This page intentionally left blank

Acts of Giving
Individual, Community, and Church in Tenth-Century Christian Spain


Great Clarendon Street, Oxford   Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York
 Wendy Davies 2007


The moral rights of the authors have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2007 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Data available Typeset by Laserwords Private Limited, Chennai, India Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by Biddles Ltd, King’s Lynn, Norfolk ISBN 978–0–19–928340–8 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2

For Carmen and Clara .

This page intentionally left blank .

London. participation in them all was more than usually enlightening and this book is pretty much a direct outcome of the experience. David d’Avray. at a conference on donation post mortem. and Régine Le Jan. There are all the people who listened to papers as I worked out some ideas. parts are relevant to the discussion that follows.Preface This book began in Padua. without the benefit of hindsight. It was one of a series of conferences on the transfer of property rights in early medieval Europe organized. and I hope I can do something to bring Spain into view in the wider pattern of early medieval European development: it is so often omitted from English-language European surveys. However. with others. and it is easier to probe comparisons and contrasts with other parts of Europe without the later lens. Padua. Although a new field of study for me. Although its focus is quite different. I do so because it is exceptionally interesting. and because of the coincident stimulus of the Transferts series. by François Bougard. although there is important work in hand. with experience of other parts of the early medieval world. I think it important to look at tenth-century text in its own terms. can be fruitful. in Leeds. because opportunities opened up just as some other big projects came to a close. Spanish friends will not like my focus on the tenth century and they will point out that I miss the crucial significance of this or that by failing to note what happens later. it is extremely difficult to synthesize from existing work within a purely tenth-century context. I am indebted to the organizers and participants for the stimulation of the occasion. Birmingham. Ann Christys. I have many debts of gratitude. We will undoubtedly get greater understanding as current work feeds into the wider syntheses. . Of course. I hope that the perspective of an outsider. and also easier to focus on the process of change. some people may be surprised that I am writing about early medieval Spain at all. Laurent Feller. They will doubtless be right. Since this book went to press there has been a valuable addition to the Spanish bibliography in Amancio Isla Frez’s. 2006). Many of my other friends will be surprised that I have rarely used archaeological evidence. and Madrid. Culto y Monarquía hispánica entre los siglos X y XII (Jaén. some developments were not inevitable. especially that in chapter three. Julio Escalona. Rome. Memoria. This is because.

7. I am deeply grateful to all these friends and colleagues for their generosity with their time and knowledge—and especially to Ann. Chris. for Fig.1. and Susan Wood. David Ganz. Woolstone December 2006 . Margarita Fernández Mier. for Códice de San Millán de la Cogolla 25. Sarah Halton. and Julio for reading and responding to the whole work. Cristina Jular. I am also grateful to the several bodies which have awarded funding in the course of this work. to the Patrimonio Nacional de Espa˜ na (Madrid) for the Biblioteca de El Escorial MS D.viii Preface Paul Fouracre. and to the Biblioteca de la Real Academia de la Historia. Ian Wood. Ana Rodríguez. Madrid. Liesbeth. and Roger Wright. 428r. 14–2. the British Academy. putting in considerable effort at very short notice. coupled with encouragement. UCL also gave me six months of essential sabbatical leave. I am extremely grateful to the following Spanish libraries for giving me permission to reproduce manuscript pages: to the Biblioteca Nacional de Espa˜ na (Madrid) for BN MS Vit. 145v. especially for allowing me the opportunity for essential field trips to think about landscape and land-use: UCL History department. Richard Foster gave muchappreciated help with the final stages. Riet. Julia Smith. Jonathan Jarrett. Roger Collins. all read chapters and made incisive and astute comments. fol. 3. Julio’s energetic criticism. Chris Wickham. 209. none of them bears any responsibility for the things I say: the errors are my own and I have sometimes obstinately stuck to my views against their advice. and Brian Williams drew the maps. Riet van Bremen. has been particularly helpful over a long period. I˜ naki Martín. and the Spanish ‘Foundations of European Space’ project. Códice Vigilano o Albeldense. for the cover illustration.2. Carlos Estepa.I. UCL Dean’s Travel Fund. fol. Jinty Nelson. Liesbeth van Houts. Obviously. fol. for Fig. I really could not have finished it without them. I have also been lucky to have had help on specific points (not least by providing me with books and offprints) from: Isabel Alfonso.1. Ignacio Álvarez.

San Pedro and Santa Comba: Churches and their Proprietors 3. Peasant Society 9.Contents List of Figures List of Tables Abbreviations Note on Terms for Regions Note on Spelling 1. Rhetoric and Action Bibliography Index x xi xii xiv xvi 1 36 65 88 113 139 164 189 214 223 237 . Setting the Scene 2. Gesmira. Dividing and Sharing Property 4. Recosinda. Men and Women 8. The Language of Donation 5. Donation to Churches: Purpose and Expectations 6. and Nu˜ no Sarracíniz: Donation to Lay Persons 7.

1 71 147 8.1 7.I.3 1.4 1.2 8. 145v Location of properties of Munio Fern´ andez and Flaino Mu˜ noz Sancho II and Urraca.1 Terms used for regions Spain—relief and regions of the North The Picos de Europa and Santa María de Lebe˜ na Galicia: looking west from Vila de Cruces Principal political regions of northern Iberia in the tenth century Location of sources of the main charter collections used The meseta: the Campos south of Sahagún The river Limia. Biblioteca de la Real Academia de la Historia. Biblioteca de El Escorial.4 2. fol.1 1. Códice de San Millán 25.2 1. Pallares M´ endez) Small fields and orchards in Rabal Traces of former fields beneath the Porma reservoir in northern Le´ on Zones of different recording practice in respect of peasant transactions xv 2 4 7 13 25 27 37 37 39 43 55 60 6.2 2. 428r The territory of Rabal (after M. in the Codex Albeldense. near Santa Comba Santa Comba Selected churches and monasteries of north-western Iberia The Li´ ebana valley Distribution of corpus et anima formulas The proximity of clientship networks to their patrons Family tree diagram from a tenth-century Riojan manuscript.6 2. fol.1 8. with Visigothic kings and a tenth-century king and scribes.6 3.5 1.1 2. del C.4 176 191 192 193 211 .List of Figures 0. MS D.3 2.3 8.5 2.1 1.2.

1 5.and tenth-century gifts to lay beneficiaries Percentage of alienators of property. by gender Peasant donation to the church 42 118 141 172 209 .1 7.1 6.1 8.1 Transactions in churches and monasteries Expressions of piety in records of donation to the church Ninth.List of Tables 2.

ed. (Santiago. ed. 1 (Lisbon. 2 vols. Colección diplomática del monasterio de Sahagún. Evans with J. 1893). Herrero de la Fuente. Zeumer. O Tombo de Celanova. Cartulario de San Pedro de Arlanza. Colección diplomática del monasterio de San Vicente de Oviedo (a˜ nos 781–1200). J. J. 1987). Serrano (Madrid. sectio 1. antiguo monasterio benedictino. 1910). . Ruiz Asencio (León. 1998) (older edition: Becerro Gótico de Carde˜ na. Leges nationum Germanicarum (Hanover. ed. J. J.Abbreviations A Ar C Cel Forum Iudicum Li. MGH LL. vol. Colección documental del archivo de la catedral de León. A. Sáez. ed. Lii. The Text of the Book of Llan Dˆ av. M. ed. Leges Visigothorum. M. 1968). Mínguez Fernández. K. 1868). Sáez and C. Diplomata et Chartae. ed. G. ed. 3) ). Rhys (Oxford. 3. 1902). A. vol. 1 (775–952). M. 1925). 1 (León. Martínez Díez (Carde˜ na/Burgos. Benedictinos de Silos. 1995). Ubieto Arteta (Valencia. 1990. P. ed. ed. Fernández Flórez and M. Liii LL OD Ov Portugaliae Monumenta Historica S Cartulario de Albelda. A. J. G. Andrade. English translation: The Visigothic Code (Forum judicum). Colección documental del monasterio de San Pedro de Carde˜ na. vol. 1 (León. i. ed. 1960). Floriano Llorente (Oviedo. vol. 1976). J. ed. vol. 2 (953–85). ed. 3 (986–1031). vol. P. 35–456. Herculano de Carvalho e Araujo and J. L. ed. da Silva Mendes Leal. E. Scott (Boston. 1987. Serrano (Silos/Valladolid. vol. 1999). L. Portugaliae Monumenta Historica a saeculo octavo post Christum usque ad quintum decimum. Colección documental del monasterio de Santa María de Otero de las Due˜ nas. ed. ed. 1910) = Historia de Castilla por los PP. S. E. Sáez.

Tumbos del Monasterio de Sobrado de los Monjes. Sánchez Belda (Madrid. A. L. Cartulario de Valpuesta. ed. 1948). 1970). Edición diplomatica. 1976). 1976). 2 vols. (Valencia. 1. Desamparados Perez Soler (Valencia. Apéndices e índices. 1962–63). Ubieto Arteta. . vol. (Madrid. Ubieto Arteta (Valencia. ed. Cartulario de San Millán de la Cogolla. Cartulario de San Juan de la Pe˜ na. ed. 2 vols. Estudio introductorio. Cartulario de Santo Toribio de Liébana. Loscertales de García de Valdeavellano. A. Lucas Álvarez (Santiago de Compostela.Abbreviations Sam xiii SJP SM Sob T V El Tumbo de San Julián de Samos (siglos VIII–XII). M. ed. M. 1986). ed. ed. P.

much the same as the modern autonomous regions. that is referring to the northern part of the modern state of Portugal. 1.Note on Terms for Regions The political geography of Spain was extremely unstable throughout the central middle ages and it is therefore difficult to find consistent terms for regions that have some meaning but do not give a misleading impression. ‘Asturias’ and ‘Cantabria’. and east into modern autonomous Aragón. For convenience and consistency I have used the following terms when referring to tenth-century regions (Fig. extended north to the sea and east into the modern autonomous regions of País Vasco and La Rioja. east of Galicia. . 11–16. as used in tenth-century text.1): ‘Portugal’. ‘Castile’ for the modern province of Burgos. Palencia. south into La Rioja. ‘Galicia’. 0. ‘western meseta’ for those parts of the kingdom of AsturiasLeón lying south of the Cantabrian mountains. ‘Catalonia’ for the northern half of the modern autonomous region of Catalu˜ na. centred on the modern autonomous region of Navarra but extending west into País Vasco. See Chapter 1. I have also often referred to the geographical units of the Duero basin and the Ebro valley (see Fig. and north of the Duero river (essentially the modern provinces of León. The seventeen modern autonomous regions of Spain in part reflect regional identities of the central middle ages but in part do not do so at all. and northern Zamora). much the same as the modern autonomous region of Galicia. extending north over the eastern Pyrenees and west into northern Aragón. ‘Navarre’.1). for some discussion of the changing political geography of the tenth century.

Note on Terms for Regions xv Figure 0.1 Terms used for regions .

. 102–5. see below. I have therefore always quoted text as published in the most recent editions (many earlier editions ‘tidied up’ the Latin) and have not attempted ‘improvements’. The spelling of Latin words is particularly variant. for further discussion. much more so than in texts from many other parts of Europe at that date. Readers familiar with classical Latin will find many of these forms very strange.Note on Spelling There are wide variants in orthographic practice in tenth-century texts. Where it is not. they are not ‘errors’ but a precious insight into the way authors and scribes used the language in the tenth century. pp. These variants are often linguistically significant and often have a significant bearing on textual transmission. as is the case in most parts of western Europe at that time. where that is obvious. I have retained the spelling of the texts used. I have usually modernized proper names to the modern Spanish (Castilian) form.

and Ovveco) were taken to court by the monastery of Celanova (see Fig. Second. land-use. kings and kingdoms. written texts become very plentiful and we begin to glimpse the working of local society. and recent approaches to early medieval texts of these kinds in other parts of western Europe. The tenth century is particularly significant for the region: it is the time when suddenly. and landscape What was the land of northern Spain like in the tenth century? On 15 June 959 five people from central Galicia (Goia. the broad outlines of time. farm) of Santa Olalla near the River Mi˜ no (north of Orense)—a Celanova property—and ¹ Cel446. Before engaging with the texts. The tenth century is also significant because it spans some of the earlier stages of the so-called ‘Reconquest’ of Spain.e.¹ They admitted entering the villa (i. This is not a period chosen by chance. the analytical models used by recent generations of Spanish historians.5). and the relationships which they illuminate. after centuries spattered with only fragments of source material. and the status of ordinary people. some scene-setting is essential. we can thereby look at rural relationships at the point when they were emerging from obscurity. person. . Vicco. L A N D A N D PE O P L E Land. and place: the land and its use. a time when Christian communities of the north are thought to have won back ground from invading Muslims of the south. Iudila. Rudila. the transactions that they detail. First. 1. the intellectual frameworks through which we can consider the period: the availability of the texts themselves.1 Setting the Scene This book is about northern Spain—so-called ‘Christian’ Spain—in the tenth century.

chestnut trees.² In court the bounds of the villa were confirmed and the five accused people agreed to pay to Celanova. Does it provide a useful model. from which we can generalize? Are the data useful and transferable? Figure 1. notwithstanding the clear availability of space for development. and building houses there. pp. arable fields for growing cereals and legumes. 196–7 for the word ‘villa’. Here is a text about land-use—it speaks of vineyards. they were allowed to keep all the bread and lentils they grew.1 Spain—relief and regions of the North ² See below. cultivating fields. a quarter of the produce from their vines and chestnut trees. .2 Setting the Scene admitted planting vines. and it gives an indication of expanding agriculture and of jealously guarded property rights. and rural settlements. every year.

To the east of both the meseta and the Cantabrian mountains lie the high sierras of the Rioja. then farther east the long-used shelter of the Ebro valley. p. 1. see below. There are the Pyrenees in the north-east. cutting off Spain from France. and yet farther east the foothills of the Pyrenees (modern and medieval Catalonia). separating the narrow coastal strip of the north coast from the Duero and Ebro basins. 1. the meseta. the Cantabrian mountains in the north. while much of the Duero basin (modern Castile-León) lies on the plateau. which is hot and arid in summer. although it is crossed by long river valleys running south from the mountains to the Duero (see Figs. although the ranges are broken by the two great river systems of the north—that of the Duero and the Ebro. nevertheless something useful can be derived from charter ³ Sob38 (985). example of a workable valley in Cantabria. the Iberian system bounding the Ebro valley on its southern and western sides. literally in the shadow of the completely unworkable Picos de Europa mountains. The high rainfall of the north-west makes Galicia wet and green.2. It is a land of much high plateau. but sheltering both farmers and learned men in the tenth century and earlier (see Figs. 1.³ The narrow northern coastal strip looks northwards to the sea and is in many senses separate. with ‘old’ Castile running north across the hills and mountains from the upper reaches of the Duero to the sea (see Fig. North and north-east of the sierras lie the mountains of Navarre and the hilly green land of the Basque country.4). as also individuals who made their power base in the mountains. Although there is nothing like a Frankish polyptyque or the English Domesday Book to give us an overall survey of properties and their attributes. the León mountains in the north-west. 8 and pp. All this makes for regional isolation and regional difference. Spain is a huge country. and the Central system fringing the southern side of the Duero basin (Fig.3. 1. though atypical. . 146–8. the Liébana is a good. Between the basin and the coastal strip the Cantabrian mountains—high and sometimes desolate—have some sheltered workable high plateau within.4).Setting the Scene 3 By comparison with Britain. separating Galicia from central Spain. 2. and it has a very diverse landscape.6). with high mountain ranges projecting above the plateau. 1.1). although the mountains were certainly not unused: one Galician woman gave the monastery of San Juan near Lugo a farm ‘in the mountains separating Asturias and Galicia’ and we will encounter other mountain farms.

4 Setting the Scene Figure 1.2 The Picos de Europa and Santa María de Lebe˜ na .

cf. La alta edad media. there are several good analyses of the agrarian economy in regional studies. that could be sown with four quarters. Cel2 (942). see below. and poultry are noted on the lands given to Celanova by Bishop Rosendo. Mixed livestock was a norm too. a small estate in the north. ⁶ Cel247. Siglos VIII-XI (Madrid. hens. . 10 pigs. besides riding horses and a flock of sheep. 219–37. economic survey of early medieval Spain in A. and millet are all specified in one Portuguese rent. in Asturias. 56 cattle and 2 bulls. Sob98 (952). 100 mules. and rye feature in a Sobrado formula). Mixed farming seems to have been the norm. passim.Setting the Scene 5 texts about landscape and land-use in tenth-century Spain. again in ⁴ There is a recent. could be vast: an early grant to San Félix of Oca cites 268 cows. in Castile. 1979) contains some stimulating economic analysis.⁶ These numbers are relatively small.⁵ The stock that went with a church property on the Sorga brook. ⁵ Sob94 (963). Larrea. with both arable and pastoral elements wherever one looks. brief. La Navarre du IV e au XII e siècle (Paris and Brussels. Glick. pigs. barley. del C. 1979). Sob2 (955).⁴ At one level. and 720 sheep were counted on one episcopal estate on the meseta. pp. and 10 geese. in 927. Pallares Méndez. had 4 oxen. 18 herds of cows (in different locations. for example. sheep. 150 good horses. 7 mules. wheat. and geese. such as. although they are less frequently enumerated (geese once formed part of a price payment). farming practices seem remarkably similar from east to west and north to south of our area. A8. amounted to 10 cows. 15 yokes of oxen. M. as did animals. Li220 (950). 83 goats. 20 sheep. and poultry also occur. Numbers of livestock on great estates. 1998). J. land was given by the king of Navarre in ?941 that could be sown with four sacks of grain. 2002).⁸ Grain also frequently featured in statements of price. including more than 400 full-grown beasts). and innumerable sheep. S308. and an ass. Islamic and Christian Spain in the Early Middle Ages (Princeton. 16 pack horses. 85 pigs. and horses nearly always mentioned when stock was listed. while T. near Celanova. Cel380. and unnumbered pigs. 22–6. 29–53. ⁷ SM7 (864). in 950 land was given near Buezo. For charters. V27. goats. goats. ⁸ Cel84 (986). 40 horses and a stallion. Isla Frez. 50 sheep. 50 yokes of oxen. 10 donkeys. however. Arable land was in fact measured in terms of its cereal productive capacity in many parts: land was sold in Rabal near Celanova in 961 that could be sown with two ‘sacks’ (modii) of grain. F. although these are limited in geographical range.⁷ Arable cultivation put the emphasis on cereal crops more than any other (wheat. and J. which changed hands in 980. El monasterio de Sobrado: un ejemplo del protagonismo monástico en la Galicia medieval (La Coru˜ na. barley. with cattle. despite such variation in the landscape.

the orchard planted by an uncle. Cel218 (936). the orchard planted with a husband. arable was sold in 930 in Fontasquesa. a terraced plot (faza). see further below. with its homesteads. at 160–5. cf. a pasture. east or west.¹¹ We can also derive some sense of land-use by looking at the formulaic language used in charters. three enclosures. with two gardens. S44 (932). to the vineyard ‘I planted myself ’.6 Setting the Scene all regions: for example.¹⁰ In fact. and arable fields’. Ov9 (946). new vines. Liii571 (995). 184. vineyards. half a vineyard was sold in 963 in Marmellar (Castile) for grain to the value of five solidi (a unit of account. there ⁹ S34.or three-fold in mid-century. on the northern edge of the meseta. For solidi. Cel197 (975–1011). others give a name to a property and list its appurtenances. Cel571. a sack of wheat. Lii450. of no significance for on-the-ground description. and below. the impression that viticulture was expanding is reinforced by the many references. and two quarters of peas. Cel70 (962). arable was sold in Cexo (southern Galicia) in 981 for a cow. no less than five vineyards. like new orchards. for two quarters of grain and two rams. notionally a silver ‘shilling’). for discussion of price. price and valuation in Galicia and Castile-León’. Sob104 (918). than are those on the meseta. pp. . C112. were clearly established at this time across the whole region. Ov12 (948) are exceptions). standard phrases like ‘the villa at Carvajal. and it is as likely that people paid in scarce commodities as in what was common (note that pigs. for example. in the second half of the century. hill or plateau—as those in arable. but Galicians also commonly used a cattle standard of value (for example. 157–9. One might be tempted to argue from this that there was more arable in Galicia and more pasture on the meseta. ‘Sale. bread. or the orchards planted near León in the generation before 977. Sob69 (946). Sob105 (921). 11 (2002). In fact Galician prices are much more likely to be cited in terms of grain. which preference payment in cattle and sheep. hence. some of the Sobrado examples are much earlier: Sob124 (860). such lists can be useful in two different ways: firstly. ¹¹ T69. a horse worth fifteen oxen). Early Medieval Europe. p. and two plots for houses. which were clearly common. ¹⁰ C134 (968).⁹ The cultivation of vines was also important and transactions in vineyards were almost as common—in all parts. 149–74. While some texts use a descriptive noun like ‘vineyard’ or ‘meadow’ or ‘wood’ to identify the subject of a transaction or a dispute. records of transactions in individual vineyards increased two. see Davies. However. and wine. those in Galicia a couple of decades later. like those in the far North in the Liébana in the generation before 963. hardly ever feature in prices. ¹² For the former.¹² One might be tempted to dismiss the latter lists as mere formulas. OD12 (961). The land that went with the small monastery of San Miguel de Támara (Castile) comprised three arable plots.

cited above. figs. and water courses. orchards. fruiting and non-fruiting trees) and in Castile there are more formulaic references to mills. while the list may well not be an actual description of the attributes of the particular piece of land transacted. meadows. in Galicia formulas tend to specify a much wider range of trees (arable. orchards. When a 932 bequest to a priest of land in the Porma valley specifies that it has arable fields. SM95 (979).Setting the Scene 7 is value in the formulas because they tell us about expectations. cherry trees. . from time to time lists of appurtenances move away from the standard formula and become specific to a particular property: the lists of fields and vineyards accompanying the church of San Miguel of Támara. ¹⁴ Cel163 (932).¹³ All the more so because the formulas vary by region: while the Porma formula is very characteristic of land on the meseta. SM89 (971). pastures.¹⁴ Here we do begin to see some regional variation. (sweet) chestnuts. hills. it is a reasonable assumption that land in the Porma valley usually had those features at that time. springs. C109 (963). reflecting the much greater prevalence of reference to water rights in those texts. vineyards. hazelnut and other nut trees. similarly particular are Figure 1.3 Galicia: looking west from Vila de Cruces ¹³ S45. is specific to that place. fishing rights. and gardens. Secondly. fruiting and non-fruiting trees. it is very likely to be a description of the normal attributes in the area. for example. vineyards.

¹⁸ Cf. ¹⁷ Cel224 (934). 10 cows and a bull. ¹⁶ C119 (964). statements of boundaries are commonly and characteristically specific. The latter are more occasional but. it was transferred with a long list of chattels (books and liturgical vessels) and a very precise specification of stock—two named serfs and their children. but less intensively exploited land also comes into the record: this is land that might well be transacted as montes. Sam40 (993). SJP15 (943). and 30 pigs. on the one hand. streams. some changes in land-use can be detected across the course of the tenth century. some land was clearly much more intensively exploited than that used for hunting and gathering.¹⁸ Given the presence of both specific material and usable sets of formulas. such as characterize the valleys of the meseta and much of southern Galicia. and the Carde˜ na monks’ hill on the fourth’.¹⁶ or on the other. Necessarily. in the formulas the distinction between intensive and extensive exploitation is often made by differentiating ‘tamed’ and ‘untamed’ land ¹⁵ See above. with the land of John the priest on another side. usually indicate both topographic and man-made features specific to the property. trees. and stones. with plots side by side. woods.¹⁵ This tells us something specific about the stock of a small farm. Cel173 (922). boundaries running ‘below the fort as far as the ford above Erizila’s weir and from there … along the road which goes to Quiroga as far as Gandera above Gualamiru’s field. the areas of close-packed arable. by contrast. 5–6. . springs. were farmed like this throughout the century. 7 horses and a stallion. with their hills. from there across Scaurieto’s field and above the enclosure which Adulf and his wife gave you’.¹⁷ The former (which are by far the most common) are important in indicating intensity of land-use: in such landscapes worked properties were packed close together. Specification of actual appurtenances is relatively rare. in 930.8 Setting the Scene the (relatively rare) specifications of stock and the (relatively common) specific descriptions of land in terms of planting capacity. S39. When the lay owners of the estate at Piasca gave it to the monastery of Piasca (way to the north in the Cantabrian mountains). A20 (953). Ov19 (978). large expanses which were not farmed so directly. that of Tellu Feles on the third. side by side. hills or mountains. pp. also cited above. OD6 (947). crosses. 20 sheep. fields. more is recorded about that kind of land-use. While it is reasonable to think of almost all land being used in one way or another. These come in two forms: ‘land beside the land of Gomiz Belaza. 20 goats.

see. S41(930). major ecclesiastical landowners had become highly entrepreneurial in the way they handled proprietorship—of this we will hear more in due course.²¹ The land for some distance round many of these settlements was known as the suburb. references to cleared land (terra calva) came in. ²¹ Civitas was usually primarily an episcopal see in the early middle ages. the relatively small district of Ausín. S209 (963).Setting the Scene 9 (terrae domitae and indomitae). 1971). for example. cities. indeed. terra calva: Cel398 (963). S. Cel165 (963). El dominio del monasterio de Sahagún en el siglo X (Salamanca. El dominio del monasterio de San Millán de la Cogolla (siglos X a XIII). Transactions in these large areas tended to decrease across the century: there were far more in the 930s than there were by the 960s. A. Cel428 (983). in Galicia. but in most of the cases noted below the contexts indicate more than a purely episcopal settlement. 208–13. García de Cortázar y Ruiz de Aguirre. the word signified something more like ‘district’. Cel174 (964). Zamora and Coyanza were also called civis in the late tenth century. accordingly. Lii360 (963). and. El monasterio de San Pedro de Carde˜ na.¹⁹ The flurry of planting new vineyards and orchards by mid-century has already been mentioned. Cel218 (936). like Sobrado.²² Of ¹⁹ For example. by institutions as well as by individuals. Historia de un dominio monástico castellano (902–1338) (Salamanca. larger or smaller. Cel338 (989). suburbio. untamed land: S40 (930). often located formulaically in the suburb of Burgos. with increasing specification of stands of fruit trees and nut trees. than the modern concept of suburb. with churches and agricultural land located therein. Moreta Velayos. Introducción a la historia rural de Castilla altomedieval (Salamanca. 1969). is 8 km away from the town. 61–4. for a suburb with no focal . They are most consistently called civitates. M. ²² A suburb could stretch some distance: Carde˜ na. by the end of the century. That there were some towns in tenth-century northern Spain is suggested by a good number of written references to settlements that contemporaries identified as distinct from the countryside. J. 1980). by contrast see C43 (944) ‘in suburbio quod dicunt Agusini’.²⁰ Increasing exploitation at the turn of the millennium raises the question of towns. Mínguez Fernández. the standard formulas changed across the century and formulaic references to untamed land tend to disappear. montes: S42 (931). The point is made well in several excellent studies of the growth of monastic lordship. in fact. J. C27 (935). the long perambulations (the second type of boundary statement) often defined tracts of this kind rather than the more intensively exploited plots. as has been much discussed. Sob1 (952). pp. although León was increasingly civis or cives in the later decades of the century and was sometimes called urbs. ²⁰ See below. Urbs was also occasionally used of monastic settlements. There is a strong sense of increasingly intensive exploitation. There are changes in their occurrence.

and Zamora. Estepa Díez. Li76 (928). 153–64. Liii530 (989). ²³ Lugo: Cel179 (927).²⁵ We hear of its walls. Cea. and Burgos are more solid in the record: Astorga and Due˜ nas had urban plots and houses. Una ciudad Hispano-cristiana hace un milenio. Simancas: Lii469 (979). Estampas de la vida en León (4th edn. Li42 (917). Li230 (950). There are brief references to Lugo. ‘suburbio de kastro’ of Monzón. apparently including different residences—some had as many as five smallish houses (casas). churches. the many roads that led to it. C189 (982). 199–215.10 Setting the Scene course. Lii489 (982). and they also tended to have associated lands. Coyanza. in Espa˜ na Medieval. IV. Cel428. Liii586 (999). Due˜ nas. Angel Ferrari Nú˜ nez (Madrid. 305–41. while Burgos had its own distinctive population and shops. Liii520 (987). Estepa Díez. Lii311 (959). ²⁶ For example: Li43 (917). C203 (992). C46 (944). Cea did too. Lii296 (956). Simancas. Salamanca. Estructura social de la ciudad de León (siglos XI—XIII) (León.²⁶ Town plots were quite substantial and had something of the character of a rural homestead in the town. Lii409 (968). Cea: S130 (951). Lii462 (978). the monasteries. Li180 (944). cf. Buenos Aires. they might have gardens and granaries. 1947 [originally published 1926]). may perhaps overstate the urban quality. the suburb of Melgar (also with castrum). but its essential point remains very reasonable. 1977). Lii279 (954). Lii426 (973).²³ Astorga. Lii478 (980). Some rural homesteads.g. . Sánchez-Albornoz. Due˜ nas: S171 (960). and S270 (973). Estudios dedicados al professor D. whether or not these places had an urban character and distinctive economic function. Li168 (943). ²⁷ Modern English ‘court’ has too many aristocratic overtones to be a useful translation.e.²⁴ In fact. it is only León for which we have sufficient detail to be sure of its urban physical character and urban economic function. Burgos: C5 (912). rather than simply being physically different. but especially 113–21. Lii416 (972). Lii311 (959). they occasionally had a church. i. and the many town plots. e. Oca: SM9 (869). also Li17 (904). gates. often known as cortes. Lii296 (956). Liii548 (991) and Liii578 (997). S64 (937). the city as royal centre and as locus of judicial hearings. S349 (994). Li180. Cf.²⁷ They often seem to have been fenced off. Li83 (929). ²⁵ The classic picture of tenth-century León of C. Oca. Li230 (950). perhaps no more than a bishop’s see at that date. Liii611 (994–1001). S315 (983). Coyanza: Lii360. and towers. as well as a fortification and market. ²⁴ Astorga: Sam115 (982)..²⁸ ‘town’. Lii425 (973). located in the suburb. are also referred to as cortes. they could have several buildings on the plot. at 311–14. S368 (956). and cemeteries within it. ²⁸ Li109 (936). farmsteads. There is helpful relevant material in C. ‘El alfoz castellano en los siglos IX al XII’. passim. See further C. just enough to indicate that they came within the consciousness of some record-makers as distinctive places. S327 (984). Zamora: Cel430 (951). Lii412 (970). Salamanca: Li149 (941). however. 1984). C151 (972). is much more difficult to assess.

several different polities were in the course of forming. of fruiting trees in Galicia and of water rights in Castile. such as the greater consciousness. and ultimately the ‘union’ of the Iberian peninsula (excepting Portugal) in the decades on either side of 1500. and the internal political process was complicated by military campaigns by and against Muslim leaders based in al-Andalus. means that northern Spain shared the economic trends evident elsewhere in western Europe at this time. increased. is indeed quite a useful cameo. with which this section began. and kingdoms While broad economic trends are relatively easy to discern. it has been customary to trace a growing process of political consolidation. The overall trend across the century was for increasingly intensive exploitation of the land. and the institutionalization of processes of government within the kingdoms. counts. which involved the territorial expansion of minute Christian kingdoms of the north.²⁹ This more intensive land-use. the ultimate expulsion of Muslim leaders. and by implication growing productivity and perhaps growing population. history. there were broad similarities in land-use. So important are these trends in European. with the separation of the Portuguese state. and indeed world. . traditionally this was seen to have begun already in the late eighth century. the political system of northern Spain in this period is quite difficult to describe: political geography was unstable. as also for greater interaction with growing urban foci—straightforward references to markets. the emergence of powerful kingdoms of Castile and of Aragón. Perspectives are inevitably influenced by our knowledge of what happened subsequently. that is in southern Spain. and to have proceeded very ²⁹ SM116. not so long after the ‘collapse’ of the former Visigothic state. Kings. and this increasing propensity to produce for the market. The 959 case about Santa Olalla.Setting the Scene 11 Overall then. like that at Cea. while the monastery of Carde˜ na had its shops or warehouses in Burgos by 982 and that of San Millán was buying vineyards to supply its guesthouse in 999. although the landscape of northern Spain was in itself very diverse. and perhaps exploitation. with some regional difference within that broad pattern.

pp. to frame it within a context of increasing seigneurialization (the growth of private lordly power). over the course of the ninth century its kings extended their political control to the south and west. c. Reuter (ed. . it is important to remember that political consolidation was not inevitable and that conflict between high aristocrats was frequent. 28–9. Within this kingdom regions such as Portugal.³¹ A number of different approaches are viable. in Asturias. III. lying between the heartland of the kingdom of León on the one hand and the kingdom of Navarre and the Muslimdominated Ebro valley on the other (see Fig. and Asturias were sometimes nominally controlled by royal sons or brothers as distinct entities. The New Cambridge Medieval History. its political centre had been focussed at Oviedo in the late eighth century. 1999). It is simplest to deal with the fluctuating political geography by thinking in terms of four political zones. ‘The Spanish kingdoms’. as has recently been the case. 670–91.³² Within this kingdom lay a second zone. the fragility of the dynasties that came to dominate. paying more attention to the complex interplay of aristocratic conflicts within northern Spain. occupying—almost literally—the whole of the north-west quarter of Spain.). ³¹ For seigneurialization. see R. With its ultimate origins in the far north. such that from 911 the city of León became their new political centre.12 Setting the Scene slowly at first but rapidly from the early tenth century and very rapidly across the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Counts of Castile are notable from the early tenth century and played an increasingly independent role from the middle of the century. For present purposes. see below. Collins.900-c. the County of Castile. ³² For an overview in Spanish. by the turn of the millennium it was the relationships between the kings of León and ³⁰ For a recent survey in English of political developments. First. 87–103. of very unequal size. running north to the sea on the kingdom’s eastern side. Galicia. and the inconsistent relationship between rulers and population. see Isla Frez.³⁰ It would be possible to write the political history of the tenth century within a completely different framework. the kingdom of Asturias-León (increasingly called simply the kingdom of León) constituted by the tenth century by far the largest political zone. La alta edad media. or it would be possible.4). 1. in T.1024 (Cambridge. although tenth-century León kings are very noticeable in the major Galician charter collections and it is debatable to what extent any distinct political identities—as apart from geographical identities—were sustained.

La Navarre. although tenth-century kings had interests in the Ebro valley to the south and effectively incorporated the county of Aragón to the east.³⁵ Initially comprising seven counties. This remained a small kingdom during our period.³³ Third. to the north-east of Castile lay the kingdom of Pamplona or Navarre. ³⁵ Catalonia does not form part of the subject matter of this book since it was in many ways distinctive in the early middle ages: there was the close association with Frankish culture. . 103–9. more were added ³³ Isla Frez.³⁴ Last. ³⁴ For detailed consideration. its kings recorded from the ninth century and engaging successfully with other Spanish rulers during the tenth. it has also been the subject of major studies during the last generation. in the north-east (and beyond the scope of this book). subject to Frankish expeditions in the late eighth century and established as a ‘march’ (border zone) of the Carolingian Empire in the early ninth. in the Pyrenees and their southern and western hinterland. La alta edad media.Setting the Scene 13 Figure 1.4 Principal political regions of northern Iberia in the tenth century Navarre and the count of Castile that were to constitute one of the principal themes of political development. with its Pamplona focus in the mountains that are a western extension of the Pyrenees (including much of the present-day Basque country). notably during the long reign of García Sanchez I (925–70). see Larrea. lay Catalonia.

Sam170 (930) ‘comisso de Lausata’ but Sam44 (975) ‘territorio Lausata’. and the Written Word (Cambridge. See the comments of A. a responsibility variously called comissum. lay and clerical. Croissance et mutations d’une société (Paris. ( Toulouse.³⁸ Such territories might be as large as the County and these studies are well-known beyond the Iberian peninsula. the Count of Barcelona. Order. ³⁷ See further below. was a busy political centre. emerged predominant and the Frankish orientation rapidly dissolved. Kingdoms there may have been. ³⁸ Sob106 (958). J.14 Setting the Scene before the more prominent counts began to absorb the lesser counties. to their courts. Power. although an important set of these lay in the County of Castile. there is some. and attracted powerful people. Beyond the royal family and the coming and going around the king. Sob108 (978). La Catalogne au tournant de l’an mil. nevertheless.³⁶ For the purposes of this work. 93–5. P. it might simply signify a physically defined territory. Sob107 (968). 5–6. Making Agreements in Medieval Catalonia. as permanent focus of the royal court of Asturias-León. comitatus. whereas Liii548 (991) has the more hierarchical ‘villa in mandatione N in territorio N’. 1990). pp. the best-evidenced mechanism of government lay in the royal delegation of territorial control to powerful individuals or religious communities. In the later tenth century one count. the large kingdom of León provides the wider political context for most of the transactions recorded in the charter collections. Kings held court. Cf. 2001). 1975–76). Bonnassie. La Catalogne du milieu du Xe à la fin du XIe siècle: croissance et mutations d’une société. The word comitatus has quite a wide range of meaning: usually translated ‘county’. or within the range of the kings of Navarre. ³⁶ The recent classic study of Catalonia in this period is P. towards the Frankish state. but it could also signify ‘sphere of authority’—one of the Sobrado texts . see also his shorter assessment. Bonnassie. the counts continued to look to the north-east. There was certainly an expectation of government—many charter texts are suffused with the language of governance and of the supremacy of kings—but evidence for machinery of government in the tenth century is relatively thin. but there are far fewer of these. and mandatio: the territorial authority exercised by the monastery of Sobrado was called all three in successive decades of the later tenth century. Kosto. then. Some transactions related to property in the kingdom of Navarre. for kings and charters. it is clear that for much of the tenth century the city of León. which was within the kingdom. for more than a century.³⁷ However. but the extent to which kings governed their territories or their people is arguable. Aristocrats and corporate bodies could be given charge of territories. 2 vols.

Setting the Scene


of Castile (of the order of 200 km from north to south) or a more practicable 30 or 40 km across; the holders of such authority might be called count (comes) or less frequently duke (dux ) or master (magister ) or they might have no distinctive title. Although they tended to try to hang on to authority (and there are some well-documented cases of family succession), there were certainly occasions when kings resumed and redistributed property, particularly after ‘rebellions’, which suggests that they could retain some control.³⁹ These issues are contentious, however: scholars debate how far a count’s powers, and especially that of the count of Castile, really stemmed from delegated royal authority, rather than from independent or local community origins;⁴⁰ they explore the extent to which royal power was in effect constrained by the interests of some hereditary comital families;⁴¹ they question whether monasteries really could exercise delegated royal power; and it is in any case clear that all land did not necessarily fall within a comissum/mandatio: there was no comprehensive, administrative ‘system’. Of course, many royal grants to aristocrats were straightforward gifts of property, with no implication of delegated royal authority across a territory; we have to be careful to distinguish the purely proprietary grant from the grant ad imperandum (for the purposes of command), as Carlos Estepa has shown.⁴² Despite the textual subtleties, some grants of the latter type were undoubtedly made and unambiguous acts of delegation become more evident as the tenth century proceeded: in 929, for example, King Alfonso IV gave the powerful Galician, Gutier (elsewhere ‘count’), the comissum of Quiroga and five other places to govern, repeated in part by Alfonso’s brother, King Ramiro II, to Gutier’s son Fruela in 942; in the early 950s King Ordo˜ no III gave the bishop of León the ‘castle’ of San Salvador to govern, with two attached mandationes, an act repeated in 999 by his
relates a dispute about whether a local community fell within the comitatus of one bishop or another, Sob109 (986–99). Cf. Sam78 (948) ‘villa Stephani, comitatu de Froian, territorio lucensi’. ³⁹ Political confiscations: Liii541 (990), Cel104 (994), Cel266 (996), Liii581 (998), for example. ⁴⁰ I. Álvarez Borge, ‘Estructuras de poder en Castilla en la alta edad media: se˜ nores, siervos, vasallos’, in Se˜ nores, siervos, vasallos en la alta edad media. XXVIII Semana de estudios medievales, Estella, 16 a 20 de julio de 2001 (Pamplona, 2002), 269–308, at 300, 304; J. M. Salrach, ‘Les féodalités méridionales: des Alpes à la Galice’, in E. Bournazel and J.-P. Poly (eds.), Les féodalités (Paris, 1998), 313–88, at 363. ⁴¹ Isla Frez, La alta edad media, 288. ⁴² C. Estepa Díez, ‘Formación y consolidación del feudalismo en Castilla y León’, in En torno al feudalismo hispánico. I congreso de estudios medievales (León, 1989), 157–256, at 169–79.


Setting the Scene

grandson, King Alfonso V.⁴³ There are in fact some good examples of the exercise of mandationes in the very late tenth century.⁴⁴ When the holder of delegated authority had something called a castle to control, some military function is clearly implied, although we do not know much about the physical character of such places at this time, and it was the eleventh century before the detail of arrangements for military provision became clear.⁴⁵ Maintaining and provisioning some kind of strongpoint is one aspect of power exercised in the name of the king. The nature of the power exercised in other cases is not nearly so clear, although general statements that holders could give commands and expect obedience are not uncommon.⁴⁶ What, if any, substance lay behind such statements is largely a matter for speculation. However, holders of delegated authority clearly derived income from such positions and they clearly operated judicial courts.⁴⁷ Indeed, maintenance of a public court system is the best evidenced of the duties such persons performed in the tenth century. One could argue that some of these were private courts, but the fines taken are better interpreted as due payment and the texts that record detailed cases convey a strong sense of the public, of regular and standard procedures, and of the participation of other public officers such as the saio.⁴⁸ Holding a public court and hearing ‘criminal’ cases was part of the job. And it was in the judicial court that ordinary people could most obviously relate to the ruler, through representatives such as these.

Ordinary people
As ordinary people go, it is difficult to get a sense of the character of the ordinary townsperson in tenth-century contexts. There were clearly many monks, nuns, and clergy about the town of León, as also
⁴³ Cel207, Cel499; Lii300 (951–6), Liii588, Liii589; cf. Li257 (952), Cel54 (955), Liii577 (997). ⁴⁴ See C. Estepa Díez, ‘Poder y propiedad feudales en el período astur: las mandaciones de los Flaínez en la monta˜ na leonesa’, in Miscel-lània en homenatge al P. Agustí Altisent ( Tarragona, 1991), 285–327; and see further below, pp. 144–9. ⁴⁵ Salrach, ‘Les féodalités méridionales’, 322–8. ⁴⁶ e.g. Sam38 (937), Sob108 (978), Lii461 (978), Liii549 (991). ⁴⁷ See below, pp. 143–6, for examples and discussion. ⁴⁸ See further below, pp. 145–6, 182. The saio was a ‘kind of executive officer of the court’, to borrow Roger Collins’s phrase, ‘ ‘‘Sicut lex Gothorum continet’’: law and charters in ninth- and tenth-century León and Catalonia’, English Historical Review, 100 (1985), 489–512, at 505; this paper is helpful on court procedure.

Setting the Scene


the magistrates who presided at judicial cases; we occasionally hear of tradespeople, like the furrier who witnessed a grant in 950;⁴⁹ and then there were the donors and vendors of the urban homesteads, many of whom must have been relatively wealthy. Indeed, some of the latter resided outside the town,⁵⁰ although some were resident too, as their texts saying ‘here in León’ imply; some may well have been comparable to rich peasants in status. The illegible marks and signatures that conclude the record of a sale from one lay couple to another in 972 probably touch this level.⁵¹ The minor clergy, monks, and nuns, and the people serving the royal and episcopal courts, however, may well have constituted the greater part of the ordinary townspeople. We cannot see the actions of the people who lived in the casas within the urban homesteads, for these elements are hidden. References to this or that happening in the araballdes, poorer parts, hint at an unseen other, but we have no way of knowing if this was a large or small proportion of the town population at this time.⁵² We know much more about the countryside in this period and about peasants—that is, people who worked on the land themselves, as tenants and/or small-scale proprietors. The image of the free peasant proprietor is prominent in Spanish historiography of the twentieth century, in many ways more than in the historiography of other early medieval western European societies. This is because the small proprietor— peque˜ no propietario —was central to Claudio Sánchez-Albornoz’s vision of repopulation and colonization of north-central Spain, as we shall see, and has often featured in twentieth-century discussion of tenth- and eleventh-century developments.⁵³ Although these ideas have undergone much revision during the last generation, nevertheless the figure of the small, free, proprietor remains familiar in the Spanish landscape of the tenth century. In the light of all that has been written since Sánchez-Albornoz wrote, is it still reasonable to be thinking of free peasants in this area at this time? Looking at tenth-century evidence, the corpus of charters has hundreds of examples of small-scale dealing in property—buying, selling, and exchanging; it also has many anecdotes of petty disputes and offences—stealing one or two sheep, arguing over the boundary of a field—of a type that characterizes peasant-level rural society; and it has many people who did not travel far, living their lives within a single
⁴⁹ Li230. ⁵⁰ Lii279. ⁵¹ Lii416. ⁵² Lii270 (954). ⁵³ See further below, pp. 26–9.


Setting the Scene

community. The scale of the property interests of many of the actors in the charters is small—like the two pieces (pedacolos) of land sold by three couples to another couple, or the twenty cherry trees and two apple trees planted, and sold, in Nigueiroá—far less than that of the villas and widely scattered estates associated with aristocrats; properties were confined, usually bounded by the plots of others; where values are stated, they tend to be low, like those bought for slices of bacon and small quantities of grain.⁵⁴ It makes no sense to view such landowners as anything other than members of peasant society. Some will have been relatively rich and some will have had relatively high status in their local communities; others will have been relatively poor. It does not follow from this that everyone who worked the land was a free peasant. There were free proprietors and there were also free tenants: we can see groups of peasants agreeing rents, as the peasants of Santa Olalla did in 959; and we can see peasant proprietors who managed their own lands as well as taking on stock and property for a landlord.⁵⁵ But there were clearly also some slaves and some servile dependents. We should not imagine a landscape of uninterrupted freedom in the countryside—some rural paradise—and we should not expect peasant status to have been homogeneous. The loss of peasant freedom is a major theme in European history of the early and central middle ages.⁵⁶ It is also a theme in Spanish history. Despite Bonnassie’s demonstration that Catalan slavery declined but continued into the eleventh century,⁵⁷ slavery is conventionally seen to have ended well before the tenth century. There were clearly slaves, however, in some parts of northern Spain in the tenth century, in Galicia in particular though not exclusively. We see them being bought and
⁵⁴ Lii460 (978), Cel421 (997); for boundaries, see above, p. 8; Li158 (942). ⁵⁵ Cel446 (see above, pp. 1–2); OD40 (995), OD41 (995); cf. incidental references to rents, Cel243 (974), Cel353 (999). Some of the references to heredes may well have denoted free tenants, e.g. S188 (961), Lii401 (967). ⁵⁶ Central among the many works is M. Bloch, Feudal Society, trans. L. A. Manyon (London, 1965 [first published in French 1939–40]), especially 241–79, as also his Les caractères originaux de l’histoire rurale française (Oslo, 1931); more recently G. Bois, The Transformation of the Year One Thousand: The Village of Lournand from Antiquity to Feudalism, trans. J. Birrell (Manchester, 1992) (first published 1989), and the ‘debate’ in Past and Present : T. N. Bisson, ‘The ‘‘feudal revolution’’ ’, Past and Present, 142 (1994), 6–42; D. Barthélemy and S. D. White, ‘The ‘‘feudal revolution’’ ’, Past and Present, 152 (1996), 196–223; T. Reuter, C. Wickham, T. N. Bisson, ‘The ‘‘feudal revolution’’ ’, Past and Present, 155 (1997), 177–225. The recent debate has been much concerned with the point and rate of change. See further below, pp. 19–22. ⁵⁷ P. Bonnassie, La Catalogne, i. 298–302, ii. 828–9.

