that the number of forgeries relating to advocacies was a sign of the seriousness of the problem. In 1148 the council of Reims, can. 6, forbade advocates to take anything beyond their established rights and ordered the removal of sub-advocates: Mansi 21.715.Google Scholar

278 Cf. Senn, , Institution (n. 194 supra) 170–6; Pergameni, , Avouerie (n. 194 supra) 74–90; Dubled, , Arch. de l'Église d'Alsace 26.42–58. The advocacy of Marchiennes in 1038 was limited in terms very like those of Bertrée: Polyptyche d'Irminon (n. 10 supra) II 356–7; cf. that of Amel: Pergameni, Avouerie 84–6. See also the series of documents granted to Siegburg in 1065, 1076, and 1116 by the archbishops of Cologne: Urkundenbuch für die Geschichte des Niederrheins I (<e>ed. T. D. Lacomblet; Dusseldorf 1840) 131–2, 148, 180 nos. 203, 228, 278 (cf. Semmler, Siegburg [n. 258 supra] 282–305); and the long and interesting charter, regulating the powers of the advocate, of Bishop Poppo of Metz for Gorze in 1095: Cartulaire de l'abbaye de Gorze (<e>ed. A. d'Herbomez; Mettensia 2; Paris 1898) 245–8 no. 140.Google Scholar

279 Cf. Pergameni, , Avouerie (n. 194 supra) 146–53; Dubled, , Arch. de l'Église d'Alsace 26.61–8; Jakobs, , Hirsauer (n. 197 supra) 21–3 and 153–70; Wollasch, , Anfänge (n. 197 supra) 81–92. Bishop Henry of Liège in 1145 limited the advocacy of Rolduc to the family of Adalbert of Scarne ‘unless they are unable to hold the advocacy having by some occasion lost their right of liberty,’ in which case the abbot and monks were to choose an advocate: Rolduc 9 no. 7.Google Scholar

280 Cf. Dubled, , Arch. de l'Église d'Alsace 26.68–77; Jakobs, , Hirsauer (n. 197 supra) 156 and 167–70. On the ‘over-advocacy’ of the emperor for all Cistercian monasteries in the Empire, see Hirsch, Klosterimmunität (n. 197 supra) 107–15; on the liberty of the archbishops of Cologne, see Semmler, Siegburg (n. 25S supra) 170–231 and Jakobs, Hermann, Der Adel in der Klosterreform von St. Blasien (Kölner historische Abhandlungen 16; Cologne – Graz 1968) 257ff.; on the liberty of the archbishops of Mainz, see L. Falck, ‘Klosterfreiheit und Klosterschutz. Die Klosterpolitik der Mainzer Erzbischöfe von Adalbert I. bis Heinrich I. (1180–1153),’ Archiv für mittelrheinische Kirchengeschichte 8 (1956) 21–75; on the liberty of the bishops of Worms, see J. Semmler, ‘Das Stift Frankenthal in der Kanonikerreform des 12. Jahrhunderts,’ Blätter für pfälzische Kirchengeschichte und religiöse Volkskunde 23 (1956) 101–13.Google Scholar

281 Cart. de St Bavon (n. 92 supra) 40 no. 35 (= Ghent, Archives de l'État, Sint Baafs 35), cf. 27–9 and 36–8 nos. 22 and 32, limiting the rights of the advocate.Google Scholar

282 Despy, G., ‘La fondation de l'abbaye de Villers (1146),’ Archives, Bibliothèques et Musées de Belgique 28 (1957) 13. A recently-discovered charter shows that Villers was founded by Walter of Marbais and his mother Judith in 1146, but the chronicle of Villers (on which previous historians have relied) claimed that it was founded on an allod of the abbot of Florennes.Google Scholar

283 Wilhelm, , Servatius (n. 40 supra) 58: ‘Placuit tandem beato Seruatio, ut sibimet ipse aduocatus existeret.’ Cf., on the date, Boeren, Jocundus (n. 2 supra) 117.Google Scholar

284 London, British Museum, Add. MS 17396 fols. 10^v–11^v (formerly 33^v–34^v) (see n. 101 supra). There was technically no advocate because the donors relinquished the districtio and iustitia, but they recognized a responsibility to assist the abbey if necessary.Google Scholar

285 Cf. de Valous, Guy, Le monachisme clunisien des origines au XV^e siècle (Archives de la France monastique 39–40; Ligugé – Paris 1935) II 141–5; Magnou, E., ‘Abbés séculiers ou avoués à Moissac au XI^e siècle?’ Moissac et l'Occident au XI^e siècle (Toulouse 1964) 123–9; Fechter, Johannes, Cluny, Adel und Volk (Diss. Tübingen 1966) 32–3; Cowdrey, H. E. J., The Cluniacs and the Gregorian Reform (Oxford 1970) 211ff.Google Scholar

286 Hallinger, , Gorze–Kluny (n. 258 supra) 573–97 and 742–3; Schieffer, T., ‘Cluniazensische oder Gorzische Reformbewegung?’ Archiv für mittelrheinische Kirchengeschichte 4 (1952) 35 (both of whom stressed the contrast with regard to advocacy between the Cluniac and other movements of monastic reform); H. Hoffman, ‘Von Cluny zum Investiturstreit,’ Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 45 (1963) 170–4 and 194.Google Scholar