Setting the Scene


being given away, especially in lists of property with which women were endowed on marriage; we read that servitude was the appropriate penalty for adultery (although the woman in a recorded case avoided the penalty by making a gift of land); we read of slaves being freed; and we hear of male and female slaves among the labouring population of estates, where they are differentiated from the freed and the free labourers.⁵⁸ The bequest of the deacon Ermegildo is particularly striking (and extremely unusual): he made provision for his freed men, so that they would remain free, owing nothing to anyone except for the obligation to light a candle for him every year; and he confirmed the gifts he had made to his house boys, with a similar provision of freedom from future obligations.⁵⁹ Slavery clearly encompassed both rural and domestic slavery. Many cases are located in Galicia and the northern regions of Asturias and Cantabria, although they occur on the meseta too; however, even in the west and the north, we cannot begin to estimate what proportions of the populations were slaves. Putting slaves to one side, was the status of free peasants secure? In the longer term, some decline in status seems clear and has, reasonably enough, been associated with developing powers of lordship.⁶⁰ How far, however, can any decline be located in the tenth century? Servile tenure—in which tenants, though of legally free status, had no freedom to move away and were increasingly subject to onerous, often manual, obligations—can be difficult to identify before the year 1000: there are some clear cases but also many ambiguities.⁶¹ The texts note plenty of tenants who owed ‘service’ to landlords; this may look like servitude, but, in the language of these records, it usually means regular dues and does not necessarily have servile overtones: in May 977 the confessor Manni Ovécoz gave the bishop of León his villa on the banks of
⁵⁸ T19 (914), Cel477 (961); Cel576 (916), Cel577 (926), S207 (962), OD50 (s.d.); Liii561 (994); T7 (831), Sob123 (867), Cel172 (943), SamS-3 (961); Sob77 (817), S39 (930), Sob64 (984), S328 (985). ⁵⁹ Li109 (936). ⁶⁰ See, for example, Estepa Díez, ‘Formación y consolidación del feudalismo’; R. Pastor, ‘Sur la genèse du féodalisme en Castille et dans le León, Xe –XIIe siècles. Point de départ pour une histoire comparative’, in H. Atsma, A. Burguière (eds.), Marc Bloch aujourd’hui. Histoire comparée et sciences sociales (Paris, 1990), 259–70; J. A. García de Cortázar and E. Pe˜ na Bocos, ‘Poder condal ¿y ‘‘mutación feudal’’? en la Castilla del a˜ no mil’, in M. I. Loring García (ed.), Historia social, pensamiento historiográfico y edad media (Madrid, 1997), 273–98; Salrach, ‘Les féodalités méridionales’. See further below, pp. 28–30. ⁶¹ The terms used in the texts are often ambiguous; see A. Isla Frez, La sociedad gallega en la alta edad media (Madrid, 1992), 208–14, for discussion of terminological problems.

like those of some dependents of Celanova. Li43 (917). for example: Sob75 (858). CLXIV (991) (cf. and some texts imply that freedmen had hereditary obligations.e. In Galicia. pp. . but the formula makes a point about automatically expected obligations. and sometimes free rent-paying tenants. see also below. SM89 (971).⁶⁴ Further. Cel233 (886). they were close to establishing a servile obligation. in the territory of Palencia.). there were those who ⁶² Lii451. 57–60. ⁶⁴ Lii461. and records of land donated ‘together with all the then inhabitants and anyone else who should come to live there’ (like King Ordo˜ no II’s gift to his man Tajón of his villa of San Miguel. S19 (cf. Liii574 (996). in 955. pay rent to) the monks of San Pedro and San Paulo in Palencia. and the lengthy record of the dispute about ‘obedience’ from the church of Santa María of Bonimento in 992 is essentially about the destination of its income and not about people obeying orders. offering a clear case of hereditary obligations. in 978. but others were tied to the service of San Millán. 198. as early as May 920) repeat a formula. the responsibility for paying dues was sometimes assessed by birth. when the peasants who lived near the Pardomino mountain agreed with the monks of Pardomino to labour there. for Pardomino). Portugaliae Monumenta Historica.⁶³ Less ambiguously. a Portuguese text of 991 records that a couple promised not to leave their land. in particular. Sam44 (975). Lii290 (see further below. another royal gift).20 Setting the Scene the river Carrión. nevertheless equally insisted that the commitment should extend to their offspring. Lii298 (956). and were subject to payment of a fine if they did. cf.d. SM30 (943) explicitly allows the free inhabitants of a villa given to San Millán de la Cogolla by the king of Navarre to leave if they wished. rather than by property. this sometimes means slaves. ⁶⁵ Cel144 (s. near Boadilla de Rioseco. sometimes servile dependents. while insisting that the men should serve as free men. in which residents of one episcopal estate were free to leave but had to leave half of their goods if they did). Sob130. Cel84 (986). SamS-8 (985). ⁶³ Ambiguous cases. p. people with hereditary obligations are named and listed in a manner which suggests that they had no option but to maintain their obligations. specifies that the residents should do ‘whatever work (opera) was necessary’.⁶⁵ Hereditary obligations smack of servility. like the dispute over dues that was determined by establishing that tenants were descendants of freed men. King Vermudo II’s gift of ten named men and their families to the monks of Pardomino. for client agreements to serve a church. King Ramiro III’s gift of a villa on the river Esla to the monastery of San Cipriano.⁶² When charters record the transfer of people along with land. so that the inhabitants should in future ‘serve’ (i.

or meat. That being the case. wealthy property owners—are clear enough. and harvesting services due from thirty-three named individuals. Cel272 (993).⁶⁶ The examples run at least from the early tenth century and most obligations were clearly not new at the time of recording. there are occasional indications of new obligations in the second half of the tenth century. or scale. servile residents tended to move in a block. those who provided the wax for church lighting. while it is the case that far more of the unambiguous cases fall in the second half of the tenth century than the first. J. in M. there is a wide social range between these two strata and the texts are not explicit about the social status of many actors. we rarely see them as individual actors. the servile did not often speak. 12 (arguably 991. bishops.).⁶⁷ although individuals might be named in lists of people with obligations. behaviour. Bush (ed. Martín Duque. ‘On servile status in the early middle ages’. Cel5 (986). servile dependents. cf. Cel92 (968).d. Documentación medieval de Leire (siglos IX a XII). sowing. Cel154 (s. the latter including both tenants and proprietors. where prices were low. no. Davies. We cannot quantify those proportions because we do not have comprehensive data and because of the ambiguities. there were servile dependents as well as free tenants for much of the tenth century. not forgetting the slaves and the peasant proprietors. L. A. We should therefore think of a rural landscape composed variously. as also who was a free peasant and who was not. and also of different rates of change. ⁶⁷ See W. of different proportions of slaves. grain. Cf. in Castile. ed.Setting the Scene 21 ground the corn and those who looked after the pigs. but perhaps later) for ploughing. where their donors and vendors ⁶⁶ Cel158 (942–77). In other words. Great aristocrats too—kings.). . 225–46. but we need to remember both the complexities and the likely differences from place to place. In some parts (and not exclusively in the north-west). the patterns are more complex than a simple picture of servile obligations imposed in increasing weight from round about the year 1000: some customary obligations were in place long before that date. as well as light dues payable in cakes. Some groups can be easily excluded from the free peasant category: as in other European cultures at this time. and probably. whether by label. and free peasants. However. in different regions. at 243. Neither serfs nor high aristocrats are likely to be confused with free peasants. counts. C188 (981). there have to be guidelines for assigning status and in what follows I adopt the following convention: where properties of small scale were conveyed. those who worked the saltpans. Serfdom and Slavery: Studies in Legal Bondage (London. It is evidently the case that we cannot always be clear about who was a peasant and who was not. bread. 1996).

and from 970 numbers drop off quite steeply. for small-scale transactions and the significance of the sudden increase. Although there are other kinds of text available. on narrative sources. where these donors and vendors did not themselves appear across a wide area. Su cronica y la monarquía leonesa en el siglo X (Madrid. Perez de Urbel.22 Setting the Scene were only associated with properties in one community. disputes.⁷⁰ Different collections have different profiles. particularly over isolated individuals. indeed. sometimes one does not know and one cannot make a reasonable guess. ⁷¹ Numbers given for transactions are necessarily approximate. See further below. free people. Numbers of transactions do not precisely mirror . only recoverable from later compilations: J. many hundreds of charters survive from tenth-century northern Spain. see W. and sometimes as single sheets. as we have already begun to see. ⁶⁸ There are a few narrative sources.⁶⁸ These texts include records of sales. many of which are originals. 1952). then it is a reasonable assumption that these actors were peasants. and/or where the witness lists do not include identifiable aristocrats. I indicate the basic statistics of the collections which have been most used in this book. H I S TO RY Charters The texts that become so plentiful in the tenth century are charters. and there is considerable variation in regional distribution. exchanges. ‘Sale. ⁶⁹ See below. for single sheets and originals. ⁷⁰ For detail of transactions in the largest collections. In the following couple of pages.⁶⁹ The transactions which they record peaked in the middle of the century. 92. Areas of doubt will inevitably remain. pp. though their content is quite sparse. monastic and episcopal cartulary collections. Sampiro. 183–4. See below. often large. partly because of a significant increase in the proportion of small-scale business. The charters are preserved as copies in some well-known.⁷¹ In fact. 209–13. from 930 the increase was steep until the 950s (during which there were several hundred transactions). numbers before 920 total less than a hundred. In what follows I shall treat such characters as ordinary. price and valuation’. p. The major chronicle covering the tenth century is an early eleventh-century work. with far more in the 950s and 960s than in earlier or later decades. pp. 154–5. with their regional associations. non-noble. however. and donations (the latter comprising both lifetime gifts and bequests). and I wish to avoid giving any spurious sense of precision. Davies.

M. 1976)—two twelfth-century cartularies. Fernández de Viana y Vieites in Commission Internationale de Diplomatique. ⁷³ El Tumbo de San Julián de Samos (siglos VIII–XII). 65 km to the south-east of Sobrado. the numbers of records: what was or was not a transaction is sometimes arguable. M. in the opinion of this editor. and from that of San Julián at Samos. vol. vol. 50 km to the south-east of León itself. J. M. Andrade. three earlier collections. Mínguez Fernández. 1997). charters cited as Li1. Herrero de la Fuente (León.Setting the Scene 23 most collections include material from different sources. etc. etc. Cel2. Sam2. P. etc. to the east of Galicia. etc. ed. some charters record more than one transaction. (Madrid. E. in Galicia in the west. n. some records duplicate transactions recorded elsewhere.⁷³ The next major group involves the several collections in the archive of the bishopric of León. ⁷⁵ Colección diplomática del monasterio de Sahagún. Sáez and C. 2. this episcopal collection includes records from urban and rural monasteries which subsequently came into the hands of the bishopric and has over 580 recorded tenth-century transactions. 45 km north-east of Santiago de Compostela. includes about 225 recorded tenth-century transactions (Fig. Lii259. vol. 1987. 1988)—from two . with over 430 tenth-century transactions. 45.⁷² Other important Galician collections. of which about 200 are on single sheets. it is because for present purposes I have used a different classification. ed. vol. but it is the one that has been available to me and I have found it helpful. ed. J. Sáez. Sáez. 1 (775–952) ed.5). not far from the present northern border of Portugal. are those from the monastery of Sobrado de los Monjes. Sob2. on the plateau. Where there are minor discrepancies with previously cited numbers. Vocabulaire International de la Diplomatique (Valencia. records of disputes. for a cartulary is often the result of a complex process of accumulation. (Santiago. The late twelfth-century cartulary of the monastery of Celanova.⁷⁵ Also from the same region. 2 (953–85). 1976. a cartulary of c .⁷⁴ There is also a very large collection from the monastery of Sahagún. included boundary statements. and included confirmations with donation figures. E. Lucas Álvarez (Santiago de Compostela. Ruiz Asencio (León. ed. they record just under 100 and 60 transactions respectively. 1995) — a late twelfthcentury cartulary comprising. I. There has been much criticism of this edition (see J. ed. ed. ed. one of the most important foci in the Duero basin. 1986). 1990. charters cited by number as Cel1. charters cited by number as Sam1. 23). 2 vols. though smaller for the tenth century. Loscertales de García de Valdeavellano.1200. M. charters cited as Sob1. in the western foothills of the Cantabrian mountains. M. 2 vols. vol. 3 (986–1031). Tumbos del monasterio de Sobrado de los Monjes. ⁷² O Tombo de Celanova. some record texts such as inventories or sworn witness statements and do not record any transactions. and exchanges (as transactions other than sale or donation). 1987)—the core of the edition is a large cartulary of the first third of the twelfth century. 1. J. ⁷⁴ Colección documental del archivo de la catedral de León. Liii512. 1. Li2. For this count I have excluded obviously corrupt documents.


Setting the Scene

a small but important group of 50 charters, mostly on single sheets, comes from Otero de las Due˜ nas, 25 km north-west of León, in the southern foothills of the Cantabrian mountains, including a lay archive of the eleventh century.⁷⁶ Farther to the east, in Castile, lies the monastery of Carde˜ na, in the western foothills of the Sierra de la Demanda, on the edge of the plateau, lying just to the south of the city of Burgos, beside one of the main routes from central Spain to France, then as now; this late eleventh-century cartulary includes over 200 recorded tenth-century transactions.⁷⁷ Although they have fewer tenth-century records than the large sets, there is useful Castilian material in some of the smaller collections, particularly from Valpuesta, in the mountains to the north of Burgos, and from San Millán de la Cogolla in the rich agricultural lands of the modern Rioja, to the east (comparative numbers of transactions for Valpuesta are 36, San Millán 121).⁷⁸ There are in addition a few from Arlanza, also in Castile, a few from Albelda, within the orbit of both Castile and Navarre, and even fewer from San Juan de la Pe˜ na, farther east in Aragón (comparative numbers for Arlanza are 25, Albelda 28, San Juan 11).⁷⁹ Two small but very important collections come from much farther to the north: one, including a wide range of early material, comes from Santo Toribio in the Liébana, in Cantabria on the northern side of the Cantabrian mountains, and the other comes from San Vicente in Oviedo, again on the northern side of the Cantabrian mountains, but farther west, in Asturias, to the north of León (62 and 24 transactions respectively).⁸⁰
collections, one a copy of a cartulary of the early twelfth century and the other a cartulary of 1110; charters cited as S1, S2, etc. ⁷⁶ Colección documental del monasterio de Santa María de Otero de las Due˜ nas, ed. J. A. Fernández Flórez and M. Herrero de la Fuente, vol. 1 (León, 1999), cited as OD1, OD2, etc. ⁷⁷ Colección documental del monasterio de San Pedro de Carde˜ na, ed. G. Martínez Díez (Carde˜ na/Burgos, 1998), (older edition: Becerro Gótico de Carde˜ na, ed. L. Serrano (Silos/Valladolid, 1910)); 1998 edition cited as C1, C2, etc. ⁷⁸ Cartulario de San Millán de la Cogolla, ed. A. Ubieto Arteta (Valencia, 1976)—an early twelfth-century collection, from several sources, cited as SM1, SM2, etc. Cartulario de Valpuesta, ed. M. Desamparados Perez Soler (Valencia, 1970)—a late eleventh-century cartulary, cited as V1, V2, etc. ⁷⁹ Cartulario de Albelda, ed. A. Ubieto Arteta (Valencia, 1960), cited as A1, A2, etc.; Cartulario de San Pedro de Arlanza, antiguo monasterio benedictino, ed. L. Serrano (Madrid, 1925), cited as Ar1, Ar2, etc.; Cartulario de San Juan de la Pe˜ na, ed. A. Ubieto Arteta, 2 vols. (Valencia, 1962–63), charters (in vol. 1) cited as SJP1, SJP2, etc. ⁸⁰ Cartulario de Santo Toribio de Liébana, ed. L. Sánchez Belda (Madrid, 1948), cited as T1, T2, etc.; Colección diplomática del monasterio de San Vicente de Oviedo (a˜ nos 781–1200), ed. P. Floriano Llorente (Oviedo, 1968), cited as Ov1, Ov2, etc.

Setting the Scene


Figure 1.5 Location of sources of the main charter collections used

There are sometimes small numbers of tenth-century charters in other collections, such as that from Leire; I have occasionally noted their contents but have not included them in statistical analyses—as also applies to the rather more considerable corpus from Portugal.⁸¹ There are also many hundreds of charters from Catalonia, in the region of the Pyrenees, in north-east Spain, but that region lies beyond the scope of this work.⁸² Altogether records of approximately 1,960 transactions survive from the region here considered, of which 980 are gifts and 850 are sales—very large numbers by northern European standards; by comparison, just under 100 survive for the same region from the ninth century. This charter material has often been discussed and there is a rich historiography
⁸¹ Documentación medieval de Leire (siglos IX a XII), ed. A. J. Martín Duque (Pamplona, 1983); there are 13 charters of pre-1000, some of doubtful authenticity. Portugaliae Monumenta Historica a saeculo octavo post Christum usque ad quintum decimum, 3, Diplomata et Chartae, ed. A. Herculano de Carvalho e Araujo and J. J. da Silva Mendes Leal, vol. 1 (Lisbon, 1868); there are 184 charters of pre-1000, again, some of doubtful authenticity. ⁸² See references above, nn. 35, 36.


Setting the Scene

of more than a century of Spanish comment;⁸³ despite that work, there are still aspects to explore, particularly in the context of recent research on other parts of western Europe, and in the context of the several illuminating studies of donation published in the past two generations; there is also much still to do to bring the work of Spanish historians to the attention of early medieval scholars elsewhere.

History and historians: medieval Spain
Early medieval Spain has a rich historiography. The past century of historical writing has been dominated by the powerful idea of the Muslim conquest of 711 and its perceived consequences. It is thought that this conquest was overturned across many centuries by the long struggle between Christians and Muslims, the so-called Reconquest, the final conquest of the Muslims coming in 1492. In this model, ideas of depopulation and repopulation play a major part. In response to the initial Muslim incursion, it was argued by several historians, but especially by Claudio Sánchez-Albornoz, that King Alfonso I of Asturias (739–57) adopted a policy of strategic depopulation in Galicia and in the large expanse of the Duero basin. Muslim conquest provoked further Christian migration, particularly from the Duero valley (see Fig. 1.1), the Christian population of Spain fleeing north to the inhospitable Cantabrian mountains and north-west to the farthest corner of Galicia, leaving vast expanses of unoccupied and depopulated land. As Christian kings slowly won back territory in the late ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries, it is argued, the Hispanic population gradually returned from the north to the deserted lands, reinforced by Mozarabic settlers from the south, and together they restored settlement and agriculture.⁸⁴ Like the
⁸³ For example, influential papers such as: C. Sánchez-Albornoz, ‘Las behetrías: la encomendación en Asturias, León y Castilla’, Anuario de Historia del Derecho Espa˜ nol, 1 (1924), 158–336; J. A. Rubio, ‘ ‘‘Donationes post obitum’’ y ‘‘donationes reservato usufructu’’ en la alta edad media de León y Castilla’, Anuario de Historia del Derecho Espa˜ nol, 9 (1932), 1–32; L. G. de Valdeavellano, ‘La cuota de libre disposición en el derecho hereditario de León y Castilla en la alta edad media’, Anuario de Historia del Derecho Espa˜ nol, 9 (1932), 129–76; E. Sáez, ‘Nuevos datos sobre el coste de la vida en Galicia durante la Alta Edad Media’, Anuario de Historia del Derecho Espa˜ nol, 17 (1946), 865–88; J. Orlandis, ‘ ‘‘Traditio corporis et animae’’. Laicos y monasterios en la alta edad media espa˜ nola’, in J. Orlandis, Estudios sobre instituciones monásticas medievales (Pamplona, 1971 [first published 1954]); J. Gautier Dalché, ‘Le domaine du monastère de Santo Toribio de Liébana: formation, structure et modes d’exploitation’, Anuario de Estudios Medievales, 2 (1965), 63–117. ⁸⁴ Mozarabic: Arabized Hispanics, often Christian.

Setting the Scene


Figure 1.6 The meseta: the Campos south of Sahagún

American pioneers, the colonizers brought a spirit of freedom to central Spain and their settlements became free communities of small-scale proprietors.⁸⁵ Belief in depopulation and repopulation was highly influential, at scholarly and popular levels, until very recently (and still is, in some quarters); the concept has affected most aspects of the interpretation of social and political change in the early middle ages. Of course, some scholars reacted against the ideas of Sánchez-Albornoz, and other ideas increasingly became prominent in the later twentieth century. To begin with, ‘feudalism’, which Sánchez-Albornoz and others had thought inappropriate for Spain, was re-instated. In the mid-1960s Barbero and Vigil began to publish their work on the formation of Spanish feudalism, arguing that although in part it evolved directly from late and
⁸⁵ C. Sánchez-Albornoz, Despoblación y repoblación del valle del Duero (Buenos Aires, 1966); idem, ‘Repoblación del Reino Asturleonés’, in his Viejos y nuevos estudios sobre las instituciones medievales espa˜ nolas, 3 vols. (Madrid, 1976–80), ii. 581–790 (first published 1971, but see his comments already in id., ‘Las behetrías: la encomendación en Asturias, León y Castilla’, at 198–203); idem, ‘Peque˜ nos propietarios libres en el reino Asturleonés. Su realidad histórica’, Settimane di studio del centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 13 (1966), 183–222. See A. Ubieto Arteta, Atlas Histórico. Como se formó Espa˜ na, 2nd edn. (Valencia, 1970), 38–49, 59, for visual representations of maximum depopulation in the eighth century and gradual repopulation thereafter.


Setting the Scene

post-Roman society, that is from the fifth and sixth centuries, those parts of northern Spain which were little touched by Romanization sustained a tribal society whose transformation from collective property-owning kin groups to villages of individual owners constituted a different and later route to feudal society.⁸⁶ Most historians of the subsequent generation accepted a basic principle of feudal development, with variant approaches; in other words, they accepted the emergence of a world characterized by the domination of private lords over the persons, labour, and surplus of a largely servile peasant population, the near absence of slavery, the fragmentation of the public power of the state and its dispersal among the greater private lords. The development of private lordly power (i.e. the process of seigneurialization) has been more central to the historiography than detail of fiefs, vassals, and varieties of aristocratic service, although the latter do of course feature. Most scholars identified the central middle ages as the key period of feudalization, charting the development at different rates within a tenthto twelfth-century bracket, although often quite late in the bracket, and pointing to differences between the Spanish development and that of the classical Frankish manor.⁸⁷ Discussion still continues.⁸⁸ The language of feudalism, however, is today embedded in Spanish historiography. Alongside the acceptance of feudalism, other themes have emerged. Regional history became prominent from the 1970s, with close attention to local development through systematic study of, in particular, monastic seigneuries —like the hugely influential works of García de Cortázar on San Millán de la Cogolla and of Mínguez on Sahagún.⁸⁹ Other issues emerged in the context of the feudal discussion, taking on a life of their own: the collapse of community collectivities in the face of growing seigneurial power, for example; the emergence of a class of mounted
⁸⁶ M. Vigil and A. Barbero, ‘Sobre los orígenes sociales de la Reconquista. Cántabros y vascones desde fines del Imperio romano hasta la invasión musulmana’, Boletín de la Real Academia de la Historia, 156 (1965), 271–339; their main work is A. Barbero and M. Vigil, La formación del feudalismo en la península Ibérica (Barcelona, 1978), especially 155–200, 354–404, and particularly 370–1, 401, in this respect. See further below, pp. 65–71, for family property. ⁸⁷ See especially Estepa Díez, ‘Formación y consolidación del feudalismo’. For a useful survey of approaches, see J. A. García de Cortázar, ‘La formación de la sociedad feudal en el cuadrante noroccidental de la península ibérica en los siglos viii a xii’, Initium, 4 (1999), 57–121, especially at 69–75. ⁸⁸ See for example Se˜ nores, siervos, vasallos en la alta edad media. XXVIII Semana de estudios medievales, Estella, 16 a 20 de julio de 2001 (Pamplona, 2002). ⁸⁹ García de Cortázar, El dominio del monasterio de San Millán de la Cogolla; Mínguez Fernández, El dominio del monasterio de Sahagún; see above, p. 9.

⁹⁰ Recently a new trend has emerged. literally ‘to populate’. G. ‘Les féodalités méridionales’.Setting the Scene 29 soldiers. 13 (2005). 2001). cf. 1988). 226–7. Castellanos and I. or the privatization. Badía. La formación del alfoz de Lara. Alvar. in M. especially 43–59. Some (more modest) decline in population now tends to be invoked in place of total desertion. La Navarre. J. could refer to the imposition of new political and administrative structures rather than to new settlements. continuing to farm. ⁹³ Isla Frez. 2001). Fragmentos del Leviatán. Halsall. Reynolds (eds. for qualifications to the stark depopulation model had been proposed long before the recent trend. Larrea. ‘The local articulation of central power in the north of the Iberian peninsula (500–1000)’. 1–42. La articulación política del espacio zamorano en la alta edad media (Zamora. 196. Estepa Díez. Davies. 293–4. ⁹¹ J. in W. Los se˜ noríos de behetría (Madrid. Martín Viso.⁹² Menéndez Pidal had clearly made the point that the word populare in early medieval texts. A. Lindley Cintra (eds. ‘Formación y consolidación del feudalismo’. and its social consequences. most.). Salrach. de Balbín. Martín Viso. and cf. and the strength. La alta edad media. in a context of demographic growth. Álvarez Borge (co-ord. ‘Mapping scale change: hierarchization and fission in Castilian rural communities during the tenth and eleventh centuries’. Escalona Monge. L. La sociedad rural. 1079 (Oxford. La Catalogne au tournant de l’an mil. 373. Martín Viso. Early Medieval Europe. 115–55. it is now argued. 1960–67). peasant colonization with comital control. S. Bonnassie.⁹¹ This is not entirely new. Comunidades locales y poderes feudales en la edad media (Logro˜ no. Escalona Monge. in I. 300–1300 ( Turnhout.⁹³ In other words. García de Cortázar. A. People and Space in the Middle Ages. ‘Unidades territoriales supralocales: una propuesta sobre los orígenes del se˜ norío de behetría’. 21–46. I. ‘De ‘‘se˜ nores y campesinos’’ a ‘‘poderes feudales y comunidades’’. a trend that questions the fact of depopulation itself and therefore of repopulation and colonization. Menéndez Pidal. xxix-lvii. ‘Repoblación y tradición en la cuenca del Duero’. A.). F. Enciclopedia Lingüística Hispánica. i. Escalona Monge. La sociedad rural en la Espa˜ na medieval (Madrid. Formación del feudalismo. Fragmentos del Leviatán. Barbero y Vigil. in C. 39–57. as is—as we have seen—new colonization arising out of sheer peasant dynamism in the tenth and eleventh centuries. Jular Pérez-Alfaro (co-ord. Sociedad y territorio en la alta edad media castellana. 164–74. 27–36. their settlements in some parts connected through networks of supra-local units. ⁹² R. 589–91. Estepa Díez and C. 21–2. R. stayed where they were. of public power. BAR International Series no. alongside new expectations of regular and increasing ⁹⁰ See for example J. . at 143–49. (Madrid.). 143–66. García de Cortázar. 2007). the intensification of agricultural production that is clearly signalled by the texts seems to have been associated with new kinds of proprietary rights. especially 21–41. J. For a helpful survey in English see J. 2002) and idem. Elementos para definir la articulación entre territorio y clases sociales en la alta edad media castellana’. especially in the Duero valley. Muslim invasion and campaigning may not after all have sent the Hispanic population of the meseta fleeing north into the mountains.). 2002). termed milites and caballeros. 2 vols.

Again. The work of Sánchez-Albornoz nevertheless remains central. Italy. ‘Neue Quellen zum Verständnis des Adels im 10. Raids from the south of Spain. 3 vols. even if we now acknowledge that several northern kings had diplomatic relations with Muslim leaders in the later tenth century and even if the raids had less cataclysmic consequences than once supposed—one example of the kind of disruption that might ensue is the action of a minor monastery near León which. the Santa Olalla cameo of 959 is relevant.30 Setting the Scene returns to major landlords.⁹⁵ Here careful analysis of the names of donors to ⁹⁴ S340. Die Klostergemeinschaft von Fulda im früheren Mittelalter. idem (ed. there is relatively little trace of it north of the Duero. 2 in 3 parts) (Munich. France. did happen. One theme shared across several national traditions during the past couple of generations. ⁹⁵ K. sold off land in order to have the means to restock. the monastic lord establishing rights to some of the product of the peasant colonizers. his work endures through the very fact of reaction against it. has been a sustained interest in early medieval gifts and giving.⁹⁴ Raiding was a reality. Schmid. Central to the recent study of donation has been the work of Karl Schmid and his colleagues in Münster and Freiburg. Historical approaches have changed a lot in the last generation. One cannot navigate a way through even the most recent Spanish literature without an awareness of the dominant model and its influence. 108 (1960). and expeditions to the south.). if Christian society was frontier society in the tenth century. (vol. . Jahrhundert’. 185–232. however. many aspects of donation have been explored with detailed attention and subtlety. when raided by Muslims in 988 and stripped of all its animals. and England. History and historians: early medieval giving Historians of other parts of western Europe have not been so influenced by a single dominant model. Zeitschrift für die Geschichte des Oberrheins. be it either a frontier of pioneers or a militarized frontier. but for the most part it does not seem to have interrupted the settled farming regime which the vast majority of texts describes. with relatively little attention to the rich corpus of northern Spanish material. Most of this work has focused on Germany. whose systematic work on Libri memoriales in the 1960s and 1970s opened up new ways of investigating aristocratic family structures and aristocratic patronage networks.

1988). tenth.und Königsfamilien im Spiegel ihrer Memorialüberlieferung: Studien zum Totengedenken der Billunger und Ottonen (Munich. Gebetsgedenken und adliges Selbstverständnis im Mittelalter (Sigmaringen. 578–602. in K. Galler Urkunden’. G. 1902). Adels. Les tendances actuelles de l’histoire du moyen âge en France et en Allemagne (Paris. J.). White. ⁹⁷ The tradition goes back to P. The German work has been particularly important in establishing that fact and in illuminating aristocratic strata within society. 50–1. Kinship and Gifts to Saints: The Laudatio Parentum in Western France.). 1984). Past and Present. Bilan intermédiaire d’un projet de recherche sur le moyen âge’. Memoria. ⁹⁸ S.-C. G. but it was more than that: donation practice belongs within a spectrum of wider social relationships. however. 53–69.⁹⁶ American scholars working on French material in the 1980s. Oexle (eds. Rule and Conflict in an Early Medieval Society (London. for a survey of developments. with enormous economic consequences. see M. and O. family approval of grants. in work such as M. 1984). G.⁹⁸ Beginning with kinship groups. is an exploration of the social meaning of transactions. extended the scope of enquiry into donation practice. Leyser. Many of the papers in Frühmittelalterliche Studien of the 1970s derive from the work of Schmid’s team. Duby. and the collection of his key papers in idem. pp. Wollasch (eds.). Schmid and J. 27–8. recorded in books of commemoration. 1973). 1050–1150 (Chapel Hill. Recueil d’articles (Paris. ‘Gedenkstiftungen in St. Oexle (ed. Custom. relating to western France and extending into the later twelfth century. . See Karl Leyser’s discussion. ‘The German aristocracy from the ninth to the early twelfth century: a historical and cultural sketch’. Essai sur l’origine de la noblesse en France au moyen âge (Paris. many of the papers collected in his Hommes et structures du moyen âge. Borgolte’s study of records of donation pro anima. La société aux XI e et XII e siècles dans la région mâconnaise (Paris. 1953).Setting the Scene 31 churches. 1983). cf. as well as a host of material on the structure and particularities of relationships between kin. and takes the study of family structure and family networks into new areas by looking at the (irregular) composition 1978). in J. 1979). Der geschichtliche Zeugniswert des liturgischen Gedenkens im Mittelalter (Munich. members of which remain influential. D. and his words of warning in K. Schmitt and O. Donation to the church was obviously an important social phenomenon in itself. is seminal. ⁹⁶ The social range extends. 2002).⁹⁷ Stephen White’s major study. 1995) represent important and influential developments within this tradition. G. Memoria als Kultur (Göttingen. not only demonstrated the important social role of monastic communities in preserving the memory of dead patrons but also revealed family commitments to particular foundations and patterns of alliance-making. and most of his subsequent work has relevance. in part drawing on the long French tradition of research into the nobility. see above. it focuses on the laudatio parentum. and eleventh centuries. Guilhiermoz. Borgolte. 25–53. The French historiography of féodalité has been very influential in Spain. more recently. ‘ ‘‘Memoria’’. especially in the ninth. 41 (1968). Althoff.

‘ ‘‘Traditio corporis et animae’’ ’. ¹⁰² Although it relates to a later period. also made a valuable point about the temporality of giving—phases of giving rose and fell. Orlandis. 9 (1959). maybe a place in heaven but—more immediately—access to a network of continuing relationships in life. ¹⁰⁰ White. Pastor. pro anima mea or pro remedio animae N. raid: case studies in the negotiation and classification of exchange in medieval Iceland’. Miller. . might have meant in practice:⁹⁹ in effect he explored some of the motivation that lay behind giving. 1925) was the essential stimulus. 2002). H. 119–31. payment. sale. A. 257–306. and their connections with the property they had donated were often sustained.¹⁰³ Both White’s and Rosenwein’s works. Grierson. increase. and W. pouvoir et société dans le haut moyen âge (Paris. Speculum. Rosenwein. 909–1049 (Ithaca. for donation was more of a group than an individual activity and property was a kind of ‘social glue’. 1200–1300 (Madrid.32 Setting the Scene of such groups and the principles of inclusion within them. while obviously making important contributions on the symbolic significance of donation. historiography of gift exchange. 18–50. 61 (1986). In the course of this work he makes a valuable assessment of what giving for the sake of the soul. To be the Neighbor. is a notable Spanish work which has drawn on this tradition. 5th ser. Mauss’s Essai sur le don (Paris. R. in Burgundy. anthropologically influenced.¹⁰⁰ Drawing on the Münster and French traditions. 202. Rodríguez López. E. 1976 [first published 1950]). Kinship.¹⁰¹ Giving did not mean disposing of one’s goods and divesting oneself of assets. and also his ‘La elección de sepultura en la Espa˜ na medieval’. Transacciones sin mercado: instituciones. For gift exchange. donors always got something in return for their gifts. ‘Commerce in the Dark Ages: a critique of the evidence’. there was no simple. Barbara Rosenwein’s To Be the Neighbor of St Peter focused on the exceptionally large collection of charters from Cluny. ‘Gift. steady. M. ¹⁰¹ B.. Custom. P. 123–40.¹⁰² Richer peasants came into view in her study. Le Jan. ¹⁰³ Rosenwein. while at the same time emphasizing the significance of the ‘spiritual capital’ acquired by the act. Femmes. ⁹⁹ There are important Spanish studies of donation pro anima: J. and investigated the transactional aspects of giving within the context of local society. there were distinct periods in which donation to the church predominated over other recorded transactions. propiedad y redes sociales en la Galicia monástica. but also on the earlier. 1989). 152–4. To Be the Neighbor of Saint Peter: The Social Meaning of Cluny’s Property. 1999). along with the complex of social relationships at local level. in his La iglesia en la Espa˜ na visigotica y medieval (Pamplona. Sánchez León. cf. R. 2001). its influence on early medievalists has been widespread but the following papers have been particularly influential: P. Pascua Echegaray. available in English as Beyond the Market (Leiden. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society.

Also. in G. 1998). 1986). the (French) work of P. Medieval Concepts of the Past: Ritual. P. 1999). La mémoire des ancêtres. B. from Galicia. extending the discussion to include royal women in France. Le Jan. Memory. institutional memory.). the role of women was not emphasized in the record in a comparable way. Women and the Past. le souci des morts. in eleventh. political memory—in the tenth and eleventh centuries. the men of the reformed monastic orders took over the function of keeping memory alive. comtesse de Barcelone’. especially 125–34. Pallares Méndez. passim but especially 54–7. 1993). explored motivation for giving in the context of a wide-ranging study of memory—family memory. ‘Les avatars de la viduité princière: Ermessende (ca. 1996). van Houts. 215–31. M. 1997) contains much pre-eleventh-century material on liturgical commemoration in western Europe. often explicitly. pouvoir et société. Sainteté dynastique.). J. Essai d’anthropologie sociale (Paris. although they had comparable functions in the Western Frankish (French) kingdom. in J. concluding that women were central to the preservation of family memoria in the East Frankish (German) kingdom while. L. 900–1200 (London. The Frankish World. indeed. 750–900 (London. Geary. van Houts (ed.). at comital level. Corbet. 43. L. Parisse (ed. 1994). Medieval Memories: Men. Cf. Nelson. . Aurell i Cardona. bringing more English and ¹⁰⁴ P. especially. J. oblivion. though focused on eleventh to thirteenth centuries. and the ‘‘Faithless Widow’’ in the middle ages’.und Königsfamilien. by writing. Dead men. and drawing strongly on the German tradition. 183–97. See also the useful survey in J. he explored the ritual commemoration of death. Historiography (Cambridge. Adels. Famille et pouvoir dans le monde franc (VII e —Xe siècle). Phantoms of Remembrance: Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millennium (Princeton. emphasizing the significance of commemoration of the family—this was donation to ensure that the family of the donor be remembered and indeed its memory perpetuated. 975–1058). Note the brief comments of García de Cortázar. M. sainteté royale et sainteté feminine autour de l’an Mil (Sigmaringen. Lauwers. ¹⁰⁶ E. Jussen. Ilduara. for more criticisms. ‘Gender and genre in women historians of the early middle ages’. Althoff. rite et société au moyen âge (Paris.¹⁰⁶ She demonstrated. on sustaining historic memory. Memory and Gender in Medieval Europe. 2001). Mort. 700–1300 (Harlow. Althoff. del C. Fried. using German and French material especially. Also R. La sociedad rural. which includes the Catalan paper by M. Nelson. Veuves et veuvage dans le haut moyen âge (Paris. ¹⁰⁵ For royal women in Germany. and with that family titles to property.¹⁰⁴ He also explored the gender associations of giving. on the liturgical commemoration of the high aristocracy in Germany. 333–79. ‘Challenging the culture of memoria. 201–32. 1995). M. by region.¹⁰⁵ This book was extremely influential during the 1990s and stimulated a range of complementary studies. E. of which those by Elisabeth van Houts are particularly important. 2002).Setting the Scene 33 Patrick Geary’s Phantoms of Remembrance. Geary (eds.and twelfth-century Spain. J. see also. is crucial: Les saints ottoniens. the latter’s themes are developed in Le Jan. una Aristócrata del Siglo X (La Coru˜ na. deals with some relevant Spanish material. Femmes. published in 1994.

Duby’s point. Most recently. R. the tension between preserving the inheritance from fragmentation and risking its ultimate loss by making a gift to the church. ¹⁰⁸ Ibid. and complementary. F. were explored in different European contexts. in concluding. Transmission du patrimoine et mémoire au haut moyen âge (Rome. that donation for commemoration was not so bluntly gendered as Geary had suggested and that both men and women had specific. therefore. ibid.34 Setting the Scene Italian material into the discussion. of the history of mentalités. is of course important for developing the gender perspective. he suggested. Le Jan (eds. family remembrance. Le mariage dans la France féodale (Paris. All of this work.¹⁰⁷ Preservation mechanisms like the founding of proprietary churches. and strategies to preserve the patrimony. roles in remembering the past. To Figueras. Bougard. like freeing slaves or erecting stone monuments? how many families. family consciousness was a pervasive theme: memorialization was a kind of self-reflection. 2005). Le chevalier. Sauver son âme et se perpétuer.). in the context of a comparative study of the transfer of family property in Europe in the early middle ages (within the sixth to the eleventh centuries). simply made no attempt to preserve the patrimony?¹⁰⁹ ¹⁰⁷ G. 1–6. and especially of their perspectives of themselves. of their mechanisms for self-perpetuation. was actually about patrilineality: Dhuoda’s son must pray for her husband’s family. ambiguities over the disposability of inherited land. commenting on the mid-ninth-century Manual of Dhuoda. La Rocca.. provided some salutary warnings: how many families in fact disappeared as a result of alienating property to the church. C. the repetition from generation to generation of precarial gifts. an aspect. ‘Fondations monastiques et mémoire familiale en Catalogne (IXe -XIe siècle)’. 1981). 293–329..¹⁰⁸ François Bougard. not her own. Duby. which focuses more on aristocratic than on other parts of society. 50. an international group of scholars took a detailed look at post mortem donation. this book includes a valuable paper on family memory in Catalonia: Ll. 485–94. the habit of reserving the usufruct for the donor’s family. In her introduction to the ensuing publication Régine Le Jan emphasized some ambiguities and tensions—tensions between collective and individual donation. ¹⁰⁹ Ibid. it is also significant in extending understanding of the nature of noble families. particularly outside the aristocracy. picking up Georges Duby’s ‘link between remembering the ancestors and transmitting the patrimony’ and paying particular attention to the relationship between grants to save the soul. However. . and did not preserve the patrimony at all? how many families used completely different strategies to preserve memory.. la femme et le prêtre.

usually landed property. It is about donation—the giving of property. Commemoration takes its place too. then. Donation of both types in fact had consequences for the rest of the donors’ lives—it never simply kicked in at the point of death. to what extent. and a search for points of similarity and contrast with European trends. about reasons for giving. in this Spanish world. It is about who gives and who receives. and I am interested in probing as much of the practice of peasant society as is possible. Giving was therefore very much a part of living. indeed. is an exploration of some of those themes in the Spanish context. since that is the kind of donation that is recorded. . to take effect during their lives or after their deaths. The gender and status of donors are important themes that run throughout.Setting the Scene 35 This book. about what is given. one important question which arises from earlier work is not so much the obvious question about gender specificity and memorialization but the less obvious question about status specificity: were acts which were undertaken to perpetuate memory a symptom of distinctively aristocratic social behaviour or did they spread more widely through society? The book is also about donation as a type of transaction: other kinds of transaction are sometimes presented as donation while gifts can be concealed under the guise of some other mode of exchange. and about the place of giving within the complex of social and economic relationships in society as a whole. was donation itself separable and distinctive? Did the act of giving have such specificity that it could be differentiated from other kinds of exchange? People transferred property in vitam and post mortem.

see Sob122 (960).2 San Pedro and Santa Comba: Churches and their Proprietors Round about 956 the monk Odoíno ran off with a woman called Onega. . had been given large tracts of land to ‘colonize’ in Portugal and Galicia by King Alfonso III of Asturias round about 872—one of the major stories of recent ‘repopulation’ that characterize ¹ Cel265. but a change of heart by the count—on his deathbed—allowed Odoíno to recover it again. someone his mother had brought to their family monastery of Santa Comba on the gentle banks of the River Limia in southern Galicia (see Figs. 2. 23. p. The monastery was thereupon handed over to a woman called Guntroda. a deacon also called Odoíno. although by 982 Odoíno was insisting that he had transferred ownership of Santa Comba from himself to the much larger Galician monastery of Celanova. as a ruin. only to be thrown out when Onega accused him of plotting against Count Rodrigo in the stormy days of the late 950s. Not long after. according to tradition. a nearby farm. together with liturgical vessels and vestments.2). and Vermudo in his turn had got it from his own father. probably round about 930. The first Odoíno had received it. from his relative Count Odoario who. he was back at Santa Comba. appeared on the scene and took over Santa Comba by force (per vim). for Celanova. see above.¹ This very complicated story hangs on the ups and downs of family interest.1. This was but one colourful episode in Odoíno’s more than usually colourful story. Odoíno had acquired Santa Comba from his father. Abbot Vermudo. at least the way he told it himself. For a rather similar story. 2. Elvira. in response to her request. and another church. abbess of the nearby San Martín of Grau. appurtenant lands. At that point Odoíno’s relative.

² In fact. For the story. rather that it changed hands and was put to new uses. the woman Guntroda had appeared some time before the 950s.1 The river Limia. pp. cf. near Santa Comba Figure 2.San Pedro and Santa Comba 37 Figure 2. .2 Santa Comba tenth-century northern Spanish texts. 26–9: we do not have to suppose that the land had been completely deserted. holding the title deeds of ² See above.

We know this story from a very long and rambling account. M. Sociedad gallega. and a relative of the latter. physical possession of the casa (the religious house) features again and again. but there is enough in Odoíno’s tale to see that control of religious houses. Cel2 (942). idem. which she refused to hand over to the monk Odoíno when he took up his inheritance. For the even earlier Bishop Odoario and el ciclo odoariano. 223–26.³ If we had her story. she re-appeared in order to claim the monastery at the time of his defection with Onega and clearly sustained an interest in it for several decades. ³ Otherwise.38 San Pedro and Santa Comba Santa Comba. Ilduara. 581–790. Isla Frez. Cf. As for Guntroda: she was the daughter of Count Gutier’s sister and hence the cousin of Bishop Rosendo (Gutier’s son). at the request of King Ramiro II. preserved in the Celanova archive. in his Viejos y nuevos estudios sobre las instituciones medievales espa˜ nolas. cf. Despoblación y repoblación del valle del Duero (Buenos Aires. his grandfather. supposedly in the words of Odoíno. 122. the story is a very strong statement of sustained interest in the ownership of a small religious house and its lands by a monk. That the conflicts were between aristocrats is evident from the C. 1998). ‘Repoblación del Reino Asturleonés’. La sociedad gallega en la alta edad media (Madrid. as well as appurtenant property. 54–61. 3 vols. to whom Odoíno had given very substantial gifts (mules. indeed forceful. 1966). 127–8. see A. at 610–17. del C. interest. Cel7 (950). alongside his petition for a resolution of this dispute with Guntroda. In this case. Whether we should believe all the detail is another question but. She was eventually persuaded to do so by Bishop Rosendo of Celanova. silver. Although the dispute was apparently settled in favour of Odoíno. una Aristócrata del Siglo X (La Coru˜ na. Abbess Guntroda of Pazó: Isla Frez. his father. Parts of this account are obscure but the chronology is credible and fits with the broad picture of politics in north-west Spain that can be derived from other sources. ii. whatever view we take on that. (Madrid. Pallares Méndez. 1976–80). 131–2. Sánchez-Albornoz. and 520 cattle). things might look different: from her point of view. she was perhaps distantly related to Odoíno himself. his mother and at least one other female relative also demonstrated a sustained. . cloth. could be hotly contested between members of the Galician aristocracy in the tenth century. Cel357 (949). Abbess Guntroda in Cel505 (935) and Cel416 (959). she may have attempted to sustain regular life at Santa Comba across the middle years of the tenth century. 1992). Unfortunately we do not have her story. but have been constantly thwarted by the intrusions of the reckless and disobedient Odoíno.

Only 25 km to the east of Santa Comba. together with twelve suitable witnesses. Although this is a more than usually detailed story. Sociedad gallega. and successful.3 Selected churches and monasteries of north-western Iberia parts played by king and count. with 20 metres of land all round the church. see Isla Frez.⁴ This oath was successful and Vimara’s claim was ⁴ Cel267. where a passus was a notional five Roman feet. Eventually Vimara.San Pedro and Santa Comba 39 Figure 2. as directed by the judges of a local court. claims to property a century later. 2. the case is not unique. Strictly.3). For the 72 passus. Cel271 (909)—a highly suspect document. around 900. and a further 120 metres all round to generate income for the clerics resident there. for the purposes of burial. swore an oath that his ancestors had rebuilt the ruined church and that their children and grandchildren had endowed it. and a Roman foot conventionally 33 cm. 12 and 72 passus respectively all round the church. the ownership of the church of San Pedro de Laroá was disputed between Brother Vimara and Count Menindo Gundisalviz shortly before 1054 (see Fig. . 98. Hereditary interests stretching back to the time of Count Odoario’s ‘colonization’ were still the basis of credible. as also from the size of the associated properties.

similarly long-standing interests are evidenced. Cel270 (1045). King Ramiro III confirmed the powerful monastery of Sahagún in possession of the churches of San Esteban in Boadilla and Santa Columba in Melgar. 2. cf. da Silva Mendes Leal. J. p. Cel299 (1046). a woman called Fakilo had then given the monastery of San Clemente itself. ⁶ Cel269 (1106). in the valleys of the rivers Sequilo and Cea to the south and south-west of Sahagún (see Fig. claimed ownership of San Clemente for his own monastery of Santiago. which she had acquired from her own family. is that those in charge of the Celanova archive thought the eleventh-century demonstration of the donor’s family interest sufficient to establish Celanova’s own property title. 1868). On 1 May 974. Meanwhile Lubila’s relative. some of these were deserted by the turn of the century.3). 23. In the meantime. separately. ⁵ See also Cel139 (1025–40). San Clemente. in 967. for example. What is important for our purposes. It is also interesting that the ten named children and grandchildren of the founder were supposed to have been in control of San Pedro back in 900. to the community of another church in Melgar. the son of a benefactor. however. 1 (Lisbon. although continuity of family interest across the intervening 150 years is certainly not demonstrated by the surviving texts.⁷ More than thirty years before. 3. Cel272 (993). but were restocked by Vimara. Sam99 (?854). as a result. vol. Sam226 (947). and the monks of Santa Columba gave their church and San Esteban to Sahagún in 973. LIV (944). to Sahagún. a deal was done that San Clemente should belong to the bishop’s monastery of Santiago but its dependent church of San Esteban should be transferred to the monastery of Santa Columba. which was part of his own family property. in the 950s or 960s. by other parties. see also. LXIII (951). in the early twelfth century. during the tenth century. through processes which do not survive in the record. who arranged for the church and its property to be transferred to Celanova after the death of his successor. Portugaliae Monumenta Historica a saeculo octavo post Christum usque ad quintum decimum.⁵ What is particularly striking is the fact that family interest was sufficient legitimation. Herculano de Carvalho e Araujo and J. for Sahagún. an abbot called Lubila had given San Esteban. there was still dealing in portions of these farms. Bishop Gundisalvo. in the very different landscape of the meseta. Diplomata et Chartae. ed. San Pedro had acquired a significant endowment of local farms. Gundisalvo’s successor then gave San Clemente to Sahagún.40 San Pedro and Santa Comba sustained. A. ⁷ See above.⁶ The continuing market in this land may suggest that Vimara’s gift was far from total. However. . Much farther to the east.

we do not see tenth-century absorption by a more powerful religious federation. 22–5. This time-band certainly reflects the greater availability of records from that generation but the proportion in the decade of the 940s (which has nearly a quarter of all recorded transactions in churches or monasteries) is extremely high: it constitutes nearly a third of transactions of any ⁸ S276. In this case. this time in an area without the tradition of colonization. and divided the attached property.San Pedro and Santa Comba 41 Lubila’s brother Tajón also claimed—unsuccessfully—that his rightful inheritance had been diverted to Sahagún.and tenth-century transactions (bearing in mind that the total number of transactions recorded in surviving ninth. Cel357 (949) and Cel529 (953). although they are not specified in the texts. on 26 December 990. only to be broken by the acquisitions and proprietary interests of a very powerful monastery like Sahagún. probably involved the transfer of churches too. however.⁹ Here again. but just the continuing proprietary interests of small-scale clerics. Again. pp. he gave some of it to the church of Santos Pedro y Pablo. Transactions in farms and estates with names like ‘Villa Sant N’. a man called Aurelio built a church dedicated to Santa María in the early tenth century. ¹⁰ See above. although in practice the proportion of total transactions may well have been higher. a characteristically Galician formulation. which would increase the proportion. Cel33 (936) ‘villare de Sancto Martino’. S270 (973).and tenth-century northern Spanish collections is just over 2. with the instruction that he should pass it on to someone following the monastic life. Transactions in churches and monasteries constitute approximately 13% of known ninth. across the tenth century.000). we see family control of churches and monasteries. family interest in churches is explicit—although not always contested.¹⁰ These church transactions cluster in the period 940–970. He passed that church on to his cousin Dulcidio. ⁹ Ov24. for example. Cel418 (941) ‘villa de Sancto Petro’. . Artemio restored the church. the priest Artemio. at Limanes near Oviedo. and continuing expectations of control. and the rest—all the houses and appurtenant land—to the priest Modesto. north of the Cantabrian mountains. which was in the care of his son Esteban and daughter Teudildis.⁸ This is a complicated series of events with two apparently different families with interests in a group of nearby churches. preferably from their families. S77 (941). both ‘villa de Sancta Eolalia’. who in his turn passed it on to Aurelio’s grandson. S246 (967). for transaction numbers. S126 (950–67). Much farther north.

31%. . large or small. by number.1 Transactions in churches and monasteries. 970s. Proportions of church transactions in Carde˜ na. ¹² See further below. p. a marked difference in the regional incidence of church transactions. the 940s. however. per decade % of total transactions Cel Sob Sam L OD S C SM Ar A V T Ov per decade 9th Century 900–09 910–19 920–29 930–39 940–49 950–59 960–69 970–79 980–89 990–99 5 0 0 5 7 6 7 1 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 5 0 0 2 3 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 2 3 3 6 1 2 8 3 3 4 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 2 1 6 1 0 1 1 2 4 19 12 5 10 12 3 12 2 2 4 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 30 15 18 19 11 27 13 10 9 7 14 % of 9th. and 28% respectively). There is. saw an increase in the transfer of ownership of churches and monasteries. Transactions in churches were a little above the 13% mean in the 910s and 920s.¹² Just as important as the fact of regional difference is the fact that virtually every collection of tenth-century charters across northern Spain. 63.42 San Pedro and Santa Comba Table 2. pp.and 10thcentury transactions 16 8 28 7 2 5 25 31 12 4 14 13 8 13 kind that were made in that decade. and will be explored below. and 980s were a little below. against the mean of 13%). includes records of transactions in which non-royal. while those in the 960s. in ninth and tenth centuries. There appear to be no especial regional differences in the chronology of these transactions. San Millán. and the proportion of León records is also well below the mean (7%). by source collection. The very large collection of Sahagún charters includes an exceptionally low proportion (5%. families are seen to be controlling churches and monasteries: ¹¹ See above. for these monasteries. way above the 13% mean (see table 2.1). as well as royal.¹¹ These deviations are so striking that they are likely to be significant. 23–5. for whatever reason. and Samos collections are all well above the mean (25%.

argued that the family monastery of the ninth and tenth centuries ultimately had Visigothic origins. Cel271 (879). Cel242 (884. a father and son transferred a monastery they owned: Valeriano and his father Teodario gave their monastery of San Salvador at Osina (off the gorge that leads into the Liébana valley) to the abbot and monks of Ville˜ na. ‘Los monasterios familiares en Espa˜ na durante la alta edad media’. 125–64. and the implications are that it was no new thing then. in J. 145.¹⁴ The narratives of other charters locate similar transactions in the 840s. 1971 [first published 1956]). 2. and maybe 880s. this is probably too concerned with the distant past. . Orlandis. at 131.¹⁵ Christian culture of the ¹³ J. in entirety and in portions. Orlandis.and later ninth century. Estudios sobre instituciones monásticas medievales (Pamplona. high on the hillsides of the Liébana (see Fig. particularly in view of the new foundations that can be tracked in the ninth and tenth centuries.4 The Li´ ebana valley they founded them. however. 870s. Family control is evident from as early as surviving records begin. SM10 (871—a suspect record).4). in the different regions of Galicia and Castile. some of these are suspect records. but it is nevertheless significant that the writers chose to record such dealings as family dealings and to place them in the mid. in the mountains of Cantabria in the far north. perhaps more correctly dated in the 930s). they also dealt in them.¹³ Already in 829. ¹⁵ Cel208 (842). and they argued about rights of control.San Pedro and Santa Comba 43 Figure 2. some foundations were clearly several centuries old. ¹⁴ T6.

44 San Pedro and Santa Comba tenth and eleventh centuries expected families to have had proprietary interests in churches. each with its ¹⁶ Cel478. the priest Gonzalo failed to keep control of his family church of San Justo. a property which had come to them from the man’s father and grandfather. and lost. Cel460. in 949. together with their son Gundisalvo. one might well ask about the shape of ecclesiastical authority in the tenth century in northern Spain. Sandino and his wife Eiloni. this time their villa and church of San Salvador for another in Quiroga with its church. the examples multiply. Sam61 (cf. a man called Mateo and his brothers argued about control of the church of San Esteban on the river Cea. another called García Refugano lost the battle to keep his family church in Tubilla del Lago in Castile in 957. Sob130 (992)). were swapping churches. one document from 976 formally records the transfer of several churches from father to son—perhaps this unusual use of the written instrument for transfer within the family indicates some concern that hereditary transmission might no longer be secure. ¹⁸ C65. C90. Families could well be both: Mantella and his wife Leocadia. Li192. which included churches. to the bishop of León. cf. and both: we should not try to distinguish too precisely between the lay and the ecclesiastical.¹⁷ These family interests were ‘lay’. with its monastery of San Pedro and San Pablo. and in 931 a man called Pedro and his wife swapped with Velasco and his wife their villa of Verín (near the Portuguese border) for another at Cameledia with its church of San Pedro. Sob109 (986–99). Cel487 (983)). ‘clerical’. the disputes over control noted in Sam44 (975). as they did in the tenth century. and believed that many interests had pre-tenthcentury origins. but twenty years later a man and his daughter gave their villa in Palencia. who was a priest. As surviving records increase. ¹⁷ C35 (941).¹⁸ T H E C H U RC H : S T RU C T U R E A N D AU T H O R I T Y Given the plethora of anecdotes about proprietary interests. There was no neat system of parishes. Lii451 (977). gave away their church of Santa María. in 946. to the abbot of a small local monastery in Castile and the abbot’s brother. Lii432 (974).¹⁶ Transferring our glance from Galicia to the meseta. in the following decade. also San Pedro. In 934 the Galician Count Gutier and his wife divided their properties. Lii330 (960). between their children. . another couple.

75–93. it looks as if it was the twelfth century before such a system began to be put in place. ²⁰ Isla Frez. as Bishop Sisnando did when he confiscated property from a monk who had committed sexual offences. Sociedad gallega. T17 (885). we can see them consecrating new foundations and occasionally taking disciplinary action. men with substantial personal property interests. she explicitly put it under the control of the bishop. but see Castellanos and Martín Viso. ²³ Cf. as well as a large number. about a dozen in the kingdom of Asturias/León by 900. La alta edad media.1200. ‘La discussione’. and S. 2002).²² However. cf. Martín Viso.San Pedro and Santa Comba 45 exclusive territory and with a parish priest to care for the souls of residents and to provide sacraments like the important rites of baptism and burial. 13 (2005). ‘The local articulation of central power’. see Isla Frez. to have been plenty of churches and monasteries—quite a variety of religious institutions. for shifting episcopal sees in Galicia and Castile respectively. 1–42. 1976). Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’alto medioevo. at 679–80. Cristianizzazione ed Organizzazione ecclesiastica delle Campagne nell’alto medioevo. Orlandis. at 40–1.²⁰ In these texts bishops usually appear as authority figures. confessor vel quem diaconus ibidem duxerit … ipsius pontificis sit in eadem prefato loco’. A. at 283–4. Early Medieval Europe. . La Iglesia en la Espa˜ na visigotica y medieval (Pamplona. 28 (1982). Estepa Díez. in J. for example. the suspect Cel271 (909). Indeed. so that. he should acknowledge that it was the bishop’s place. Castellanos and I. 247–8. Lii479 (980). There were bishops too. Sociedad gallega. Siglos VIII-XI (Madrid. Isla Frez. Orlandis.²³ When Adosinda founded the church of San Pedro (Sorga). ‘La elección de sepultura en la Espa˜ na medieval’. La Iglesia (first delivered 1974). Orlandis. La alta edad media. Isla Frez argued that she made the grant to Rosendo as abbot of Celanova rather than as bishop. 248–51. ‘Reforma eclesiastica en los siglos XI y XII’. in ‘La discussione sulla lezione Sotomayor’. and Estepa Díez. 100. in J. ‘The local articulation of central power in the north of the Iberian peninsula (500–1000)’. Isla Frez. on the fact that Christianization was still in progress in the Basque country c . S30 (922). 670–83. 307–48. men who disposed of churches to this or that incumbent. Orlandis. whatever priest or deacon should follow the holy life there. on reforming councils in the eleventh century. these were men who consorted with kings and attended high-level political meetings. who refer to bishops without see on the Cantabrian coast. 239–43. 243. and C. ²² Li16 (878–904). 257–306. 28. 83.²⁴ The block of churches that Bishop Froilán assigned to Sahagún’s ¹⁹ J. 678–9: churches in the Liébana in the ninth century were ‘at the margins’ of episcopal organization.²¹ With an urban or proto-urban base. however. ²¹ Sam128 (849). ²⁴ Cel247 (927): ‘sub manibus pontificis domni Rudesindi episcopi ita ut qui in ipso loco in vita sancta perseveraverint tam presbiter. J. Cf.¹⁹ There seem. the extent to which the appointments they made arose from their episcopal responsibilities rather than from their personal property interests is extremely unclear. La alta edad media.

large and small. e. Susan Wood. Lii508 (985). or even the priest himself. has an elegant demonstration that interpolations into tenth-century texts were included to suggest the exercise of episcopal powers.³⁰ Many establishments were called ‘monasteries’.²⁵ But these cases are unusual. the monastery of Samos. The priest Cagito was ‘given’ the church of Santo Tomé to ‘live in’ by the owner. a church complex frequently seems to have included dwellings— casas. houses. however. Appurtenant property is frequently specified. that of San Román y San Mamed at Mao in Teixeira had a church. as from their episcopal. as well as further appurtenant property. 96–100.g. ²⁶ A bishop’s personal interests: Ov11 (948). Sob48 (994). The sanction of S29 (922) appears to refer to episcopal jurisdiction. ‘The local articulation of central power’.²⁷ The records note the existence of many churches (ecclesiae). a food store. exercised the power of distributing churches and making appointments too. The Proprietary Church in the Medieval West (Oxford. for example. a wine or cider press.²⁸ The owner could be a bishop. ³⁰ Sam99 (?854). and size must have affected their ²⁵ S359. the bishopric’s interests are sometimes in effect detailed in the ‘restorations’ of churches that kings made to bishops. such priests might hold their churches by agreement with the owner. . and orchards. and the owner usually exercised an interest in any property that went with the church. as is sometimes explicitly indicated. often with an associated priest specified. Bishops do not seem to have exercised control over all establishments within their regions and it is common for Spanish historians nowadays to stress that the power of bishops was declining from the later Visigothic period and probably continued to decline until the eleventh-century reform took root. ²⁹ Sam217 (973). or a lay family. 541–3. and cf. 2006). 40–1. More to the point is the fact that. powerful as bishops were. most ‘gifts’ of churches that bishops made to priests or monasteries could as easily have come from their personal.²⁶ Contemporaries probably did not differentiate between episcopal and proprietary power on the ground. for example. and also all the property he and the church had acquired through gifts made for the salvation of souls. lay and ecclesiastical. clearly many other people. he gave the church back to the monastery. Sociedad gallega. when this priest neared the end of his life. resources. ²⁷ Castellanos and Martín Viso. or a monastic community. S253 (969). 8–9. ²⁸ See. a cook house. together with gifts of his own. passing them on to their own offspring or family.46 San Pedro and Santa Comba control in 999 probably derived as much from his episcopal authority as from his proprietary interest. Isla Frez.²⁹ ‘Church’ in these cases often meant more than a single edifice. monasteries were of different sizes.

two brothers.³⁵ The other side of the problem of differentiating ‘church’ from ‘monastery’ is the problem of establishing the extent to which a ³¹ C14. was explicitly to pass to someone who ‘followed the monastic life’. S39 (930). Historia Medieval. and M. C108 (963). Sharpe. Cf. ³³ See below. S257 (970). for male and female communities.). 2003). 319.³² The word monasterium encompasses many different kinds of institution. ‘La elección’. Cristianizzazione ed Organizzazione ecclesiastica delle Campagne nell’alto medioevo. at 90–1. Pastoral Care before the Parish (Leicester. and that at San Sebasti´ an y Santa Gadea had six. Sam226 (947). at 147–9. 89–120. 252. 1992). ³² OD20. ‘Nobleza e iglesias propias en la Cantabria altomedieval’. 176–81. 41. see further below. For debate on whether this third had in fact been operative in the Visigothic period. 179–80. Sociedad gallega. Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’alto medioevo. and also the cautionary words of H. p. Indeed. for discussion of these lay households. pp. Studia Historica. at 650–2. 138–67.³⁴ The church at Limanes. for the elusive third. see M.).³¹ one would expect a structured day at such institutions. However. in J. lay religious households. S79. I. Pryce. see J. Sotomayor. pp. La alta edad media. on the difficulty of differentiating between churches and monasteries. a distinction that was in fact very unlikely to have been operative in the ninth and tenth centuries. must have been very difficult to differentiate from a small monastery. in W. also Isla Frez. The major house of Carde˜ na had 204 monks named in 921. 5 (1987).³³ For that matter. S270 (973). 28 (1982). although Sob48 (994) refers to it. discussed above. the comments of Orlandis. Isla Frez. 639–70. ‘The Christianization of society’. from the property-owning corporation to the family enterprise. ³⁴ S77 and S126. the extent to which the small monastery was actually any different from a ‘church’ is extremely uncertain—a point reinforced by the facts that the same foundation may sometimes be called a church and sometimes a monastery and that some (although not necessarily all) ‘churches’ appear to have had small resident communities. ‘Introduction’. very much smaller numbers are also often encountered: that of Santa Olalla de Airas had eleven in 976 (two priests. Sharpe (eds. C167. 93–9. cf. . ³⁵ See above. Blair and R. from large and regular to small and informal. five sisters. monasteries did not have to give up a third of their income to the bishop. unlike churches. S257. From the Vikings to the Normans (Oxford. while the less substantial local monasteries of San Martín of Modúbar had 33 cited in 975 and that of Piasca in Cantabria had 36 nuns and an abbess in 941.San Pedro and Santa Comba 47 character. often headed by a confessus. 107–8. Blair and R. an abbot. 1–10. that at Santa Columba (Melgar) had twelve.) Isla Frez points out that traditionally the distinction between churches and monasteries was that. and an abbess). (For similar issues in the English church at a comparable period. ‘Penetración de la iglesia en los medios rurales de la Espa˜ na tardorromana y Visigoda’. Loring García. Davies (ed. ‘churches’ with associated abbots: Cel62 (935).

SM52 (949). The owner received. And for whom were the services of a church provided. Cel222 (954). some acted with wife and children. is the number or proportion of such cases. of course. One would expect priests. Sob8 (964).³⁶ While it remains possible that there was always an unmentioned resident community in the immediate neighbourhood. the income associated with a religious foundation. to have gone to the local bishop for ordination. or fractions of a church or monastery. Some of the transacting priests clearly acted with or for small religious communities. but they nevertheless clearly provide evidence of hundreds of cases of primarily proprietary control. records which are overwhelmingly concerned with property interests. however. and indeed what services? Clearly they were available for the owner. S350 (996). even if there was sometimes a lay or religious owner in the more distant background. but there is little direct evidence of this. an effect of the available records. as we have seen above. That may be so. It must be likely that some churches simply had one resident associated priest. That apart. The owner seems to have had a major influence over the appointment of incumbent priest or abbot. be they independent or part of a community. and it is not unreasonable to suppose that tenants might benefit where the owner had a nearby or surrounding estate. that is those who lived in the neighbourhood ³⁶ For examples: A19 (950). But many transactions of gift or sale were made by or to priests apparently acting as independent agents. The owner gave away or sold church or monastery as he or she saw fit. Li88 (930).48 San Pedro and Santa Comba priest might function independent of a residential community in this pre-parochial world. . some acted with their wider family. as in Cagito’s case above. and a good proportion of those transactions related to churches. on balance it is extremely unlikely that this applies to every single transaction made by a sole priest or a priest with his nuclear family. and that some must have lived in great aristocratic households. authority over churches and monasteries seems to have been conditioned by proprietary interests. and some acted alone. Given that many clearly lived within religious communities. What we cannot know. There are quite a few indications that others too might benefit. or allocated to another body. This impression is partly. large and small. was it ever the case that a single priest served a church? Clearly this is implied where appointments were made by a monastery owning a distant church.

³⁸ See further below.³⁹ To some extent. or the involvement of the peasants of Villabáscones in Castile in endowing their local church—very much a community enterprise. Escalona Monge. argues that early churches in Castile were local community churches. McLaughlin. as requested above—moral and spiritual guidance. The several rock-cut cemeteries of the meseta may well have a bearing on peasant burial in the early middle ages. Álvarez Borge. Julio Escalona points out to me that a site like Revenga (Castile). . sometimes. 174. 69–70. Álvarez Borge. 54–5. must have a substantial tenth-century phase. pp. on freedom of choice. ‘La elección’. 121–5. pp. Poder y relaciones sociales en Castilla en la edad media (Valladolid. 2002). C52 (945). ³⁹ Sam128 (849). priests and churches served local communities.³⁸ This happened in all areas. And teaching. Consorting with Saints: Prayer for the Dead in Early Medieval France (Ithaca. C54 (945). on the Villabáscones case. even if it was a rather distant saying of prayers for the people. cf. like writing. Sociedad y territorio en la alta edad media castellana (Oxford. but that such churches increasingly became detached from the community as they gained in power. see J. 52. Sam170 (930).⁴¹ Endowment of both churches and monasteries with vestments and liturgical vessels ³⁷ I. especially 264–8. For communities. Lii293. 55. or that relating the need of the many lay heirs of a ‘founder’ for someone to teach them. reference to burial is relatively common. Poder. just as small monasteries might also do. specifically in order that the monastery should manage the care of their souls. including documents recording transactions between purely lay persons. 95–6. M. is rarely mentioned. ⁴¹ See further below. with its associated traces of a church. since there are many references to pastoral care within the charter texts: Felix and Riquilo made grants to San Cosme y San Damián in 943 and 955. pp. See Orlandis.San Pedro and Santa Comba 49 of a church or a monastery. although it is clear that people had a free choice of burial place at this period and although we know much more about aristocratic burial than that of peasants. There must also have been some element of pastoral care. respectively. C45 (944–50) and below. ⁴⁰ Li175: ‘ut pro animam meam curam gerant’.³⁷ We know that priests and monks wrote documents on behalf of local proprietors. great and small. and so we do not know how this was organized in the tenth century. 1996). on the other hand. that is before the flood of transactions of the 930s and thereafter.⁴⁰ The particular rite of baptism. 193–202. There are also occasional explicit comments. see below. but their chronology is in need of re-assessment. p. such as that invoking the duty of the sacerdos at the church of Santiago de Toldaos to proclaim the Gospel to the people. and cf. What services were provided for these nearby residents? Clearly practical services. and was already a common practice in the late ninth and early tenth centuries.

Adosinda and her husband founded the basilica of San Pedro in Sorga sometime before 927. Churches founded by the ‘men’ (homines) of 1994). and other books. 123. but how far there was regular Sunday celebration is unclear. a Psalter. Ov11. C H A N G I N G R E L AT I O N S H I P S The situation was by no means static. the laity could and did participate is unknown.50 San Pedro and Santa Comba sufficient to allow celebration of festivals and the saying of mass was not uncommon. some new foundations in the first half of the tenth century.⁴³ There were. when his father gave it farms. a silver cross and liturgical vessels. ⁴² Cel247. how far. made by lay couples as well as by clerics. this moment was often located in the period of real or supposed colonization. who constructed a church of San Juan Bautista on the coast near Oviedo in the late ninth century as a family burial place. when farms were being stocked and new buildings constructed. for example. and bought land from his brother as an endowment. sometime before 952. Bishop Diego built houses and churches near Valpuesta. We do not hear much about the moment of foundation because that was usually in the distant past. Such is the case of Abbot Senior. orchards. points out that it is very unclear if parish priests in France said prayers for the dead before the late eleventh century. . her husband. Most of the recorded transactions in churches and monasteries are just that—transactions concerned with existing structures and communities. all of which he transferred to the monastery of Valpuesta in 940. if at all.⁴² Although this would obviously have been normal within the monasteries. who founded several churches in Galicia before the 840s. or even earlier. an establishment which was still changing hands within his family in 948. during the tenth century: there were shifting patterns of proprietorship and there was growing competition for authority. Fafila’s son Egas founded the church of San Vicente at Louredo on the River Mi˜ no north west of Celanova. vineyards. stock. in the mountains of Castile. Cel271 (879). and passed them to his cousin. something that happened in the time of King Alfonso III (866–911). As noted above. however. ⁴³ Cel208 (842). and her children. however. or the case of Bishop Ataúlfo. and provided a very large endowment in order to establish regular prayers for herself.

see C. rather than abandon it. that of a married couple giving their church to the same monastery.San Pedro and Santa Comba 51 Ermegildo and Eldonza in Galicia must have been established in the 950s or 960s. 57. J. ‘Reforma eclesiastica en los siglos XI y XII’. argues that the main movement of alienation came in the mid-eleventh century. Sahagún records have a woman giving her monastery to Sahagún itself.⁴⁶ Again and again. This may well be the case.⁴⁵ Although there is a certain amount of information about the founding of churches and about dealing in them. For example. what we hear about most is the donation of churches and monasteries to the greater churches or monasteries. it was a long process and changed during its course. pp. . San Millán records include that of two brothers and their mother giving their church to a local monastery. Sobrado records have a couple making the key gift of the church and appurtenant property ⁴⁴ Cel247. and that of two siblings and a cousin giving their church to San Millán itself. from the 950s there was also a clear tendency for lay families to resign their interests. although they may well have tried to reinforce their own memorialization in the act of so doing. Carde˜ na records have a man giving the inheritance that he acquired with his sister. ⁴⁶ Orlandis. 124–6. in fact most records of transactions in family churches and monasteries are records of their alienation from the family. and Wood. it looks as if families stopped expressing religious commitment in this way in the middle of the century. 755. Proprietary Church. but there are plenty of instances of alienation in other parts of western Europe before the eleventh century. Although lay ownership of churches continued throughout the tenth century into the eleventh and beyond. and a couple of (related) deacons who gave villas and associated churches. as did a high aristocrat. or their villa with its church. including a church. e. after the 950s. Wickham. Sam132 (978). a married couple or siblings or a mother and son give away their church. While there may of course be unrecorded cases. to Carde˜ na.g. Celanova records have a couple and their children giving their villa and its church to Celanova. 1988). The Mountains and the City: The Tuscan Appennines in the Early Middle Ages (Oxford.⁴⁴ People were still founding family churches and monasteries until mid-century (or at least we can still see them doing so). 43–7. to take the decade of the 950s. as did a family group of six. as did a married couple and a pair of sisters. ⁴⁵ See below. records of such foundations disappear. As we shall see. V16. they were more likely to express it by making a donation to an existing major church or monastery. Cel558. Although there are records of lay and ecclesiastical families dealing in churches and monasteries right through the tenth century.


San Pedro and Santa Comba

to the monastic community of Sobrado itself.⁴⁷ Clearly, we can only measure the records that happen to survive, and in those one might expect donations to churches to predominate, but it is notable not only that records of new private foundations disappear from the 950s, but that records of alienation from lay owners increase. The records that we have clearly suggest changes in practice. What of the status of these founders, dealers, and donors? In most cases we know their gender and we usually know whether they were lay or clerical and if lay whether royal, comital, or other aristocrat. On the basis of surviving material, the alienators were overwhelmingly men, but nearly a quarter of cases involved married couples. In fact, two thirds were religious of one sort or another, especially priests and abbots. Nearly a third of the rest were kings or other royalty, as might be expected; other lay aristocrats feature more frequently than counts, but not as much as kings. It is quite rare to be able to suggest unambiguous peasant participation in this movement—hardly surprisingly, since these are transactions concerning estates. One can sometimes glimpse peasant interest, however, as in the case of the villagers of Villabáscones, twenty-four of whom endowed their local monastery of San Martín with land in 944. Many of the twenty-four witnessed subsequent small transactions and by 956 the community, as a body, was negotiating with the abbot of San Martín about water rights—doubtless a pointer to the increasing power of the abbot.⁴⁸ Here the proprietary interest is that of the local community, or a section of it, not that of the family. There are other cases of community action in relation to local churches, although aristocratic interests are much more prominent in the texts.⁴⁹ CORPUS ET ANIMA Many of the family churches and monasteries that went out of private possession, then, were transferred by priests. It is interesting that a
⁴⁷ SM57 (950), SM70 (956), SM79 (959), Cel497 (950), Cel489 (953), C71/77 (950), C74 (950), C86 (954), S126 (950–67), S145 (955), S165 (959), Sob1 (952). ⁴⁸ See above, p. 49; C45, C87 (955), C89 (956), C108 (963); see also below, p. 204. Castellanos and Martín Viso, ‘The local articulation of central power’, 41, argue that many monasteries may have had pre-tenth-century peasant community origins. ⁴⁹ See further below, pp. 201–2. Note, however, that—both before 931 and in the period 926–1100—J. A. García de Cortázar y Ruiz de Aguirre, El dominio del monasterio de San Millán de la Cogolla (siglos X a XIII) (Salamanca, 1969), 83–4, identified more peasant than noble proprietors transferring churches to monasteries other than San Millán.

San Pedro and Santa Comba


significant number of the charters recording alienation by priests include formulas which suggest that—literally—the donor gave himself to a monastery as well as any church and property that might be specified by the text. The most striking of these giving words are those of the common phrase trado animam et corpus (or corpus et animam), as for example occurs in the record of the priest Quíntila’s gift of 13 February 945: ‘trado in primis anima et corpus proprium; deinde ecclesie Sancte Marine et Sancti Iusti propria mea ratione’, ‘I give first [to Abbot Esteban and all the monks living in Carde˜ na] my own soul and body, and then my share of the church of Santa Marina and San Justo [in Pesquera]’.⁵⁰ Also common are variations on the formula trado memetipsum, as recorded of the priest Ariolfo on 30 March 945: ‘trado in primis memetypsum; deinde ecclesie Sancte Crucis et Sancti Iuliani’, ‘I give myself first, and then the church of Santa Cruz and San Julián’.⁵¹ There are over 150 occurrences of these formulas in these texts, with roughly equal numbers of each of the two main types. What are they about? Do they record the donor’s entry into the power of the receiving monastery, perhaps literally by entry into the monastery? Is this a way of recording that a person joined the monastic community?⁵² The association of these formulas with the transfer of churches by priests to monasteries is particularly striking, and requires some exploration. Orlandis characterized traditio corporis et animae as an indicator of a particular quality of lay relationship with a monastery. He argued that it denoted familiaritas, lay membership of the monastic family, the abbot supporting the relationship by providing either spiritual protection for the lay members, especially in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, or socio-economic support.⁵³ The former is not dissimilar to the religious fraternities found in ninth-, tenth-, and eleventh-century German contexts (although Orlandis was arguing that there was a specific quality to these relationships in Iberia that was not found
⁵⁰ C48; see above, p. xvi, for a warning that one should not expect classical Latin grammar in these texts. ⁵¹ C49. ⁵² Susan Wood advises me that tradere seipsum does indeed often imply entry to a monastic community in Bavaria and Italy in the eighth and ninth centuries (pers. comm.); cf. Wood, Proprietary Church, 643 n.33, 670 n.68, 758 n.28. ⁵³ J. Orlandis, ‘ ‘‘Traditio corporis et animae’’. Laicos y monasterios en la alta edad media espa˜ nola’, in J. Orlandis, Estudios sobre instituciones monásticas medievales (Pamplona, 1971), 217–378, at 254–63 and 309–38 especially. Cf. S. Moreta Velayos, El monasterio de San Pedro de Carde˜ na. Historia de un dominio monástico castellano (902–1338) (Salamanca, 1971), 102–4.


San Pedro and Santa Comba

elsewhere in western Europe).⁵⁴ A careful look at occurrences within our charter collections shows that, for tenth-century contexts, Orlandis overemphasized the essentially lay character of this relationship, and also that these apparently straightforward formulas conceal a range of different gifts and circumstances. First, corpus et anima, and then related formulas. Tenth-century occurrences of corpus et anima come overwhelmingly from the Carde˜ na collection, between 917 and 999 (a remarkable 75% of all cases in all the collections considered here); the others are from Valpuesta, Albelda, San Millán de la Cogolla (which include some pre-tenth-century examples), Arlanza, and Liébana material.⁵⁵ This looks like predominantly Castilian practice (see Fig. 2.5). The distribution is so skewed that it suggests that these words arise from diplomatic habits, that is from habits of writing, rather than that they indicate any distinctive kind of transaction. The latter point is also made by the fact that charters in the Carde˜ na collection which record gifts to other monasteries in the same period often use different formulas.⁵⁶ Trado memetipsum, and variants, also occurs in Carde˜ na material, of the second half of the tenth century, although much less commonly (20% of all cases); other occurrences (of which there are pre-tenth-century examples) are from San Millán, Valpuesta, Liébana, Sahagún, León, Samos, Sobrado, and Celanova collections. In other words, they come from the western meseta and Galicia as well as from Castile, although nearly a third occur in San Millán material and it would be fair to say that even this kind of formula is relatively rare in collections from outside Castile.⁵⁷ That point is especially notable given the very large numbers of charters from León, Sahagún, and Celanova. Second, the destination of gifts recorded in these ways. Recipients are virtually always abbots and never lay persons; the exceptions are gifts made to two priests and a bishop.⁵⁸ The point may seem obvious but
⁵⁴ Orlandis, ‘ ‘‘Traditio corporis et animae’’ ’, 220–1, cf. 263–8; see above, pp. 30–1 for German spiritual networks, and below, pp. 107–8, 177–8 for lay commitment. ⁵⁵ V25, A19, A21, Ar8, Ar9, Ar21, Ar23, Ar24, T76, but cf. also Portugaliae Monumenta Historica, XXIII (919); Moreta Velayos, El monasterio de San Pedro de Carde˜ na, 102, counted forty-seven Carde˜ na instances in the tenth century. The verb is usually trado; very occasionally one finds offero (e.g. C162) or commendo (e.g. C117). Further, arguable, cases are Sam210, of 907, from Samos in Galicia, which has the corpus element only; and SM79, of 959, from San Millán, which has the anima element only. ⁵⁶ For example, C80 and C84, within a run of 950s charters using corpus et anima. ⁵⁷ Cf. also the doubtful charter Ov1, of 781, which has anachronistic insertions. ⁵⁸ Priests: C117 (964) and Cel442 (826); bishop: V18 (945), V33 (929–57), V34 (957).

San Pedro and Santa Comba


Figure 2.5 Distribution of corpus et anima formulas

clearly these formulas are explicitly concerned with religious transactions, and are overwhelmingly concerned with gifts to monasteries. The gifts to the laity which feature in these collections are never recorded in this way. Hence, a priori, the expectation that they may record entry to a monastery is entirely reasonable. Next, ranges of meaning. The entry of an individual donor to a monastery is certainly on some occasions made explicit by the accompanying text. For example, the priest Lázaro, along with family members, gave his family church at Pedernales to Carde˜ na, and then gave himself (anima et corpus) and his share of family property, in 946; Salito, the founder of San Juan and San Millán (Henestra), sometime before 947, gave himself and all his goods to the monastery and became its abbot (tradi metipsum); the priest Citayo gave shares in his property to the monastery of Abellar (León) and agreed to live under its rule in 955 (dono me ipsum); the man Flaino gave all his goods to the monastery of Turieno in the Liébana in 959, and asked to be corrected, in the monastery, if he were thereafter disobedient (concedo me); the priest Vermudo was committed to the monastery of San Juan de Loyo by his parents and ultimately, in 969, gave himself and all his property


San Pedro and Santa Comba

to that community (me ipsum offero).⁵⁹ It is also sometimes explicitly recorded that small monasteries gave themselves to larger monasteries, using these formulas to express the gifts; in effect this must have meant the transfer of property rights from the smaller to the larger institution and presumably, ultimately but not immediately, the end of the smaller institution. Hence, the abbot and ten monks of the former community church of San Martín at Villabáscones gave themselves and properties to Carde˜ na in 963 (corpus et anima), as did the abbess Argilo and her family in 981 (also anima et corpus), and the abbot Adica and six monks to the monastery of Albelda in 950 (animas et corpora).⁶⁰ The several documents recording ‘pacts’ between an abbot or abbess and a group of men or women agreeing to lead the monastic life are similar; they tend to use these formulas to record their commitment. Agreement between twenty-seven women and Abbess Nonna (759, San Miguel de Pedroso), eleven women and two men with Abbess Urraka (959, Pedernales), another between thirty-three monks and Abbot Azenari (975, Modúbar), all use the corpus et anima formula; another between fifteen men and two women with Abbot Fulgaredo (871, Galicia) simply says tradimus.⁶¹ The last three stress the future obedience of those making the agreement to their abbots and abbess. The eleven people, including a priest, who gave themselves to the church of an unlocated San Pedro in 918, renouncing everything and all their property, may well be a comparable case.⁶² It is therefore perfectly clear that these formulas implying transfer of the person as well as the property were indeed used to record a person’s entry into a monastery, along with an accompanying property transaction, particularly in Castile. This is but one dimension of a wide range of material which shows that it was a normal expectation for monks and nuns who joined monasteries to join taking property with them. The monk Nunila gave all his property to his monastery in Marmellar de Arriba in 949; the monk Diego gave his private church to Carde˜ na; Abbot Lope of Bezares in the Oca mountains gave all his property to his monastery, sometime shortly after 964; the widow Electa gave to the monastery of Santos Justo y Pastor
⁵⁹ C57, SM46, Lii288, T56, SamS-7. ⁶⁰ C108 (see above, p. 52), C187, A19; cf. the early example (post 785) in Sam137. ⁶¹ SM1, C95, C167, Cel61. ⁶² T24 (perhaps Vi˜ non, a dependency of San Martín of Turieno in the Liébana valley). Cf. the suspect Ov1, a similar pact between twenty-six monks with an abbot and a priest, which states that they renounced the world (abrenuntiamus seculum).

whether real estate or chattels. a series of people ⁶³ C63. a man called Airico provided for all his property to go to Abellar if he entered that monastery—the point is nicely made. without using the formulas: Abbot Crescencio made arrangements in 947 to give the brothers of the church of San Pedro and San Clemente. a priest gave his entire property to a León monastery in 954 in order that he might live there. A family. although this was to be after his own death. ⁶⁴ V20. C91 (957). Lii265 (954). a greater number (more than twice as many) records the transfer of other kinds of property. Grants recorded in this way did not necessarily involve the gift of churches. some cases seem to reflect the commitment of the laity—those who continued as laity—to local monasteries. it is equally clear that some such gifts were made that were not recorded in this particular way.e. particularly in areas outside Castile. Such gifts were made in order to ensure that prayers were said for the donor or to ensure the burial of women and men at the monastery—the body literally placed there by others. C39 (942). with a generous endowment. made grants and agreed to serve the bishop of León. Lii278 (cf. Most of the cases cited above use person-donation formulas in sufficient numbers to demonstrate that they were clearly considered appropriate for recording gifts made on entry to a monastic community. and the six monks of San Sebastián y Santa Gadea gave themselves and all their goods to the monastery of Santiago de Valdávida in 970.⁶⁵ It was not deemed essential to specify gift of self. cf. C113. like care in old age or in widowhood. and all their property. Li121).⁶³ The first three of these records use person-donation formulas (i. C211 (999).⁶⁷ Rather more comparably to the Orlandis model. . Liii528 (989). in fact. or soul in such cases. perhaps Cel81 ‘ubi corpus meum [sic ] nunc quiescit’ (973). 2.⁶⁴ Small monasteries handed themselves over to larger monasteries too. to Carde˜ na. corpus et anima or trado me). as their parents had done (see Fig. completely different contexts for the use of persondonation formulas are also apparent.San Pedro and Santa Comba 57 (just south of León) some lands and vineyards on behalf of her two sons within that monastery. However. ⁶⁵ C60. By contrast. Liii535 (990). C117 (964). ⁶⁶ C90 (before 957). body. the latter does not. ⁶⁷ C117.⁶⁶ Or they were made in order to ensure practical support of some kind. Li126 (938).3). In 950 a couple gave their only son to the monastery of Buezo. based in Melgar and Gordaliza (south of León). S257.

particularly those that refer to gifts made by women and by peasant couples. H. 7. tenth-. therefore. Lii328. ⁶⁹ Lii293. ⁷¹ Tiny proportions from most of the other collections. and eleventh-century Italy. without the formulas. see Wickham. The Mountains and the City. which account for 30% of Carde˜ na cases. and of the way monastic patronage might ‘structure’ local relationships.⁶⁸ The women Riquilo and Simplicia and the couple David and Regina made grants and accepted the patrocinium. V35. and a man gave his residence and a vineyard to Valpuesta in 957. cf. ⁷⁰ Cf. T58. in a study more focused on the monastery. through small monasteries handing themselves over to larger institutions.58 San Pedro and Santa Comba in the Liébana made grants to Abbot Opila of San Martín (Turieno) between 946 and 962 and commended themselves to serve him. Sam170 (930). in which the heirs transfer to an alternative patronage. or because. not small-scale laity. such an explanation would fit many of the otherwise unexplained occurrences of person-donation formulas very well. from individual priests or lay persons joining a monastic community and transferring their churches. of the abbot of Abellar between 955 and 960. To Be the Neighbor of Saint Peter: The Social Meaning of Cluny’s Property. and himself ten years later. or S78 (941) on the extensive patronage of a church given to two brothers. donors tended to be priests or abbots. especially chapters 2. on ‘building family associations’. For extensive treatment of comparable rural patronage systems in ninth-. B.⁷¹ It is clear. 128–30. 2. Lii326. pp. Rosenwein. patronage. as well as undertaking to make regular returns to him. and to lay people securing burial or support of some sort. also. the donors accept a continuing relationship with it: they become clients.. especially ch. 9. as in the case of San Millán.⁷⁰ Although they contain no comparably specific phrases of service or patronage. 149–54 for systematic discussion of these relationships. V39. that use of these formulas might simply be a pointer to arrangements for joining a monastery. to lay people opting for monastic patronage (the texts stress that they chose— elegimus —it). because these texts are much more likely to specify service or patronage. accepting the abbot’s patronage and support within the context of local society. The suggestion. Although in some cases the context is clear. the range is much wider. see further below. will not work. and perhaps T70 (964) and T71 (966). 909–1049 (Ithaca. or simply be a pointer to lay relationships with the community.⁶⁹ All of these instances use person-donation formulas but the meaning here is quite different from the ecclesiastical cases. in many cases the material is just not specific enough ⁶⁸ Lii443 (976). Rather than physically enter the monastery. that these self-donation formulas cover a range of different circumstances. T51–T55. . 1989). therefore.

for Turieno in the Liébana valley. The date range of these transactions runs from the second quarter of the tenth century to the end of the century. one couple gives water rights in ⁷² Carde˜ na 24. as well as a donation to the monastery at Bo˜ nar. Celanova 969. and relates essentially to the local relationships of Piasca. Gautier Dalché. 79–83. Abellar (transactions of which are a major feature of the León collections). Valpuesta 5. ⁷⁴ The Piasca material in the Sahagún collection (S153) is a different kind of case. the comments of J. and for Valpuesta in the immediate environs. ⁷³ Carde˜ na 932–94. San Millán arguably 7 (though the case for most of these is weaker). the relatively large proportion of gifts from couples and single women (sometimes explicitly widowed) must make it very likely that many of these otherwise-unexplained formulas conceal protection arrangements. The latter occur in material from the Carde˜ na. Castrillo. Orbaneja. San Millán (?872) 942–97.⁷³ The likelihood that such arrangements result from the actions of abbots aiming to build local clientship networks is reinforced by the fact that the properties donated are local to the benefiting monasteries—for Carde˜ na they lie in Castile. minor. the León material to the bishopric and a monastery just outside the city. hence. León 927–89. as might be expected. structure et modes d’exploitation’.⁷⁴ It is also significant that the properties donated are of small scale rather than great estates (aristocratic donations did of course occur. . 17 refer to donations by females. 13 to those by couples. Sahagún.3. for Abellar much lies in Marialba. Anuario de Estudios Medievales. Turieno 946–62 during the abbacy of Opila. but represent different kinds of relationship). but often very close to the monastery itself (Carde˜ nadijo. such as Pobajas and Gruendes (see Figs.6). and Valpuesta (also a bishopric). and Valpuesta 950–73. and so on). itself ultimately absorbed by Sahagún in the early twelfth century. and arguably San Millán collections. but the Carde˜ na material includes comparable donations to six other. León 7 (including patrocinium cases). ‘Le domaine du monastère de Santo Toribio de Liébana: formation. Sahagún 2. however. Celanova. León. 2. 63–117. at 65. with over half from the first of these. Valpuesta. Sahagún 957–96. monasteries.⁷² The beneficiaries are for the most part the monasteries of Carde˜ na. 2 (1965). Santo Toribio 8 (including service cases). 2.San Pedro and Santa Comba 59 for us to know with certainty which context is appropriate. largely during the episcopate of Diego. 22 to those by males. and two refer to mixed groups. Celanova 1. the San Millán material to four other monasteries. Cf. and the Sahagún material includes a group of donations to the far northern monastery of Piasca. Turieno (the origin of most of the tenth-century entries of the Santo Toribio collection). Santo Toribio.

128–9. local. T58 (961). 207–13 for peasants. another couple gives nine fields.60 San Pedro and Santa Comba Figure 2. a subject to which I will return in a later context. patronage networks. The donors are certainly above subsistence level and have some means. and for clientship. two gardens. 160–3. and six sacks of grain. Lii328 (960).⁷⁶ ⁷⁵ C24 (932). ⁷⁶ See further below. a man gives a cow. p. and some buildings. and a garden. networks that are to do with the relationship between churches and peasants. V39 (967). and so on. C75 (950). V33 (929–57). a goat. . and a garden. another couple gives animals. a calf. a man gives half a field. but they are not wealthy people and they are certainly not aristocrats. two women give vineyards.6 The proximity of clientship networks to their patrons the river Arlanzón. two vineyards.⁷⁵ These are small-scale. half a vineyard. SM102 (991). C83 (953). and a weir. pp. a quarter of a mill. a woman gives a field.

particularly those made by priests in the Carde˜ na orbit. SM18 (912). Sob8. a small monastery in Melgar was given by its members to Sahagún in 973. Ar24. P RO P R I E TA RY P O L I C I E S Family interest in churches. for the Melgar case. Priestly donations of churches to monasteries. as they did in France. sometimes explicitly in order to perpetuate their own memory. T76. and there were donations of churches by priests and monks to Valpuesta. priests gave themselves and their property to Arlanza in 982 but no churches are specified. particularly in mid-century. SM113 (997). 351 (Rome. V18. the church of San Pelayo at Desojo and that of San Bartolomé of Vartical went to San Millán in the 950s. and Henestra as similar beneficiaries in the San Millán collection. Transmission du patrimoine et mémoire au haut moyen âge. Cf. . p. Something of the same process is also apparent for other powerful foundations: using these formulas. or Italy. monasteries. El dominio de San Millán. Sobrado.San Pedro and Santa Comba 61 But there are also different threads here. ⁷⁹ See F. La Rocca.⁷⁸ The formulas are a useful pointer to the fact that private churches and small monasteries were not simply being alienated by their private owners but were being absorbed by the larger monasteries during the tenth century. and ecclesiastical property seems to have been the norm in northern Spain at the start of the tenth century. Cel265. Germany. ⁷⁸ SM66.⁷⁹ And they ⁷⁷ See also Moreta Velayos. the house of San Vicente went to Albelda in 950. SM79. 34. and above. SM52 (949). pp. SM3. 107–11. SM83 (959). there are at least twentytwo cases of the absorption by Carde˜ na of churches and monasteries donated by priests and abbots in the period 917–81. Collection de l’école française de Rome. This is consistent with trends in western Europe as a whole before the eleventh century. Mardones. passim. Le Jan (eds. and Celanova between 945 and 985. C139. cf. other monasteries which absorbed churches in the same part of Castile: Santa María at Rezmondo benefiting from two such grants in the late 960s. SM5—all ninth-century). C134. Cel558.). C. Sauver son âme et se perpétuer.⁷⁷ The principal mechanism used seems to have been that of the priest or abbot formally joining the larger community. See above. R. Families founded churches and monasteries in Spain. 40–1. S270. 46–9. (SM2. were more likely to be recorded by use of the corpus et anima formula than other formulas: using this formula. A19. and monasteries at Taranco. who counted twenty-four churches and eight monasteries absorbed in the period 935–95—regardless of formulas. 2005). Bougard. El monasterio de San Pedro de Carde˜ na. See García de Cortázar. Ar23.