287 Egger, B., Geschichte der Cluniazenser-Klöster in der Westschweiz bis zum Auftreten der Cisterzienser (Freiburger historische Studien 3; Freiburg in der S. 1907) 177–80, citing the advocates of Romainmǒtier, Peterlingen, Bevaix, St. Victor in Geneva, Münchenwyler, Rüggisberg, and Rougemont; J. Wollasch, ‘Königtum, Adel und Klöster im Berry während des 10. Jahrhunderts,’ Neue Forschungen über Cluny und die Cluniacenser (<e>ed. G. Tellenbach; Freiburg im B. 1959) 119; H.-E. Mager, ‘Studien über das Verhältnis der Cluniacenser zum Eigenkirchenwesen,’ ibid. 212, who said that, ‘Die Vogtfreiheit war eben für Cluny keine unabdingbare Forderung.’ Frederick Barbarossa's privilege for Peterlingen in 1153 confirmed (on the basis of forgeries probably made in 1148/53) the ‘free power’ of the abbot of Cluny to install (constituere) the advocate chosen by the monks: Die Urkunden Friedrichs I. 1152–1158 (<e>ed. H. Appelt; MGH Dipl. 10.1; Hannover 1975) 80 no. 48; cf. Mayer, H. E., ‘Die Peterlinger Urkundenfälschungen und die Anfänge von Kloster und Stadt Peterlingen,’ Deutsches Archiv 19 (1963) 30–129, esp. 113–4; Büttner, H., ‘Studien zur Geschichte von Peterlingen,’ Zeitschrift für schweizerische Kirchengeschichte 58 (1964) 265–92, esp. 285–91; and T. Endemann, Vogtei und Herrschaft im alemannisch-burgundischen Grenzraum (Konstanz – Stuttgart 1967), who distinguished the types of advocates at Romainmǒtier (20–1) and Peterlingen (33–4) and contrasted the purely protective advocacy found in the West with the combination of protection and jurisdiction exercised by advocates in the East (45–50, esp. 48–9 on Cluniac houses).ed.+G.+Tellenbach;+Freiburg+im+B.+1959)+119;+H.-E.+Mager,+‘Studien+über+das+Verhältnis+der+Cluniacenser+zum+Eigenkirchenwesen,’+ibid.+212,+who+said+that,+‘Die+Vogtfreiheit+war+eben+für+Cluny+keine+unabdingbare+Forderung.’+Frederick+Barbarossa's+privilege+for+Peterlingen+in+1153+confirmed+(on+the+basis+of+forgeries+probably+made+in+1148/53)+the+‘free+power’+of+the+abbot+of+Cluny+to+install+(constituere)+the+advocate+chosen+by+the+monks:+Die+Urkunden+Friedrichs+I.+1152–1158+(ed.+H.+Appelt;+MGH+Dipl.+10.1;+Hannover+1975)+80+no.+48;+cf.+Mayer,+H.+E.,+‘Die+Peterlinger+Urkundenfälschungen+und+die+Anfänge+von+Kloster+und+Stadt+Peterlingen,’+Deutsches+Archiv+19+(1963)+30–129,+esp.+113–4;+Büttner,+H.,+‘Studien+zur+Geschichte+von+Peterlingen,’+Zeitschrift+für+schweizerische+Kirchengeschichte+58+(1964)+265–92,+esp.+285–91;+and+T.+Endemann,+Vogtei+und+Herrschaft+im+alemannisch-burgundischen+Grenzraum+(Konstanz+–+Stuttgart+1967),+who+distinguished+the+types+of+advocates+at+Romainmǒtier+(20–1)+and+Peterlingen+(33–4)+and+contrasted+the+purely+protective+advocacy+found+in+the+West+with+the+combination+of+protection+and+jurisdiction+exercised+by+advocates+in+the+East+(45–50,+esp.+48–9+on+Cluniac+houses).>Google Scholar

288 Jakobs, , Adel 286.Google Scholar

289 Wibald, , Epp. 189 and 240 (ed. Jaffé [n. 74 supra] 308–10 and 360); cf. Paquay, Saint-Barthélemy (n. 66 supra) 96. Another dispute concerning Namèche was settled by Adrian IV in 1155/9: Miraeus–Foppens, II 1172–3; cf. Halkin, Bull. Soc. Liège 10.204 and JL 10466.Google Scholar

290 Yans, M., ‘Une charte fausse d'Albéron. Un vidimus suspect de Henri de Gueldre,’ Leodium 34 (1947) 7–16.Google Scholar

291 The right, for instance, of Cluny to choose the priests for its own churches, on condition that they receive the cura animarum from the bishop or his vicar, was guaranteed in repeated papal bulls in the first half of the twelfth century: Bullarium sacri ordinis Cluniacensis (<e>ed. Pierre Simon; Lyons 1680) 32, 39, 43, 53; JL 5849, 6821, 7193, 8621.ed.+Pierre+Simon;+Lyons+1680)+32,+39,+43,+53;+JL+5849,+6821,+7193,+8621.>Google Scholar

292 Cluny V 6 no. 3659; cf. Dereine, Chanoines 71.Google Scholar

293 See pp. 166–7 supra on Gerard.Google Scholar