256. However. as the establishment of new family churches came to a halt and the impulse to hand over private churches gathered speed in the mid-tenth-century. see J. ⁸¹ V5 (?870). for many generations subsequently. García de Cortázar. Sob36 (964). 57–90. gave Celanova the rent he got from Celanova’s dependency (deganea) of Santa Olalla of Berredo in 999—wheat. well before the influence of the eleventh-century reform movement. C43 (944). although more recent scholarship would assign the development of most federations a longer time-span than she did. in a trend that was not dissimilar to the establishment of federations of monasteries in Ireland in the ninth and tenth centuries or the great federation that became the family of Cluny in the tenth and eleventh centuries. for full discussion of the changes.⁸⁰ The gift of a church to itself. Sam226 (947). Many of the beneficiary monasteries seem to have developed selfconscious proprietary policies: they acquired more and more property. 82–4. for example. El dominio de San Millán. Orlandis. Hughes. especially in this mid-century phase—‘I give the church of San Pelayo to the church of San Pelayo’. Liii576 (997). Mínguez Fernández. Cel503 (985). The Church in Early Irish Society (London.⁸² By this latter process. ⁸² In contrast. La alta edad media. ‘Nobleza e iglesias propias’. Proprietary Church. S105 (946). with its furnishings and appurtenant property. 1980). For Irish federations.⁸¹ Whether or not lay families were feeling uncomfortable about possession of religious property by the year 1000 we cannot know. although it is recorded with and without them. see K. 1966). the trend towards transfer was clearly well under way. Loring García. as it were. . M. or acquired an interest in others.62 San Pedro and Santa Comba often kept control of their foundations. is a characteristic kind of grant. Sam93 (951). Lii274 (954). In northern Spain we can see the clear beginnings of the movement to transfer the ownership of such foundations away from private hands. 150–6. to the value of 115 modii. 159–64. Cel353 (999). for example. Sahagún is a classic case of accumulation of property in the tenth century. networks of ecclesiastical dependencies were established. Cel569 (922).⁸³ The monk Gaudinas. without the particular interest in accumulating ecclesiastical institutions. El dominio del monasterio de Sahagún en el siglo X (Salamanca. Isla Frez. ⁸³ For example. rye. cf. ‘Los monasterios familiares’. but they also began to build up clientship networks among the local peasantry and to absorb churches and monasteries into their own communities. and millet. known as deganeas/decanias by the end of the century. for much was still in private hands at that date. and ⁸⁰ See Wood. this process of establishing lay and ecclesiastical commitment to the monastery is signalled by the use of person-donation formulas.

and later tenth century suggests that some of their abbots had a particular interest in encouraging the donation of churches at this time. however. while others have far fewer. large or small. some tenth-century monastic collections include a very high proportion of church transactions. as we have seen. (Two of the other cases involved disputes over control of churches with monasteries—which makes a complementary point. and San Millán archives to recording their acquisition of churches and small monasteries in the mid. However. not simply in relation to landed resources but in relation to ecclesiastical property in the widest sense.San Pedro and Santa Comba 63 more than 160 sesters of wine. Abbot Opila at Turieno. The unusually high commitment of Samos. to a priest and a deacon. pp. ⁸⁴ Cel353 (999). These proprietary trends were widespread and occurred on relatively modest as well as grander scales. We have already noted the actions of Abbot Esteban I at Carde˜ na. developing the local peasant clienteles at the same time as building up the networks of dependent churches. for proportions. 41–2. Cel354 (989).⁸⁶) There seem to be deep.⁸⁵ Most of these (91%) transferred ownership of the church or monastery from lay or ecclesiastical owner to a monastery. towards the accumulation of ecclesiastical institutions by monasteries. . for the pattern is as characteristic of Galicia as of Castile. and applies almost as often to minor monasteries as to the great monastic houses. one would expect similar proportions in the contemporary records of nearby houses. some individual abbots seem to have pursued proprietary policies with particular vigour. The disproportionately large number of transactions in churches that are recorded for the 940s is. very striking. Carde˜ na. there is an extremely interesting complementarity here between the underlying trend and the vigorous actions of some individuals in favour of a few institutions. underlying trends here. ⁸⁶ The remaining cases in the 9% are gifts. Gaudinas and his cousin had previously sold this villa to Celanova. It is of course of great importance that certain monastic institutions were developing a particularly entrepreneurial spirit in the second half of the tenth century. S78 (941). All of this may seem to fall within the restricted province of purely religious history. ⁸⁵ See above. and Bishop Diego at Valpuesta in mid-century. if not.⁸⁴ At the time this growth of monastic federations may have presented an even greater challenge to local bishops. Sam78 (948). respectively. and of Cantabria as of the western meseta. If we might savour a Braudelian moment.

because the growth of extremely powerful religious property-holding communities forms the backdrop to local society and local politics throughout the tenth century. the development is of yet more significance than that.64 San Pedro and Santa Comba and that the most successful of them were rivals for bishops. However. .

In the following decade.¹ With a greater degree of complication. For a flavour of this evidence. cf. much farther to the west. Cel494 (935). and from beginning to end of the century. in all parts. with his wife Ikilo and his wife’s sister Sarrazena. consider the following cases: four siblings together sold some of the Cea water meadows. and gave away her brother’s share. There is plenty of evidence of shared family interests in all kinds of property in northern Spain at this time. to the monastery of Sahagún in 919. SM20. Abbot Silo made substantial gifts to the Galician monastery of Sobrado. sold a portion of the hillside which had come to the two women from their late brother. farther west near León. five brothers together sold some salt lands in Castile to Abbot Gomessano in 932. that is. except for some of the land he ¹ S18. and in 994 two brothers and their two cousins (one male and one female) sold Abbot Falconio (and his mother and sister) some arable inherited from their family.3 Dividing and Sharing Property FA M I LY I N T E R E S TS The widespread occurrence of family churches and family monasteries is only one aspect of the distribution and exercise of property rights within and across families. leaving the final eighth in their uncle’s hands. a priest and his cousin sold the abbot of Santos Justo y Pastor seven eighths of their millrace. Li183 (944). this is demonstrated many times. had he not resigned his interest by participating in his aunt’s transaction. a man called Andreas. Four years later. a woman and her nephew sold her share of a garden to the monastery of Buezo in the Bureba. the nephew was presumably the woman’s brother’s son and stood to inherit both portions. in Galicia. first cousin). the text says. C207 (congermani. modern Spanish primo hermano. a married couple sold Bishop Rosendo two ninths of their fisheries in the river Mi˜ no. on the meseta. in 950. . descended from the same ancestors. one ninth inherited from a grandfather and the other from a grandmother.

. comprised a villa with substantial. scattered.⁴ Clearly some literate people maintained a sense of ancient legislation governing these matters. four children of different parents (called propingus et sobrinus [sic] ). see below. ‘Villa’ can signify farm. pp. and these rules are occasionally alluded to in charter texts.⁵ second. XI semana de estudios medievales. for example. I. estate. ³ See E. which had been made by the couple ten years earlier. In what follows. uncles. there are many examples of portions reserved from the paternal inheritance for both sons and daughters. OD26 and OD21. Hence. and aunts—and both small-scale and great proprietors—could sustain shared interests in property and knew very well that they did so. husbands often made additional provision for their wives. in so far as it can be deduced from charter texts. especially 161–300. my intention is to indicate actual practice. children of both sexes inherited from their mothers. and indeed knowledge of precise texts. which was reserved for his sisters and cousins. on the exercise of property rights by family groups and on the relative importance of different members of the family. 196–7. as they also were from common marital property. La familia en la edad media. I. 13–38. the comments of M. La familia en la alta edad media espa˜ nola (Pamplona. derived from sixth. 1980). And in 986 four relations of a married couple. Sob7 (961. appurtenances to the west and south. Whatever the notional rules. suprinos). ⁵ Cf. de la Iglesia Duarte (ed. male and female. settlement. Lii283 (millrace: recum de molino). in J. in any case. this grant. action by parents and children is strongly emphasized. at 35. practice in the tenth century clearly deviated from Visigothic prescription in many respects. del 31 de julio al 4 de agosto de 2000 (Logro˜ no. confirmed a grant of land on the river Esla to the nunnery of Santa Marina. However. 2001). Nájera. Montanos Ferrin. peasant and aristocrat. especially among aristocrats.and seventh-century Visigothic law.³ The control and transmission of property in these Spanish societies raises some difficult questions.66 Dividing and Sharing Property had inherited from his parents.). sisters.² Clearly brothers. customary practice in these societies clearly respected two main principles: first. cousins. Loring García. but it would be unreasonable to suppose that all proprietors (or even all record-makers) did so. Cel375 (997). landed property rights normally passed from parents to children. in a study covering eighth to thirteenth centuries. who clearly in some circumstances could have much more than a life interest in landed ² V26. Sam132 (978). there were notional rules about it. ⁴ S190 (961). ‘Sistemas de parentesco y estructuras familiares en la edad media’. a smaller unit of property.

Cel492 (988). In this northern Spain was no different. for which she held. SM40.⁷ Family interest in property rights is common enough in western European medieval societies. Eleventh. while Gonzalo’s gift to Elvira included lands and houses in at least eight different locations. sale. Lii282 (954). we find that in 943 Felix sold land to ⁶ Paternal inheritance: Sob59 (920). Sam239 (985). Cel440 (958). see further below. or by inheritance at death. and the sharing could extend to the offspring of siblings. and children might act as executors for their father’s property. and by cousins.i. Ov5 (917). ¹⁰ The fact that common property existed is a point made many times in the scholarly literature.Dividing and Sharing Property 67 property. SM64 (952). A mother’s heritable property was not the same as the life interest a widow might exercise in respect of her husband’s heritable property. La disposición ‘mortis causa’ en el . 73. La familia en la edad media. Forum Iudicum IV. Ov18 (974). see. Cel498 (927). cf. especially at 112–28. Li225 (950). Count Gutier’s gift to his wife Ilduara included a long list of villas. whether by lifetime gift. a kind of guardianship on behalf of her children. de Arvizu y Galarraga. For these arrangements. 93–150. ⁸ As in SM39. S207 (962). see M. included extensive landed property. also Sam198 (1013). Although Gunterigo’s gift to another Guntroda (Cel577) reflects the provisions of Visigothic law in a remarkable way (Forum Iudicum III.¹⁰ Hence. in which a gift pro nuptiis had to be renegotiated when Guntroda left her husband for a life of confession and he took a new wife. but Spanish texts are unusual in also frequently invoking the concept of ownership ‘in common’. ⁷ Cel576 (916). in de la Iglesia Duarte (ed. such interest most obviously came into play at the point of property transfer. found earlier and later. executors: Lii473 (980). F. involving wider or narrower circles of relatives. for example. Bermejo Castrillo. marriage settlements were clearly much more varied than allowed for by the ancient law. from north to south and east to west. A. especially by the descendants of a common grandfather (‘in common’ here refers to joint ownership of a delimited plot or plots and not the very different case of common pasture rights or common wood-collecting rights⁸). Lii323 (959). Property could be owned in common by siblings. for it is described in specific and distinctive terms. common property: Cel169 (962).and twelfth-century material provides more detail. or exchange. Cel75 (955). conveyed by husbands to wives. as well as slaves and stock.). see further below. 168–9. Cel577 (926).6). for example. cf. it seems to have been a special category of ownership.ii. on the rights of collaterals.⁶ The marriage settlements of which we have detail. Sam S-3 (961). ‘Transferencias patrimoniales entre los cónyuges por razón del matrimonio en el derecho medieval castellano’. maternal inheritance: Sob66 (917). Ov24 (990). p. pp.⁹ Common ownership of this type seems to have been more than the complex of family interests in the transmission of heritable land. as it were. such as found in many societies. ⁹ Cf.

two brothers did a deal with the priest Bellite by which the priest was given half of the farm which was the brothers’ inheritance in Matarromarigo.68 Dividing and Sharing Property the monastery of Abellar that had come from his aunt Ponia. and. Cel65 (957).¹³ It is quite clear from these examples that family members derecho espa˜ nol de la alta edad media (Pamplona. On the meseta. Pastor (ed. ‘Dominios monásticos y parentelas en la Castilla altomedieval: el origen del derecho de retorno y su evolución’. Martínez Díez. in 957. 1977). ¹³ Sob56. de producción y parentesco en la edad media y moderna (Madrid. Liii585 (999). Over forty years later. Lii304. with reference to the early part of our period. cf. another farm with two houses. in the Liébana. while the brothers got a shroud for their mother. see further below. A. 321–402. See. 59–167. whether for reasons of family connection or otherwise: in 958 Egika and his wife sold the monastery of Sobrado their portion of a vineyard they owned in common (habebamus communiter ) with the monastery. Cel462 (985). 35 (1965). C29 (937). Loring García. who deals with ‘collective’ property. propiedad y herencia en la Castilla altomedieval (Madrid. Ov24 (990). Parentesco. G. except for two pieces of land which they had in common (comunes) with their cousins. Sam32 (962). Alvaro sold Munnio the vineyard he had in common with him in Pobajas (quem abeo tecum comune). Anuario de Historia del Derecho Espa˜ nol. 1996). and a vineyard. but does not differentiate between heritable family property and that in common ownership. Bermejo Castrillo. and its division (18–22). 13–49. and earlier another Munnio sold Anderquina half the vineyard in Rama he owned in common with his cousin (abeo comune cum meo coiermano). p. in 966. in a place where he had property in common (abemus comune) with his cousins. and more recently. V38. In Castile. 57. a few years later. further land in Oteros.). the brothers Pepino and Petrunio gave a married couple half an orchard in Argüebanes which they had in common (abemus comune) with one Monesto. on sharing with monasteries. a man called Godesteo gave Abbot Julián of Santos Justo y Pastor half of the three vineyards in Matadeón he owned (cummune) with his brother. M. M.¹¹ At a much earlier date. in the far north. and a quarter of the chattels which he had in common (abeo comune) with his wife and mother-in-law. in R. at 115–19 (also noting co-litigants). 80–4. T61 (962—see above. 1990). ‘Las instituciones del reino astur a través de los diplomas (718–910)’. ¹² T13 (875). Deutio gave Abbot Opila and San Martín of Turieno the vineyards he had in common with the church of San Pedro of Vi˜ non (abuit comunes). .¹² Owning in common could also extend to include religious bodies. 58). largely with reference to Cantabria. matrimonio. Relaciones de poder. Lii439 (975). ¹¹ Li167. I. pp.

Landowners and Tenants in Roman Egypt: The Social Relations of Agriculture in the Oxyrhynchite Nome (Oxford.Dividing and Sharing Property 69 differentiated the parts they owned in common from the parts in which they had a simple family interest. Alvaro’s and Egika’s cases also clearly demonstrate that one party to common ownership might buy out another’s interest. I am indebted to Riet van Bremen for this reference. The fact that there were shared.¹⁵ The first is an exceptional but unambiguous case of a five-way split of an inheritance between extremely wealthy siblings. ¹⁵ Cel478. see Sob63 (877). and the church of San Salvador and Santa Cruz of Portomarín. . 1996).¹⁴ Whether or not common ownership involved common exploitation. so could packages of heritable land: we can see the deliberate division of great estates in their transmission from generation to generation. even at a relatively low economic scale. could have shares in different sets of common property as well as have other heritable property. split his estate in four—between his wife. they also show that one individual. in which the family interest was in practice concerned with its heritability rather than its day-to-day management. Rowlandson. with his two brothers and two sisters in 934. Sob2/4/5 (955–66). Gutier and Ilduara. on his deathbed. that is less likely with other family land. We therefore need to think of family land in two categories. but it is possible. we do not know. common. for example. even if in practice the categories sometimes overlapped: that which was formally in common ownership and that which was not. Sam23 (982). but there are dozens of other cases of siblings agreeing on the division ¹⁴ Compare. especially 172–5. Just as common property could be split. We should not think of it as an unchanging constant. For other examples of formal division (the colmellum divisionis). could have a complex of different kinds of interest in landed property. as it is also possible (indeed. his niece. Individuals. Cel75 (955). like Godesteo. where land was both owned (and worked) jointly and also ‘divided’ between heirs. at all social levels. interests in land did not prevent division of common property. landholding in Egypt in the second and third centuries . The cases cited above show that parties could split their common properties and give away or sell parts of them. perhaps likely) that it involved sharing produce. J. Rosendo. though nevertheless subject to family involvement at the point of transmission. assigning the different portions in great detail. Bishop Rosendo divided the huge estates of his parents. Rosendo himself benefited twenty years later when one Gundulf.

¹⁹ Indeed. they might do it unwillingly. 17–21. Li187 (944). Lii444 (976). see above pp. S206 (962). for example). it was part of the to-and-fro of regular lifetime transactions. ¹⁷ Li194. she gave half only. Valerio bought property from his brother Marcelino. were often identifiable. SamS-3 (961). respectively. a property which had been their grandfather’s and then their mother’s.²¹ So. on behalf of his brother and sisters.²⁰ Respective shares might also sometimes be re-assigned: away in the west. In 960 Nonelo sold to the powerful lay couple Taurelo and Principia a quarter of the orchards in Ujo that were inherited by himself. Sam226 (947). ²⁰ Li181. who sold on to another (male) cousin. and his heirs. division was possible. ¹⁸ C1 (899). large estates with dependents could be divided. for the other half had been given to the monastery of San Salvador of Cillanueva by her brother-in-law. For tenants and dependents. At the end of the century the widow Sendina gave Bishop Froilán half of her villa in Carvajal. even when aristocrats had power over the people on their lands. Nunila son of Ariulfo sold to his sister. then. assigning half each. Liii571 (995).¹⁷ and they would often do it by buying one another out of their interests. assembly ¹⁶ For example. the quarter was his personal portion. Aldoret and Mariem in 944 and Aeiza and Rosacia in 960.70 Dividing and Sharing Property of their individual. inheritances. in this respect. mea ratio. between themselves and Bishop Rosendo. ²¹ Cel506 (955). just as small plots of arable could (S328 (985).¹⁸ Division occurred in the normal passage of property from one generation to another. his brothers. and an uncle sold to a nephew.¹⁶ They might do this by uncontested agreement. Cel71 (916). as some clearly did. ¹⁹ Lii324. Note that. as happened when Constancio went to court to claim his share from his brothers. as did. cf. even if there was an overarching family interest. as did Gemelo and Genetrigo. . the latter sold a quarter of the field they had inherited with brothers and other relatives from an uncle. the deacon Gunterigo. married couples might act together to sell a share of land which one of them had in common or had inherited with other parties. split their villa of Filgueira. as three brothers did in the Páramo area in 947. aristocratic and peasant practice seem to have been essentially the same. who sold to a female cousin. S1 (857). The shares of individuals. who clearly had an interest in her husband’s share—the half she gave away was her share of a joint marital acquisition. Li97 (933). consolidation was possible. a villa which she had acquired with her husband. Cel7 (950). small-scale. Lii327.

1 Family tree diagram from a tenth-century Riojan manuscript. and re-allocation of shares was also possible. 145v and re-assembly was possible.Dividing and Sharing Property 71 Figure 3. . fol. Biblioteca de la Real Academia de la Historia. Códice de San Millán 25.

gave Abbot Julián of Santos Justo y Pastor a third of some fields in Campo de Villavidel on the river Esla.²² There is a large literature. of how far individuals could dispose of family land beyond the appropriate group of relatives. and particularly to cut out a child’s interests completely. Cel338 (989). In this literature. in other words. that is. in which case the ²² Li109 (936). the issue of freedom of alienation is much discussed. On a much smaller scale. from gifts made to Celanova. however. he was clearly not constrained by any family interests.²³ and although the monk Gaudinas gave Celanova all the inheritance he had from his parents and grandparents. particularly of the central twentieth century. The deacon Ermegildo ordered all his very substantial goods to be sold and the proceeds given to the poor. the critical issue is whether it was possible to give all of it away. acting as executors for a third brother who had died. in 954 two brothers. on family property in northern Spain. on the meseta. the totality of inherited land should not be freely disposable. some element of free disposition of family land is evident. ignoring or denying family claims. it should not be diverted from offspring. they administered this alienation of family property on his behalf. Although large alienations from family property were clearly made in the tenth century. . ²⁴ Cel353 (999).72 Dividing and Sharing Property FREEDOM OF DISPOSITION One outcome of the splitting of common and inherited property was some capacity for individuals to dispose of inherited land quite freely. it is notable that portions were often retained for children. ²³ Cel70 (962).²⁴ Throughout the period covered by our texts. and everything he had bought from his aunt and from his uncle’s wife. without family constraints. unless his wife were to produce a son. This is demonstrated by the many cases in which a gift to a religious body was arranged for the future. like the two thirds reserved by Sesmiro for his wife and children and the half reserved by Gigulfo for his daughters. since inherited land normally passed to them. The texts suggest that there was an expectation that. provided that no children were born to the donor: Vermudo gave several plots in Mansilla and Grajalejo to the monastery of Santos Justo y Pastor. Lii273. portions were reserved for his sister and for his cousin as well—the implication is that he respected the reservations of the previous generation.

cf. 184). Li230 (950). in some cases the inheritance was nevertheless diverted from children. or profiliation (a kind of adoption. cf.²⁸ Despite all those normal expectations. ²⁸ Lii399 (966) is a clear case. Cida Aion gave away all her property. also in Galicia. A27 (978). it was the children who made a gift. unless they were to have children. S195 (961). in this case literally taking on the son as son) emphasizes that some people were aware that normal rules might ²⁵ Lii303 (956). sale. Liii561 (994—see further below for this case p.²⁹ The very fact that some fathers chose to pass inherited property to their sons by written gift. Count Rodrigo and his wife provided for extensive gifts to Sobrado. the monastery only receiving a fifth in the event of offspring. Ov22 (980). Cel440 (958). for the fifth). as also happened frequently. Sam175 (973). while a woman called Jimena cut her son’s wife out of his inheritance but not their son. sales from maternal inheritance: Sob73 (883). without reservations in favour of children who might yet be born. for example. and gave. Sob122. S342 (989). ²⁶ Li73 (927). Cel75 (955). 76–8. and both women and men sold from maternal and paternal inheritances. apart from that which was her husband’s. since the latter portion was destined for her children. Li100 (934). referring to the generation previous to 960. Li251 (952). Cel377 (996). reserving the larger portion of the transfer until after their mother’s death. Liii585 (999). Sam119 (931). ²⁹ Lii304 (957). It was not just that families divided common property. Li106 (936). Lii431 (974). C116 (964). Li83 (929).²⁷ Limiting—to her own lifetime—the interest a widow might enjoy in respect of her husband’s inheritance makes the point in yet another way. in Galicia. Menendo Díaz did likewise for Samos. Sob59 (920). SM112 (?997). in an alternative version of this kind of transaction. OD9 (950). as in Cel228 (936). S330 (986). Lii288 (955).²⁶ Associating children with their parents’ alienations. Elarino and his wife Gundilo reached old age without children. in which case churches and the poor were to get a fifth. people also made gifts that established a life interest for siblings or cousins. makes the same point in a different way: the children could be presumed to have resigned their interests by joining in making the gift. People sometimes gave away land from their paternal inheritance. Ov5 (917). Sob4 (959—see below.²⁵ The same certainty that children should expect to inherit is indicated when childlessness was the explicit reason for giving: Leticia gave because she and her husband had no children. Gifts could also be made to lay parties because of childlessness. ²⁷ Li195 (947). comparably. pp. sales from paternal inheritance: Li15 (904). . Lii351 (961).Dividing and Sharing Property 73 monastery was to have half. Eulalia gave because her children were dead. S103 (945). in effect reducing their capacity to pass on inherited land to their own heirs. Sob4 (959).

Lii488 (944–82). 84. This is a difficult issue because many of the texts are ambiguous: from what is written. care: Li222 (950—see further below. but maybe it was not so freely invoked as sometimes appears to be the case. to come into effect after death. for profiliation. apart from the fact that this is sometimes explicitly stated. where texts appear to be unambiguous. See further below.³¹ After a long discussion. cutting out the interests of offspring and family) was obviously possible. La disposición ‘mortis causa’.³⁰ Women did this too: Fronilda sold to her daughter. given their religious status. ³⁴ For example. Arvizu y Galarraga argued that free disposition was indeed possible by the end of the tenth century. 151–3. clearly an inheritance could be alienated and equally clearly there could be reservations for family members.74 Dividing and Sharing Property be diverted and that they had to take exceptional steps to ensure normal succession. 139. these are likely to have negotiated separate provision from family property.e. Lii279 (954). earlier as well as later in the tenth century. it is often impossible to know if an entire inheritance was being alienated or simply a part of it. as also when the gift was in return for care for the couple. many of the grants of total property after death were made by priests or religious persons and. pp. Whatever the prevailing expectations. cf. it is difficult to support the proposal that common property virtually ³⁰ Sam61 (976). Completely free disposition was obviously possible. Li83 (929). On the other hand. with relations associated Liii514 (986). and of the complexity of property interests people could have. ³³ Priests. for example. free disposition (i. ³² Arvizu y Galarraga. such alienations did not damage the interests of children. . ³¹ C192 (984). In view of the variety of practice that is evidenced in the tenth century. 351–6. Lii316 (959). Li121 (937). both early and late in the tenth century.³⁴ There are also explicit statements that relations were to have use of the land granted until the donor’s death. However. 155–62. but not thereafter. ³⁵ E.g. there must be a possibility that they were in fact childless. both things did happen. p. what we do not know is the extent to which this happened. for example. since there were no children.³⁵ If so. when lay couples made unexplained grants of all their property.³³ Moreover. it must be implied when nephews or cousins were associated with the grant. nephews: Lii332 (960).³² the points made above show that this must have been the case. In fact. again implying childlessness.

that is.³⁹ by the end of the tenth century there was still common property.⁴⁰ That continuum of sharing. in Cantabria and the Pyrenees. pp. common property is still shared out.³⁸ There is nothing to suggest a gradual change away from common to individual property in the tenth century. We can see families splitting and sharing their lands. in all parts. the evidence suggests a continuum of sharing. C1. Liii585 (999).Dividing and Sharing Property 75 disappeared at this stage. one could see a change from communal to individual property. dividing. . Vigil. it is not that individual property emerged in the tenth century from a world where everything was owned in common. and we can see individuals dealing in acquired land. T13. and pooling. pooling. 61–4. Sob73. ⁴⁰ Cf. where we have evidence of practice. cf. Barbero and M. rather. but also ³⁶ A. All the implications are that acquired land was much more freely disposable than inherited land. ³⁸ I am extremely grateful to Margarita Fernández Mier for this observation. in a process that went on for generations. into the year-by-year process of splitting and sharing in other early medieval societies in which property rights were conceptualized as a family matter. property which had come to its owner by purchase or gift rather than by inheritance. Indeed. Small Worlds: The Village Community in Early Medieval Brittany (London. in the earliest texts that survive. and shared out again in new configurations. We get the same kind of insight. ³⁷ There was plenty of acquired property around. 1988). La formación del feudalismo en la península Ibérica (Barcelona. Davies. Gunterigo’s division of Filgueira split the villa into two halves. what was different by the end of the tenth century was not the introduction of individual property as such but the impact of the proprietary policies of the great monasteries.⁴¹ Those policies meant that individual shares increasingly went out of the flexible family pool and into the hands of the permanent religious corporation—the classic ‘dead hand’.³⁶ We have clearly seen the constant division of family property. S1. and re-dividing may well have been centuries old. F R AC T I O N S Many of the transactions illustrated above deal in fractions of property.³⁷ However. Ov5. 370. We have also seen cases of the disposal of inherited land. Barbero and Vigil argued that. 67–76. and that common property might occur as much on the meseta as in the far north. for example. ³⁹ See above. re-assembled after a period. that is in far more areas than Cantabria and the Pyrenees. ⁴¹ See above. like Sendina’s half-villa. from the middle of the ninth century onwards. in parts of Asturias even today. W. 1978). dividing.

and León—in other words. G. See especially the classic statement of L. SM8. half of the remaining 10% occur in suspect ninth-century charters in the Sobrado collection. 129–76. ‘Las instituciones del reino astur’. on the other. Orlandis. 217–378. 1976). of 852. Arvizu y Galarraga. ‘ ‘‘Traditio corporis et animae’’. 279–83 (‘the most frequent’ form of gift). records the donation of his fifth by an abbot endowing a monastery which he was founding. Anuario de Historia del Derecho Espa˜ nol. References are found in credible texts from as early as the mid-ninth century. 257–306. but does not exclusively do so. Orlandis. References to the fifth (quinta) are widespread. ⁴⁵ See below. again supporting the suggestion that the mid-tenth century saw some change. after ⁴² There is a vast literature on this. Valpuesta. Martínez Díez. such as those from Santo Toribio.⁴² Each kind has a different significance. Sahagún.⁴³ This tendency to concentrate in the later tenth century is disproportionate to the total spread of transactions. 92. La iglesia en la Espa˜ na visigotica y medieval (Pamplona. in ‘La elección de sepultura en la Espa˜ na medieval’.and post-940s difference. in J.76 Dividing and Sharing Property rather confusingly referred to the ensuing portions as ‘fifths’. 109. ostensibly but arguably of 867. the ‘fifth’. all make it likely that the appearance of the ‘fifth’ in charters reflects a writing fashion—diplomatic practice—rather than new kinds of donation. ‘La cuota de libre disposición en el derecho hereditario de León y Castilla en la alta edad media’. in J. traditionally that portion of family property which. . In fact. 9 (1932). according to Visigothic law. Orlandis. and the mid-tenth-century spurt in usage. Laicos y monasterios en la alta edad media espa˜ nola’.⁴⁵ The selective use of this word. was available for free disposition. the fractions that occur in these texts are essentially of two different kinds: on the one hand. Estudios sobre instituciones monásticas medievales (Pamplona. ⁴⁴ Although T10. p. anything from a half to a ninth. La disposición ‘mortis causa’. and Otero de las Due˜ nas) and they are considerably more common in Carde˜ na material than in that from elsewhere. places that recorded transactions in the earlier tenth century evidently did not preference this word. The term is more likely to be used to refer to things given than to things transferred by other mechanisms. It is also notable in collections with a fair proportion of pre-940s material. and. although they are noticeably rare in the tenth-century material of some collections (for example those from Oviedo. way of looking at its occurrence. 1971). but arguable. 62–3. remarks at 260–1 on views that the Visigothic fifth was converted into the pro anima quota—an understandable. but most occur from the late 940s onwards and are a particular feature of the second half of the tenth century. J.⁴⁴ collections with a high proportion of originals also exhibit the pre. for originals. the association with gifts. ⁴³ 90% post 942. de Valdeavellano. provides an exception to this comment. especially at 277. Orlandis. 179.

placuit mihi … ut facerem vobis scriptura venditionis de quinta quam abeo de marido meum [sic] (I agreed to sell you the fifth I got from my husband). often peasants. Li198 (947).⁴⁸ Very occasionally it seems to retain its classic meaning. sometimes the word conveys more of a sense of a fraction: ‘we give you half our villa. Cel461(982). then.⁴⁹ In many cases. plenty of gifts of part properties were made before the 940s. by contrast. except for the fifth reserved for our daughters’. it was especially appropriate ⁴⁶ Arvizu y Galarraga. ⁴⁷ C116 (964). as used in these charters it often seems to mean ‘our portion’. the ‘fifth’ is little more than a simple word for property and it does not retain much of the strict legal connotation beyond the fact that this kind of property was obviously alienable (there do not appear to be any significant differences in usage in this respect across time or space). 65. the part of Eirigu’s property that was not alienated to Bishop Rosendo as payment of a fine was the fifth retained for his three daughters (Cel169 (962)). ⁴⁸ Cel169 (962). ‘our share’. Liii528 (989). meant the alienable portion of family property.Dividing and Sharing Property 77 all. and significantly higher than the proportion of large monasteries that were beneficiaries of all transactions. as it did when Elvira gave a fifth of her vast properties to the poor and to Sobrado in 959. ‘we sell you a fifth of our portion of the saltpan’. The likelihood is reinforced by the fact that a very high proportion of the beneficiaries of transactions in fifths were large monasteries—approximately 75%. however. Although the fifth. La disposición ‘mortis causa’. Conversely.⁴⁶ So. whatever the size and proportion of the donor’s or vendor’s land. It therefore looks as if those creating records for the larger monasteries in the later tenth century adopted the word as a particularly appropriate term for their acquisitions. Donors and vendors of fifths. tradimus quintam nostram tam in terris quam et in vineis (we give our fifth. also makes this point re common goods. . or when Bishop Pelayo’s father provided him with a fifth in order to enter monastic life. in strict legal terms. arable as well as vines). the term clearly had lost precision of meaning. C99 (961). this is higher than the monastic proportion of beneficiaries of all transactions. sometimes priests or bishops or abbots. ‘we sell two fifths of our quintana’. michi placet ut in mea vita … de terras quomodo de vineas medietate serviet … post meum obitum … illa quinta libera abeant potestatem (I agree that half of the land and vineyards should provide [for the monastery] during my lifetime and … they shall have power over the whole fifth after my death). reserving the rest for children. were of very mixed status—often aristocrats.⁴⁷ However. Cel163 (932). ⁴⁹ Sob4.

and the Portomarín church. The process was a process of fission and accumulation not one of simple morcellation. Sancho gave Carde˜ na a third of the church at Carde˜ nadijo in 945. two different thirds. Bishop Rosendo. ⁵¹ Liii571. Sob67 (920). thirds. and an eighth. quarters. Lii324 (960—see above.78 Dividing and Sharing Property because it held the connotation of free disposability. a couple sold the priest Vincimalo a seventh of some water rights. Cel461. and ninths. a couple of years later.⁵³ The corollary. 70). As demonstrated above. sevenths. cf. in Bande and in other places. another man sold a quarter of his inheritance from his grandparents. later.⁵⁰ Here is an ongoing process of fission: when Sendina gave the bishop of León half a villa. the other half had already been given away by her brother-in-law. bringing increased security to properties acquired from families. The donors and vendors of these fractions of property were sometimes clerics. sixths. was that the pieces were assembled and reassembled. C54. and sometimes aristocrats. Sob19 (931). whose portion had been a ninth. Cel506. ⁵⁴ See above. Rapinato’s uncle was able to hold on to an eighth of his millrace. fractions of existing properties. 70. ⁵³ Sam23. eighths. like the long list of villas and churches which Gundulf split between his female relations. but his nephew and his cousin sold the other seven eighths. selling. and sometimes swapping. a quarter.⁵² Gifts and sales from very large estates might involve a complex of bits and pieces: a major gift to the monastery of Samos in 982 included fourteen halves of different properties.⁵¹ So also the large estates which fragmented by bequest. and Nonelo sold a quarter of his family orchards in Ujo to Taurelo and Principia.⁵⁴ The beneficiaries of such transactions were overwhelmingly religious but not so exclusively so ⁵⁰ Cel493. of course. see above. although there are plenty at that time. . there seems to have been a continuous process of giving. Other fractions also occur widely and their use is overall much more common than reference to the simple fifth—halves. but. Nor are references to them clustered in the later tenth century. Li172 (943—cf. Lii283. p. they often seem to have been people of small means—SánchezAlbornoz’s small proprietors themselves. where the portions were tiny. ⁵² Cel75. 65. as argued above. on the meseta. in 918 a man gave two thirds of a villa in Galicia and one third of a saltpan. in which a seventh was exchanged). pp. Hence. 17. Gunterigo and his siblings gave half the Filgueira villa to Rosendo in 955 (the property already having been split for thirty years). p.

Cel343 (995). thirds occurred quite frequently in the far west. both in Galicia and on the meseta. León profiliation using a half. in both regions.⁵⁵ Unambiguous differences in regional practice are difficult to identify but there has been some discussion about whether notional halves and thirds were the portions appropriate for conveying an inheritance in Galicia and León respectively. and Portugaliae Monumenta Historica. the monastery did ⁵⁵ For powerful lay couples. it was clearly a long way from being an invariable practice: there are profiliation grants which used neither of these fractions and León profiliation grants that used halves. and not so invariably monasteries. let alone large monasteries. The reasons for this variation have more to do with the nature of different charter collections than with regional difference in practice. e. CXXXIII (981). as Carlos Estepa has shown. 42.⁵⁷ However.⁵⁸ In fact.⁵⁹ In many cases reference to these halves points to a further process. that grants of a third by profiliation are notable in and around León in the second half of the tenth century. Lii488 (944–82) (cf. . thirds in Galician and Portuguese texts: Cel70 (962). ⁵⁶ C. 2 vols. See further below. choosing an heir. Estepa Díez. CXXI (977).⁵⁶ It is certainly the case. pp. Cel228 (936). by transactions other than profiliation. making a bequest. Many half properties that were given away or sold were in effect an advance on the alienation of the whole property. and for the rationales behind donation. CXVII (976). as if to one’s child. see further below. as a fifth could be. XXXIX (933). Estepa’s note on Liii585.12). (Valladolid. Behetrías. p. Cel221 (939). he kept a half to support himself. 207–8.g.Dividing and Sharing Property 79 as is the case with those who received fifths. ⁵⁷ Profiliation: giving. Giving half to the church and keeping half for the family is a familiar pattern—like half to Celanova and half to the donor Gogino’s sons. than use of a third—about four times as common. 149–63. 42 n. When Brandila gave the monastery of Santos Cosme y Damián all his vines and garden. other alienations of halves and thirds. perhaps centuries-old. third as whole: Lii455 (978). 2003). there are plenty of alienations of half and third inheritances. i. although proportions are much smaller in Celanova and Sahagún material. in effect. Cel342 (885). Lii354 (962). 126–30. ⁵⁸ Profiliation using neither. to something more than the regular. splitting and sharing between family members. Sob59 (920)—sale of half a paternal inheritance. and a ‘third’ was sometimes a word for a complete inheritance. XXIII (919). ⁵⁹ Cel575 (954). They include a noticeable number of lay couples—nearly two fifths of such beneficiaries in the León collection and even more in that from Otero de las Due˜ nas. 84. use of a half was far commoner. Las Behetrías Castellanas.

Cel476 (941). see below. in effect diverting the inheritance away from the natural heirs. kartula inparzationis and inparcamus are occasional variants. most frequently a bishop or abbot. for help and support. 56–7). Cel343 (995).⁶¹ This process—far from regular family splitting—was about making provision for the church. Liii528 (see above. Cel519. ⁶² See above pp. a third. Sob64 (984). like Vizamondo’s sale of half a house to Celanova (his mother had already given the other half ) or Jimena’s gift of half a villa to Sobrado (her uncles had already given the other half ). ⁶⁴ Cel424 (934). the act of including another body in the group of sharers. It is such cases that give power to the argument for increasing freedom of disposition. it is clear that common ownership of property could sometimes be deliberately extended by the creation of new shares.⁶² Not only that. There is a kind of transaction recorded in some charters called the incommuniatio. pp. ⁶³ See what follows for references to the standard forms. Occasionally the transaction was in return for a price paid and sometimes it was in the expectation of help and support. 151–3. ⁶¹ Cel73 (954). . 68–70. as discussed above. Cel519 (998). relates how Ikila Fafilaniz and ⁶⁰ Li150 (942). pp. Hence we have references to cartulae incommuniationis (occasionally scriptura incommuniationis)—charters recording the extension of sharing—and references to making such transactions (faceremus vobis incommuniationem or incommuniamus).⁶³ Most of the contexts for sharing are straightforward: usually couples (but sometimes the actor was a single individual or a parent and children) shared all or more commonly a fraction of their property (a half. ⁶⁵ Cel394 (956). a fifth) with another party. for the variants: scriptura incommuniationis Cel231 (943). Cel68 (989). facere incommuniationem Cel424 (934). SHARING Property might be split up but it was also owned in common.⁶⁴ The properties were often of small scale and portions could be reserved for heirs. inparcare and kartula inparzationis Cel476 (941). So also Vistrario’s gift to Celanova and Electa’s to the monastery of Santos Justo y Pastor.80 Dividing and Sharing Property not pick up the full grant until his death. relating to Bubal in Galicia.⁶⁰ Or one family member might give half and another give the other half.⁶⁵ It is rare for detail to be included of how this sharing would work in practice but one text of 992.

⁶⁸ Cel456 (940). and incommuniatio. All of the above examples come from Galicia and from the Celanova collection. Cel53 (both Vermudo II. some may not. sometimes references to sharing are so vague that the term barely seems to denote more than ‘transfer’: a list of small portions by the river Arnoia given by the couple Julián and Olalla to Celanova in 950 ends with a dating clause which refers to this cartula donationis et incommuniationis.⁶⁷ It was expected that some such people might be present on great estates and that they would have a tributary relationship with the owner. That this was familiar in Galicia by the late tenth century is indicated by the fact that royal gifts and confirmations could mention people who were committed to share. people who were obliged to make returns to the new owner. An aristocrat extended shares to a countess in order to compensate her for killing one of her attendants. or to gain some benefit. gift. There are four more examples from the Sobrado archive. ⁶⁹ Cel497. homines incomuniatos. resident—amongst others—on land that was transferred. of 986 and 988 respectively). LXXVI (959) and CXXXVIII (983). share-cropping) arrangements. charter of gift and sharing. Portugaliae Monumenta Historica. as far as our records go. cf. for reasons unknown. they would increase the bread render to a half. recording very large grants by high aristocrats. ⁶⁷ Cel5. . In the tenth century the terminology of sharing was overwhelmingly a feature of Celanova charters and the beneficiaries were overwhelmingly abbots of Celanova. where the beneficiaries were the couple ⁶⁶ Cel490.⁶⁸ On the other hand. cf. or because they were persuaded. however. they were thereafter to give the monastery half of their produce of wine and a quarter of their bread every year.⁶⁶ It seems likely that this kind of arrangement underlies many of the transactions extending sharing. Cel210 (991). but there were others too. Whether for reasons of piety. Cel231 (943). Couples of relatively limited means were most often involved in such transactions. and the widow of a duke referred to property she and her husband had acquired by purchase.Dividing and Sharing Property 81 his wife Ocorabia shared half of their inheritance with the monastery of Celanova. if the monastery were to give them cattle and land for development. peasant families might agree to make regular returns to a monastery by entering into such sharing (in effect.⁶⁹ While many of these references clearly record a distinctive kind of transaction. a priest shared half a church with another person.

and a ninth of a mill to the abbot of Abellar by a woman and her daughter Aurifila. and that. Sob32 (941). CLXVI (992). whose property formed the core of the tenthcentury Sobrado estate. CLXXIII (995). recording grants to Celanova. CXXXVIII (983). pp. this might simply look like a feature of Celanova’s diplomatic practice. and the number of variants. most of which relate to the monastery of Guimarães and neighbourhood. 156–60 for gift/sale ‘confusion’. suggest that it was probably more than that: the terminology seems to reflect a habit of thinking. a good case can also be made that the monastery of Guimarães. it could be used to refer to straightforward lay transactions. See below. also Sob15 (945). alongside the children of their new marriage. . and a kind of transaction. preserved in the so-called ‘Livro de Mumadona’. LX (950). a house.82 Dividing and Sharing Property Ermegildo and Paterna. and King Ordo˜ no. is largely concerned to record a sale of some land. CXXXVII (983). several relate to the property of Countess Mumadona. the manner of reference. but this charter is also twice carta donationis and once carta venditionis.⁷¹ Very occasionally these words occur elsewhere. for a final section of the charter adds that Aurifila has agreed to this sale because her mother and stepfather had given her rights. source of several of ⁷⁰ Sob29 (931). sufficient to indicate that this habit of thinking was not completely confined to the far west. Sob30 (955). The charter. a way of looking at things. LXXVI (959). a vineyard. 135–8. Notwithstanding all that. Were it not for these cases.⁷² Here is a glimpse of the fact that this concept of extending membership of the common pool— incommuniare —was not confined to Galicia. Clearly the woman had remarried. There is a particularly suggestive charter in the León collection. by sharing her stepfather’s property with her (pro que me incomuniatis in vestra ereditatem [sic] ). LIX (949). we should keep in mind the rarity of this word in tenth-century text: the total number of cases is small—little more than twenty in Galicia and a handful in Portugal—and three quarters of the Spanish cases come from the Celanova archive. founder of Guimarães. ⁷² Li156 (942). Several of these texts survive in very late copies. However. surviving on a single sheet. ⁷¹ Portugaliae Monumenta Historica. that was particularly characteristic of Galicia and northern Portugal. Aurifila’s father Abraham.⁷⁰ There are also about half a dozen tenth-century occurrences in northern Portuguese charters. Sob14 (942). This was their inheritance from the woman’s first husband. who had previously divided it with his brother Juan. as in the Sobrado and some of the Portuguese cases.

⁷⁴ C. ‘Las behetrías: la encomendación en Asturias. IV. his ‘Peque˜ nos propietarios libres en el reino Asturleonés. See below. La sociedad gallega en la alta edad media (Madrid. Sánchez-Albornoz argued that incommuniationes were the equivalent of the later benefactoría agreements of Castile and León and represented the commendation of donors to beneficiaries. As it stands. 537) and Rosendo (of Celanova) is named as a signatory to Mumadona’s large endowment of Guimarães. LXXVI).17–191 (first published in Anuario de Historia del Derecho Espa˜ nol. at 152–3. and it is quite clear that Mumadona was a member of the Galician aristocracy. however. He was in part following earlier. 49. Pallares Méndez. Hispania. ‘Las relaciones de dependencia en la Galicia altomedieval: el ejemplo de la incomuniación’. Ilduara. in an influential paper of 1984. in whose charters these words occur. História de Portugal. Portuguese. 5–18. 1984 [first published 1982]). Bishko. 41–5. 1976–80). cf.⁷³ It looks as if. (Madrid. Viejos y nuevos estudios sobre las instituciones medievales espa˜ nolas. 44 (1984). in J. of which Rosendo himself was so much a part. for commendation. ‘Portugal no reino asturiano-leonês’. of 959 (Portugaliae Monumenta Historica. ‘Portugal no reino asturiano-leonês’. J. see M. but Isla Frez. 1 (1924)). Su realidad histórica’. at 187. this was a way of thinking about giving that was picked up and extended by the Celanova scriptorium. Sánchez-Albornoz. . Estepa Díez. 1992). ‘Las relaciones de dependencia’. 441–562. una Aristócrata del Siglo X (La Coru˜ na. i. pp. (Lisbon. that is out of all proportion to their occurrence. Las Behetrías Castellanas.Dividing and Sharing Property 83 the Portuguese examples. A familía e o poder . at 67–96. in other words freemen submitting to a powerful lord for protection.139–54. Spanish and Portuguese Monastic History 600–1300 (London. cf. Bishko. 271). edn. Settimane di Studio del centro italiano sull’alto medioevo. León y Castilla’.). 12. Mattoso (co-ord. cf. 16. ⁷⁶ Isla Frez. in C. Sánchez-Albornoz. i. Mattoso. was the daughter of Bishop Rosendo’s sister Adosinda (Mattoso. Isla Frez. at 473–4. It is also the case that both of Rosendo’s parents had Portuguese properties. just as traditio corporis et animae was picked up and extended by the Carde˜ na scriptorium. this text raises questions of authenticity. 153–4.⁷⁶ He drew parallels with gift by profiliation (the practice of adopting an heir. 3 vols. profiliatio) ⁷³ See J. ⁷⁵ A. 228–34.⁷⁴ Estepa has shown that incommuniatio and benefactoría were not as identical as SánchezAlbornoz assumed. 13 (1966). 50. 1987). Mumadona. 1993). del C. 141. took the argument in a different direction. idem. whatever wider currency there may have been. ‘Portuguese pactual monasticism in the eleventh century: the case of São Salvador de Vacariça’. in C. I. J. 1998). C. Transactions of incommuniatio have occupied a place in the scholarly literature. had a close relationship with Celanova at that time. although it was used by Mattoso as a credible charter (A nobreza medieval portuguesa. 183–222. commentators. 5. 2nd rev.⁷⁵ He stressed that use of incommuniatio was indeed a technique by which the powerful appropriated property but argued that it differed from Sánchez-Albornoz’s commendation because it established hereditary obligations of dependence from the heirs of the donor to the heirs of the recipient. Antes de Portugal (Lisbon. 8.

above all.⁷⁹ It is often little more than donation (cartula donationis vel perfiliationis is very common) and the choice of this particular word may reflect a need to stress an unusual mechanism in a world where freedom of disposition was far from generally agreed. In tenth-century texts. 384). for example. by people with children to win favours or support from the powerful or the well-off. 380). Lii356 (962). .⁸⁰ As in that case. the term had a more limited range of reference and occurred in very limited contexts. Barbero and Vigil. it was rare. it clearly operated like incommuniatio. As a broad interpretation. depended very much on eleventh-century texts. pp. The contexts of its use in the tenth century were several. S178 (960). and. ‘Las relaciones de dependencia’. properties. there was not much of dependence about it: some gifts were only to come into effect after the donor’s death and many gifts were of part. A word on profiliatio. by people with or without children to reward others for service of some kind. it was not associated with menial dependence. 28. La formación del feudalismo. increasingly. Isla’s arguments. The argument that ‘tribal society’ was collapsing is rather more questionable. as a method of sharing property with others. ⁸¹ See further below. Isla Frez. S191 (961).⁷⁸ In the tenth century it was used by childless people to nominate heirs. the notion seems to depend on uninvestigated assumptions about the relationship between blood. although sometimes. as Isla argued. as an ‘instrument to break the social and economic cohesion of consanguinity’ (ibid. by people with or without children to make bequests to the church. La formación del feudalismo.⁸¹ ⁷⁷ See above p. 384. rather than total. for more detailed discussion. 380–94. like Sánchez-Albornoz’s before him. 9. ⁷⁹ For example. presented the classic and much-cited treatment of profiliatio. but even they stressed that its importance came in the late eleventh century (ibid. Barbero and Vigil. in life and after death. and they paid little attention to tenth-century texts.84 Dividing and Sharing Property and argued that both incommuniatio and profiliatio were mechanisms by which strangers acquired rights in family property and other relations lost rights. 11. 394 (where profiliatio is deemed to supply ‘proof ’ of the survival of tribal society). post mortem: Lii455 (978). and ‘tribe’.⁷⁷ However. family. this is entirely reasonable. for example. as many texts explicitly say. This ‘adoption’ technique was a mechanism for passing on property to a body. In the tenth century it could be associated with an obligation to return produce to the recipient. 160–1. as it is also reasonable to suggest that in the long term powerful people acquired more and more rights over the property of free peasants. both in vitam and post mortem. as if to a child.. ⁸⁰ Lii331 (960). in vitam: S184 (960). ⁷⁸ S143 (954).. S184 (960).

E. lay or cleric. It was also in practice different since the donor of a shared plot might well reserve a portion. on fifth-century Gaul. 46). ‘Teutsind. Property and Power in the Early Middle Ages (Cambridge. really a grant on light terms in response to a petition. M. La formación del feudalismo. peasants are seen to have given up ownership of their plots to more powerful landlords. ⁸³ See above. S. Precaria were known in Spain (Barbero and Vigil. see R. The Birth of Western Economy. in the Frankish world. n. the Galician process was not the same. 31–52.Dividing and Sharing Property 85 Incommuniare. Wilkinson (London. . Fouracre (eds. in effect. Tenth-century incommuniatio was. receiving them back as precaria. p. etc. See further references below. pp. Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted (Oxford. but there is no need to suppose any direct connection between the precaria of Isidore and of the Visigothic law codes and the incommuniationes of the tenth century. 78–9. Perhaps a familiar concept across a much wider area. Witlaic and the history of Merovingian precaria’. in W. Wood. 89–90. temporary grants made by a landowner. families strove to preserve their own proprietary powers. 1994). 1995). and sometimes profiliare. were about sharing property.⁸³ the existence of fractions and the habit of ‘sharing’ let us see some of ⁸² For the standard approach. Wood. Obviously anyone could do it—peasant or aristocrat. The precaria (initially precarium). and for the development. for early forms see I. and paying regular dues from them thereafter. Latouche.). 76–9. it seems to have been more common in Galicia and Portugal than elsewhere and to have been taken up by the Celanova scriptorium for the specific purpose of describing a type of ecclesiastical endowment. 61–4. for his or her heirs. came to denote many different kinds of arrangement. a strategy for preserving family interest in property: by extending shares in the pool of common property. frequently retaining full ownership of a portion for himor herself. ‘Teutsind. unshared. they were not about total alienation. Reynolds. It is often viewed as a kind of Galician equivalent of the gifts which led to Frankish precarial grants.84. Davies and P. trans. Witlaic’. Even if there is a superficial similarity here. FA M I LY S T R AT E G I E S In the face of growing church proprietorship and increasingly aggressive exploitation of their properties by some abbots and bishops. 24–6.⁸² It was conceptually different because the donor by incommuniatio remained an owner and did not simply become a tenant or leaseholder. 1967 [first published 1956]). 86. at 43–9.

What is particularly interesting here is that there do seem to have been deliberate strategies for preserving family property. it looks as if there was some diversion of property from independent proprietors to largely religious. ⁸⁵ Cel7 (950). this process was modified by sharing and by splitting off portions. and some lay.⁸⁴ (Some Spanish alienators of the tenth century did similarly reserve rights to the usufruct for family members. Transmission du patrimoine et mémoire au haut moyen âge (Rome. one would expect a stronger. than the sharing strategy. by dividing and alienating a fraction they got to keep a fraction. If the apparent contrast here is a real contrast.. although his focus is on the prevention of fragmentation. dependence. landlords. at 222–9. La Rocca.). p. Isla Frez. 134. a world with higher proportions of free peasants and with obligations of less menial kinds—as indeed appears to be the case. where full ownership of property might be alienated but continuing rights to the usufruct of the property negotiated. less dependent. and more rapidly developing. Sauver son âme et se perpétuer. overall.⁸⁵) The usufruct strategy implies greater levels of. and those in France.86 Dividing and Sharing Property the strategies employed by families to preserve their own interests in their property. These strategies for preserving family interest look different from some of those employed in the Frankish world. often a larger fraction. Sociedad gallega. we shall in due course see the spread of family memorialization. Although. 123–6. although some appear to have alienated totally. pp. 2005). for example. as different monasteries brought their preferred words into the record. ibid. C. H. p.⁸⁶ Although this chapter has emphasized some differences from strategies employed elsewhere in western Europe. 34. Goetz. Cel251 (993). These most obviously followed from the development of entrepreneurial proprietary policies by the great monasteries and the consequent diversion of some family property into their hands. but such cases are very rare. new things were happening to property in the tenth century. Switzerland. and Italy cited below. R.⁸⁷ Against the backdrop of the continuing fission and re-assembly of family property. ⁸⁶ Cf. 203–37. cf. on aristocratic strategies for preserving the patrimony. ⁸⁷ Above. this might go some way to explaining the distinctive types of lordship that emerged there. But they also involved some shifts in habits of recording property transfer. and see F.and ninth-century Saint-Gall material. below. The language of transfer already ⁸⁴ See above. the hundreds of precarial grants in eighth. Le Jan (eds. 36–44. By sharing they kept some. .-W. pp. 226. Bougard. others were more similar: we have already noted the founding and maintenance of proprietary churches. ‘Coutume d’héritage et structures familiales au haut moyen âge’. peasantry in northern Spain in the central middle ages—that is.

and places like Celanova appropriated the concept of incommuniatio. In the later tenth century great monasteries used words like quinta to emphasize the disposability of the portions they acquired. and it can offer further clues to understanding what was happening on the ground. with—for example—its unusual emphasis on the concept of common ownership.Dividing and Sharing Property 87 had some distinctive characteristics. . The interplay between changing practice and the changing language of donation was subtle.

and laced with pious explanations. in the Lord. in Domino salutem.² A common elaboration is the ¹ A point made in the brief but helpful discussion of the value of ‘useless formulas’ in J. 1982). and the record usually concludes with a secular sanction against anyone who contravenes the gift. in extreme cases it can be very convoluted. I and my wife greet you. Concedo illud. hanc . of our own free will. completely. ² ‘In Dei nomine. etiam aditio vobis in illo prato medietatem. et quicquid exinde agere. sit concessa vobis potestas. L. ab integra. abbot and brothers of monastery X. Ego Aiza et uxor mea Argentea vobis domno Sperando abba et fratres Sanctorum Iusti et Pastoris monasterio. a record of donation might run as follows: ‘In the name of God. to dismiss this kind of writing as simply formulaic would miss a key to one level of understanding of process and relationships. rather helpful: while the genre is undoubtedly formulaic. propria et spontanea nostra voluntate. to make you a charter of donation. I give the arable which is at the place Y. in Semana de Historia del Monacato: Cantabro–Astur–Leonés (Oviedo. ego Argentea. A detailed indication of the land’s location may often be included. Placuit nobis atque convenit.4 The Language of Donation FORMULAS The language used to record the making of gifts in these tenth-century Spanish texts is often brief and simple but it is also often very elaborate. for the salvation of my parents. there is a great wealth of different forms within these records. Ut abeatis illud firmiter de dato nostro. At the simplest level. ut faceremus vobis kartula testamenti. Siquis aliquis homo ad inrumpendum venerit vel venerimus contra hanc kartula. That may at first sight appear problematic but it is. ipsa terra qui est in locum predictum iuxta karrale qui pergit ad illa nave. 81–6. We have agreed. Let power be given to you so that you have this securely and can do whatever you wish with it’. a dating clause. and a witness list. and I include half of the meadow there. Martín. ‘Utilidad de las fórmulas ‘‘inútiles’’ de los documentos medievales’. facere vel iudicare volueritis. et de alia parte terminum …. pro remedio de parentum meorum. on the contrary.¹ The range of language deployed has to be taken into account and its significance explored.

they want per me. ‘Ut de odierno die et tempore de nostro iure in vestro dominio sint vestri donati adque concessi. for owning in common and shared family interests. on the day of judgment. 99–102. of 897.’ ⁴ ‘Gauventius presbiter ubi rogitus fuit scriptor manu ( The priest Gauventio. half of our land at Z. 65–71. et quidquid de illos facere volueris. as in: ‘In the name of God. notification. pp. and from this day it shall be transferred from our right (iure) into your control (dominio).The Language of Donation 89 addition of a clause spelling out that control of the land freely transfers from one party to the other. pp. as the priest Gauventio is in the second example above. you have free power’. or the celestial mansion. for elaborate language is a particular characteristic of gift texts. Facta series testamenti et adfirmationis v kalendas novembris. que ego et Argentea vindicare non valuerimus. standing before God. ³ I quote the sense of the introduction and main giving words. abeas potestatem. Lii489 (982). wrote [this] by [his own] hand). Aiza qui sum vigario de Arenta et adfirmo. ³ Such charters are not long (preamble. in Dei nomine. p. of 948. . or the chosen). comparable phrases sometimes occur in records of sale or exchange but they do so very infrequently. although the range of ideas they convey is quite limited. and use standard formulas. The donor is weighed down by sin or looking for expiation or remission of sins. et vobis perpetim abiturum. or they want to be worthy of eternal glory. Amoroze ts. Argentea in hanc kartula testamenti a me facta. liberam. for example. for the scribes are identified. There is no doubt. see below. ⁶ See above. 171 for comparable cases.⁴ The more elaborate charters use a much wider range and greater number of formulas as preamble and by way of explanation of the gift. C191 (984). or the heavenly kingdom. ut pariemus vobis ipsa hereditate duplata. and we do give you. they want eternal life.⁵ The range of formulas is indeed surprisingly wide. or the abyss.’. we often know who wrote them. (In this particular case it is the wife’s land that is given. more positively they (for the donor is often a married couple or a group of siblings⁶) want to enjoy paradise. they want to be for ever joyful with the saints (or angels. hanc per extranea. rather than give a literal translation. and disposition may number no more than sixty or seventy words) but they are not casual. I have in most cases aimed to convey the meaning in modern English. when the trumpet sounds.’ See below. as requested. they often want a reward (or recompense). for scribes and for the sources of standard formulas. and whatever you want to do with it. or the torment. Li11.) In translating this and other examples in this chapter. and often include religious sanctions. but it should be noted that we will give you. he or she fears hell or wants to evade the infernal penalty. I and my wife greet you in the Lord and in eternity. 91–8. ⁵ Sale and exchange. they are formal documents. Li203. Do˜ na Fredesinda. era DCCCCLXXXVI. and the husband acts for her.

whether large or moderate. and the more personal ‘Domine tu ⁷ Li109 (936). cf. 33: 11). the rather gloomy ‘the fool and the brutish person perish.90 The Language of Donation the beneficiary to intercede for them. useless and a sinner [salute you in God])’. ‘ad diem magni iuditii’. omnem nigredinem peccatorum’. ‘peccati gravati’. SM97 (984). OD21 (976). and from the writings of communities that were prone to use the formulaic. ‘Come … inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world’ (Matt.⁸ Likewise. Lii409 (968—common in many collections. and this is my memorial unto all generations’ (Exod. and leave their wealth to others’ (Ps. ⁸ Orthography and grammar frequently stray from classical norms.⁷ In all of this the fertility of expression is striking. ‘ego namque peccator’. particularly since the material comes from only one century. Proverbs. and it shall be given unto you’ (Luke 6: 38) in records of many gifts. or Gospels. ‘molle criminis delictorum meorum’. pp. without attempting ‘improvements’. ‘cunctorum meorum nexibus … peccaminum’. 3: 15) in the record of a very large gift from a deacon to the bishop of León. Lii413 (970). S105 (946). . So we find ‘this is my name for ever. Sob52 (930). ‘ex toto peccatorum mole depresso’. from only one—admittedly large—region. many of these ideas draw upon biblical statements and some texts quote directly from Old or New Testament—especially from the Pentateuch. ‘ad diem sancti tremendi iudicii’. Li42 (917). Of course. in a wide range of styles. or. see further below. Take for example the simple idea of the burden of sin. and ‘I have no pleasure in [emended to ‘I do not want’] the death of the wicked. 49: 10) in a charter recording a religious woman’s gift to a monastery. ‘Give. Lii490 (983). unsurprisingly. Lii274 (954) and Liii535 (990). Liii520 (987). Liii548 (991). 92–7. Lii296 (956). ‘criminum pergravatum et copia peccaminum oppressum’. ‘ante Deum’. Examples are from Li5 (873). pp. see further below. ‘veniam … nostrarum noxarum’. but that the wicked turn from this way and live’ (Ezek. and. and the telling ‘A me etenim inutile et peccatrix (And so I. Cel247 (927). ‘dum in examinis diem (apparueris magnus et manifestus)’. as is common in records with a royal interest. ‘apud Deum’. 99–104. Here is a flavour of the range of different ways this might be expressed: ‘pecatorum nostrorum oneris pregravationem’. Psalms. ‘ingentis sceleribus opressum’. 25: 34). ‘in illa examinatione’. but because it draws on a wide range of different recording traditions in its neighbourhood. for example. León material has a particularly wide array. not just because it is the largest collection. the apparently straightforward concept of the day of judgment can be expressed in many ways: ‘ducat me ante tribunal Domini nostri Ihesu Christi’. I quote the texts as printed. Lii265 (954). SJP30 (995)).

cf. That difference of approach to the record is interesting and is worth exploring further. ‘before God’. cf. Cel209 (997). ‘at the day of the holy. there are variants but the words ‘Patronis sanctissimis Sanctorum Facundi et Primitivi quorum corpora tumulata dinoscitur esse in locum super crepidinis alvei Zeia’ usually constitute the core. Cel210 (991). ‘in the presence of God’. Cel503 (985). S245 (966). incorporating the words ‘quia per vestris sanctis ⁹ ‘May he lead me before the tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ’. also signals a gift to Carde˜ na. ‘Lord. S128 (950). as we have seen. ‘while at the day of examination you will have revealed [yourself ] great and visible’. Cel216 (993). etc. Liii570 (995). some have none at all. C32 (939). Cel256 again. 80–3.¹¹ Celanova record-makers had a particularly neat way of expressing the benefit to the donor: ‘Et abeatis vos inde temporale subsidium et ego ante Deum premium inconvulsum (and from that you will get a temporal subsidy. even for donations to a church or monastery. The same phrases can occur again and again in records favouring a particular monastery. ‘at the day of the great judgment’. judgment’. Sob38 (985). C172 (977).g. S255 (970). whose bodies are distinguished by being buried in a hollow in the ground in the place Cea’. tremendous.¹⁰ The brief but distinctive ‘ut evadamus portas inferni (so that we may evade the gates of hell)’. 54–6. while I [will get] a continuing prize in the presence of God)’. Liii555 (993). S352 (996). Li177 (943). ¹⁰ Above. some select one or two. C201 (988). ¹¹ C30 (937). ¹³ ‘To the most holy patrons. S293 (978—incorporated in a royal charter). . sometimes across several decades. C147 (971). C R E AT I N G T H E R E C O R D S Whether or not the language deployed is elaborate or simple is partly to do with the identity of the beneficiary—but not entirely so. and. ‘in that examination’. S228 (965). ¹² Cel177 (952). S221 (964).⁹ Some charters deploy almost the entire array of these phrases. Lii274 (954).¹³ For a period in the 940s and 950s the scribes of San Martín of Turieno in the Liébana valley used a distinctive local diplomatic to record substantial lay gifts to their monastery. as I shall demonstrate below. you are a just judge’. for example. Cel246 (969). Drafting by the beneficiary is clear in many monastic contexts. OD29 (988). Cel256 (936). S303 (980). Saints Facundo and Primitivo.The Language of Donation 91 es iustus iudex’. Cel36 (889).¹² Sahagún writers had a very distinctive invocation which marks their records of gifts to their monastery. as we have already seen with Carde˜ na’s repetition of tradere corpus et animam and Celanova’s of incommuniationes. The sentiment sometimes occurs in other collections too: e. pp.

55–91. ¹⁵ Freely rendered as ‘and with their support we shall be released from the evil of our disgrace. 1987). where single sheets record small-scale transactions by ordinary people.¹⁵ The monastery of Abellar seems to have enjoyed quoting a version of ‘O Lord God … keep this for ever in the imagination of the thoughts of the heart of thy people’ (I Chr. inserting an appropriate description of the newly acquired land and a new set of witnesses. probably an ‘original’. and thereafter be worthy to become heirs in the kingdom of heaven’.¹⁸ ¹⁴ Loosely translated as: ‘through your holy prayers I get to enjoy the heavenly kingdom. Guyotjeannin. it looks as if record-makers at those and other institutions sometimes took an earlier record and copied virtually all of it. T58 (961). Li6 (874). Los archivos familiares. using its standard favoured formulas. However. Herrero de la Fuente. with no scribe named (the monk Baltario wrote the former). see further below. are almost identical from beginning to end. vol. and he who shall hold this little page should not hesitate to pray for N if he should approach God without due respect’. 1993). (León. the latter is on a single sheet. for example. for example. B. A. SM72 (957). since some of them are demonstrably copies or forgeries. Actas del VI Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Cultura Escrita. count 93 and 312 originals respectively (44 before 1000 in the latter case): E. SM75 (957). 29: 18). It cannot be assumed that all charters on single sheets represent original records. I (775–952). at 83–4. and Li76 (928). cf. Fernández Flórez and M. one from a priest in 956 and the other from a person called Egila in 961. Pycke. Colección documental del archivo de la catedral de León. 2002). et qui hec paginola tenuerit pro N non pigeat orare si Deum absque verecundia videat’. see R.¹⁴ And the more elaborate ‘et/ut eorum sufragiis eruamur ab omni malo flagitiorum. ¹⁶ Lii469 (979). et post heredes fieri mereamur in regno polorum’ signals what San Millán deemed appropriate for Navarre royal grants in its favour. T45 (941). it is customary to treat them as originals. Liii539 (990) and Liii571 (995). La Diplomatique Médiévale ( Turnhout. p. during the abbacy of Ranosindo. xxiii. 94. since I am mindful that nothing good comes from my own merits. Tock. SM65 (952). 2 (Alcalá de Henares.). SM91 (972). Several of these charters were drafted by the abbot of San Millán himself. SM110 (996). as many are likely to have been. Lii487 (982). ¹⁷ Li5 (873). J. T51-T55 (946–52). ‘Arqueología archivística y documental’. Liii520 (987). . Two grants to the monastery of Santiago ‘de Cellariolo’. Lii351.-M. 126–29.¹⁷ It would seem that straightforward gifts to a major monastery or bishopric were usually recorded by the receiving institution. ¹⁸ Lii296. when gifts in its favour were recorded. cf. in C. Libros y Documentos en la alta edad media. The editors of volume 1 of the León collection. Sáez.¹⁶ while grants to the bishopric of León (whether to the same or to several different bishops) can share several lines in common. T70 (964). on abbots drawing up charters on royal instruction. O. Indeed. Sáez (ed. Los libros de derecho. vol. Pacheco Sampedro. and J. and volume 1 of the Otero collection.92 The Language of Donation orationibus me arbitror impetrare ut fruar celestibus regnis quia nichil me abere bonum recordor ex meritis.

Fortunately. but clearly copying a handy model was one way to create a contemporary record. given the tendency for later interpolation or direct falsification. Documentos. just as monastic records did. on over 300 royal originals pre-1000. at 357–8. M. one might think that copying came at the stage of creating a cartulary. especially of the last two generations. allows us to navigate a way through the pitfalls. recording the priest’s gift. on 9 January 916 and 8 January 917 respectively. just share a few formulas. La Documentación real astur-leonesa (718–1072)= El reino de León en la alta edad media. in Sáez (ed. Ensayo de crítica documental’. is largely witnessed by clerics. the single sheets from the León collection are also particularly helpful in providing standards and comparanda. Lucas Álvarez. VIII (León. Instituciones. lay. E. I. and M. where the beneficiary of the first is the donor of the second. 24 (1997). J. 28. 41–4. as ‘copies’ of this kind often are. the witness lists are not identical but have significant overlap. 1997). Dealing with royal diplomatic has its own special problems. 39–53. Grants to two different beneficiaries from King Ordo˜ no II and his wife Elvira. royal records of a given period used identical or similar formulas. Li42 (of 917) and Lii412 (of 970). Milagros Cárcel Ortí (Valencia. . Ordo˜ no III’s grant to Bishop Rosendo of Celanova in 955 has some diplomatic in common with records of his gifts to Colección documental del monasterio de Santa María de Otero de las Due˜ nas (854–1108) (León. gift appears to be largely witnessed by lay persons. the work of many editors. Vocabulaire International de la Diplomatique. 1999). Royal charters of the same period sometimes. Historia. they have completely different descriptions of lands donated and almost completely different witness lists: the former. Li41. ²⁰ Li38.The Language of Donation 93 Although these records are only five years apart. cf. 75–6. it looks as if the earlier record was used as a model for the later (although there may well be an error in the date of the former). Sometimes.²⁰ Both survive on single sheets and the first was written by Sarracino. ¹⁹ Cf. ‘Los testimonios escritos del sector meridional de Castilla (siglos X–XI). including at least three families and the owners of adjacent properties. Libros y Documentos. Fernández de Viana y Vieites. as might be expected. often (and increasingly so across the tenth century) of considerable length and elaboration.). There were royal charters. Commission Internationale de Diplomatique.¹⁹ Composition by the receiving monastery or bishopric was one way to create a record. 355–79. leonés y castellano leonés en la alta edad media’. have near identical texts (sharing the same quotations from the first Book of Samuel and from Proverbs). but that was not the only way. no scribe is named on the latter. Pastor Díaz de Garayo. however. Were it not that the latter is on a single sheet. ‘Problemas y perspectivas de la diplomática de los reinos asturiano. 1995). ed. the latter.

51–87. La Documentación real astur-leonesa (718–1072).²¹ Ramiro III’s grants to the monastery of San Cipriano de Valdesaz and to that of Sahagún in 978 also have echoes of the same formulation.²⁷ In fact. SM97 (984). Alfonso. the first and last are on single sheets. has very few witnesses in common with the León group.²⁸ Ramiro III and his wife Elvira’s grants to Sahagún of a decade later. Kennedy. the king’s grant to the bishop of León eight days after the second monastic gift has several common witnesses. and the same scribe (the ‘notary’ Cresconio Arvadi). S293 (which probably has an interpolated sentence. Alfonso. . Li257 (952). S262. cf. and to another trusted layman. both on single sheets. 191–2). Building Legitimacy: Political Discourses and Forms of Legitimation in Medieval Societies (Leiden. to two different laymen. SM74. ²⁹ S261. and the same scribe. but episcopal diplomatic.²² Vermudo II’s grants of 25 December 989 and 25 June 990.²⁵ Several of the Navarre kings’ grants to San Millán in the later tenth century explicitly appear to have been drafted by the abbot of San Millán. ²⁵ Cel503. some witness overlap. J. have very different diplomatic from each other. 26 April 960. Lucas Álvarez. at 76. doubtless reflecting the more westerly location.²⁶ that kings used monastic scriptoria to draft not just records of their own donations but all kinds of document is well-known in the eleventh century. 2004). Brother Munio.94 The Language of Donation Bishop Gonzalo of León at about the same time. Fruela.²⁴ Vermudo’s grant to the monastery of Celanova of the same year (29 September) is recorded in the monastery’s diplomatic and. ²³ Liii530 and Liii541. SM75 (all 957). Lii300 (951–56). some overlap in witness lists. have some common formulas. and a different scribe. have very similar records but even these are not identical. in I. while Vermudo II and his wife Velasquita’s grants to two different monasteries in 985 have many common formulas. Hence.).²³ At other times. SM72. ²⁶ ‘Sisebutus abbas Sancti Emiliani exaravit’. the variety in the formulation of royal grants is in many cases more striking than its standardization. H.²⁹ There is also the particularly telling case of Vermudo II’s grants to his armiger (armour-bearer). ²⁴ Lii506 (22 October). ²² Lii461 (a single sheet). Lii508 (16 November). despite having the same scribe. Julián. S176. Lii507 (8 November). Escalona (eds. however. the latter on a single sheet. ‘Judicial rhetoric and political legitimation in medieval LeónCastile’. Munio ²¹ Cel54. made on the same day. 11 May 971. particularly in the case of grants to the bishop of León. ²⁷ See I. even royal grants appear to have been drafted by the beneficiary. Sancho I’s two grants to Sahagún. ²⁸ S175.

³¹ SM30 (943). See Commission Internationale de Diplomatique. 221–8. like the priest Jimeno. for chanceries. also Lucas Álvarez. and Nu˜ no. in Miscel-lània en homenatge al P. Agustí Altisent ( Tarragona. in 989—the same year and the same scribe but completely different diplomatic. Apart from the royal cases. who was the chief notary. at 310. for the terminology of scribe and notary. p. and Lucas Álvarez. it is not always apparent where these priests came from and why they were making the records.³⁴ Much of the corpus of tenth. from which they might select in varied and creative ways. La Documentaci´ on real astur-leonesa . ³³ As suggested by Carlos Estepa in a late tenth-century context. on a single sheet. Four years later. Vermudo’s grant to Fruela names three different monks of the palace. although it was more than a century before royal chanceries were to be established. 99. Records for other kinds of donor were also written by priests. OD30 (989). 285–327. Vocabulaire International de la Diplomatique. We might expect that some priests worked for aristocratic families and provided writing services for them:³³ someone made an inventory of Fernando Vermúdez and Elvira’s charters in 976. ³² Lii295. 219–20. who were priests. Two of the 985 royal grants in fact name ‘monks of the palace’ too: Osorio and Gutino. king’s scribe. king’s notary. The record of one of Ordo˜ no III’s grants. or Felix. notarius maior . Liii530. 43. who was a deacon. names two notaries: the priest Ambrosio and the priest Zalame. of 945 (a reworked text). ³⁴ OD22. 33. for we find them named as ‘notary’ or ‘scribe’ on many other records. See below.The Language of Donation 95 Fernández.³¹ We know the names of many such scribes and it is clear both that there could be several at any one time and that they had a very wide repertoire of formulas available. cf. scriba regis of García Sánchez of Navarre.³² that they were in orders is not surprising. S98. but sometimes. two notaries in a grant of Ramiro II.³⁰ In the tenth century kings seem to have been inconsistent in their approach to producing records: sometimes they used episcopal or monastic scriptoria to record royal favours. a precious glimpse of the fact that lay families could take as much care of their documents as religious institutions did. the notarius regis of Vermudo II of León. and here the records appear to be originals. for documents produced by the entourage surrounding the king. ‘Poder y propiedad feudales en el período astur: las mandaciones de los Flaínez en la monta˜ na leonesa’. 1991). . La Documentación real astur-leonesa (718–1072).and eleventh-century texts in the Otero de las Due˜ nas collection makes the same point about ³⁰ OD30. they used scribes attached to the court. who wrote for the king and in his interest. made in May 956.

Colección de Santa María de Otero de las Due˜ nas. in 984. 21–3. Early Medieval Europe. 307–08. Cf.96 The Language of Donation lay attitudes to documents. records of purely lay transactions could be preserved in monastic archives when they provided evidence of relevant past ownership or of the transmission of property.and eleventh-century Catalonia. and A. originating from the activities of two early eleventh-century aristocrats. were frequently recorded by priests. or episcopal owner. but who sometimes appears to have been an independent agent.³⁷ Gifts are not the sole subject of the records.³⁵ Some of the other priests who wrote charters were clearly resident in monastic communities. 139–63. again in a simple charter. 80 (2005).³⁶ There were priests available in the countryside in addition to those who lived in monastic communities and those attached to aristocratic households. a person who had sometimes been appointed by a distant lay. p.³⁸ Sales between lay persons. pp. Cf. ‘Laymen. in 953.and eleventh-century Catalonia. see below. for the thirteenth-century monastery of Santa María inherited an extremely substantial lay archive. monastic. and the surviving corpus of charters includes records of sale and exchange. ³⁶ Above. in a complete but unelaborate record. especially. ‘Poder y propiedad’. ³⁸ For gifts to the laity. Lay men and women certainly gave to the church. 44– early tenth-century France and Germany. Fruela Mu˜ noz and Pedro Flaínez. clerics. for example. 146. clerics. . So. Kosto on lay archives in tenth. Warren Brown on lay archives in fifth. in which there was no contemporary ecclesiastical interest. As in many parts of western Europe. the priest Atriano recorded a sale between married couples of land on the river Esla in 936 in a similar record. We have seen above that some churches in northern Spain had one resident associated priest. J. Speculum. in another. the priest Leovildo recorded the sale of an orchard in central Galicia from one couple to another. but they also made gifts to each other and. ‘When documents are destroyed or lost: lay people and archives in the early middle ages’. see further below. and passim. the numbers of priests listed by Estepa. 11 (2002). bought and sold property from and to each other. but they did not invariably have such an immediate monastic context. in which many of the actors were lay persons. the priest Zezo recorded a sale of land on the river Torío from one lay couple to another in 910. Kosto. in another. the elegant demonstration of the existence of large numbers of lay charters in tenth. ³⁷ Cf. at 62–3. ‘Laymen. and documentary practices’. the priest Gómez recorded the sale of another plot in Marialba in 944 from a couple to a deacon who was acting for his cousin. the priest Stephen recorded another sale between laity in Marialba in 928 in a similar record. For Pedro Flaínez. and documentary practices in the early middle ages: the example of Catalonia’. 48. p. 337–66. the priest Graciano recorded ³⁵ Fernández Fl´ orez and Herrero de la Fuente.

Sob95. again in a simple charter. Felix. Small Worlds: The Village Community in Early Medieval Brittany (London. . The Celanova collection records very few lay to lay transactions. Casado de Otaola.-P. 2001). OD3 (single sheet). ‘Escribir y leer en la alta edad media’. 1989). H. Lii363. in a rather more elaborate charter. B. at 292–3. S178. 137–8. ⁴⁰ Li11 (single sheet).). the priest Vermudo recorded a gift of property near the river Valderaduey from one woman to another in 973. 1988). Historia de la cultura escrita: Del próximo oriente antiguo a la sociedad informatizada (Gijón. S371. 113–77.⁴⁰ Sometimes we find the records of the same scribe in different collections. Le clergé rural dans l’Europe médiévale et moderne (Actes des XIII e Journées Internationales d’Histoire de l’Abbaye de Flaran. McKitterick. ⁴² See W. 153–66. Illy. and so on. in 961 and 963. recorded by another confessus (Cel383). and the priest Maxito recorded a gift in the Cantabrian mountains from a couple to a layman in 960. showing that they were not attached to the source of the surviving archive: the priest Godesteo wrote charters of sale from a man called Salite to different purchasers. ‘ ‘‘In conscribendis donationibus hic ordo servandus est … ’’: l’écriture des actes de la pratique en Languedoc et en Toulousain’. Li78. OD46 (single sheet). 909–1049 (Ithaca. as we know that they did in many other parts of Europe in the early middle ages. 1989). Rosenwein. S194. likewise. To Be the Neighbor of Saint Peter: The Social Meaning of Cluny’s Property.). 283–320. The Carolingians and the Written Word (Cambridge.). in a very simple charter. in M. Bonnassie and J. Bonnassie (ed. Sob78. 104–34 (of Switzerland). in P. there are very many examples of priests and deacons performing what were in effect notarial functions for the lay community. at 123. L. Lii356. 6–8 septembre 1991) ( Toulouse.The Language of Donation 97 the sale of half a plot and an orchard in Corniero from a couple to a woman. although a woman sold land in Rabal to a confessus in 1003. Davies. R. and the priest Sendino recorded the sale of land in Posadilla in Astorga by a couple to a layman and his sons in 999. the priest Juan recorded the gift of inherited land from one couple to another in 931.⁴² This is not to say that small monasteries did not perform such functions too: transactions between lay persons could also take place in the presence of monastic communities and it seems likely that in such cases a member of the ³⁹ Li25 (on a single sheet). Zimmermann (ed. in A. ‘Le clergé paroissial aux IXe –Xe siècles dans les Pyrénées orientales et centrales’.³⁹ The priest Gauventio’s record was of a gift of a few apple trees from a couple to a lay woman in 897. Li179. at 161. wrote a charter of donation for a couple and a charter of sale for a woman and her daughters for land near León in 962 and 961 respectively. Belmon. J. P. 1995). 75. ⁴¹ S188. Lii425. Auctor et Auctoritas: Invention et conformisme dans l’écriture médiévale (Paris. 2002). the ‘deacon and notary’. and notably for laity in local rural communities.⁴¹ Although some writers have no recorded description of status. Castillo Gómez (co-ord.

One might expect ‘collegium sororum Sancti Laurentii … collegio fratrum Sancti Salvatoris’.98 The Language of Donation community made the record. 56–60.⁴⁵ (Interestingly. which should make us cautious about assuming a relationship between the order of a list and status. ⁴⁴ Li184 (944). for example. it also demonstrates how the case endings of classical Latin could be abandoned by some writers ‘Ego Leticia et Maia et colegium serores de Santi Laurenti vobis colecium fratriis de Sancti Salvatoris. or about their ⁴³ As in Lii402 (967). and springs by the river Cabia survive. the record of the resolution of a major dispute. In a case of 945 between a monk and a priest. Iuanes/Ihoannes. Abbot Diego below. recording essentially the same gift from a nunnery to a monastery on 1 March 990. abbots sometimes made the records of major transactions to which they were not a party. are recorded in a different order. S TA N D A R D L A N G UAG E A N D VA R I AT I O N S Although we know something about individual writers of large books. the monk’s was shown to be false and thrown into the fire.850). I would not rule out the possibility of lay scribes too. SJP5 (c . which could have been a draft for the more formal second. although largely the same in each version. cf. but also highlight how different in style and spelling the records could be: the first. the community of San Salvador. C184 (939–81). Liii535 (Leticia and Maia and the community of sisters of San Lorenzo [greet] you. clerics. is much simpler in style and spells witness names in non-standard fashion—Frenade/Fredenando. ⁴⁶ C55.) That variant versions were known to exist is made evident by some cases of dispute. again emphasize the fact that different records might be made. C140. it looks as if more than one party to a transaction sometimes had a record made: two versions of the sale of a vineyard. p.⁴⁷ There was clearly plenty of opportunity for local variants in the records. We have agreed …).⁴⁶ Two charters. perhaps cf. land sold by a man called Felix and his family to a small local monastery on 1 May 939. C97.⁴³ Indeed. we do not know so much about writers of charters. Christovalo/Cristoforus. the witnesses. ⁴⁷ Liii534. both apparently originals. but it would be much more difficult to make the case for most of northern Spain than it was for Kosto to make it for Catalonia. cf. C144. 107. Terasico/Trassico. Facimus inter nos unatem de …’. Lii410 (968). each had a charter purporting to show his ownership of a disputed inheritance. . ‘Laymen.⁴⁴ To add complication. C32. and documentary practices’. enclosure. ⁴⁵ C31.

Wright.⁵¹ At first glance these words may seem to imply that different people performed different functions during the business of record creation. C46 (944). For examples: Li11 (897). OD26 (986). Wright (ed. Charter texts depended on the repetition of set formulas. Riché. III (986–1031) (León. ⁵¹ Literally ‘writer. 224–5. and ‘write. trans. make a draft. 1987). siglos VI-VIII) (Salamanca. but occasionally exarator . 1991). S178 (960). but sometimes exaravit or titulavit. T. Velázquez Soriano. xxvi. see C. ⁵⁰ B.⁴⁸ One recent editor has described the scripts of originals in the León collection as ‘rustic’. in R. take notes. clerics. very occasionally a scribe’s signing-off clause shows some contemporary ⁴⁸ For the scribes of the great codices of the tenth century. D. 38–9. in I. with some distinction between the composer of the words on the one hand and the writer of the text. the verbs used to describe their actions are usually scripsit or notuit. García Turza (co-ord. R. the product of rural clerics with a ‘low level of culture’. Liii520 (987). Las Pizarras Visigodas. 58. Cf.). Colección de Santa María de Otero de las Due˜ nas. 1989). Cf. 2002). ‘Laymen. notes schools in monasteries and cathedrals and one—exceptional—lay school. Early Ibero-Romance (Newark. S214 (963). Ó Cróinín and D. the bishop who wrote books of the bible and service books with his siblings. La lengua hablada en Hispania. to whom the words were dictated. Colección documental del archivo de la catedral de León. but others have begun to identify individual scribal characteristics. Bischoff.). for the moment we have to make deductions about scribal habits from the texts themselves. it is conventional to suppose that basic training for the composer of charters consisted initially of mastering writing (by copying models over and over again) and then of mastering content by memorizing formulas appropriate for records of different kinds of transaction. 205–18.1000. or even between those two and a third person who prepared a draft on temporary material. J. emphasizing the number of different individuals involved and their capacity for adapting formulas. For Catalonia. (Entre el latín y su disgregación. ⁴⁹ J. Walsh. Although there are a number of possible scenarios. Latin Palaeography: Antiquity and the Middle Ages. 2004). P. Sob123 (867). vol. Kosto. 128. I. Écoles et enseignement dans le haut moyen âge (Paris. . very. Fernández Fl´ orez and Herrero de la Fuente. the seventh-century training ephemera preserved on slates. SM72 (957). and documentary practices’. Latin and the Romance Languages in the Early Middle Ages (London.⁴⁹ Further work on charter scripts can be expected in the future.The Language of Donation 99 training. Ganz (Cambridge. Liii580 (998). from the Psalms and computus. Ruiz Asencio. Los manuscritos visigóticos: estudio paleográfico y codicológico. Códices riojanos datados (Logro˜ no. 58. in the tenth century. c . 27. at 211–12. inscribe’. person who provided a draft on a wax tablet’. M. person who has learned the signs (notae).⁵⁰ The words used to describe the writers in the charters themselves are mainly scriptor and notarius. on the other. ‘Spelling lapses in early medieval Latin documents and the reconstruction of primitive Romance phonology’. 1994). Very occasionally depinxit (literally ‘paint’). 1990).

statements like these are very unusual and it is unlikely that such distinctions were in practice sustained in this early medieval world. ‘Escribir y leer en la alta edad media’. for example. given the levels of scholarship evident in the Riojan manuscripts of the tenth century. Cf. in different areas. Michael Clanchy’s chapter on the technology of writing conveys an excellent sense of the different processes that could be involved in producing medieval records. p. K. qui hoc scripsit (Fragiano. 36–106. in a collection of miscellanea. composed it)’. Zimmermann. and often of lay status. 132. early medieval Italy. 4/2 (1982). as in ‘Fragianus notuit. M. ⁵⁵ ‘Marculf ’s Formulary’. it is more likely that local scribes chose the words as well as writing them down.⁵² However. Cel2 (942). section 5 (Hannover. Faventia. it is very unlikely that there was any such differentiation in small monasteries and among those serving rural localities. ⁵⁴ Modern linguists tend to use the word ‘notary’ to describe these charter writers. which refers explicitly to the law of sale. . 88–115. Aloyto worked in comital circles.100 The Language of Donation awareness of such distinctions. and ‘Aloytus diaconus qui et notarius dictavi et scribsi (I. and the copyist in the great monasteries. From Memory to Written Record: England 1066–1307 (London. Although relating to a different context and a later period.⁵³ While one can well imagine some differentiation between the author. ⁵⁶ Cf. 25–86. Bischoff. 90. Aloyto. 41. who wrote this. on the wide array of preamble formulas in León material. Monumenta Germaniae Historica. the use made of formularies by Brown.⁵⁴ All of these scribes must in effect have been using formularies. Leges in quarto. the scribe. Cf. ‘Un formulaire du Xème siècle conservé à Ripoll’. Cel48 (941). ed. the wealthy deacon Ermegildo indicated that he had provided a written draft of his own bequests. Sob58 (865). ⁵³ Casado de Otaola. Zeumer. rather than transmitted in forms like the comprehensive texts from seventhand eighth-century Francia with which we are familiar (although the tenth-century formulary from the Catalan monastery of Ripoll must indicate that written collections of formulas are far from unthinkable in northern Iberia).and seventh-century records that ⁵² OD2 (932)—copy on a single sheet. have composed and written it)’. ‘When documents are destroyed or lost’. and cf. I have preferred to use the more neutral ‘scribe’. even if orally transmitted through the process of memorization. in Formulae Merowingici et Karolini Aevi. use the same standard formulas over and over again. some of these sale formulas had previously been used in the sixth. 1979). above. Latin Palaeography. to make his case about lay interest. drawing upon their store of memorized formulas. as in. 1886). deacon and notary. in view of its connotations of public office. Li109 (936). for example. it is very difficult to explain why records of sale in the early tenth century. ‘omnia mea que litteris exaravi’.⁵⁵ Without formularies of one kind or the other. particularly sales between laity.⁵⁶ In any case.

⁵⁸ Cf. That there were ready-made elaborate .⁵⁸ The finished text would be read out. ⁵⁹ C122. naming Father. and Holy Spirit three times and dwelling on the concept of unity in the Trinity. C117. made six months later). has made a very strong case for it. Spiritum quoque Sanctum nec anterior nec posterior. includes an unusual sentence noting how she accepted conjugal union with her husband with the aid of a blessing and noting God’s gift to them both of their three children. personal. an otherwise standard record of donation of a substantial house in Grajal in 961. legal language. cf. the greater the number the more likely the record’s origin in a monastic centre: the record of Eldoara’s gift to Do˜ na Imilo begins with no fewer than thirteen (printed) lines of invocation. 219–32. cuius nutu famula Dei Eldoara. in his Miscellanea Wisigothica (Seville. ‘ ‘‘In conscribendis donationibus hic ordo servandus est …’’ ’.). 144–5. 80–1. as instructed. 70–112. 94–8. C123. ‘Un formulaire’.⁵⁹ This was a culture in which spoken performance was as important as the record. and many other cases. see Zimmermann. Wright. R. set ex ambobus procedens …’.⁶² Some ⁵⁷ Velázquez Soriano. Roger Wright’s characterization of the process. Lihoar was associated with Carde˜ na. 129–30. in R. 305–14. C120. C128 (another charter of the transaction recorded in C122. ⁶² ‘Sub Christi nomine et sancte Trinitatis.).g. e. Early Ibero-Romance. but Pastor Díaz de Garayo. ⁶⁰ Cf. in the appropriate fashion—rather like the process of instructing a solicitor in the modern world and securing a document in technical. 130–3. 1991). Blake. Carolingians and the Written Word. Gil (ed. 1972).⁶⁰ Some actors may have requested the inclusion of specific. ⁶¹ S190. a point made explicitly by many Carde˜ na charters: when Munio and his wife sold a vineyard to a man called Lihoar in 965. Filius genitus. 40.The Language of Donation 101 are preserved on slates. nos. Other actors may have requested the inclusion of a few or more pious phrases. it is reminiscent of formulas for the donation of dos. ‘Syntactic aspects of Latinate texts of the early middle ages’. individua maiestas. 8. Lii425 (973). C118. at 359. Las Pizarras Visigodas. Patris videlicet et Filii et Spiritus Sanctus. at 219. ‘Los testimonios escritos’. Although unlike Sahagún diplomatic. touches: for example. Rosamond McKitterick’s.⁶¹ it looks like a personal comment and certainly was not a standard output from the Sahagún scriptorium. 229. Son. Wright (ed. J. from a widow to Sahagún (where the transaction was performed).⁵⁷ We can envisage the process of charter composition like this: an actor in a transaction would tell the scribe the kind of content needed and the latter would then draw up the text. and—with more detail—Belmon’s. ‘Formulae Wisigothicae’. C121. and Gil has demonstrated the likely existence of a ‘Visigothic’ formulary preserved in an early modern manuscript. whether or not this formulary was Visigothic in origin is arguable. C124 (964–5). quod corde credimus et ores proprios Patris ingenitus. they ordered a record to be made and heard it read out. 379. 19. Latin and the Romance Languages in the Early Middle Ages (London. Early Ibero-Romance. C119.

my Redeemer and Saviour’. OD34. Sam115 (982). ‘We are praying. may actually have written their own texts: a small but special group. Li223. for example. ‘obtamus. which are preserved on single sheets. ⁶⁴ ‘I entreat you. are quite different from these: they stand outside the literary crafting. Cel461 (982). te deposco. we are praying’. charters written in royal courts and in major ecclesiastical centres. cf.⁶³ All strike the modern reader with their individuality. royal as against peasant. ‘Zimmermann. A whole page on the glory of the Trinity. and the nuns’ text of Li80. Cel256. ut de nostris oblationibus cunctis quibus placere Deo studuimus nemo nichil aufferre’. an agreement to ‘fight on under the rule and put their shoulders under the abbot’. monk. the royal texts of Li18. by contrast. or holy woman constructing a much more personal record. OD30. as much a personal statement of faith as a record of a material transaction. S114 (949). I demand of you. we wish that no one will take anything from all the offerings with which we strive to please God’. however. O Lord. skills. ‘We wish. This difference is evident if we compare charters of different provenance. ‘so that you spare us. 82–5. merely deeds of conveyance with a cry of adoration or entreaty: ‘te adoro. who were based in a religious context—monastery or lay religious household—and who had training. oramus’. Redemptori ac Salvatori meo’. you who are our creator and guide’. OD37. a stream of consciousness that is barely formulaic at all. Although texts of many kinds deviate from classical Latin norms. 110–12). Li38. Li41. or ‘ut parcas Domine parcas tanto vulnere fessis qui noster es plasmator et ductor’. Li79. SM86 (967). ⁶⁵ Compare. a statement of devotion that an aristocrat ordered to be made. So also the immensely personal texts that break the formulas of what are. ‘oramus. .⁶⁵ The non-classical forms are particularly notable if preambles available is clear from the seven additional donation models in the Ripoll formulary. S330 (986). wearied by such a wound. Some kinds of variation from standard diplomatic. ⁶³ Cel210 (991).⁶⁴ One can imagine the individual cleric. with the peasant transactions recorded in Li82. Domine. pp. with the capacity to do so. Li135.102 The Language of Donation other actors. spare us. Cel7 (950). almost as if written as the writer thought. That such texts were written some intellectual distance away from the art. Sam61 (976—see below. It follows that some of the variations from standard diplomatic occurred because the writers were sufficiently educated to add their own personal touches to the record. Lord. and training of the great monasteries is apparent in their grammar and in some respects in their orthography. obtamus. tended to respect the Latin cases and to use classical or patristic vocabulary. after all. ‘Un formulaire’. and they seem to draw on other traditions. Li139.

loco predictum becomes in locum predictum. and the material cited by Pensado. 127–34.. 11–12. Colección diplomática del monasterio de Sahagún. M. must in some respects reflect habits of pronunciation. Lii270 (954). but especially 165–75. two different cartulary copies. i. ‘How was Leonese Vulgar Latin read?’. 1976). while texts written outside the major centres may sometimes simply have been carelessly written. but many modern commentators accept Wright’s revision. a register between Low Latin and vernacular Romance. To make the ⁶⁶ Li25. ‘Syntactic aspects of Latinate texts’. Ramell’s case below. tibi et uxor tua becomes tibi et uxore tue. ⁶⁸ R. does not stand up to scrutiny. vol. Mínguez Fernández. cf. Banniard. For some contrary views.⁶⁸ their orthography. cf. ‘How was Leonese Vulgar Latin read?’. Latin and the Romance Languages. vol. e.⁶⁹ This is especially striking in texts recording transactions between lay persons. J. Cartulary copies of texts are normally. McKitterick (ed. 207. local vernacular Romance. 695–708. but see Walsh. cf. ‘The non-existence of ‘‘Leonese Vulgar Latin’’ ’. cf. 1 (León. Pensado. priests. The suggestion sometimes made that the formulas in these texts usually have fairly ‘correct’ Latin while the ‘freer composition’ does not. ego … quem fieri voluit becomes [ego] … quam fieri volui. Li79. ‘Spelling lapses’. of later date than their single sheet exemplars. that the scribes were writing their own language. 1995). and the independent. in Wright. 1982). xxv–xxviii. but it can also be true of texts relating to small monasteries (as in the case of the Leticia and Maya text quoted above) and of records of the transactions of the clergy.⁶⁷ These texts are the texts that originated from the smallest monasteries. Sáez. ‘Spelling lapses’. ⁶⁷ This point about the two traditions is made well by Walsh.). Early Ibero-Romance. ‘Language and communication in Carolingian Europe’. . for a concise statement of the argument. I.700–c. and C. in R. in Wright (ed. cf.900 (Cambridge. The New Cambridge Medieval History: Volume II c. Colección de la catedral de León. Li73. nobis non valemus becomes nos non valuerimus. such texts frequently (though not invariably) used non-classical forms of the language. Wright. in other words. without in any sense being phonetic transcription. see also Wright. see M.g. of 13 April 910. the lay households. There have been great debates about the form of the language that these texts reflect: Menéndez Pidal had argued that they represented ‘Leonese Vulgar Latin’. passim. or quasi-independent.e. Lii415 (971).). of course. Blake. ⁶⁹ This is a more contentious point. etc. 210–14. azessit becomes accessit. less systematically. The changes made in cartulary copies are very systematically treated by the editor of the first León volume. for they have a tendency to standardize the spelling and grammar of originals: adque becomes atque. 190–204. Cartulary copies might also augment the number of pious formulas. in firstly single sheet and then cartulary copy versions. They must to some extent reflect local patterns of speech and vocabulary.The Language of Donation 103 cartulary copies from the great monasteries are compared with originals. terra … abiturum becomes terra … abitura. and so on. Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France (Liverpool. 201. Romance.⁶⁶ The contrast between originals and copies shows that.

I quote almost in full a charter written by a priest to record another priest’s gift of half of his goods to a deacon. Macnum est enim tidullum donacionis vel consecione. contra in anc kartulla disrumpendum vennerit vell venerimus. sicut et facio. fiet minime credo for quod fieri minime non credo. per seculla cuncta. tam in vidam quam eciam post hobidum <m>eum. Lii467 (979). quam eciam mea ereditate vell quiquit visum sum avere. and so on. anc per alliquia personam subrogida. both survive on single sheets. like the third-person record of a sale of a vineyard on the river Eslonza made in the late 970s. from east to west. et tibi perpedim avidurum.⁷¹ hence. for more classical versions of standard formulas. expontania volluntate. p. fiet minime credo. set quiquit grado animo. Ida ut ab odierno die vel tempore de nostro iure in vestro iure trada aque confirmata. donatur vell ofertur semper libenter ancplectet. which records a woman’s sale of a vineyard to a priest. in vidam … post hobidum for in vitam … post obitum. quantum … meliorado for quantum … melioratum. Fagildo presbiter … manus mea fecit … Ramell presbiter noduit.⁷² there are hints here of an entirely different diplomatic tradition. for a more classical version of the full opening dispositive formula. medietate ex integra dono vobis adque concedo. Local variation sometimes went further than the use of irregular spelling and grammar. contra in anc kartulla disrumpendum vennerit for aliquis contra hanc cartulam ad inrumpendum venerit. anc per nos. in 977. 2. plaguit mizi for placuit mihi. but that Ramell chose to write them down in nonclassical grammar and spelling. in Domino Deo eternam salludem. Ego Fagildo presbiter tibi Sabbarigo diaconus. Sometimes a collection includes a record of quite different form. and the example cited above. 105. ⁷¹ See below. Facta kartulla donacionis ipsas kalendas ienuarias. n.104 The Language of Donation point. in co nemo poteest largidatis inrumpere. Very standard material but non-standard transmission. Ideoque plaguit mizi ut faceremus tibi. Ramell’s charter quoted above is in fact ⁷⁰ Lii448. . Siquis tamen. Other hints of the existence of different diplomatic traditions occur in records of gifts introduced by the formula ‘Magnus est titulus donationis’. ⁷² Lii472 (single sheet).⁷⁰ What is particularly interesting here is that the charter uses very standard formulas. In Dei nomine. facio es eo quot tum estederit volluntas. tu <e>t omnis posteredas tua. which occur throughout the tenth-century corpus. era xv post M. tunc abeaas podestadem de nos adprende ipso que in ista kartulla resonat duplado vell quantum ad te fuerit meliorado. is another good example. kartula donationis vell consezionis de omnia mia kausa.

144–5. a diplomatic familiar to local priests and monasteries in their various localities and primarily used to record gifts from one lay person to another. some of which had archaic elements. but a very high proportion of the transactions in which it occurs is between lay persons. Sahagún. by which a gift cannot be broken or put beyond the law. a king’s gift to a trusted servant⁷⁵ —but many are peasants contracting with other peasants. Liii530 (989—single sheet). in fact. It is. one of Gil’s formulas of ‘Visigothic’ origin and may have had a long history of pre-tenth-century use. ⁷⁴ For examples across time and space: Sob72 (858). Li223 (950). where there was ⁷³ S318 (15 May 984). and there was some local variation in scribal habits. but infrequently. but. C203 (992). Cel498 (927). Miscellanea Wisigothica.⁷³ The sentence is usually followed by something like ‘Ideo placuit nobis … (Therefore we have agreed … )’. Sob12 (945).The Language of Donation 105 one of these but here is the full formula in a more standard form (there are often variants on the last part of the sentence): ‘Magnus est titulus donationis in qua nemo potest actum largitatis irrumpere neque foras legem proicere sed quicquid grato animo donatur pronaque voluntate facere quis decreverit semper libenter amplectitur’.⁷⁴ Not surprisingly. and with their more powerful neighbours. Loosely translated as ‘Great is the deed of donation. and monasteries or religious individuals might benefit from such gifts. This formula occurs in Liébana. Celanova. C188 (981). it introduces records of gifts. The actors are not exclusively lay (as the Ramell case makes clear). S370 (972). whatever be given with a thankful heart. S178 (960). S214 (963). ⁷⁶ Gil (ed. ⁷⁵ Cel576 (916). many of the records were in fact made by priests.). These may be of high status—a count’s gift to his wife. see Casado de Otaola. on interest in copying Visigothic texts in the tenth century. Lii315 (959). it crops up here and there. T19 (914). Cel304 (937). the use of this formula is not especially common. Members of local communities used writing. Li35 (915). Here we have a trace of a diplomatic that was different from the dominant tenth-century ecclesiastical tradition.⁷⁶ These uneven traces of local diplomatic practice suggest that those who made records were working with existing traditions. Although undoubtedly widespread. Sobrado. . Records were made for the laity regardless of whether or not there was a large monastery nearby and whether or not a large monastery was an actor in the transaction. records using standard formulas were made for the laity in rural communities. Lii411 (969). and Carde˜ na charters. ‘Escribir y leer en la alta edad media’. across the tenth century. León. he who so desires can proclaim it for ever free’. 100–1. writing had standard elements.

) ⁸⁰ For example. of archaic origin. as did monks. Li76 (928). for examples.106 The Language of Donation no large (or small) monastery. and giving words can easily total 300 to 500 words. and lengthy sanctions. Liii550 (991). A very high proportion of the charters with florid preambles.⁷⁹ Kings and bishops were not the only originators of such elaborate texts. lodged in the great aristocratic and ecclesiastical houses. for example. by the tenth century. ⁷⁹ For example. pious explanations. for even the gifts of kings could be recorded in short formal documents. variant standards. episcopal texts on single sheets: Li43 (917). records the gifts of aristocrats and religious persons. records were made by local priests. but survive only in cartulary copies. 112. see. was shared by local priests and by those in greater centres. the sanction quoted in the Appendix to this chapter. pp.⁷⁷ This was not invariably so. comital and other aristocratic families did so too. a much wider range of formulas available. with standard formulas. about 80% of these elaborated texts are associated with the deeds of those who are identifiably noble or ecclesiastical and an even greater proportion of the exceptionally elaborate documents have those associations: royal and episcopal documents are usually immediately recognizable by their length. royal texts on single sheets: Li38 (916). not surprisingly.⁷⁸ However. an abbot Lii409 (968). p. This is of exceptional importance in understanding not only the records but the culture. record-making tradition. like Alfonso IV’s gift to the monastery of Abellar on 15 March 930. The inclusion of an elaborate religious sanction. sometimes surfaced in the localities. which used those standard formulas but which had. preamble. priests. See also the aristocratic gifts . (Many episcopal charters are much longer. ⁷⁸ Li86 (single sheet). and deacons. it has a short text but quite a long witness list. notification. 89–91. a priest Li93 (932). Further. some nuns Liii535 (990).⁸⁰ There are two particularly interesting sub-sets of ⁷⁷ See above. On the other hand. Lii270 (954). five or six times the length of the brief texts with which I began this chapter. L A N G UAG E A N D S TAT U S Elaborate language. tends to be employed in the records of donors who had high status. there was also a much more elaborate recordmaking habit (or series of habits). in effect performing a notarial function for peasant communities. an aristocratic couple Liii587 (999)—all on single sheets. is a particular feature of records of gifts to religious bodies. in addition to a secular sanction. a basic.

It is tempting to suppose that they composed these records themselves. who believed he had identified the distinctive institution of familiaritas. were laity committed to follow a religious lifestyle. ⁸² See below. Orlandis. Lii413. frequently termed confessus or confessa. with their children. Ermigia. but their records often terminate with the name of a male scribe. but did not join a monastery. in J. e. These people. 217–378. 53–4. See Sam23 (982) for a wealthy confessus who made a public statement of his commitment. like C27 (935) and C42 (943) (excluding the many falsified records here). ‘ ‘‘Traditio corporis et animae’’. ⁸³ See J. Cel92 (968).e. see above. i. as some may well have done. that is. often remaining in their secular households and continuing in effect to live secular lives.⁸² The former abbot Diego was the writer for Eilo and Goisenda. for doubts about this interpretation. Many of the most lengthy and pious charters record the gifts of religious women—abbesses. Orlandis. pp. women committed to God)—like the two nuns. who may have been author and not simply someone who recorded their dictation. Cel256 (936). Laicos y monasterios en la alta edad media espa˜ nola’. who gave her half of a substantial estate near the river Valderaduey to the nunnery of Santiago in León in 970. 180 for a likely example of female authorship. such as the comital records in the Carde˜ na collection. Lay religious families were not especially numerous either but their presence is nevertheless striking in association with this kind of text. cf.⁸¹ The former charter begins with an elaborate invocation and a very elaborate salutation. before describing the property at some length and seeking some regular memorial for the donors. 1971). and a long sanction. Eilo and Goisenda. nuns. They were clearly publicly identifiable—perhaps they wore distinctive clothing or some kind of badge—and appear to have been recognized as distinctive in major cartularies. who gave their (clearly substantial) estates to the abbot of Celanova in 993. p. C187 (981). a lengthy description of the property.⁸³ Married couples stayed together. ⁸¹ Cel216 (see also an alternative version at Cel251).The Language of Donation 107 this group: women and lay religious families. or the ancilla Christi. . Estudios sobre instituciones monásticas medievales (Pamplona. The percentage of women donors in these elaborate texts is not in itself striking but the association of women with some of the most developed expressions of piety is notable. and such as the gifts of Bishop Rosendo’s family in the Celanova collection. followed by a lengthy preamble with three biblical quotations. ancillae or famulae Dei (‘female servants of God’. The latter has an elaborate salutation. They appear to have taken some kind of vow of commitment. lay membership of a monastic family. Cel7 (950).g.

with his wife and children. see above. p. it is not at all surprising that the records of their donations should have a more than usually pious bent. Of such a type is my opening example. ⁸⁶ See above. Cel497 (950). another couple give a vineyard in Marmellar. S332 (986). with others unnamed (germanos minores). See further below. p. 96–8. gave to the same nunnery in León in 995 as Ermigia had done.108 The Language of Donation individuals. overwhelmingly. give a quarter of a mill on the river Cea to the monastery of Valdávida. also confessa. Cel409 (990).⁸⁸ The gifts may have been made for pious reasons but. S173 (960). a man gives the monastery of Abellar some bits and pieces in Marialba. 177. often by local ⁸⁴ I am grateful to Roger Collins and Susan Wood for their help in understanding the nature of this group. the widow of a duke. SM54 (c . donation documents overwhelmingly relate to the transactions of small-scale. OD14 (964. Cel530 (999). pp.⁸⁵ In view of their distinctive lifestyle. gave to the church of Santa Maria in Oso˜ no. single sheet). just as the texts recording sales from lay person to lay person often relate to this group. For a wider range. They deal. T73 (975). C107 (962). and public position.⁸⁴ A man and his wife. Royal courts. Donation is recorded in many ways in tenth-century Spain. By contrast. requesting a place for her own burial there. for peasant donors. a man called Julián. the scribe did not adorn the document with pious phrases.⁸⁶ They may indeed include a brief phrase of pious explanation—hardly surprising when the beneficiary was a monastery and the scribe a local priest—but they do not elaborate the explanations and they do not pile formula upon formula. as the longer charters do. with small properties: a couple and their children give their share in a saltpan to Carde˜ na. the short. but fear of hell and hope of reward did not. episcopal households. Cel492 (988). single sheet). confessa. confessus and confessa. Liii575 (997). quoting twice from scripture. ⁸⁷ Li203. ⁸⁵ Liii570. 88. unelaborated. in Galicia a count’s mother. recording a gift to a monastery by a lay woman and her husband in 948.949). four named siblings. T35 (927).⁸⁷ There are many other such examples. Saving the soul may well have merited a mention. gave to Celanova in a highly elaborate record. gives Bishop Rosendo several bits and pieces of land in the neighbourhood of the river Arnoia. ⁸⁸ C30 (937). Li126 (938. peasant farmers. but records were also made in local communities for lay people. a woman and her children give a priest her share in the local orchards of Montecillo. and major monasteries had their own dedicated scribes and their own distinctive styles of writing. . see for example Sob71 (918).

simpler records. Kings. . are so personal it is extremely difficult to see them as other than the responsibility of the alienator. Some donation texts. like peasant vendors. Lii371–74. A standard group of donation formulas seems to have been available to virtually every kind of writer. whether alienator or beneficiary.⁸⁹ Peasants may also have been less concerned about the delights of the heavenly kingdom. perhaps peasants made gifts to priests and monasteries for different reasons from those that stimulated kings and aristocrats. Peasant donors. 98). aristocrats. Whoever paid for the production of their texts. but some scribes deployed these within an array of florid and elaborate language.The Language of Donation 109 priests or deacons. as they were also made in small monasteries. This must in part have been because they did not have access to the most highly trained record-makers but it may also have been because intentional points were being made about status. In such cases. have almost identical formulas. bishops. apparently did not consider it suitable to decorate records of peasant transactions with florid language. on the same day in 964. for example. For more standard texts. beneficiary instruction must be a possibility: four sales to the same purchaser. and we know that both parties sometimes had documents made (see above. abbots. are associated with shorter. derived from formularies. and lay religious families are associated with the most elaborate forms of record. ⁸⁹ Although the voice of the charter text is the voice of the alienator. one might think it was more in the interest of beneficiaries of gift or sale to see to the production of a document—all beneficiaries. we must presume that the drafters thought ‘basic’ texts appropriate for peasant alienations. Indeed. not just the major monasteries. p. however.

Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. who live by the holy rule. confirm your election as abbot and guardian of this place … We give you. beloved son. and does evil shall have no part with you here … Always listen to our sound advice. and everything which we give you. and do not fail to pray and celebrate anniversaries. with substantial appurtenant properties and churches. this holy place of St Martin. the priest Vermudo. the priest Vermudo. and all the brothers. Use all your goods. because we only assign Christ as your heir.’ In nomine sancte et individue Trinitatis. you should build. . And if a good man should arrive. The opening invocation and salutation. in the Lord God … I and the confessa Nunnita [his wife]. contumacious. do all good things. who will help you in all good things. his family monastery of Santiago and San Pelayo de Barbadelo in Galicia. with their feet rushing to church. with their hands toiling. The witnesses listed are of very high status. dating clause. and spend your days on good works. our son. banish evil.Appendix to Chapter 4 A N E X A M P L E O F A L E N G T H Y D O N AT I O N C H A RT E R In this record of 3 June 963. take care of all our goods. are all close to standard formulas. but the long and repetitive disposition is not at all standard in its arrangement and. et in ultimo Nunnita confessa. men who persist in the fear of God night and day. the confessus Sunilano gives his son. and you. quam edificavit Audilane et Teodemundus abba. and show your generosity. et ipse Sunilane initiabimus ⁹⁰ Sam61. and the final sanction. you shall have in perpetuity. ‘I your poor servant Sunilano … salute you. and witness list. Ego exiguus famulus tuus Sunilani confessus vobis patronis meis sancto Iacobo apostolo et sancto Pelagio et omnibus reliquiis sanctorum.⁹⁰ For a flavour of the text in English. freely rendered. from God in heaven. and ensuring a reward for travellers and the poor. so that you offer God your soul. and he who is proud. he should receive your love. quorum hic continentur ecclesia hic in Barvatello. with its buildings and all appurtenances. and attract good men. passages. work. who should be humble and obedient. although it draws from standard formulas from time to time. so that you reap the fruit of your labour in eternal joy and we receive a reward before God. where there is a more suitable place for a monastery. with good heart. and seek advice from good men. Visclafredoni abba. its overall effect is to suggest a personal view of hopes and aspirations. either one of our relations or someone unconnected. and set it up. here are some brief.

cum omnibus bonis suis et suis familiis et suos cartarios.Appendix to Chapter 4 111 et quantum potuimus tantum fecimus. sicut ille mihi concessit per textum scripture testamenti ecclesiam sancti Petri cum omnibus suis bonis sicut in scripturas illius resonat in primis locum sancti Salvatoris latere montis Parami. tiis. et omnia bona facite. palatiis. quam etiam et de meo iermano Veremudo. iumenta. and two hereditates. et beatus homo qui sperat in Te. rebus. et intus in ea. et antecessores. nunc tempus ego quidem confessionis iugo Christi militum totis viribus sanctorum patrum normam desiderans. tam de aviis. et plantes et homines bonos ad te aplices qui te adiuvent in omnibus bonis et. qui in timore Dei persistant die noctuque et. dilecte fili. Tam ego Sunilani simul et Nunnita confesa. Dubium quidem non est sed plerisque cognitum manet atque notissimum patet cum sis tu filius meus iam quidem sacerdotali honori adeptus. nepte Visclafredoni abba. Pelagii filio. armenta. Ego quidem Sunilani confessus tibi filio nostro Veremudo presbitero in domino Deo eternam salutem amen. one with a church. placuit mihi atque convenit propia mea voluntate integroque consilio liberoque arbitrio. in omnibus istis locis facias. sicut et nos presentes fecimus Deo iubente et scriptura dicente ‘Qui inter vos fuerit humilis et ultimus sit vester dominus et qui fuerit inter vos maior sit vester servus’. et qui adiutus est a Deo. qui per regulam sanctam vivant pedibus alacres ad ecclesiam. avunculis vel parentibus meis. et facite labores. et ad mercedem in pauperes et peregrinos. mala dimittite. et oves et omnes suas adiunctiones ubique in nomine meo et de ipso priore fratre meo iam memorato ab omni integritate tibi dono atque concedo. monet enim Dominus dicens ‘Date et dabitur vobis’. Ipsum locum sanctum iam prefatum sanctum Martinum cum cunctis edifitiis et prestationibus suis et omnibus suis familiis et suis scriptis veteribus et novis et omnibus bonis suis. ut reportetis fructum laborum vestrorum in gaudium eternum et nos recipiamus mercis lucrum ante Deum. vel omnes sui fratres. tibi concedimus a Deo excelso et. vel avolos et tios nostros usque ad minimam rem cum omnibus edificiis. manibus ad laborem. priores. seven villas. ubi plus aptum fuerit locus pro monasterio. quoniam mors antecedit nobis et quem dominus adiutus fuerit renovet et conmutet in melius. ut in Dei honore et tuo amore facerem tibi filio meo iam dicto textum scripture de bonis meis. et aliam ecclesiam sancti Mametis erga ripa Logii cum omnibus bonis suis sicut in scripturis suis vel testamenti resonat … [plus seven further churches. Dayldus presbiter. unde in primis inquoavimus et hic finimus. et du. presbitero. et sanctum Iacobum cum omnibus bonis suis. rem viventem. ripa Logii. apes. quia alium heredem tibi non ponimus nisi Christum. vel quicquid visus sum habere. . filii Trodilli. Omnia vestra expendite et vestros votos et anniversarios et kalendarios ne pigritetis. Fredenandus et Ioaquintus et Ayricus presbiter. one with a church]. Vistressilli confesa. hec omnia condonarunt nobis et de illis abba et eligerunt vel tutorem loci illius. edifices. tene custodiam super omnia nostra. instruas.

Ranemirus princeps confirmo. et omnia nostra ubicumque potueris invenire. Notum die III nonas iunii era XIVa post milesima. qui pro animabus suis devote curam gerant. et hec series testamenti in perpetuum habeat firmitatis roborem euo perenni. et pro temporali pena pariat tibi vel voci tue omnia que in testamento resonat duplata vel triplata et insuper unum auri talentum exsolvat post partem ecclesie potestatis. que culmen est bonorum operum. qui et pro te currat et nos non obliet. qui plus humilis fuerit et obediens. . Giloira Deo dicata confirmo. humilis servus Christi et ministri Dei et ancille Christi. Rudesindus episcopus confirmo. Insuper tibi dilecto filio nostro vel abbati concedimus ecclesiam sancti Adriani in illo monte de Paramo. cui tu omnia reliqueris in parte ecclesie nostre. et cum Iuda Domini proditore habeat partem in eterna dampnatione. Sunilani confirmans in hac scriptura testationis et donationis manu propia signum indidi. que gratanter a nobis sunt adnotata irrevocavilia permaneant secula cuncta … sequentibus temporibus hunc factum meum infringere aut inrrumpere temptaverit vel presumpserit. Rudericus Velasquiz confirmo. et omnia que tibi cum bono animo concedimus habeas in perpetuum vel ille. Hec omnia suprataxata. et cum bonis consilium prebe. et distributorem te ostendas. Salubre nostrum audi consilium semper. ipse de manu tua accipiat. Nunnita confesa in hac series testamenti. in parte extranea vel secularia aut fiscalia non promittimus nec cuiquam. quam fieri volui manus mea confirmo. superbus et contumax et maleficus nullam partem hic tecum habeat. sicut illam obtinuit domnus Ambrosius. Veremudus serenissimus princeps confirmo. Naustas testis. nec vocem habeat nec licentiam sed sit excomunicatus a fide catholica et a corpore et sanguine Domini. Arias testis. armiger eius.112 Appendix to Chapter 4 Et si de aliqua parte homo bonus advenerit ex propinquis aut extraneis. Froila Vimaraz. confirmo. ut inamam tuam cum fructu bono Deo offeras. et domnus Ranosindus nobis concessit per scriptura testamenti et de presura de nostris intercessoribus vel aviis. Alvitus testis. caritatem. et in operibus bonis dies tuos in bono expende.

that is without explicit prior agreement that something will be given back in return. pretium. consistently associating sale but not gift with the concept of price. . In this modern understanding. but karta commutationis could also be used. ‘giving’ is differentiated from ‘exchanging’ and from ‘selling’. price normally being paid in movables of measurable value. nearly 90% of all the donations recorded in these charters were made to ecclesiastical individuals or communities. and about four fifths of those were expressly made for pious reasons of one kind or another. In modern legal usage donation is about handing things over ‘without consideration’. 135–8.5 Donation to Churches: Purpose and Expectations Whatever we might think was the peasant rationale for donation. ² See below.¹ Of course. pp. for countergifts. for that which was to be given in return. Indeed. Exchanges usually involved exchange of one piece of landed property for another. in other words from handing something over as a result of an agreement between two or more parties. as in the former. They sometimes come in a formulaic statement. explicitly pious reasons for giving are stated throughout this material. they sometimes come as a specific intention—I give you this in order that I may be buried in the porch of the church at N—and they sometimes come as a formulaic or personalized request for continuing commemoration. perhaps elaborated. things were given in return for gifts—most obviously countergifts² —and things might also be expected to be given in return for gifts. with a precise return specified in advance. and both dare and kartula vindicione for that in Lii388 (965). just as we expect some kind of parity in ¹ See below. Tenthcentury Iberian scribes also usually differentiated clearly between the concepts of giving and selling. The language of exchange records hovered between that of sale and gift: we find both donare and kartula vendictionis for the exchange in Lii386 (965). 135–6. perhaps brief. pp.

in tenth-century northern Spain.114 Donation to Churches present-giving in the twenty-first-century western world. de producción y parentesco en la edad media y moderna (Madrid. An air of reciprocity hung about these transactions. ‘Dominios monásticos y parentelas en la Castilla altomedieval: el origen del derecho de retorno y su evolución’. A.⁵ There is therefore an element of the contractual. mediators between this life and the next. especially 132–43. in R. nor that there was the kind of overarching ‘gift economy’ that has been proposed for some early medieval societies. who argues that the distinction between gift and sale only really appeared in the twelfth century. Kinship and Gifts to Saints: The Laudatio Parentum in Western France. for the classic literature on gift exchange and for studies of early medieval giving.). monks and clergy became intercessors. 1988). for example. tenth-century texts make it clear that donors expected a return for their gifts in the earthly world and occasionally their scribes brought the concept of sale into such transactions. Cf. Note the thoughtful assessment of the place of gift exchange in early medieval Frankish societies in J. the Carde˜ na collection. 26–7. Guerreau-Jalabert. Relaciones de poder. 909–1049 (Ithaca. such as B. however. although the records kept the concepts separate. However. Pastor (ed. although even these are clearly differentiated.³ Charters recording sales for price are almost as common as those recording gifts. in much of ³ See above. . Kinship and Gifts to Saints. 2003).⁴ Sometimes. there is no implication in this corpus of material that a countergift was obligatory. arranging the ultimate return. 196. early medieval donation to the church was a kind of giving which often did envisage an ultimate return. M. the distinction between gift and sale is usually sustained and is very clear in most sets of texts. pp. in contrast. I. ‘Caritas y don en la sociedad medieval occidental’. 1990). Custom. sometimes overt. 1050–1150 (Chapel Hill. ⁴ See the excellent discussion of these issues by Stephen White. pp. 60 (2000). 136–7. 13–49. Hispania. see further below. argued that no return was expected for such gifts. by virtue of the gift. 1989). as if the gift required so obvious a return that the scribes did not know how to classify it. 175–93. Custom. is an exception in having relatively few sale texts. Économie rurale et société dans l’Europe franque (VI e –IX e siècles). Very occasionally the texts even seem confused between the categories. Devroey. others have made the point for northern Spain that sale became more evident in the late eleventh century. Rosenwein. sometimes implicit. However. H. Loring García. vol.-P. for example. White. To Be the Neighbor of Saint Peter: The Social Meaning of Cluny’s Property. That something was expected back is explicitly stated by the more elaborate charter formulas and implicitly indicated in many of the briefer charters of gift. 158. 30–4. for example. at 47–8. Nevertheless. ⁵ Lii357. 27–62. even if it was to come after the donor’s death. as if they thought that the vendors were doing outright deals with the clergy for their immediate benefit. 1 (Paris.

91. after a long preamble and lengthy detail of the gifts. p. like burial. S221. That was not at all unusual in the European context. awareness of the post mortem return is often close to the surface of the texts that record them. but it is the intention here to identify and explore the rationales that were stated. material. 26–7. the three categories of rationale identified by J. unrecorded. 185. also. 54–6: spiritual. that ‘from that [i. Cf. (Salamanca. after the invocation and short disposition. A. 1969).Donation to Churches 115 tenth-century donation to the church in northern Spain. Just as they did in other parts of Europe at the same time. and for us there shall be remission of sins before God’.. ⁹ S220. cf. Jobert. 192. above. and expecting some kind of countergift.e. food for the monks. ⁷ Cf. El dominio del monasterio de San Millán de la Cogolla (siglos X a XIII). and alms for the needy. La notion de donation. Kinship and Gifts to Saints. from the gift] there shall be lighting for the altar. dated ⁶ Cf. There may well have been many other.⁶ In what follows I shall deal in turn with the three kinds of expression of pious motivation (formulaic statement. some gifts were made to churches and clerics for reasons that were not religious. layers of motivation. 1977). specific request. . the favourite Celanova formula contrasting the temporal subsidy gained by the monastery with the perpetual reward to the donor. S303.⁸ The record of the much smaller gift of Fruela Vélaz and his wife of 23 June 964 concludes.⁷ However. Jobert argued that the ideology of the redemptive value of giving was established by the seventh century. See White. ⁸ S144. Convergences 630–750 (Paris. support for the poor. the text continues ‘you can give alms to the poor and to slaves from these gifts. Custom. a fifth-century Ravenna bishop’s ‘négoce spirituel’. and donation for the purpose of commemoration). Ph.⁹ The record of the gift of a villa by Genobreda and her son. exploring their spatial and temporal occurrence. ibid. these will be considered subsequently. García de Cortázar y Ruiz de Aguirre. some records display a clear understanding of the causal relationship between giving in life and reward in heaven: in the record of the gifts of Foracasas ibn Tajón to the monastery of Sahagún of 1 January 955. for a good discussion of similar notions. However. F O R M U L A I C PI E T Y Most gifts to the church in these collections were made for no return in life. so that (ut) I earn God’s pardon for my sins through your holy intercession’. Nu˜ no.

However. These formulas were sometimes of the elaborate kind discussed in the preceding chapter and were sometimes brief and simple. The Latin cases vary. Nu˜ no’s father … so that (ut ) we shall be worthy to find pardon for our sins before God’. ‘Ita ut … duos agros et ipsa vinea … sit concessum pro animabus nostris’. ut pro animam meam curam gerant’. Li175 (943). ob remedium animarum nostrarum … ’. C18 (929). as in the Sahagún and Samos examples above. either in combination with other purposes or alone: pro anima mea (for my soul) or pro remedio animarum nostrarum (for the salvation of our souls) or pro remedio animae fratris mei (for the salvation of my brother’s soul) are the standard forms. The reasons recorded for the overwhelming majority of donations to churches were very general. ‘ut pro remedio anime mee vel pro anima domno meo Gundissalbo Telliz. The purposes most directly associated with the verbs of giving were remission of sin. Lii298 (956). pro animae meae. with the same words repeated in many charters from across northern Spain and across the century. goes on to say ‘we offer our villa to God and to this holy monastery of Samos for the salvation of the soul of Cesabi Efimariz.¹¹ In most of these Spanish charter collections. but the explicit connection between immediate value to Sahagún or Samos and long-term benefit to the donor is particular to these records. and so on. pro remedium. pardon for sin. after a relatively short preamble. If they were elaborate. For the expanded form. the last three are on single sheets. ¹¹ For example. emphasizing the terrors of the day of judgment or hopes of eternal reward in heaven. or of someone close to the donor. that features most consistently in the records. ‘Conzedimus ibidem ipso monte. a long preamble might provide a religious context for the gift. as well as the forms given above. Very standard formulas were used. the original ‘Ordonius rex et Urraka regina … Vovimus votum Domino Deo nostro. OD35 (993). propter remedium animas nostras vel de parentes nostros … ’. usually some words of intention were also directly linked with the giving words in the phrases or clauses of the disposition (‘I give so that … ’). just over half of the donations made for pious reasons refer to the soul.116 Donation to Churches 17 April 970. for example: ‘Concedo [duas rationes] post parte monasterii … ut sit in manibus abbatis … ad cuius regimen fratres fuerint reconditi. pro remedio animabus nostris. .¹⁰ The ideas here are standard and formulaic in expression. it was salvation of the soul of the donor. or prayers from the monks. Formulaic references to the soul are not in themselves ¹⁰ Sam102. although occasionally there is expansion to take in the cure or care (cura) of the soul (pro anima mea curam abeant ). intercession with the saints. usually without language or intention that was specific to the donor. we find pro animam. trado … ’. S219 (964).

). and gifts for rather general pious reasons. whether mentioning the soul or not: they do not request celebration of particular anniversaries. and drew attention to their occurrence in mission areas of northern Gaul from the late seventh century and their frequent use in Alsace and Germany thereafter. in K. H. Jobert identified the first occurrences in Ravenna documents of the early seventh century. at 584–93. because there are important distinctions to be made between records that use the pro anima/pro remedio animae formulas and those that do not: the distinction between gifts for very specific pious reasons.Donation to Churches 117 remarkable in the context of early medieval European records. see W. Davies. Wollasch (eds. for such statements occur widely. 29. Schmid and J. Borgolte. ‘Saint Mary’s Worcester and the Liber Landavensis’.-C. pp. Journal of the Society of Archivists. in J. LL178. See J. LL184. Galler Urkunden’. although it was exceptionally common from then onwards. Arenga. insular and continental. at 107. see White. 76–8. Spätantike und Mittelalter im Spiegel von Urkundenformeln (Graz. Custom. cf. . Jobert. e. Memoria. ‘Gedenkstiftungen in St. M. has some significance. M. 459–85. Memoria. it occurs in Celtic contexts. Schmitt and O. especially 259–61 for references.¹⁴ The shorthand is unfortunate. or construction of a church or oratory in a specific place. About 42% of donations to the church were made pro ¹² Jobert. to such an extent that one might think the pro anima formula invariable. for discussion of the quota or ‘fifth’. 213–17. Der geschichtliche Zeugniswert des liturgischen Gedenkens im Mittelalter (Munich. English and continental. 105–26. G. 578–602. Orlandis. or burial of specific individuals. ‘La elección de sepultura en la Espa˜ na medieval’. Notion de donation. at 464–6 (its use in largely uncorrupted Llandaff charters of the eighth and ninth centuries is notable.). Fichtenau. 1976). see above. 1957). they simply use one or more of the pious formulas. 224. À propos d’un objet d’histoire en Allemagne’. pro anima mea was not so commonly used before the eleventh century. 1984). requiring specific action on the part of the beneficiary. although it would be fair to observe that scholars of many regions tend to use ‘gifts pro anima’ as shorthand for any kind of giving to the church in this period. the pro anima formula became more common in the eleventh and twelfth than in earlier centuries. LL169a). ‘Commentaire. in his La iglesia en la Espa˜ na visigotica y medieval (Pamplona. Oexle (eds.¹² In more western parts of the continent. on its ‘dilatation’ from the mid-eleventh century. the ideas of donation en beneficio del alma and the pro anima cuota are fundamental to Spanish scholarly discourse of the early and mid-twentieth century.¹³ In Spain. In the order of two thirds of donations to the church were made forwhat can only be called formulaic or ‘unspecific’ pious reasons.g. in earlier centuries. cf. ¹³ In western European charters. Lauwers. 4 (1972). Notion de donation. 144. Les tendances actuelles de l’histoire du Moyen Âge en France et en Allemagne (Paris. Kinship and Gifts to Saints. Interestingly. ¹⁴ ‘For the benefit of the soul’ and ‘the pro anima quota’. 257–306. 2002).

pp. ¹⁷ These percentages do not include donations to the laity. Li110 (936). As we can see. too much significance cannot be attached to proportions in those cases: Albelda. San Juan de la Pe˜ na. interestingly and surprisingly.5 5 36 0 9 13 20 11 0 14 121 ¹⁵ Li27 (912). ‘potius per eius intercessione aliquam ante Deum possim invenire remunerationem’).1 Expressions of piety in records of donation to the church. for donations to the church that were expressly made for non-religious reasons (6%). ‘propter amore beatissimi paradisi et evadendum laquens penarum inferni’. pro remedio animae 34 38 48 40 34 47 53 41 62 43 45 20 31 11 42 370 Specific pious reasons 12 10 10 15 22 9 8 5 19 24 7 10 33 56 12 108 Secular reasons 16 5 4 7 22 5. without using those particular formulas (they use.118 Donation to Churches anima/pro remedio animae. Arlanza. Lii309 (958). as percentages of stated reasons for giving in those records¹⁷ Unspecific pious reasons Cel Sam Sob L OD S C SM A Ar V SJP T Ov Total % Total nos 17 39 28 23 11 33 33 17 19 24 32 30 22 22 26 229 Pro anima. while about 14% of such donations. ‘ut merces michi eveniad per vestro intercessu apud Domini copiosa’. although Table 5. another 26% were made for unspecific pious reasons. and its influence on the historiography of donation. stated. Note that the raw numbers for some collections are small. have negligible or no expressions of piety. by collection. ¹⁶ See below. . pious reasons. Oviedo.¹⁶ Given the later frequency of the formula.¹⁵ another 12% were made for very specific. Otero de las Due˜ nas. 126–30.5 1 1 0 0 3 20 3 11 6 49 No pieties 21 8 10 15 11 5 . hence variation from figures for percentages of all donations. the 42% mean for the occurrence of pro anima/pro remedio animae is surprisingly low. for example.

many of the records on single sheets from other sources have ¹⁸ Lii270 (954). it is the 980s before the formula was obviously used in preference to others. the original single sheet does not have it. . Celanova and San Millán collections—in very different regions—are notable for their high proportions of records that have no or minimal expression of pieties. it is nevertheless the 970s before the formula occurs there. while both the pro anima formula and other expressions of pious motivation occur on single sheets. Most of these are not regionally differentiated. the point is made even more clearly: in León collections. While the explanation for such diversity must sometimes be to do with individual actors’ instructions to the scribe.¹⁸ The low incidence of the expression in the single sheets of the Otero collection is also striking. as also does that from Otero de las Due˜ nas. The broad trend is that pro anima grants are much more common in the second half of the tenth century than in the first. it is the 980s before the formula becomes common. although it occurs in Sahagún material from the 920s. Looking at the chronology of occurrences helps to develop this explanation. since it starts later and continues strongly in the last two decades of the tenth century. and for Samos. it must be likely that record-making practice is the principal explanation—particularly when collections from different monasteries in one region have divergent practice. when raw numbers of records decline. Although the Otero collection has few records of donation to the church. This trend does not match the overall incidence of donations. but the low and very low proportions of pro anima grants in the far northern Cantabrian and Asturian collections of the Liébana and Oviedo are striking. the 950s are the years when the relative balance between use of this formula and of other non-specific formulas changes. it barely occurs at all before the 950s. even though grants to the church are being recorded. Take in particular Ordo˜ no III’s restoration of a suburban León church to the bishopric: the cartulary copy adds ‘remedium anime avorum vel parentum nostrorum’. there are in fact some striking variations from it. Indeed. although many Celanova records lack pious expressions. while it is interesting that they have correspondingly high proportions of specific pious reasons.Donation to Churches 119 many collections reflect the mean. If we look at collections with a significant number of charters on single sheets. the increasing use of pro anima from the 950s is in records for which we only have cartulary copies. although it occurs in León material from the 910s.

g. S PE C I F I C PI E T Y Although standard formulas may have been used as well. pp.120 Donation to Churches few pious expressions. again it is reasonable to suppose that the record-maker. Territoire. where it occurs in originals there tends to be a strong monastic or royal interest. at least. were often ‘crisis’ (e. 115–16. pp. deathbed) gifts. 106–8. express a contemporary ideology of expected reward in heaven. associated especially with the gifts of clergy. 262. where demonstrable. ²⁰ See above.¹⁹ that usage clearly started to increase in the last decades of the tenth century. while pro anima and pro remedio animae certainly occur in charters from the ninth century onwards. 123. Feller on pious donation as an eleventh-century phenomenon in central Italy. in effect. To Be the Neighbor. 821–2. and L. 125. 1998). this cannot apply to many of the shorter charters. Cf. pp. but no comparable awareness is indicated by the short charters with an unspecific pro anima/pro remedio animae. full of pieties.²⁰ Where awareness of the reward is causally related to the verbs of giving. Notably. Consorting with Saints: Prayer for the Dead in Early Medieval France (Ithaca.²¹ or where the soul of a named relative is identified. there was no contemporary stated rationale for a significant (though immeasurable) proportion of tenth-century pro anima gifts. économie et société en Italie centrale du IX e au XII e siècle (Rome. lay religious households. This means that. Les Abruzzes médiévales.²² These specific reasons include an unusual gift of land in order that a monastery may be founded—for the souls of the donors. shared the reward ideology. they are not nearly as common as might be expected during the tenth century. . aristocrats. 1994). and religious women. What this seems to suggest is that. in a small percentage of cases (about 12% of all kinds of donation to the church). the notable increases in Burgundy after 1040. ¹⁹ Although prayers for the soul (anima) of the dead feature throughout the surviving liturgical ordines. much more specific pious reasons for making the gift were given. While it is reasonable to argue that the long charters. 204–6. ²² Note that M. Rosenwein. ²¹ As in the examples above. and that it is one of the phrases that tended to be added when cartulary copies were made in the eleventh or later centuries. see further below. 267. 122. it is much less commonly found in records made by local priests. their parents. for the people associated with elaborate expressions of piety. demonstrating that proportions rose in the late eleventh century and also that the reasons. 169–71. McLaughlin shows a comparably low (though higher) proportion in her study of prayer for the dead in early medieval France.

de la Iglesia Duarte (ed. pp. at 398–401.²⁴ Raw numbers are too small to suggest any significant regional differences. For new foundations. 1904). S128 (950).²⁵ Gifts were made so that masses could be said. or to provide for their explicit commemoration on a regular basis. thereby reflecting the distribution of all donations. for example. Cf. of 922. 447–8. La familia en la edad media. attitudes openly bordered on the commercial: land in Rama was handed over in 937 and the ‘price’ (precio) paid for this land would be provision of a shroud when the vendor died and performance of masses for him.). ed. or a shroud procured. M. S130 (951). repeated prayers for the donors. 123–6. and their increasing rarity in the later tenth century. Although it relates to a later period. ²⁶ Cel177 (952). Such specific requests are essentially a feature of the second half of the tenth century and—commemoration apart—cluster in the 950s. ‘La familia ante la muerte: el culto a la memoria’. Sob92 (934). sometimes on a specified feast day. These were contracts and both parties had obligations. I. and so on). 2001). to secure burial in a specific place. for the distribution of donations. of 927. del 31 de julio al 4 de agosto de 2000 (Logro˜ no. p. but Castilian collections of any size include relatively few such requests and the northern collections of Oviedo and the Liébana have relatively many (though the Oviedo group is tiny). pp. see T64 (962?). ²⁴ For commemoration. XI semana de estudios medievales. a widow and her son sold land near Oviedo in 980 and the purchaser paid for it with a cap and wax for the candles which were to be lit for the dead husband and father. there is a very interesting attempt to identify the cost of providing a mass in M. although numbers there are also very small. ²⁷ C29. ²⁵ So also that from Otero de la Due˜ nas.Donation to Churches 121 and their ancestors²³ —but the purposes were more usually to ensure provision of some aspect of the burial or of another service. funeral rites performed. intercession would be made. When the language of sale was used in the record. in J. 50–1. 387–412. the liturgical office of the dead and votive masses in Le Liber Ordinum. Férotin (Paris. to ensure continuing. cf. candles lit in honour of a loved one. Nájera. Li75. Ov22. see above. as it occasionally was. the prayer for the anniversary of the dead at cols. for example. Sam164 (989).²⁷ Both transactions—though intrinsically no different from the gifts above (for land was more often ²³ Cel569. Aventín. . 22. Liii585 (999). such as within the monastery itself. Occasionally deals were made with lay persons in order to have candles lit or masses said. see below.²⁶ Just as there was an element of reciprocity when gifts were made for less specific reasons (the gift was made so that sins would be forgiven. there was an explicit expectation of some return here: the gift was made in order that a specific action be performed in the foreseeable future. see above.

Abbot Omar gave half of his property near Zamora to two confessors. so that they would keep on praying for him. C211 (999). Lii409 (968). See also similar arrangements with monasteries.³⁰ Records of gifts in order to secure repeated prayers. the high aristocrats Jimeno and Adosinda (Bishop Rosendo’s sister) wanted burial within the monastery of Celanova. Liii550 (991). 152.²⁸ The two women Eilo and Eusicia wanted to be buried with the brothers at Carde˜ na. at 262.³¹ In an unusual shift of the responsibility for prayer to a lay party. for this case. Lii425 (973). ³² Sob5 (966). However. the wealthy lay couple Adriano and Leokadia gave lands that stretched as far as Astorga so that the church of Santa Marina would keep on praying for them after they died. are largely formulaic and often echo the formulas of elaborate preambles. As such. OD21 (976). when such formulas are closely associated with the giving words they look both more immediate and more personal. Ov18 (974). Abbot Crescentio gave Carde˜ na a church. or make repeated offerings. in order that the monks’ continual prayers might liberate him from a second death.³² ²⁸ See Orlandis. see further below. Liii566 (994). cf. Gifts were also made to secure burial in a specific place. the priest Halile gave lands in Valdesogo to the monastery of Abellar. cf. with the service provider presented as purchaser. C191 (984). was also party to the transaction but this clause appears to refer to the couple. his discussion focuses on eleventh.and twelfth-century material and his statement. for discussion of donation for burial. ³¹ C60 (947). Rodrigo’s brother. . a man called Bonello requested burial in the monastery of San Vicente (Oviedo) in Asturias. although the specific place of burial is not specified in the texts: SM64 (952). ²⁹ C39 (942).122 Donation to Churches ‘given’ than sold in order that masses be said or candles lit)—were conceptualized as sales by the recorders (the son of a priest in the latter case). V22 (950). as did the priest Mikael. the rather wealthy woman Eldoara made gifts to secure burial in the nunnery of Santiago in León. Bishop Sisnando.²⁹ Another man. they could hardly be classified as ‘specific’. ³⁰ C117 (964). so that prayers would be said for his dead brother as well as himself. the charter recording Rodrigo and Elvira’s grants to Sobrado goes on to request that whoever survived the other should pray that his or her soul should be snatched from hell. C82 (952). ‘La elección de sepultura’. that donation to the church was often accompanied by a request for burial in a specific place would not hold good for the tenth century. 139. Cel7 (950). OD23 (978). pp. Liii512 (986). Nu˜ no Sarracíniz. arranged with a priest to organize his burial.

102.950– c . 150–72. so that the memory of their good works should not disappear. pp. see R. in particular. ³⁵ Cel36. made provision for his brother and sister. Walker. having arranged to enter the monastery. the priest Citayo took the unusual step of requesting that an oratory be built as a memorial on land he had given to the monastery of Abellar. to regular commemoration in the liturgy in a formal memoria.).³⁴ If the practice of founding churches and monasteries was declining in the tenth century. ‘Images of royal and aristocratic burial in northern Spain. the oratory was to be built where his parents had lived—a more than ³³ See above. books and liturgical vessels. the techniques used have been elaborated—from listing in Libri Memoriales.Donation to Churches 123 D O N AT I O N F O R C O M M E M O R AT I O N Giving in order to ensure family commemoration has been a major theme of European scholarship in the past generation. to the monastery of San Julián at Samos.1250’. also in Galicia. and nn. and 107 there for Spanish comment. c . It has been amply demonstrated that aristocratic families. Medieval Memories: Men. 36–44. requesting that after their deaths the monks should say prayers and anniversary masses for them. For the erection of substantial monuments in eleventh-century Spain.³⁶ Farther east. 2001). and made further endowments. in E. 104. ³⁴ See above. effectively ensuring their commemoration by that means. made donations to the church in the middle ages in order to perpetuate their own memory and enhance their sense of family identity. to the erection of substantial monuments. van Houts (ed. houses and furnishings.³⁵ A century later. was commemoration ensured in other ways? On 24 October 889 the priest Beato restored the church of San Salvador near the river Eyres in Arnoia in southern Galicia. to donations recorded by charter and the compilation of cartularies.³³ We have already seen that some families founded churches and monasteries in northern Spain. endowing it with vineyards and orchards. Women and the Past (Harlow. . 99. near León. although the practice—current in the ninth century—was disappearing by the second half of the tenth. ³⁶ Sam151 (16 May 992). Abbot Mandino of Samos and his brothers gave substantial estates on the river Mao. 30–4. pp. he asked that after his death successive abbots should always remember him (in memoria abeant ) and should celebrate his holy days and his anniversaries with divine service. 105. Joining the community there himself. very suggestively.

there should be a special commemoration with masses. it is particularly interesting that it indicates that the dead were customarily remembered. in memory of his brother Ramiro. ³⁹ Documentación medieval de Leire (siglos IX a XII). three times a year. regular memorialization being the price paid by the priest for the land. Liber Ordinum. some others were just as concerned about personal commemoration. in 984 confirmed estates which his parents had given to San Millán de la Cogolla. who was buried there. Martín Duque (Pamplona.⁴² The examples above suggest that quite a wide social range of people made gifts (or occasionally sales) in order to perpetuate the memories of themselves or their families. in Val de Covellas. nos. handed over the monastery of Santos Justo y Pastor to its own community. for Elvira. We can increase the number by 50% by including those charters that provide for annual services of celebration. and her ancestors. Lii432 (974).³⁸ Seven years later they gave substantial properties to the monastery of Leire. not one associated with one of the large monasteries. ed.⁴⁰ Similar actions could happen at a lower social scale: the widow Entregoto gave a villa in the north to the church of Oviedo in memory of her parents. pp. pp. in return he provided thirty masses and preservation of their memory along with that of the ‘other dead’.³⁷ Memorials were not only a matter for the clergy. for the intention was clearly the same: Adosinda. see below. with the request for annual commemoration in this royal mausoleum. the clamor (beginning kyrie eleison) in the ordo for burial. a tiny proportion both of surviving charters and of donations. ⁴² See further. psalms. ⁴⁰ S255 (970). In fact. although the practice was overwhelmingly aristocratic. so that. Meanwhile. Elvira. and the clamor. both on single sheets. psalms. Sancho II Garcés Abarca. farther to the east. the number of charters that explicitly record the intention to perpetuate memory is rather few—just over thirty. her husband. ³⁸ SM97 (‘missarum. 135–8. 174–6. ed. ³⁷ Lii288 (25 April 955). A.124 Donation to Churches usually explicit creation of a lieu de mémoire. 111–13. to the priest Mavia Indura for the souls of their parents Azalone and Senvita. Cf. it records the transaction as a sale. cols. gave Sahagún an estate in memory of her brother Sancho and also. every year. 1983). for commemoration of this brother.⁴¹ This simple text of 940 is a ‘local’ record. and chanting. and two siblings sold a plot of land. ⁴¹ Ov20 (978) and Li137. and his wife Urraca. 132. psalmorum.³⁹ The powerful León royal. in addition to regular prayers. 9. J. a couple of years later. Férotin. kings and their families especially. 11 (991). the liturgical shout). . clamorum’. The king of Pamplona. literally masses.

ibid. Liber Ordinum Sacerdotal (Cod. or unambiguously imply. which include many pre-950 charters but only three pre-950 references to specific commemoration or annual ritual (in 936.Donation to Churches 125 her husband. 124. p. 3 version. ⁴⁵ For example. on every anniversary of the birthday of St James.⁴⁵ Commemoration.or early tenth-century examples but almost three quarters of them fall after 950. 25. the priest Vermudo was to be remembered at San Juan de Loyo every feast of the Assumption of St John. however. it does not reflect the overall distribution of charters nor that of donation charters (of which the main bulks fall in the years 930 to 970. It looks as if specification of memoria increased after the main wave of donations started. they are again a particular feature of the second half of the tenth century. ‘pro meorum delictorum veniam per singulos annos’. 1981). for Salvo. and 940 to 970. the mass perhaps composed by the tenth-century Salvo of Albelda. A19 (950). 13–24. with candles and offerings. respectively). ⁴⁴ Above. at 94. There is little variation in the patterns from east to west. The whole work. for in this respect Leonese practice is much the same as Galician. J. ibid. 92–5..⁴³ Whether or not explicit memorialization was either the intention or the effect of all the other pious donations to the church we cannot know. may well be significantly under-represented. then. There are a few ninth. SamS-7 (969). has votive masses whose archetypes predate the tenth century. Casual references to lists of the dead who were to be remembered and to recording the names of those who made offerings suggest that some of them must have been regularly commemorated. This is particularly striking since. the deacon Ermegildo was to be remembered at Abellar. 937. While bearing that possible under-representation in mind. and her children were to be remembered at Celanova every Christmas day. . and a great variety of votive masses. Janini (Silos. Arch. Li109 (936). S137 (952). indeed. Lii432 (974). offer plenty of opportunities for the repetition of names of those to be remembered. 3). it is notable ⁴³ Cel247 (927). dated to 1039 in the Silos MS. again. it looks as if procedures for memorialization in ritual became established at this time. and continued even when the number of donations was declining. that is those in the Liber Ordinum.⁴⁴ The surviving liturgical texts. This is especially well demonstrated by the León collections. much of which is likely to have been available in the larger religious houses in the tenth century. and 940). we cannot avoid the fact that charters that clearly mention. ed. Silos. Monástico. so does the occasional insertion of the words ‘every year’ in a standard formula. memorialization of their donors or other named persons are very rare.

139–63 for gifts to the laity. Li116 (937). often for precisely the same kinds of reason that gifts were made to lay proprietors. and had begun digging or ploughing. as Dulquite did near León in 978 and Belito and Kalendo did in Valdoré some twenty years later. for example.126 Donation to Churches that reference to memoria is rare in the Castilian texts of Carde˜ na and Valpuesta at this period. pp. D O N AT I O N F O R ‘ S E C U L A R ’ R E A S O N S Gifts were also made to clerics. whether externally imposed or voluntarily undertaken. SM99 (986). also T30 (922). in one case. but sometimes there is some detail: church proprietors took legal action against peasants who had gone.⁴⁸ More usually gifts for non-religious. might seize whole estates and start to work them. ⁴⁷ Cel511 (955). in another. Some gifts to the ecclesiastical powerful were made in gratitude for some recent event: for bringing a lapsed monk back to a monastery. doubtless more aristocratic. cf. for fines. into a local priest’s vineyard or. these donors were literally giving thanks for very particular. and from requests to discharge debts. whether religious or lay. events. from judicial or other pressures to compensate for offences committed. C54 (945). one-off.⁵⁰ In effect. ⁴⁹ Sob75 (858). for example. pp. for saving a child.⁴⁹ We often do not know precisely why a court ruled as it did. and one would therefore expect a portion of the fines to have gone to them. The most common occasions of obligation evidenced in records of donation were those that arose from court rulings that property should be handed over. or outright secular. on to a monastery’s arable. some otherwise unexplained ‘gifts’ to clerics may in fact have been made for such reasons. or why a case went to court in the first place. A little less frequently. .⁴⁶ these kinds of gifts were made to persons or communities of power and property. SJP31 (late tenth century). ⁴⁸ S293 (978). gifts were also made to secure support. churches. Because bishops themselves served as judges. disputed ownership (or ⁴⁶ See below. reasons were made because of obligations to the recipient. for paying a ransom to the Muslims. 143–6. and monasteries for entirely different reasons. ⁵⁰ Lii458. OD43 (997). SJP18 (948).⁴⁷ Others were restorations of properties lost and returned. other intruders. See below. S356 (998).

and clergy alike. rewarding them with the gift of a villa in El Bierzo. The offences run from minor peasant thieving. Cel169 (962). despite the inebriation. Citayo and Gomelo. and gave them to the monastic community. 157.⁵⁴ Many of these compensation cases involved peasants.. of the same day. There was no such royal intervention when Revel took some friends to Bishop Sisinando’s estate and also killed. ⁵⁷ V27 (950). and gave the community a plot of land in Melgar. Lii464. p. ⁵⁴ S218. there is often no record of a formal judgment and some of these gifts may have been partly compensatory. Lii463 (979). but subsequently Revel simply handed over half his vineyard to the bishop. aristocrats. Lii465 (979). ⁵⁶ Cel411 (989).Donation to Churches 127 disputed rights to use land) lay behind many of these cases. Cel409 (990).⁵⁵ Gifts of vineyards in lieu of renders of wine and grain that should have been paid regularly were made from the villages close to the monastery at Celanova. there was probably a reason for his behaviour—perhaps a good reason—but in this case the king intervened. asked for pardon. Discharging debts by handing over plots of land also seems to have been a feature of tenth-century peasant life in these regions. broke down the doors. Sam178 (988). to the fornication and adultery committed by peasants. cf. 151–2. Cel338 (989). so Teodemiro rushed off to Sahagún. entered the monastery. ⁵³ S287 (977). so the story goes. Lii457 (978). adultery: Cel72 (952).⁵⁷ Monks and clergy helped out in bad times. perhaps cf. in 977.⁵⁶ Gifts of land were also made to priests and monasteries because they had helped out with food and wine or cider in the past—sometimes explicitly because it had been a ‘bad year’.⁵¹ When property was handed over in compensation for an offence. the different case of the abbot of Samos. pp. who persuaded wealthy laymen to pay a debt on his behalf. and from that to assault and killing. confiscated his parcels of property. on a much larger scale. ⁵² Theft: Liii590 (999). he came across a monk and happened to stab him in the arm. as they were similarly made to a local priest on the meseta. and killed a monk. like taking timber and stealing sheep. the arm hung limp. recording the names of Revel’s guarantors. Sam241 (969). OD14 (964).⁵² Once when a man called Rapinato got drunk. See further below. cf. . ⁵¹ Lii452 (977). but partly penitential. the dispute was sometimes explicit—shares in water mills were openly disputed between two abbots. round about 964. he rushed off to Sahagún in a rage. Lii479 (980). ⁵⁵ See further below.⁵³ Teodemiro’s case was similar: walking along one day.

Purpose was expressed in general terms that bishops and large monasteries. Cel394 (956). i. Cel575 (954). but most of these people were seeking patronage. Cel519 (998). and occasionally priests. Davies. ⁶¹ Lii321. in his Viejos y nuevos estudios sobre las instituciones medievales espa˜ nolas. perhaps Lii265 (954). . non-religious reason for making gifts to the church was in order to secure support of some kind. ⁶⁰ Li180 (944).128 Donation to Churches and subsequently were repaid with a land grant. one abbot gifted a nunnery in the city of León specifically in order to supply his monks with clothing. for ecclesiastical patronage. price and valuation in Galicia and Castile-León in the tenth century’. and Sob123 (867). Lii455 (978). 149–74.⁶¹ We do not have to suppose that such transactions constituted ‘commendation’ and resulted in the exclusive personal commitment of donor to patron that characterizes the classic ⁵⁸ See W. and so on. Early Medieval Europe. but not quite so common. The abbot who secured clothing supplies was probably primarily concerned to acquire commodities. the priest Melic. Li42. and. should keep a watchful eye over the donor’s affairs (including his or her court cases). unusually for these records. a peasant couple gifted the priest Munio more modestly in 978. Li175 (943). Cel246 (969). Lii462 (978). sometimes expressed through the formula ‘ut habeamus de vos moderationem et defensionem’ (so that we have rulings and defence from you). León y Castilla’. the woman Segesinda gifted Bishop Rosendo in these terms in 932.⁵⁸ The other common. in which freed slaves were to be under the patrocinium of the beneficiary church. although aristocrats are more evident. at 159–60 and 171–2. and clergy as well as lay people.⁵⁹ We find a few peasants as well as aristocrats making such gifts. and should give ‘help’. 11 (2002). should ‘defend’ estates. for example. Sometimes the gift for support was couched in more specific terms in order to ensure supplies of food and clothing in the future. cf. gave water rights in the river Porma to the monastery of Abellar and at the same time accepted its patrocinium in 959. pp. Sánchez-Albornoz’s word for this phrase was ‘protection’.⁶⁰ Again we find a wide social range involved in such transactions. for a brief discussion. whether in general or in some specific form. at 75. See also above. such transactions are particularly characteristic of the villages round Celanova in the 960s but did occur on the meseta too (though they are much less characteristic of parts of Castile). and also the occasional member of the clergy. see ‘Las behetrías: la encomendación en Asturias. ⁵⁹ Cel501 (932). in particular. Indeed. ‘Sale. ‘opting for patronage’ (eligere patrocinium) is a standard formula in Abellar charters. 57–60. in which patrocinium was transferred. 15–191.

160–3. This is interesting because the distribution again does not quite reflect the overall distribution of tenth-century charters (heavy in 930 to 970) nor that of donations (heavy in 940 to 970). ⁶⁴ Cel527 (950). Las behetrías castellanas. the priest Melic helped another priest who had been taken to court ‘in chains’. and was rewarded with a plot of land. La formación del feudalismo en la península Ibérica (Barcelona. S133 (951). which may in some cases have had little practical effect and in others resulted in hands-on help. Barbero and M. Bishop Rosendo intervened in one Galician case. the comments of C. . pp.⁶³ The donors chose to join a support network.Donation to Churches 129 models of European socio-economic development. pace the influential treatment of SánchezAlbornoz. Wickham. ‘Las behetrías’. Sam239 (985). For European parallels and contrasts see further the discussion below. 41–3. cf. Since numbers are small relative to the total number of all donations (in the order of 5% of the latter). helped the widow Fernanda against the court claims of her sister-in-law on land her husband had given her. (Valladolid. pp. these actions continued through the 980s and 990s. see C. for charts. and. That lords or patrons did sometimes in practice give help in court cases is shown by the fact that gifts were also given in thanks for such help in the past. 354–404. 2005). 2 vols.⁶⁵ while slow to start. Framing the Early Middle Ages (Oxford. Donations of these kinds are essentially a feature of the second half of the tenth century. 2003). although a few took place in the preceding thirty years. 153–4. especially 155–200. abbot of Samos. Mandino. ⁶³ Cf. Vigil. the monks of Sahagún paid the fine for a peasant who had stolen a horse and were subsequently given his whole inheritance. it is worth considering if the relative increase in these kinds of donation late in the ⁶² See further below. For Spain. 154. 1978). ⁶⁵ See Davies. S358 (998). and that land ultimately passed in grateful thanks to Samos. on a smaller scale. helping a man called Adaulfo to secure some land in Nigueiroá. A. However. and he received a third of the land secured as a reward. ‘Sale. they may be skewed by a Celanova group in the 950s and a León group in the 970s (the former reflecting Celanova’s interest in recording the many actions of Bishop Rosendo and the latter reflecting the survival of a small archive relating to the priest Munio). 438–41. Estepa Díez. price and valuation’. i. when the overall number of recorded transactions was declining.⁶⁴ Ecclesiastical lordship could clearly be of very practical assistance to clients.⁶² it is important to remember the variety of forms that early medieval patronage could take.

there is no noticeable gender distinction here. Male actors are. although their numbers are relatively few. more men than women ⁶⁶ Cf. XXVIII Semana de estudios medievales. at 308. both separately and together. 2002). and emphasizes their particular interest in recording pious rather than other kinds of donation. except for the fact that Carde˜ na is notably under-represented in the group. ⁶⁷ Although not always: the neighbours of the monk Liciano got together to make provision for his mortalia near Valpuesta in 939 (V15). or men and women together. but women alone are very rarely recorded as doing so. Álvarez Borge. overall. in Se˜ nores. aristocrats and clergy feature strongly. In texts recording other kinds of unspecific pious motivation. both in making arrangements for repeated prayers and also in making arrangements for the rite of burial and other rites.⁶⁶ There do not appear to be any significant regional distinctions in distribution. siervos. vasallos’. 90. As for the donors: overall. The beneficiaries of donations for commemoration were overwhelmingly monastic communities. vasallos en la alta edad media. the gender and status of pro anima donors cannot be meaningfully explored. In the texts recording specific pious motivation. 16 a 20 de julio de 2001 (Pamplona. as we have seen. 269–308. Both men and women arranged for prayers. 29 n. it may well be more of an indication of the kind of documents that Carde˜ na scribes chose to preserve. much more frequently associated with specific pious reasons for giving than female actors. but more than twice as many men as women are recorded as doing so. indications of an extension of private lordship at this time. Men and women. however. siervos. made provision for elements of burial or other ritual. see references cited above. requested burial in specific places. and I. while aristocrats are more prominent in making burial arrangements (comparable arrangements were presumably normally made for the clergy⁶⁷). There are gender distinctions. both clergy and aristocrats are again prominent in the lists of those making provision for repeated prayers. so do religious women. G E N D E R A N D S TAT U S I S S U E S In the light of the uncertainties discussed above surrounding pro anima gifts. . Rather than concluding that this indicates some real regional difference. Estella.130 Donation to Churches century reflects a real increase in transactions to secure support. p. ‘Estructuras de poder en Castilla en la alta edad media: se˜ nores. men. priests sometimes benefited too but these cases are unusual.

in F. Le Jan. women. C. and it appears to set northern Spain in stark contrast to some parts of Europe.Donation to Churches 131 made provisions of this kind. 33–4.⁶⁹ Second. R. Le Jan (eds. at 479–83. where the evidence for the female role is particularly strong. So. in a ratio of two to one.). in proportion to the total numbers women are more evident in the latter half of the tenth century. and mixed groups all did so. parents. Their numbers may have been smaller but they could nevertheless have developed a socially distinctive role. 2005). R. 459–84. Bougard. Bearing in mind that many donors were monks or clergy. Transmission du patrimoine et mémoire au haut moyen âge. Collection de l’école française de Rome. It would still. brothers. R. Third. in F. although numbers here are too small for certainty. 351 (Rome. Sauver . 2002). they tend to suggest that this may have been a function in which women had an increasingly prominent role. 21. La Rocca. it is noticeable that whereas men made such provision at almost any time in the period considered. ⁷⁰ I suggested in ‘Buying with masses: ‘‘Donation’’ pro remedio animae in tenthcentury Galicia and Castile-León’. ⁶⁹ See above. E. married couples would give in order to secure their own commemoration. Dots et Douaires dans le haut Moyen Âge (Rome. Le Jan (eds. ‘Les femmes et la mémoire: le rôle des comtesses dans la Francie occidentale du XIe siècle’. Bougard.). argues. insofar as our texts allow us to see what was happening. Feller. Sauver son âme et se perpétuer. that eleventh-century countesses in France had a greater role in memorializing than counts. given the burden of the literature on the memorializing functions of women in early medieval cultures. although men.⁶⁸ However.⁷⁰ ⁶⁸ See Geary. recent work on the complementary roles of men and women tends to modify the starkness of the contrast: men played an active part in memorialization in many other parts of Europe. 457–97. in this respect. whereas men overwhelmingly made provision for commemoration of themselves (kings and bishops are particularly notable here). groups of siblings. unless they were of both sexes (couples. for example. be reasonable to stress a contrast between Spain and Germany. against Geary. Bougard. The people who were commemorated in perpetuity were also overwhelmingly men. women overwhelmingly made provision for others (husbands. pp. and so on). this is hardly surprising. especially). Santinelli. All of this is interesting. Le Jan (eds. in F. Phantoms of Remembrance. however. C. although—like men—they also provided for themselves in the company of others.). 49–73. ‘Douaires et pouvoirs des reines en Francie et en Germanie (VIe –Xe siècle)’. and perhaps more surprising. L. women may well have been performing a function for the family group that men did not perform. Men are particularly evident in making provision for annual celebration. R. La Rocca.

and by no means unusually in the European context. Unlike women. at 416. rather than to the large communities. 401–16. except as partners in couples or larger groups. Few women feature. donation for commemoration appears to have been an overwhelmingly aristocratic practice. peasant donation may be under-represented. Lii351. Lii427. The fact that it was peasants rather than aristocrats who made gifts of property in order to discharge debts and in order to pay fines. ⁷¹ See above. Comparable proportions apply to those who are themselves commemorated in perpetuity. like the deacon Ermegildo) and the rest are unknown or peasants. The Celanova collection does not appear to record peasant gifts for this purpose at all. compensations. or to priests. . and penances has already been stressed. 2005). that the occurrence of women may be to do with the disposability of their property. it was aristocrats who wanted their memory perpetuated and their family identity enhanced and preserved. where they do happen to be recorded. peasant gifts were to the smaller churches and monasteries (like Santiago de Cellariolo and San Miguel).⁷² that being the case. about two thirds are clergy (several of whom had property interests of aristocratic proportions. ⁷² Li137. men were involved in making all categories of these gifts. It would be reasonable son âme et se perpétuer (Rome. It is not surprising but it is socially and economically important as an indicator of one of the principal mechanisms by which churches. Even allowing for that possible under-representation. Not surprisingly. pp. Of the remainder. pp. and clerics acquired property at this time. the point is made as much by the elaborate language of the records as by the scale of properties donated and personal associations of the donors. for example. monasteries.132 Donation to Churches What about the status of donors for commemoration? A high proportion of donors for whose gifts commemoration is specified. are demonstrably aristocrats. about half. whether acting alone or with a male partner. this may well have been a factor but given the disposability of all kinds of property demonstrated above. There do seem to be a few peasant cases—suggested both by the scale of properties and by the simplicity of the records⁷¹ —but they are rare. and where they do feature they are most prominent in the discharging of debts. the records not copied into the major cartularies. it is very unlikely to be the sole explanation. Gifts to the church for secular reasons were overwhelmingly made by men or by a group that included both sexes. 72–5. but are especially notable in making the grants that followed court cases or those made in compensation for offences. 108–9.

for gendered offences. and gifts were made to church bodies for reasons that had nothing to do with piety. although their acquisitions were often subsequently absorbed by the more powerful institutions⁷⁴). the role of men in making donations for specific pious reasons. . and to get perpetual commemoration—continuing in life. certainly less than half of all gifts to the church and probably a lot less than that. Gifts for commemoration and gifts to secure support are both notable in increasing. is especially clear. Gifts were made to the church to get something in the afterlife. In a significant number of cases we do not know the reason why gifts were made. donation for ritual commemoration ⁷³ See further below. though at quite a small scale. This is particularly interesting and suggests that. in many the reason is suggested by the (ecclesiastical) record-maker and may have nothing to do with the donor’s motivation. on the one hand. for local priests like Munio and Melic benefited too.⁷³ I M P L I C AT I O N S There are two very striking things about the preceding survey: the proportion of pro anima gifts made in the tenth century was relatively low.Donation to Churches 133 to say that the kinds of offence that are recorded are gendered: they tend to be masculine acts. as it were. in the last twenty years of the tenth century. pp. Given that the pro anima formula may often have been subsequently inserted into tenth-century texts. although not in scale. the latter mirrors practice in western Europe as a whole. especially for commemoration. pp. For those gifts for which credible motivation is suggested. Gifts were also made because of obligations to church or monastery or to secure support in life—of enormous importance as the route by which ecclesiastical property increased (and not just to the benefit of large institutions. The former gives something of a distinctive character to the region. 61–4. it is likely that the proportion of gifts to the church for non-religious reasons was significantly higher than the measurable 6% of donations to the church that we can count. The interest of aristocratic families in ensuring their own commemoration is also clear. ⁷⁴ See above. 181–6. after death. to get something at the point of death. relative to the total number of donations.

ibid. Feller. As everywhere. in the eighth-century Rhineland. ‘Les ‘‘actes de précaire’’. especially those which led to active patronage relationships. and the parallels are closer to the French than to the German models. but the likelihood must be that—whereas foundation of churches was necessarily an aristocratic interest—making a gift for commemoration in the liturgy.⁷⁷ On the other hand. 57–61. p. L. 25. Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome. with the foundation of some family churches.. but no longer exclusively. 607–47. Ph. For precaria.⁷⁵ The importance attached to getting a return for the gift has strong parallels in many other European countries. family mausolea had explicitly been established in the ninth and earlier centuries. as they were. there were some comparable processes and similar movements in Spain. ‘L’apparition de la précaire à Saint-Gall’. L. for example. whether or not associated with special burial. B. Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome.134 Donation to Churches probably replaced foundation of churches as the principle means of perpetuating memory. transactions had social overtones. . instruments de transferts patrimoniaux (France du Nord et de l’Est. 111 (1999). Depreux. but there were some significantly different mechanisms. 2000). is very striking. Innes. The number of cases of donation for commemoration is really very small in the tenth century.⁷⁸ Overall. eighth to eleventh centuries: An overview’. 111 (1999).. and some gifts clearly established continuing relationships with beneficiaries. and the motivations for giving were very similar. see above. pp. State and Society in the Early Middle Ages: The Middle Rhine Valley. pp. Moyen Âge. 36–43. ‘Précaires et livelli. and on the other that the increase in patronage contributed to the extension of private lordship. 400–1000 (Cambridge. H. tended to expand the social scale of those commemorated. aristocratic. Cf. VIIIe –XIe siècle)’. 85. at 565. 725–46. ⁷⁵ See above. 563–75. on the whole the scale was smaller and the chronology later. ⁷⁶ See above.⁷⁶ and family churches. ⁷⁷ See M. 649–73. ibid. There are strong echoes of European trends in this material. Les transferts patrimoniaux ad tempus en Italie’. ‘Property transfers and the Church. The very fact that there are no surviving Spanish Libri Memoriales from this period is in itself a significant contrast. even if we allow for under-representation. As elsewhere in Europe. ⁷⁸ See. such as characterized East and West Francia. Moyen Âge. needing less resource. and for a short period Italy. where similar. for example. Rosenwein. Morelle. By the year 1000 perpetuating memory was still overwhelmingly. could clearly be the focus of family identity. the absence of precarial gifts to the church and of relationships dependent on the precaria.

in fact the gifts are. ⁸¹ See above. Appropriate as that may be for the later middle ages. being specified. and a price. by ‘selling’ they meant transferring something to another party. 5. pretium. hand over. I cannot detect any such differentiation in tenth-century text. often texts include the words ‘I have accepted the price and nothing remains’.⁷⁹ By ‘giving’ they meant transferring something to another party. gifts to the church might sometimes provoke a material countergift in response. ‘Dominios monásticos y parentelas en la Castilla altomedieval’. which indicate that sale transferred land without appurtenances whereas donation transferred land with appurtenances. like the 940s text from San Millán in which a long list of separate small-scale transactions has price associated with all those termed sales. and the concept of price was central to sale. to sell. see Loring García. S120 (950). with the document itself called a cartula vendicionis.⁸³ Of course. 104 for full examples. ‘et de ipso pretio aput vos nichil remansit sed completum est’. Hence. for a pre-determined price. ⁸² S34 (930): ‘vendimus … Et accepimus de vos in precio una vacca laura’.⁸⁰ Hence. as a result of contract between the two parties. ⁸³ SM59 (943–51). ⁸⁰ Note the emphasis of Visigothic law on the appropriate time for paying the price. 4. but the distinction is one that was used by tenth-century writers: the language of gift and sale was in most cases strongly differentiated. pp. Forum Iudicum V. ‘we sell you a villa in Fontasquesa and received a price of one bay cow’ or ‘a price which satisfied me’.⁸¹ while sale charters usually had the active verb as vendere. tradere. explicitly pro anima. Cel237 (934).iv. sometimes offertio): a mule given to the countess in recognition ⁷⁹ Spanish scholars have pointed to clauses in the much later Fuero Viejo. 46–8. ‘et de pretio aput vos devitus nicil remansit’.Appendix to Chapters 5 and 6 C O N C E P TS O F G I F T A N D S A L E One might argue about what constitutes a gift and what constitutes a sale. S53 (933): ‘et alio precio que michi complacuit’. to be paid at a pre-determined time. charter of sale. by contrast. 88–9. especially if the donor was a high aristocrat (the word for countergift is usually (h)onor.⁸² This concern with price also occurs in composite records. and concedere (give. but not with those termed gifts. . charters of gift used words like donare. concede) and cartula donationis or occasionally concessionis (charter of gift). without a pre-arranged price or return gift being necessary to validate the transaction (although a countergift might subsequently follow it).

‘L’historiographie du marché de la terre en Catalogne’. cf. 121–2). as it were. a rabbit skin given in acknowledgement of the gift of a large estate in 954. on a future purchase. Cel456. countergift and price. ⁸⁷ Cel393. Wickham (eds. with the price to be paid in masses. for a price. Feller and C. a blanket. Sometimes they really seem to have been confused between ⁸⁴ C27. occasionally they do not appear to have seen them as so distinct. would invalidate the transaction. but framed as sales.136 Appendix to Chapters 5 and 6 of a large gift of land in 935.⁸⁷ gifts were made. sometimes transactions which appear to be gifts for no consideration were called ‘sales’. Grants were made to court presidents. Cel535. These were presents—gestures of appreciation—and were clearly not a necessary condition for completion of the main transaction. and indeed where the concepts appear confused—hence we find kartula donationis vel venditionis (charter of gift and sale). V35. and it was essential to meet it in full. pp. See further below. a down-payment. . ⁸⁹ Liii585. Although the essence of the distinction was therefore usually clear and consistent. for a specified material price. therefore. 152. 161–80. the price changing hands at about the same time as the land. linen cloth for an act of corroboration in 960. at the right time. and contracts for a price were called ‘gifts’. as directed by the judge. In the vast majority of cases these distinctions between gift and sale.⁸⁵ or we sometimes find a straightforward record of a gift which bizarrely terminates with a reference to ‘this cartula venditionis’. and the unusually large countergift of two yoked oxen. Lii265. ⁸⁵ Lii350. Li168. in L. following judgments. for example. S178. ⁹¹ Cel436. Cel570.⁸⁹ gifts were made to the church. the same as price: the latter was defined and agreed in advance. S26. there are a few texts in which it was not. ⁸⁸ S75. Lii357. but are recorded in the language of sale. for example. at 163. Lii285. We are dealing with a small proportion of records that look confused. without price or countergift. Cel394.⁹⁰ and gifts of food and sustenance were made in hard times and subsequently retrospectively reframed as an advance payment for property. and a skin in the 980s.⁸⁸ deals appear to have been done. To Figueras. 156–60. Cel535. cf. failure to produce the price. but are recorded as gifts. ten sheep. and most records of gift recorded grants for no material consideration. pp. were maintained. and a Catalan example of 989 noted by Ll. cf.⁹¹ What did all this mean? We should not lose sight of the fact that most records of sale recorded sales of land.). Lii276. ⁸⁶ SM90. Countergift was not. S302. ⁹⁰ Li137. Liii578. S140. Le marché de la terre au moyen âge (Rome. 2005). S285. Although the authors of these texts usually kept the categories distinct. and are called sales.⁸⁴ In such cases not only was the language different but the timing of the return and the level of obligation to make it were different from the timing of the price payment and the necessity of making it.⁸⁶ Even more confusingly. a carpet and a tunic given in recognition of the confirmation of a grant in 957. C23. C29 (see above. C46.

the verbs used are ‘exchange. and in ‘sales’ for good that had been done in the past. et de ipso pretio nichil remansit in debito’. In the Munio case. 145–8. compare ‘Et acepimus de vos in pretio solidos x. and there were sweeteners—as well as exchanging they received both a bit more. as ‘price’. que nobis bene conplacuit ’.⁹³ In 996 a married couple ‘sold and gave’ him and his wife a vineyard in the Ardón valley and received a horse from them ‘as price and gift’.⁹⁵ There is clearly confusion in these cases about what kinds of transaction are being recorded and which formulas to use. in place of a price. Cf. it looks as if a deal was done to stop the family building more houses round the church (the text specifies that they have given up the right to build any more there). a garden. as also a skin. Liii578.⁹² Two records concerning Munio Fernández fall into this category and. in the Carde˜ na case the author decided to use the sale formulas. a garden. ⁹⁵ ‘Pro que accepimus iudicio cum Cedinus presbiter et pectavimus ad illo uno kavallo in xl solidos et proinde abevimus a dare alio kavallo a comite Monio Fredenandiz de alios xl solidos. in compensation for deeds done in the past. Reading between the lines in the Carde˜ na case. A family exchanged property with the monastery of Carde˜ na in 941: they gave the abbot houses. 151–2. this is interesting. written by a different scribe. and hand over’. Liii579 (997). in other cases. like the ‘sales for masses’. and received in return houses. and a vineyard elsewhere.⁹⁴ The other concerns a gift made the following year after one of Munio’s court judgments. ⁹³ See below. so there was a contract. their thinking can be explained. Et proinde damus vobis medietate in ipsa hereditate Monio Fernandiz. and it looks as if they received a little more than they handed over. Liii573. and also a skin. given that he was involved in a number of transactions of both gift and sale. the charter is twice called a ‘charter of sale’. sell. ⁹⁶ See below. two plots of land. . the reciprocal element in donation to the church seems to have come to the fore. pp.⁹⁶ sale formulas appear to have been chosen because it was land that was handed over. although their records look confused. as countergift. There is some sense here that the record-makers thought that using land to meet debts or fines or compensations ought to qualify as contractual sale. in the price clause the writer has then inserted the outcome of the judgment. rather than movables.Appendix to Chapters 5 and 6 137 categories. and adapt them slightly to allow for the fact of exchange. for Munio Fernández. and land around the church of San Torcuato. but sometimes. quem nobis bene conplacuit’. the document is called a ‘charter of sale and exchange’. quantum a nobis bene complacuit. There is a kind of rationale here. Cel393 for a comparable case to Liii578. the fact that something was expected ⁹² C36. In the latter case the author has decided to use the sale formulas. and what they received is described as ‘countergift and price (accepimus ex vobis in honore vel precium una vinea … )’. even though they don’t quite fit. I have italicized the price clause. pp. although the text is called a ‘charter of sale’ and the active verb is ‘we have agreed to sell’. Differently. ⁹⁴ ‘Ideo accessit bone voluntas ut venderemus vel donaremus vobis vinea nostra … et accepimus de vobis in precio et in dona una equa.

Even when the categories were kept separate. however. the inclusion of pious formulas in records of gift inevitably introduced an element of the contractual into the concept. ⁹⁷ S140. then.⁹⁷ There are. a number of different factors which underlie these real or apparent confusions. the categories of gift and sale were kept separate.138 Appendix to Chapters 5 and 6 back for the donation found its way into the record. because the formulas available were insufficient to explain the transaction. Occasionally both the material and the spiritual return got a mention—like a couple’s sale of half a villa to Sahagún in 954 both for the care of their souls and also for money. . but there is a detectable rationale to their choice of words. more often. however. at other times at first sight it looks to us as if the record-makers were confused. and these donations were framed as sales. Occasionally there appears to have been real confusion.

as recorded. In 962 Recosinda gave half of her land in a villa in Ujo to the couple Taurelo and Principia. and Nu˜ no Sarracíniz: Donation to Lay Persons In 950 Gesmira gave all her property in the villa called Torre to the lay couple Flaino and Brunildi. In over two-fifths of these lay gifts. Living and Dying in England 1100–1540 (Oxford. so that they could provide her with bedding and warmth. 208. but lay couples. no ¹ Li222. ² A well-known later medieval practice. for example. so that they could take her into their house and look after her.² In two of the above cases the recipients were not churches or clerics. in the corrody. practical. as well as make sure that he was properly buried. as we usually expect of transactions recorded in early medieval charters. 116–22 for grants for care of the soul. ibid. support of this kind a particular feature of donation to the laity? D O N AT I O N TO T H E L A I T Y About 14% of all the gifts recorded in these tenth-century charter texts were gifts to the laity. Lii357. 179. C117. pp.. also lay. and for provision of religious ritual. . as well as taking care for her soul after her death. 1993). Harvey. 179–209.¹ Providing for care in old age is one element in the complex web of reasons for gift-giving in these tenth-century Spanish societies. see above. Recosinda. see B. In 964 Nu˜ no Sarracíniz gave property in Orbaneja and Villímar to the priest I˜ nigo so that he would look after him in infirmity and old age.6 Gesmira. How much gift-giving went to lay beneficiaries? To what extent was gift-giving in order to secure material. Dr Harvey points out that care could be provided as much for the young as for the old. and that it might include distribution of food to those living outside the monastery as well as to the ‘monastic lodger’.

pp. it may be recalled. uneven ³ M. Although the 990s figures are again skewed by an accident of survival—the inclusion of the family archive of Pedro Flaínez in the Otero de las Due˜ nas collection. 71–83. p. it appears that donation to the laity was a notable feature of practice in Galicia and the western meseta. which fall between 916 and 952. It occurred throughout the century but. spread across the whole century and across all collections. but it was not so notable in Castile. for this family. Recosinda.³ Most of the Celanova examples fall between 924 and 947. there is an unusually high survival rate.140 Gesmira. while one can speculate about the motivation. El monasterio de Sobrado: un ejemplo del protagonismo monástico en la Galicia medieval (La Coru˜ na. Pallares Méndez. . 22. ⁴ See further below. which accounts for nearly half of the examples⁴ —these decades still reveal a disproportionately high number of gifts to the laity. including donations. although made to a lay woman in the Celanova case. A fifth of donations to the laity fell in the 960s and another fifth in the 980s and 990s. whose estate became the core of the monastery’s foundation endowment. and. 144–8. although in these cases the over-representation can be explained: most of the Sobrado examples. By contrast. many of these were gifts made to Countess Ilduara. The presence of these two groups skews the figures: because of their association with Sobrado and Celanova in their foundation years. this is particularly notable in the large data sets from Carde˜ na and San Millán de la Cogolla (where they constitute only 3% and 1% of donations respectively). were gifts to Ermegildo and Paterna. it was the 950s not the 960s. Although widespread. mother of Bishop Rosendo and founder with him of that monastery. del C. That leaves just under eighty cases.⁵ Overall. then. especially since donation is much more prominent than sale in these groups of charters. that were the high point of recorded giving in the tenth century and the 980s and 990s saw a decline in all kinds of recorded transaction. although numbers at the end of the century are very striking. ⁵ See above. and Nu˜ no Sarracíniz reasons are stated in the texts for what motivated the donors. they have to be excluded from primary analysis of what lies behind these actions. many of those gifts appear in fact to have been destined for the monastery. 1979). it is nevertheless interesting that gifts to the laity are significantly under-represented in Castilian collections. gifts to lay persons are over-represented in the substantial Sobrado and Celanova collections from Galicia (46% and 24% respectively).

and this has a bearing on our interpretation of the rationales for giving.⁶ Table 6.Gesmira. and Nu˜ no Sarracíniz 141 survival rates make it difficult to attribute any conclusive significance to numbers per decade. only a couple of recipients might reasonably be identified as peasants. in Cantabria. Recosinda. Donation to the laity therefore appears from the ⁶ Figures for the Liébana. to the north. figures for Otero are high because of the lay archive.1 Ninth. Even more strikingly. as percentage of all gifts per collection Number of gifts to laity Cel Sam Sob L OD S C SM V Ar A SJP* T Ov Total * Gifts to laity as % of all gifts 24 8 46 12 65 12 3 1 0 6 0 14 28 25 14 26 4 32 30 11 20 3 1 0 1 0 1 10 2 141 a suspect charter Although we cannot always determine the status of participants in these transactions. Over a quarter of donors to the laity were clearly aristocrats. and a half were clearly peasants. the proportion of aristocratic donors is notable. virtually all of the beneficiaries whose status can be determined were aristocrats—about three quarters of the total. by collection. a few were clergy.and tenth-century gifts to lay beneficiaries. figures for Oviedo are high but numbers negligible. are also high but relatively early in occurrence. .

a kind of gift one would expect to have been made in these societies. see Lucas Álvarez. Cel423 (957). S75 (940). ⁷ See below. kings also granted rights to rents and to other income to those to whom they delegated political control. See further below. and love: Elena gave an urban homestead in León to her cousin. Li123 (937). overall. for delegated authority. the prominence of aristocrats begins to be comprehensible. . for consideration of alienators by gender. S285 (pre-976—a brief reference within the main text). S84 (943).⁸ Other aristocrats acted similarly. Cel533 (927). however. kings made gifts to those who served them faithfully. Married couples thus feature particularly strongly as the beneficiaries of gifts. for discussion of clientship. proportions of married couples are slightly higher. gave a villa in Bubal to the same brother of Rosendo. Liii530 (989). the king’s daughter. 171–3. Cel499 (942).⁹ There were also occasional gifts to family members. La Documentación real astur-leonesa (718–1072). Adosinda gave a deacon and his children a quarter of a smallholding.⁷ proportions of men are also close to the mean. and Nu˜ no Sarracíniz outset to relate to different kinds of process: aristocrats giving to other aristocrats as well as peasants giving to aristocrats. from and to priests. and Vermudo II to Fernando Nú˜ nez. 164). Cel505 (935). Gender differences are also interesting and to some extent unexpected. While the examples with which this chapter began might suggest that it was women. overall. and León material than in the others. and. often using lands that had been confiscated from rebels.142 Gesmira. pp. in fact. Some charters simply record the gifts of kings to trusted men. especially. Celanova texts have lower proportions of couples and higher of men. See above. a relatively low 26% to men. and again 18% to women. as Ramiro II did to Fruela Guttieriz (Bishop Rosendo’s brother). pp. obedience. pp. Where reasons for donation to the laity are given. cf. Recosinda. ⁹ S206 (962). Gender difference in recipients is much more striking. Ov4 (916). cf. although peasant donation is more evident in Sobrado. whether recorded in writing or not. Sahagún texts have slightly higher proportions of couples and lower of women. Otero. the proportion of women doing so is—at 18%—very close to the mean for all women alienators. though slightly lower. ⁸ S19 (920. who made grants to the laity. Fruela. in gratitude for faithful service. as Ordo˜ no II did to Tajón and Fernando Assuriz. Jimena. 160–3. Liii541 (990). More than 60% of gifts were made to married couples. fideles. All the charter collections tend to reflect these overall patterns. 14–16. on a much smaller scale. there is nothing particularly striking about gender differences in donation to the laity.

168–70. Sam6 (997). and a man called Menendo was compensated for the wrongful seizure of his lands in troubled times. C29 (937). 44. particularly at death.¹² and very occasional gifts to lay persons to ensure that religious ritual be provided. see above. Both need some detailed examination. C192 (984). the sales for masses at Sob92 (934). León. pp. da Silva Mendes Leal. Arlanza. S332 (986). the wealthy couple Fruela and Adosinda received a series of compensatory land grants from their tenants for loss of stock ¹⁰ e. following judgments. Sobrado. Cel74 (963). provided by parents or husbands. transmission of property by charter within families is unusual. Ilduara received compensation for the murder of her young retainer. León. and Celanova—which is a geographically representative spread. cf. Recosinda. 1868). LVIII (949). 73–4. San Millán. J. . A. the beneficiaries were mostly wealthy landlords. vol. Herculano de Carvalho e Araujo and J. ¹⁴ Cf. and probably most significant.¹¹ occasional gifts in gratitude for help given in bad times or for specific acts of assistance. the couple Munio Ovekiz and Guldregoto were compensated (with land) for the theft of two of their horses. also Portugaliae Monumenta Historica a saeculo octavo post Christum usque ad quintum decimum. 151–2. They feature in collections from San Juan de la Pe˜ na.Gesmira. Diplomata et Chartae. and gifts made for ‘doing good’. 1 (Lisbon. So. 3. pp. ¹¹ See below. Compensation cases are relatively straightforward and the rationale for them is usually easy to comprehend. pp. categories of gifts to the laity. and Otero collections. and Nu˜ no Sarracíniz 143 recorded by charter in order to ensure they were not contested by other relatives. Otero. and the woman Paterna for the fact that her two cowherds were wrongly accused of theft. T64 (?962). although there are hundreds of incidental references to the fact of transmission to relatives. for transactions of this kind. C O U RT D E C I S I O N S Gifts made to the laity as a consequence of court decisions are recorded in donation format and are a prominent element in the first category (they constitute more than a third of those for which we know the reasons for giving). For gifts of this kind to the clergy. ed. ¹² OD27 (987).¹³ The two most prominent. pp. ¹³ Cel172 (943). they comprise both fines and compensatory payments. see also above. and in general see below. however. Cel436 (924). 127–8. just as such gifts were made to clerics and monasteries who had helped out.¹⁰ occasional marriage settlements.¹⁴ The largest groups are from the Sobrado.g. are gifts made to pay fines or compensations.

in Miscel-lània en homenatge al P. 285–327. as well as for debts that were not detailed. this kind of donation begins to let us see how local dispute processes worked. 1991). of fines being paid for offences committed. went to the injured party. CXI (975). 127–8. The former concerns fines paid to Count Flaino Mu˜ noz and his wife ¹⁵ Cel456 (940). two groups of fines paid in the 990s which are much more illuminating. but the role and status of the beneficiary is unclear from the record. Sam132 (before 978) and Sam178 (988). Sob24 (931). although they were often made as a result of agreements rather than of court decisions. but in most cases they are unclear about what. Lii473 (before 980). if anything. and Nu˜ no Sarracíniz and failure to pay due rents.¹⁶ Plots of land were given as a substitute for twenty-three missing measures (perhaps sacks) of corn and for forty sesters of cider. are similar and were made to lay landlords just as they were to ecclesiastical landlords. as well as different levels of interaction between locality and representatives of the ‘state’. Portugaliae Monumenta Historica. ‘Poder y propiedad feudales en el período astur: las mandaciones de los Flaínez en la monta˜ na leonesa’.¹⁸ On the other hand. ²⁰ SJP18 (948). ¹⁸ SM23 (936). Cel248 (before 991).²¹ and the other from the Leonese collections of San Antolín del Esla and San Juan de León. King García Sánchez I. following a land dispute in Navarre. The perhaps wrongly-dated Sob75 (858) appears to indicate a fine to the judge and compensation to the injured party.¹⁵ Gifts made in order to pay off debts. as also where blame attached in this episode. ¹⁷ S198 (962) and Cel229 (947). OD37 (994). ¹⁹ Sob54 (930). nor do we know precisely why Bonmenti had to give Cecilio meat and cider following a case about a cow. Lii355 (962). A false land claim in Castile led to a fine being levied on the claimant. One group comes from the Otero collection.¹⁹ The entirely clear fine payable to the king. a fine assessed in money terms. Agustí Altisent ( Tarragona. although they certainly leave some questions open. however. Sob29 (931). Estepa Díez. Liii559 (993). from as early as the 930s. ²¹ See C. although the exact circumstances of these isolated cases are often unstated. for example. . Recosinda. cf. OD40 and OD41 (995). unfortunately comes from a suspect record. whether or not the half-vineyard given to court president Godesteo Menendiz by the dowry-less Eldesenda at the end of her case was a fine or some kind of compensation is not certain. There are some isolated examples.¹⁷ Fines are more complicated. pp. early Sobrado cases are clear that fines were paid to the court president for theft. Sob21 (931).144 Gesmira. ¹⁶ See above. cf. Lii378 (964).²⁰ There are. from the Pedro Flaínez archive.

147–8. Flaino’s cases involved assault and wounding.24. The Making of English Law: King Alfred to the Twelfth Century (only 1 vol. as offences against the whole community. will be published posthumously. a grant of land was made to the value of 40 solidi rather than chattels or cash being handed over. For the significance of paying in land rather than chattels. and perhaps others.²⁴ In one of Munio’s cases it is recorded explicitly that one payment went to the victim and the other to the count. i. work published. Liii578. Liii561 (994). Wormald. as often happened. for they were subsequently transmitted along with the counts’ family properties. which is particularly relevant. Liii743 (1016). and some of Flaino’s. Liii556 (993). it would appear that the counts and their families benefited personally from these gifts: the properties given them as fines were not passed on to the ‘state’ nor passed to the victims as compensation. also Liii624 (1002). I am grateful to Stephen Baxter for this advice. 25. one might have expected penitential payment to go to the ²² OD31 (991). ²⁶ There was a long distant background in Visigothic law of paying judges fees for hearing crime cases. Julio Escalona reminds me that many of the secular sanctions attached to charters imply that compensation went to the injured party when transactions went awry. Forum Iudicum II. in other words. see further below. although it was their role to hold the court. cf. and passim. 219–21. these are the kind of serious breaches of the peace. 9 of vol. OD44 (998). in which rulers came to have an interest. 1999).²⁵ We see very clearly here that one reason for donation to the laity was the result of judicial process. ²⁴ Cf. ii. rape. 364. OD34 (993). as criminal legal systems developed alongside essentially compensatory civil systems. Oxford. the fines going to build up the personal property of counts.²² Most of these records are explicit about the fact that the count held the court and received the fine. and attack by siege. see P. Liii578 (997). .²³ Now. OD33 (992).Gesmira. Munio’s included theft and adultery.i. ²³ The development of the English legal system is a classic example of this process. ²⁵ ‘et pectavimus ad illo uno kavallo in xl solidos et proinde abevimus a dare alio kavallo a comite Monio Fredenandiz de alios xl solidos’. it is expected that ch. Was this legitimate appropriation? A form of payment for the service the count provided? ²⁶ A mechanism for warning people to behave? To see counts receiving fines for fornication is particularly unexpected. OD82 (1009). the disposal of Munio’s property. who presided in court. but that is very unusual—‘we had to make a payment to him [the injured man] of a horse worth 40 solidi and we had to give another horse to Count Munio Fernández worth another 40 solidi’. theft. Recosinda. of a 2-vol. and Nu˜ no Sarracíniz 145 Justa and the latter concerns fines paid to Count Munio Fernández and his wife Elvira. pp.

and Nu˜ no Sarracíniz church. Liii630 (1003). S130. 1985).³⁰ Flaino’s father and mother. His property essentially lay in a block lying to the south and south-west of León. Flaino Mu˜ noz had a more northerly orientation and his family focus lay 40 km to the north-east of León. although it looks as if his active period in court was coming to an end around 1010.146 Gesmira. he was back in court circles by 992 and his family seems to have been in close touch with the royal family—his son Pedro received royal grants too and the king himself witnessed Munio’s monastic endowment in 1011. making generous endowments and putting Abbess Teresa in charge. who made substantial grants to Sahagún. for example. ³⁰ S93. Liii623 (1002). S146. Munio Flaínez and Froileva. S145. S101. although in 989 he had received a major grant of land near Coyanza (now Valencia de Don Juan. S114 (949). although much of his property was in the Sahagún region he did also have property in the mountain region of Valdoré. S147. Froileva’s. Liii624 (1002). as did Flaino. were very prominent landlords. Munio Fernández took part in the noble rebellion against the king of León in 991. ²⁸ Fines: Liii603 (1001). Flaino’s sister Jimena identified Vermudo as her grandfather. another was Vermudo Nú˜ nez. ²⁹ Liii701. Liii694 (1011). who points out that Munio was from the family of the counts of Salda˜ na. stretching for 40 km. and running for about 20 km to the west of this line. 333. Recosinda. Liii701 (1011). and/or compensation to the family of one party. father. rather than the exaction of secular penalties. See . S99. south of León) from the king. Liii530. See P. S328 (985). La tierra de campos occidental (Valladolid. Liii632 (1003). he was Flaino’s mother’s. S104. Liii671 (1008). One grandfather may have been the Flaino whose assistance Gesmira had sought in 950. Property that came to him and his wife as fines came essentially from within this block—in other words. Martínez Sopena. It is worth looking at these counts in a little more detail.²⁷ Munio and his wife continued to receive property in lieu of fines until at least 1008. gifts for no specified reason: Liii573 (996). ²⁷ Liii559. an associate of the king’s in the 940s and 950s. roughly bounded on the east by the course of the river Esla. S129. 337–8.²⁸ In 1011 he and his wife founded the monastery of San Juan Bautista within the city of León. on the southern side of the Cantabrian mountains (the Alto Esla).²⁹ Five years later we hear of the division of his heritable land between his four children and must presume him dead. he was presiding over courts in this area and dealing with offences committed within it. and were involved in many exchanges of property. Liii721 (989–1013). S98. They also received gifts for unspecified reasons until 1011.

and Nu˜ no Sarracíniz 147 Figure 6. Estepa. La tierra de campos occidental.1 Location of properties of Munio Fern´ andez and Flaino Mu˜ noz involved in at least twenty transactions of gift and purchase between 947 and 962. 289 n.Gesmira. where he Martínez Sopena. Recosinda. 14. these lay mostly in the northern hills—indeed some (at Caso) were way north in the mountains of Asturias—although Munio attended transactions in the neighbourhood of León. 331. 296. . ‘Poder y propiedad’.

suggests that the family may already have been mentioned at Valdoré. 13 km east of Bo˜ nar and 8 km north-west of present-day Cistierna. Velasco Mu˜ noz. de producción y parentesco en la edad media y moderna (Madrid. OD6 (947). his daughter Jimena was also active in the 980s and 990s. Recosinda. 1990). OD253 (1057). S201. OD33 (992). OD241 (1046). Froileva made purchases alone in 962 and 963 and presumably Munio died round about this time. Relaciones de poder. taking fines for ‘crime’ committed in his region. involved in judicial business and taking fines. made large gifts of northern lands to the monastery at Bo˜ nar in 996. We can see in each case a powerful. OD11 (961).³⁵ His son Pedro was actively involved in transactions in this mountain region from 996. a patron of Sahagún. Lii305 (958). S357. S191 (961). in R. cf. defined region. ‘Poder y propiedad’.³³ Flaino was count. in the north. he argues that Munio was displaced from the Cea valley to the north (though Martínez Sopena. hereditary landlord. S108 (948). 289–90 and 296–7. 51–84.³⁷ These two cases are important because we have so much detailed information about the families across several generations. ³⁶ OD42 (996). at 53. and made a grant for his soul. OD12 (961). in 854). 300. ‘Poder y propiedad’. with his own areas of responsibility. and Nu˜ no Sarracíniz witnessed grants to Vermudo Nú˜ nez and his wife. S352. sometimes with other judges to assist him. and taking fines in the mountainous region of Valdoré. but also that both men received numerous other gifts in addition to the several ³¹ Lii286 (955). ‘El conde Rodrigo de León y los suyos. OD70 (1006). OD245 (1048). S213. S178 (960). ³⁴ OD31 (991). ³³ S328. for example. ³⁵ OD82. S205. OD99 (1014). when his wife and surviving children exchanged half a villa with his grandson.³⁶ He was involved in at least seventy transactions of one kind or another and is last heard of in 1052. and another son. in charge of a relatively small.148 Gesmira. OD76 (1008). these were essentially mountain lords.). S107 (947). ³² S198. sitting as a judge.³² We have no record of Munio taking fines but his son Flaino appeared on the scene in the late 980s. with connections to the king. Pastor (ed. Munio and Froileva were the people who were owed the twenty-three sacks of corn noted above. OD213 (1035). See Estepa’s discussion of his acquisitions. It is particularly interesting that the counts appear to have benefited personally from the judicial system. ³⁷ See Estepa. for example. OD43 (997). OD34 (993). OD44 (998). . the last of their joint transactions to be preserved. OD227 (1039). OD71 (1006). he was dead. OD73 (1007). Herencia y expectativa del poder entre los siglos X y XII’.³¹ However.³⁴ By 1009. he was ultimately a count too. OD181 (1027).

p. and Nu˜ no Sarracíniz 149 transactions of sale and exchange in which they were involved. The only other direct parallels are the León charters recording Gesmira’s gift to Flaino and Brunildi. 24–5. pp. LXVII (953). about 20 km south of Oviedo.Gesmira. and pp. on three separate occasions in 962–63. DOING GOOD The other prominent reason for making gifts to the laity was because the beneficiary had done some good—literally bonum facere —to the donor. for the northern context. another woman and her male cousin. T64. See above. ³⁹ Li222. 139. gave land in the same region to the couple Savarigo and Guestrilli because of the good that had been done—in bad times. Hence. the two brothers Pepino and Petronio gave Fraterno and his wife half an orchard in Argüebanes (on the edge of the Liébana valley) in 875. a couple to a priest ‘pro que mici bene facis’ and Portugaliae Monumenta Historica. although interestingly this may have come from a mountain context to the north of the meseta. T69 (a slightly different case—see further below. ‘so that as long as he lived they should do good to him and provide clothing’. We shall return to these gifts a little later. for support sought from religious bodies.³⁹ The phrase also occurs in the tenth-century record of the aristocrat Segesinda’s gift to a bishop in the north-west (Rosendo) so that he should ‘do good to me and support my cases in court’. group. and a man. ‘so that they should do good’ to the brothers. while a woman. . Recosinda. a woman to the monastery of Guimar˜ aes ‘ut eis benefaciatis’. p.⁴⁰ ³⁸ T13. ⁴⁰ Cel501 (932). in Asturias. also from the north. 127–8. so that ‘during my lifetime you should do good to me’. Cantabrian. for Gesmira and Recosinda. cf. with property scattered in several locations. in the first two cases.³⁸ Although some of these people were clearly peasants. Lii357. Lii455 (978). T65. the woman Severa (one of those who gave in 962) was equally clearly an aristocrat. a man called Eulalio in 915 gave the couple Vicencio and his wife his share (sorte) of land in Vi˜ non (also on the edge of the Liébana valley) inherited from his parents. and Recosinda’s gift to Taurelo and Principia of half her share of family land ‘because you do me much good’. The formulation of ‘doing good’ is only rarely reflected elsewhere in tenth-century charters and appears to be a particular characteristic of the way relationships were conceptualized in this northern. 151). in other words had looked after (or was to look after) the donor in some way. T22. see above.

Recently Carlos Estepa has shown. ‘Las Behetrías: la encomendación en Asturias. Los se˜ noríos de behetría (Madrid. 3 vols. ‘Formación y consolidación’. and M. such as his ‘Formación y consolidación del feudalismo en Castilla y León’. i. (Madrid. and the editors’ prologue to C. i. that a 1029 grant to a benefactor was to ensure post-mortem commemoration. Estepa notes. Viejos y nuevos estudios sobre las instituciones medievales espa˜ nolas. that the reasons for the development of the behetría were many and various. 1976–80). for Sánchez-Albornoz and the incommuniare grants of Galicia. i 15–191 (first published 1924). pp. 377–80. . of the kind epitomized by the seventh-century Frankish Formulary of Tours (that is ⁴¹ C. In fact. 1890). Le bénéfice et le patronat pendant l’époque mérovingienne (Histoire des institutions politiques de l’ancienne France. Estepa. Estepa Díez. also A. even where the texts were silent about it. 224. 83–4. that these were not forms of commendation in the commonly understood sense. Sánchez-Albornoz. goes far beyond the import of the texts. somewhat similar to Gesmira’s intention. ‘Nobleza e iglesias propias en la Cantabria altomedieval’. 1978).⁴¹ He argued that these texts provided evidence of the continuation of late Roman commendation. he argued that commendation was widespread in the tenth. however. 10. in two distinct forms. in idem.150 Gesmira. at 97. Las Behetrías. I. Historia medieval.and eleventh-century Astur-Leonese kingdom. further. and earlier work. Estepa Díez and C. 43. to both lay and ecclesiastical beneficiaries. were acts of commendation.). compare Fustel de Coulanges.⁴³ The idea that there was widespread commendation in northern Spain. This interpretation.⁴² and that the benefactoría cited in eleventh-century texts (in which the right to choose a lord featured) subsequently developed into the distinctive lay lordship of the behetría of the later middle ages. 63–89. and that bonum facere and bene facere did not evolve directly into the behetría. 2001). 83. ⁴² Ibid. Behetrías. See above. 41–5. Recosinda. 262. Jular Pérez-Alfaro (eds. 223–40. Les origines du système féodal. León y Castilla’. 5 (1987).. La formación del feudalismo en la península Ibérica (Barcelona. that a very high proportion of all sales and gifts made by small proprietors. Barbero and M.) ⁴³ C. texts using the words bene facere and benefactoría play a larger part in the discussion than those using bonum facere : ‘lo importante es el concepto que radica en el ejercicio del bene facere ’. Vigil. Sánchez-Albornoz was strongly influenced by Fustel’s treatment of late Roman commendation and his emphasis on subjection of client to patron. Paris. Loring García. mostly of the second type. in a major work. on the one hand by the donor agreeing to serve the patron in return for food and clothing and on the other by the donor transferring property to the patron in return for protection. vol. 89–120. that the word benefactoría referred to the bestowal of benefits in a rather general sense. Studia Historica. he implies. 5. and Nu˜ no Sarracíniz What was all this ‘doing good’ about? What in practice did it mean and what were the couples who were also themselves beneficiaries providing? These and related texts have a major place in Spanish historiography since Sánchez-Albornoz devoted an important early paper to the subject. (Cf.

g.). Zeumer (ed. sectio 5 (Hannover. Matezia and her cousin’s grant is formulated as a sale. ‘and other good things which you have done for us in a bad year’. ⁴⁶ Noted also by Sánchez-Albornoz. Recosinda. ⁴⁴ we should not assume that these northern Spanish bonum facere texts must have been recording acts of commendation by donor to recipient. is therefore no longer held to be appropriate.⁴⁶ Severa’s grant is both retrospective and prospective. and Recosinda’s notes that she ‘accepts blankets and bedding from you and that you provide for me (gubernas) and keep me warm’. It reads ‘dono vobis ad vestra mesa super vestrum panem et vinum et vestrum onore quod fecistis mihi et adhuc insuper presentastis mihi mutalina hoptimum vestimentum’ ( T69). ⁴⁵ Cf. ‘Et post obitum vero nostrum sedeant ipsas villas filios nostros laborent et parciant vobiscum. however. 43.⁴⁸ ⁴⁴ ‘Formulae Turonenses’. i. it was presumably to supply their table. on the vagueness of the concept. the 875 text does use the word ‘commend’ and associate it—‘you should hold us commended and do good’. MGH LL in quarto. and Nu˜ no Sarracíniz 151 binding. et faciant vobis veram obedientiam et fidelem servicium. Behetrías.⁴⁵ Very unusually. made relatively little of the bonum facere texts because he was more concerned with the benefactoría and with service. physical care: provision of food and of shelter. exclusive. whereas in my examples above it was often the patron who had already provided the service and was therefore being rewarded. because ‘you picked me up in a bad year and did many good things for me’ and also that ‘a bad year might come and hunger might overtake me’. It should be clear that the relationship which was his main concern—that is the provision of service and/or rent for a patron in return for food and/or protection—is perfectly well indicated in some of the eleventh-century texts that he cites (e. The ‘doing good’ texts are not very specific about what should be. 161–3. 233 citing Gesmira and Recosinda. 1886). note that here the client is to provide the service. see further below. for their lifetime. and sometimes clothes. . but he does include them at 76. grain. ‘Las behetrías’. Estepa. Cel572 (1012)).Gesmira. These things seem to be about practical.⁴⁷ Gesmira’s says that ‘you kept me warm in your house and provided for me (gubernasti)’ as well as looking forward to the likelihood of good to be done. for which the price paid was goats. et vos illis faciatis bonum et habeant de vos moderatione et in verbo et in facto’. done. ⁴⁸ Sánchez-Albornoz. this is the only one of these texts to refer to the notion of commendation. in K. or had been. pp. ⁴⁷ This text is difficult to translate. ‘Las behetrías’. personal commitment of the commended person to the patron). 43. as also 83 n. cheeses. but there are one or two clues. I take it that this was in respect of the onor they had done him and the clothes they had provided. 74. Vermudo’s grant to Savarigo and his wife refers to the gifts the couple had made and the fine clothing provided. no. Since the gift to the couple comprised a vineyard. Formulae Merowingici et Karolini Aevi. In these texts onor usually signifies a countergift and therefore perhaps indicates things that had been given.

Quelques problèmes liés au marché de la terre’. Sam241 (969). at 21–4. ⁵¹ See below. Formación del feudalismo. 384. Nearly all of these cases are about practical support—deals done with the rich to get essential supplies.⁵³ Those with resources could disburse the surplus they had to spare. 309–38 (see further above. pp. Laicos y monasterios’.⁵² Assistance given in bad times. a sale to the monastery of Samos by the woman Frogildi. Wickham (eds. although his examples come overwhelmingly from the twelfth century. and heating’—all donations to religious institutions but cast within a comparable social and economic framework. especially food. Orlandis’s elaborate treatment of food and clothing for those entering the familiaritas relationship with monasteries that he proposed. and clothing for himself. Cf. 2005). accumulation et circulation des biens. which has seemed to many scholars to reinforce the commendation argument. and so is Leocadia’s to the monastery of Abellar for ‘clothing. ⁵³ Cf. 127–8. p. in the context of discussing the fifth-century Gaulish work of Salvian. 185. in ‘that awful year’ (isto anno pessimo). and clothing that had been received. a kind of debt. Recosinda. Portugaliae Monumenta Historica. were often the beneficiaries of the gifts ⁴⁹ C117 (964). and Barbero and Vigil. ⁵⁴ Gifts of food and clothing are reminiscent of the victum et vestimentum phrase which occurs in the Tours commendation formula. be it by layman or church. Feller and C. Feller.⁵⁰ It is also implicit in the (abused) gift that Reparado and Trasvinda made to their cousins that the cousins should look after them in old age—as was clearly not to be the case. CXXXV (982). when times were bad. cf. However. drink. may have looked at the time like a free gift but clearly it often set up an obligation to repay the gift when times were better. shoes.⁴⁹ In Galicia Gondesendo gave a share of a smallholding to a layman because he had given him bread and wine and had provided for him (guvernasti) in a bad year from March until July. ‘ ‘‘Traditio corporis et animae’’.152 Gesmira. the Tours . 101. ⁵⁰ Cel436 (924). because he had provided bread for his son. ‘Enrichissement. Les origines du système féodal. 3–28. pp.⁵⁴ Lay couples. Le marché de la terre au moyen âge. also to a priest. the very similar ninth-century Italian cases cited by L. (Rome.⁵¹A rather more political version of this kind of support comes with Valentino and Donna’s gift to a lay couple because they had protected them from the fisc and from the judge (de iudice). when he was dying of hunger. expecting some kind of return at an unspecified point in the future. ⁵² S332 (986). food. Fustel de Coulanges. see above. they record gifts made for very comparable reasons. remarked that the giver may have looked liberal but was actually creating a debt. see. in L. so is Sanzone’s. for example. 222–3. for food. 53–4). and Nu˜ no Sarracíniz Although other texts do not use the bonum facere expression.). Lii462 (978). Nu˜ no Sarracíniz’s grant for care to be provided in old age is reminiscent. in particular. Though made to a priest. V27 (950). goat milk for his daughter.

. is in the first instance economic—getting the wherewithal to sustain life. there was no associated service obligation. and Nu˜ no Sarracíniz 153 given in grateful thanks for earlier handouts. Portugaliae Monumenta Historica. although of course one would expect some sense of obligation to these providers to have been established in such small-scale rural societies. people of both sexes did so. for whatever reason. it also seems partly to be about the support mechanisms used by partnerless people—those who. S303 (980)). All the ‘warming’ cases relate to women. and others record gifts as a guarantee against future bad fortune. commitment. not all of them.g. gifts and sales for victum et vestimentum are in fact very uncommon in this tenth-century material (although see Sob10 (943). some of the gifts were to come into effect after the death of the donors. could this after all have been about commendation. Aristocrats as well as peasants made such gifts. let alone total.Gesmira. These were people who did not have an effective household set-up. did not have extended families. So. although not invariably so. Although there are slightly more women than men who made such gifts. see above. this seems in practice to have been about individuals either seeking help from the wealthy in hard times. Sob5 (966). What it is about. As the texts say. the donors often gave only a portion of their properties. In some of these cases it is clear that the donor entered the household of the providers. 141. feeble. Recosinda. Other examples seem to have been more short-term and were to do with providing necessities in particularly bad times. physical. as the earliest Liébana text might suggest? Was this a Spanish version of a general European post-Roman process. then. formula guarantees service in return for food and clothing. CIII (971)). it is sometimes about direct. whereas service is not specified in these particular Spanish contexts. and in charters the phrase victum et vestimentum is more likely to refer to gifts made in order to supply the poor or monks than to refer to handouts to a donor (e. S144 (955): ‘pro victu atque vestimento monachorum’. and presumably not much of a wider family network. p. ⁵⁵ But for gender differences overall in donating to the laity.⁵⁵ and they were nearly always—as might be expected—people without partners. literally to be cared for there: ‘keeping me warm’ seems to be code for taking someone in. and the number of such cases is really very small within the overall tenth-century context. and old. It is not about personal commitment to the wealthy. care for the weak. Sam93 (951). or providing for the event of future bad times. S165 (959). irreversible. in which small-scale free proprietors submitted their persons and gave up their property to great landlords in order to secure assistance and protection in an increasingly unstable world? Clearly not.

in an altogether looser. or the western meseta. Those who were ‘governed’ in these texts are those for whom support was provided. exercised by the provider? The word gubernare occurs several times and is suggestive of steering. there is very little to suggest that the people who provided food and shelter. as in the north: although the bonum facere phrase clearly reflects wording characteristic of Asturias and Cantabria. and the texts ⁵⁶ Commendation of a kind did start to feature in eleventh-century texts. Overall. pp. ‘Poder y propiedad’. doing the jobs that no one else wanted to do. And what about the levels of control. Estepa. ⁵⁷ See above. nor even the whole of peasant society. ‘Governing’ here must be governing in the sense of a head of household setting the rules for the members of the household. a noticeable proportion of gifts to the laity—over two-fifths of the group—were made for no stated reason. ruling.⁵⁷ This was light-touch patronage. always reminded of her ‘place’. G I F TS TO T H E L A I T Y F O R N O A P PA R E N T REASON As indicated above. . the practices which it encapsulates were more widespread. the rich beneficiaries of gifts of land. One thinks of some of the stock characters of modern novels. less autocratic. some of which lay in the distant past. ‘Governing’ was to do with the power of the paterfamilias.154 Gesmira. like Fanny Price in Mansfield Park. without household of his or her own. framework than the commendation model. achieved sustained powers of direction over those who made the gifts. not the power of the serf-owner or seigneurial lord. 320. or Castile. although I have translated it as ‘providing’. Recosinda. although it is probably reasonable to suppose that such procedures might be found as well in Galicia. the gentlewoman taken into the house of a relative. 17–22. but they had arisen for a variety of reasons. who were necessarily subject to his (usually male) authority. often in the household. Such powers of landlords over dependent tenants clearly sometimes existed. the power over persons. and Nu˜ no Sarracíniz it is also consequentially about extending patronage—lining up and getting supporters.⁵⁶ It is not about the whole society. not the establishment of heavy burdensome bonds. governing. eternally grateful but totally powerless. however. or the tutor or governess.

Formación del feudalismo. they were made by men. receiving many fines as well as the occasional gift for no apparent reason. we are now in a position to make some suggestions. as also that Munio’s son was a count and took a number of fines. although we know that one gift was in lieu of debt. Cel509 (937). 143–6. . p. like those made to Gutier and Ilduara in Galicia. Lii356 (962). and see further below. with the exception of Castile. treated the ninth-century León grants noted here as evidence that the ‘servants’ had previously received goods from their masters.⁵⁹ and there was probably some gift-giving in order to clear debts. Cel518 (931). ⁶² See above. Having examined those made for stated reasons in some detail..⁶⁰ Others. and they occurred in most collections and most regions.Gesmira. 84. 382. make rewards for past service. may in fact have been ultimately destined for the church: one church was given to a lay couple for their lifetime only. Cel218 (936). women. as well as receiving gifts ⁵⁸ See above. to be passed on to Sahagún. ⁶⁰ For example. Sam132 (before 978). there was doubtless some movement of property between members of the royal family and its close associates. Recosinda. and that Vermudo Nú˜ nez.⁶² Most of the gifts to Munio Flaínez and his wife were made for no stated reason. for profiliation (i. ⁵⁹ Cf. Sob30 (955). 160–1. Some of these gifts. Li4 (870). adoption).⁵⁸ There may well have been deals between family members. and mixed groups. but mostly by couples. S25 (921). The basic profile of this gift-giving therefore reflects that of gift-giving to the laity for stated reasons. 141. and Nu˜ no Sarracíniz 155 contain few clues about what was happening. were made to lords (domini) and presumably met the terms of some personal obligation. pp. pp. Barbero and Vigil. had received such gifts too. but notably in the 960s. Nearly three-quarters of these unexplained gifts were made to couples. Sob52 (930).⁶¹ Some of the couples who received gifts for no stated reason are exactly the same wealthy couples who took fines or who received gifts for support that had been provided in hard times. These families bought and exchanged a lot of property as well as receiving gifts. from ‘your servant’ (servus). could have been made for all kinds of reason. Clearly these gifts for which we have little detail. 152–3. just as Savarigo and Guestrilli in the Liébana gave and bought land. and pay fines and compensations. his father-in-law. ⁶¹ Li3 (864). etc. Cel493 (918). some of which are gifts by profiliation. Count Munio Fernández and his wife Elvira are another such case. They occurred from late ninth to late tenth century. including all of the reasons cited above.e.

it is worth considering the nature of some sale transactions. S169. by adoption. Sob67 (920). S237. T40. . of which their son Opila became abbot.⁶⁷ These clearly were all wealthy aristocrats with available surplus—that is. and his wife María. S182. T69. or a life of subjection. Formación del feudalismo. Sob102 (935). they used food to pay for their ⁶³ T52 (947).⁶⁵ the major-domo Ansur. nor that their gifts represented all their property—some texts are explicit that the beneficiary was only to have a share. T25. S285. p. that his family property was transferred to San Martín of Turieno. enforceable. S269. G I F TS F R A M E D A S S A L E S ? In the present context of gift-giving for purposes which were not primarily religious. commitment. S223. with resources to dispense. S210. S260. is entirely reasonable. S272. in addition to gifts made for the wide range of reasons noted above. Again. Sob101 (931). It is notable that virtually all of Bagaudano’s many purchases were paid for in food. who bought in central Galicia from at least 920 until 953. T27. T26. who bought around Sahagún between 958 and 967. S284. ⁶⁸ Hence gifts by profiliatio.⁶⁴ Ermegildo and Paterna. T23. Sob79 (927). some of the unexplained gifts went to these couples because they had provided. T21. as a result of such gifts. and perhaps with a second wife Ilduara in the 970s. ⁶⁶ S158. 380. S199. T41 perhaps implies that Bagaudano had received the property exchanged as a fine. T36. S187.156 Gesmira. S273. ⁶⁷ Lii352. Lii406. ⁶⁵ For example.⁶⁶ Fruela Vélaz and his wife Jimena. T65 (962). S278. Recosinda. T32. and that Savarigo was another son. T54 (951). S178 (960). S268. 186). Lii360 (see below.⁶⁸ They were simply gifts and belong to the world of loose patronage networks. for example. T64. T39. who bought in the Liébana between 914 and 932. S308. ⁶⁴ T18. S194. Sob87 (953). Sob89 (953). T53 (950). It therefore seems likely that. As indicated above. the layman Bagaudano and his wife received gifts in the Liébana in the early tenth century but they were also noticeable purchasers of land. we do not have to suppose that the donors of unexplained gifts of land entered into lifelong. just as children did. S191 (961). and Nu˜ no Sarracíniz in recognition of help given in hard times.⁶³ Other notable purchasers received unexplained gifts too: Bagaudano and Faquilona (probably Savarigo’s parents). T42. who bought around Coyanza (Valencia de Don Juan) between 962 and 968. Barbero and Vigil’s suggestion. S282.

with her sons. See above. that record was described as a ‘charter of gift and sale’. see above. as in the latter case. ⁷⁴ Cel411 (989). pp. wine. when debts were discharged or past assistance rewarded by handing over plots of land—a characteristically peasant practice—the transaction was usually called a gift. and cheese they owed him. .⁷⁰ A woman. also ‘sold’ the priest Braolio half an orchard in recognition of grain he had supplied to her. for the combination of proprietorship and tenancy that was characteristic of some peasants’ property rights. ‘sold’ to a man called Arias and his children their share of some enclosed land (dehesa) in Fontecha. a problematic text as it stands because it literally says that the priest owed the woman the grain (‘pro illa cebaria de renobo que mici abuisti a dare’). pp.⁷³ As we have seen. ⁷⁰ T65. however.⁷² and the following year. see above. the only reasonable sense to make of it is that it was her debt and that the endings of the verbs are incorrect. ⁷² A different individual (from the ‘territory of León’) from Savarigo’s wife. also called Guestrilli. In effect. the food given by the priest or lay lord and the rent unpaid became—retrospectively—the ⁶⁹ Bagaudano and his wife were central to the interpretation of Barbero and Vigil. and as if the gift made to assist the needy was similarly a price paid in advance for property.⁷¹ Shifting the perspective a little towards debt. Lii457. Gogina. two men. Recosinda. where their purchases are interpreted as transactions which initiated relationships of dependence. Cel409 (990). 127–8. 139. ‘sold’ the priest Munio her vineyard in 978 in lieu of the wine that she owed him. and Nu˜ no Sarracíniz 157 purchases. Lii465. paid in advance for some land. See further above. sometimes exactly the same kind of transaction was called a sale. Martín and Félix. In this they mirrored the approach of Sánchez-Albornoz. and when Recosinda gave Taurelo and Principia half her land in Ujo for the good they would do her in the future. in lieu of the grain. 377–80. she ‘sold’ the same priest a plot of land for grain owed. pp. Lii357 (the text is more of a gift text than a sale text but it is twice called kartula donationis vel venditionis). 151. see above.Gesmira. pp. ⁷³ Lii371 (964). with both the good done in the past and the food which had been handed over described as the price paid for the land. Formación del feudalismo. by writing it off. ‘gifts’ of vineyards they owned were also made in lieu of regular renders of wine and grain owed by villagers close to the monastery at Celanova. 150–1. that transaction was recorded as a sale. worth thirteen and a half solidi. ⁷¹ OD14 (964). 136–8 for discussion of ‘confusion’ between the categories of gift and sale. pp. 18–21.⁷⁴ Now.⁶⁹ When Matezia and her cousin gave land to Savarigo and Guestrilli in recognition of the good the couple had done them. as if the unpaid rent was a price the beneficiary. a widow. who was located in the Liébana. when the ‘debt’ was discharged with a gift of land.

for reasons of more efficient management and exploitation. price tended to be expressed in measures of grain. some sales were made for extremely high-value prices. there were other kinds of sale: sales were also made for directly consumable food. Early Medieval Europe. ⁷⁶ See W. 149–74. 161–80. . and more occasionally in cheeses or bread. and you have nothing more to give’. 11 (2002). could in fact have been comparable transactions. To Figueras. ‘Enrichissement. Wickham (eds. for which the price is specified in terms of food and drink. price and valuation in Galicia and Castile-León in the tenth century’. and silver plate. Feller. However. Vímara and his wife sold the monastery of Abellar half a vineyard for salt and grain. 23. Sales were of many different types. ⁷⁷ Li74. millet.⁷⁸ In all these cases price and value were important to the participants. for discussion of price. and Nu˜ no Sarracíniz price. with a great range of different price categories.). Recosinda. Domnito sold ⁷⁵ Cf. viewed in this light.g. Li254 (952). and Ll. at 167. and wine. It is far from my intention to suggest that all sales should be. grain.⁷⁶ Some sales were made by aristocrats and some sales were made to religious corporations for what look like essentially commercial reasons.⁷⁵ Bearing that in mind. 2005). Lii336 (961). purchases were made to consolidate property. or might be. Hence. ⁷⁸ e. operating at different social levels. Lii343 (961). in L. a carpet. When sales were made for payment in food. on price as the cost of all the help given. The format of the record was usually that of the straightforward sale document: ‘I sell (vendo) you this and I have accepted a price of that. and a cheese. Rodrigo sold Bishop Rosendo a vineyard for rye. a group of siblings sold the woman Fredesinda some woods for cider. it is worth exploring whether the many apparently straightforward sales of small plots of land. Davies.158 Gesmira. or wine. Feller and C.⁷⁷and sales were made to religious communities from which any balance in the value of the land which was not met by the price paid was to be devoted to alms in memory of the vendors’ parents or other relations—the price paid may strictly have been too low but the transaction was clearly concluded in terms of value. on the inability to pay debts as a primary reason for sale. ‘L’historiographie du marché de la terre en Catalogne’. the priest Rapinato and his cousin sold their shares in a family mill to the monastery of Santos Justo y Pastor for grain. Le marché de la terre au moyen âge (Rome. which is agreeable to me. or cider. ‘Sale. like the vineyard which changed hands between lay couples for a value of 150 solidi in 927 or orchards sold to Celanova in 961 for fine horses. Cel380. accumulation et circulation des biens’.

Davies. that some of these so-called sales could just as well have been recorded as gifts made in recognition of assistance given in the past when food was short and times were hard. sometimes they are also likely to have been deals—contracts to secure supplies in times of shortage—closer to the true ‘sale’ but lying precisely within the same social and economic framework as gifts made in recognition of assistance. Moreta Velayos argues that eight donations with countergifts were in fact sales.⁸⁰ Sales of this kind were made to clergy. because such sales happened in all decades. Cel392 (961). Of course.Gesmira.⁸² One can envisage. and mixed groups. like those in the middle of the tenth century. 116–19). especially in mid-century. particularly given the low incidence of donation to the laity.⁷⁹ The same Taurelo and Principia who received gifts from Recosinda for her support paid one Nonelo in grain and cider for half a plot of arable and a quarter of an orchard. again in Ujo.⁸¹ This partly reflects the size of collections and the overall incidence of sale as against donation. Ov10. 159–60 and 171–2. ‘Sale. and monastic communities. for comparative statistics. However. Li170 (943). it does not have to imply that such transactions did not happen. women. and often fractions. to the priest Vicente. ⁸⁰ Lii324 (960). they were made from early until late in the tenth century. Cf. Historia de un dominio monástico castellano (902–1338) (Salamanca. animals handed over in payment have an uncertain status in this respect—they may have been handed over for immediate consumption or as stock. It is impossible to do a meaningful count of all sales for food because in some cases the value of the price is given but the objects handed over are not identified. selling whatever he could to get food. ⁸¹ See Davies. however. and they are relatively rare in Castilian collections. (S. they were made by men. further. married couples. Ov13 (937–49). They occur in all parts and in most charter collections. 152–5. Cel437 (943). Cf. . it makes sense to see the vendor of such tiny portions as the principal initiator of such a transaction. both lay and clerical. ⁸² Absence from Carde˜ na texts could be explained by suggesting that Carde˜ na scribes did not choose to copy and preserve such records in their cartulary. laity. We do not have to suppose that this only happened in dreadful years. Recosinda. We do not have to suppose that they involved the vendors in relationships of tied dependence: it is striking that the properties alienated were small. price and valuation’. other examples of sales for food: to a lay woman (confessa). S193 (961). El monasterio de San Pedro de Carde˜ na. Ov12. they are particularly prominent in Celanova and León collections. the lack is very striking. Lii283 (954). therefore. and Nu˜ no Sarracíniz 159 Munio Flaínez and his wife half a plot of land for bread and wine. ‘Sale. the ⁷⁹ Li22 (908). and so on. but the mere handful in Carde˜ na material is nevertheless notable. Ov8. 1971). price and valuation’.

there is no reliable basis for estimating whether this practice benefited more laity or more religious or was roughly the same.e. this is going too far. lay and clerical.⁸⁴ Spanish writers of the past generation have placed a heavy emphasis on the importance of gift by profiliation in this process. A couple like Ermegildo and Paterna.160 Gesmira. in early tenth-century Galicia.⁸³ But we do have to consider that this was probably part of a familiar and ongoing economic process: in times of shortage. and shoes (cf. Lii322 (959). although an amusing exercise.⁸⁵ Some gifts to the powerful were certainly ⁸³ It would be possible to interpret other kinds of price paid as evidence for the Sánchez-Albornoz model: price often included bedding (cf. 229. and that they themselves could benefit hugely when they took on the role of provider. PAT RO N AG E . arguing that such gifts gave strangers rights in family property and inaugurated new relationships of dependence. Recosinda. A N D C L I E N TS H I P Gifts were made to lay persons for a range of very different reasons. For all the reasons stated above. although gifts to secure practical support were a significant element of that giving. Clearly the beneficiaries in such cases were not distinctively lay. ⁸⁴ Not for ever: see A. the ‘warmth’ specified in some of the bonum facere texts). although there are as many such gifts to laity as clergy recorded. i. La sociedad gallega (Madrid. where the price for a plot of land was a ‘best’ Moorish blanket and a pair of shoes. be it noted. e. 1992). and buying up land. the calciatura that Leocadia ordered). and Nu˜ no Sarracíniz vendors kept plenty back. on the transfer of a significant interest to Count Menendo González in the eleventh century. these were not transactions leading to dependence. for gifts for practical support were also made to the clergy. however. although their property was soon transferred to the monastery of Sobrado. people who had resources to spare. however.g. peasants would get food from richer neighbours. and sooner or later would reward them by handing them a plot of land—land. attracting gifts. G I V I N G . One thing that these transactions certainly make clear is that there were some very wealthy aristocrats around. lay and ecclesiastical landowners alike might provide support in court or handouts of food. sometimes for food handouts. gifts in which the recipient was taken on ‘as it were as a child’ (and many of the unexplained gifts were . ⁸⁵ It has become common to argue that all ‘profiliation’ gifts. and many of the lengths of cloth were of special character and very high value. Isla Frez. lengths of cloth (which could have been for clothing). not their own surplus food or other chattels. amassed very considerable property by receiving fines.

of course. with a tendency for those rich in land to get richer and the poor to get poorer. Loring García. 1980).⁸⁷ The only thing they had to give was land. ⁸⁸ For these categories of enquiry see J. Questions about the quasi-feudal. it is also the case that some acts of profiliation were clearly intended to provide the donors. E. As suggested above. 380–94. in the much longer term. ‘Las relaciones de dependencia en la Galicia alto-medieval’. This could sometimes have been the case but. Isla Frez. Poly (eds. or feudo-vassallic. see especially Barbero and Vigil. Poorer people do not seem to have had access to liquid capital nor sufficient surplus of consumables to give back when good times returned.or herself into a state of dependence. idem. What is also noticeable about these transactions is that when the wealthy dispensed food. ⁸⁶ See above. of diverting property into the hands of the powerful. Pastor (ed. Bournazel. as argued here. profiliation gifts may well have had the effect. and for updates. Bournazel and J. Les féodalités (Paris. but our evidence of such transactions is limited in scale and suggests that the impact must have been limited at this time. pp.⁸⁶ There simply is no reason to assume that in the tenth century a gift by profiliation meant that the donor commended him. 83–4. Relaciones de poder. 13–49.-P. not the recipients. ‘Dominios monásticos y parentelas en la Castilla altomedieval: el origen del derecho de retorno y su evolución’.Gesmira.). Recosinda. X e –XIIe siècles (Paris. or proto-feudal. Of course. S370 (972). and Nu˜ no Sarracíniz 161 gifts by profiliation. for a wife’s profiliation gift to her husband. were gifts by which the donor entered into a service relationship with the beneficiary. Hispania 44 (1984). what they got in return was nearly always land. . 1990). it is perfectly clear that all kinds of rationale lay behind such giving. 5–18. Sociedad gallega. but we should remember that profiliation gifts had other purposes too.-P. also A. La mutation féodale. in R.⁸⁸ Was property given in return for service? Was such service accompanied by close personal commitment between donor (patron) and recipient profiliation gifts). at 28. 233. de producción y parentesco en la edad media y moderna (Madrid.). as has often been suggested. Cel228). that the properties conveyed were often but small fractions of the donors’ lands. Poly and E. nature of these gifts between lay people naturally leap to mind. the word may well have been chosen by the record-maker not because it had any precise signification but as a way of emphasizing the donor’s freedom of disposition. in theory there could also have been a hidden stratum of repayment in goods. 219–21. but it was only one of several practices that led in that direction. but see further my comments below. This clearly had social and economic consequences. and that a wife could transfer property to her husband by profiliation. I. with services (cf. and M. Formación del feudalismo. it is landed gifts that are recorded. 1998). ⁸⁷ Although. pp. in effect a form of commendation.

small-scale. that we usually imagine. One female donor. and when Sanzone gave the priest his field and garden for the service he had done. whether agricultural or administrative or military. there are certainly shades of lifelong commitment here. most importantly. Cel423. perhaps Cel505. was a physically enduring element in the local scene.44. fidelissimi). dilectio. The patron/client relationship sometimes looks more permanent. patronage network. more institutionalized. ⁹² Ov4. emphasizing that Vermudo Aboleze was not a dependent peasant and was free to choose a lord. this is but an extremely small element of the property transactions that are recorded. Kings unquestionably had followers who were seen to be faithful (fideles. and was often explicitly freely disposable—they could pass it on as they wished. S285 (976). not the kinds of active service.162 Gesmira. ⁹³ V27. pp.⁸⁹ Relationships between some donors and some beneficiaries were described in terms of love (amor. see Estepa.⁹⁴ These relationships have an air of permanence since the monastery. Recosinda. even specified that he might not take another patron while she was alive. ⁹⁴ See above. indeed perhaps exclusive and binding commitment? Some elements of the Spanish patterns are certainly comparable to those of the classic western European (in effect Frankish) models. the (?eleventh-century) interpolations in Sob6 (966). although the gifts and sales to lay couples ⁸⁹ S19 (920). cf. that service was explicitly the service of providing food and clothing. or occasionally church.⁹⁰ in an aristocratic milieu this was a way of conceptualizing relationships of commitment. ⁹⁰ S75 (940). ‘Formación y consolidación del feudalismo’.⁹² All of these features are reminiscent of the classic models.⁹¹ And landed property was clearly handed over as a reward for service— servitium —by men and women. However. but it more often meant joining the monastery’s local. i. caritas). see above. 223. and Nu˜ no Sarracíniz (client). ⁹¹ Cel423 (957). To choose the patronage of the church might mean entering a monastery. S206 (962). S75. 128–9. and even of the property transactions between laity. 57–61. .The one apparently clear tenth-century exception to this is the 952 gift of Fernando Vermúdez to Vermudo Aboleze for service which had been done and which the latter promises to be done in the future. making the gift to a deacon for service done. and. 141–2. All of these features are unlike those of the traditional models. and Las behetrías. there are significant differences: rewards for service were usually explicitly for service completed in the past. in the relationship between donor and church. whom they rewarded for loyal and faithful service.⁹³ The land handed over was usually for permanent use by the beneficiaries. pp. Cel505 (935). S206. S365. Liii541 (990).

there was still more than four times as much recorded giving to the church in that decade. Recosinda. for the balance shifted in favour of wealthy proprietors. however. n. In this period. temporary or long-term. it was transferred across generations of lay families. though not exclusively. and what distinguished them from later. Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome. nor of the client giving himself and his service and accepting food supplies in return. it was not a case of the patron giving the client property in order to support future service. service-based relationships. and may well have followed decades. It looks as if such gift-giving may have been increasing in the later tenth century. The power that was realizable by sitting in court is evident from the many cases cited here. whether practical or protective. 649–73. was the place of the gift in relation to client and patron. 44) provides for the donor to commend his person not his property.Gesmira. Ph. and Nu˜ no Sarracíniz 163 make it perfectly clear that lay patronage networks were common too and could last a long time. expecting support in return. cf. Depreux. of light-touch patronage systems. in which the interests of client and patron were often reasonably balanced. and this was a characteristically. In the long term this was a significant driver of social change. above. ⁹⁵ Cf. as in the dominant European models. tended to choose monastic patronage. What was also common to lay and ecclesiastical client relationships at this period. once powerful religious corporations became involved. or spiritual and perpetual—the client was the land donor. Note that the Tours formula (above. perhaps as royal orders reinforced the responsibilities of some local aristocrats. 111 (1999). . 48. ‘L’apparition de la précaire à Saint-Gall’. n. gifts of service (and property) in return for food in East Frankia from 745. Even with the high profile of donation to the laity in the 990s. Moyen Âge. it was the client who gifted the patron with property. at 659.⁹⁵ Making grants to the laity to enter the patronage network does not look new in the tenth century. if not centuries. as well as sometimes being transferred to the church. lay activity. Local priests like Melic and wealthy peasants like David and Regina.

the woman Eldoara gave all the property she had inherited from her mother to the nunnery of Santiago in León. exchanging. like the women who sold small plots near Oviedo with the consent of their husbands. and so on. the widow Entregoto made grants of land near Oviedo in memory of her parents. and giving property. just as the widow Emilo Hamita gave property in Grajal to the monastery of Sahagún in memory of her husband Sendino. Cel216 and Cel251 (993). Lii425 (973). and other women gave to lay couples in order to secure support. . with a request for annual services for their own memorial. selling. or alternatively the woman ¹ S255 (970). ³ e. 153. gave many properties in Galicia (including one villa their aunt had given them) to the monastery of Celanova. and the church was not the only beneficiary: Ranemira and her two daughters gave half of what they had inherited from her mother to the powerful Galician lay couple. Eilo and Goisenda.7 Men and Women It would be relatively easy to make it appear that women had a special role in making donations to the church in tenth-century Spain.¹ Women’s capacity to act is striking. C39 (942). where the typical transaction was more likely to have been a gift of several entire villas.³ One member of a couple might also act with the consent of the other. the sisters. her husband Lallino. S190 (961). g. Cel71 (916). the preceding chapters have provided plentiful evidence of men and women acting together. Lii432 (974). S128 (950). ² Sob60 (916). and abbesses. Ramiro II’s daughter Elvira made gifts to several churches in memory of her brother Sancho in the 970s. There were relatively high proportions (although small numbers) of women making gifts for support. S285 (976). in all kinds of deal. with the request that she be buried there herself. from east to west and north to south. Ar21 (970). and her ancestors. T70 (964). large and small. Ov20 (978). This is as true of peasant couples—witness especially the many peasant sales of small plots of property—as it is of aristocratic couples. cf.² However. There are some notable examples. Ermegildo and Paterna. C82 (952). p. SM97 (984). see above.

aunts. ⁷ See above. 65–9. Armentario Díaz gave the monastery of Carde˜ na a quarter of a saltpan that had come from his father. Gavino and his two sons gave Celanova everything he had inherited from both parents. 130–3. but that they did not have a distinctive role. and Vigila. and sisters. and acquired it by purchase. but that more men had more property. her husband’s gifts of property near León. with reference to S144 (955). Cel303 (996). ⁴ Ov8 (937). Lii403 (967). 362–401) are entirely reasonable. pp. See also examples cited above of brothers acting together. Rodrigo sold Munio Flaínez and his wife his share of the inheritance that came from his father Sisverto. S150 (956). 404. Their argument depends essentially on the view that succession to the Asturian kingship had matrilineal traces in the eighth and ninth centuries (ibid. Salite sold his share of water rights in the river Cea.Men and Women 165 who confirmed. but the number of them is small and they are not compared with transmission through males. ⁶ S72 (938). Formación del feudalismo. . and so on. pp. Despite the powerful arguments that have been deployed to demonstrate that women had a special role in preserving family memory in medieval Europe. whose ancestors had established it. The impression given by tenth-century written sources is that both men and women had access to property and exercised property rights.⁴ Men and women doing things together was one aspect of normal life. S188 (961). the deacons Alvaro and Abraham sold a villa they had received from their uncle. son of Lecinio. C56 (945). 327–53). We have also seen plenty of examples of men as well as women acting separately—to such an extent that it makes Barbero and Vigil’s view that it was women who played a fundamental role in the transition ‘from tribal to feudal society’ very difficult to accept. so did men. sold the wood they had inherited from their fathers.⁵ Women received property from fathers. we have seen that in northern Spain in this period more men than women took action to commemorate themselves and their families. son of Emenecio.. the examples they give of transmission of property through females in the ninth and tenth centuries (ibid. as it could be transferred by and through men: Agela. a bishop. ⁵ Barbero and Vigil. brothers. mothers. in a separate document. as demonstrated perfectly well by the examples which begin this chapter. which had come from his father Alvaro’s inheritance. Property could be transferred by and through women.⁷ Unless much has gone unrecorded. the records log noticeably more cases of male transmission than of female. Ov9 (946). OD11 (961). both separately and together. uncles..⁶ In fact. it looks as if women had a role in this respect.

⁹ But. ¹⁰ S44 (932). Sam46 (933). pp. ⁹ For example.⁸ But authority unquestionably resided in maleness: rulers were male. ¹³ Cel375 (997). one has to ask if they inherited portions of comparable size and if their powers in relation to inherited property were the same as men’s. ¹¹ See above. Such property was separately identifiable as their own. Cel489 (953). could women do what men could do? C O N T RO L O F P RO PE RT Y As we have seen. Cel93 (950). accordingly. ¹² Li157 (942). community representatives: Sam144 (878—forty-one men in this case). his wife also sold a different piece of her own land. Li156 (942). The result was that many women controlled landed property in their own names. across the status range. C89 (956). see further below. panels of boni homines (trusted men. and equal shares with brothers. pp. V10 (919). counts were male. take forthright and vigorous action—we saw three powerful women making the running in the monasteries of Galicia in the late ninth and early tenth centuries. named representatives of peasant communities were usually male. Sam170 (930). If women were as capable as men of inheriting property. Cel224 (934). SM50 (948). There are no consistent indications of the relative size of portions: we hear of women securing a third. Sam247 (909). 36–8. both sons and daughters inherited portions of land.¹⁰ How far is that impression of male dominance in matters of property supported by the detail of the texts? How far. not invariably. worthies). 199–201.¹¹ Hence. S289 (977). Cel95 (950–51). and they inherited from their fathers and from their mothers too. male and female. in the latter case. and that in effect seems to have been the practice. in a world dominated by male authority figures. . pp. but in most cases we simply do not know.¹² This point is reinforced at peasant level by the frequent citation in boundary clauses of adjacent properties which were owned or worked by women. 66–71. C22 (932). worthies: V8 (911). a half. who were sent to investigate disputes. when Martín and his wife sold some land to the monastery of Abellar in 942. separately identifiable with separate boundaries. like men. Lii293 (955). were male.¹³ The five-way split of Bishop Rosendo’s inheritance with his two brothers and his two sisters looks as if shares were virtually ⁸ See above.166 Men and Women Women could also. landed property rights normally passed from parents to children.

including many fifths. or judicial award. pp. on the fact that women’s roles were changing in the tenth century. Le Jan. cf. S121 (950). Pastor (ed. at 18–24. Li88 (930). both men and women disposed of land they had acquired.. Cel436 (924). and Rosendo—again the portions look similar. S190 (961). in the Frankish world. Sob85 (929).¹⁴ and Gundulfo’s bequest was split four ways between his wife. S328 (985). as also the diversion of inheritances.¹⁸ Men and women also had acquired property alongside that which they had inherited. gift. ‘Dominios monásticos y parentelas en la Castilla altomedieval: el origen del derecho de retorno y su evolución’. where divided. Sam16 (989). with evidence of an increasing need for their consent and of increasingly significant roles for widows. 354. IV. it was necessarily subject to the constraints of all partners. ¹⁸ Sob65 (905). ¹⁷ For example. as did their children. 378–9. and see above. Cel33 (936). the other four each had a long list of properties. 13–49. 73.²⁰ To the extent that men were able to dispose of landed property. acquiring it by purchase. 1990). regardless of sex. again. Relaciones de poder. ²⁰ Li156 (942). p. ²¹ M. ¹⁹ SM21 (?932). ¹⁵ Cel75 (955).¹⁹ and widows and widowers might dispose of their previously shared interests. for example. Cel374 (961).ii.¹⁶ Where owned in common. 67–70. but not elsewhere in the Asturian kingdom. S212 (963).).²¹ ¹⁴ Cel478 (934). Visigothic law had allowed for equal shares for brothers and sisters (Forum Iudicum IV. . but practice was clearly more complicated in the tenth century. his niece. Essai d’anthropologie sociale (Paris. Sob79 (927). both separately and as married couples. Cel409 (990). de producción y parentesco en la edad media y moderna (Madrid. the nuns of Porto Marín. Cf. 1995). the outcome was. both men and women disposed of maternal and paternal inheritances. sometimes disinheriting their children. as it was also just as frequently divided. to argue from these two exceptional cases to a general norm (exceptional because both involved Bishop Rosendo).¹⁵ It would be hazardous. Famille et pouvoir dans le monde franc (VII e – X e siècle). however. however. Lii307 (958).Men and Women 167 equal. I.9). identifiable property for individual males and individual females.1. Loring García argued for equal or superior powers for women in the later ninth century in Trasmiera in Cantabria. Relative size of inherited portions has to remain an open question. the second sister’s share is missing because there is a gap in the manuscript. in practice shares are likely to have varied with personalities and with circumstances. women seem to have had comparable powers of disposition. As for powers: we have seen that in practice inherited land was often owned ‘in common’. Li103 (935).ii. R.¹⁷ just as married couples disposed together of land that had come from one or other set of parents. ¹⁶ See above. in R. Although property normally devolved to children. Sob92 (934).

Bermejo Castrillo. I. 93–150. for it might have come as a marriage settlement. herencia y dotes en las comunidades locales gallegas (siglos XII–XIII)’.). slaves. The power of disposal in these cases was mixed: in the Galician case cited above. but no land. Eldesenda married without dowry (dos). Rodríguez. in an Otero charter that is not precisely dated. A.²⁵ such gifts might well include substantial movables and stock. R. at 110–15 for terminology. because his daughter Bitillo had committed adultery with a monk. This was a special case. at 305. in J. Dots et douaires dans le haut moyen âge (Rome. Arenal.168 Men and Women Land that came to a married couple from a parent was not necessarily inherited. Sam115 (982).²² Marriage settlements are only rarely identified in these texts. . Note the highly unusual use of the expression ‘body-price’ (pro comparatione corporis mei) in thirteenth-century Galicia. L. La familia en la edad media (Logro˜ no. for the use of the household established by the marriage. passim. such a change is not indicated by tenth-century material as such (and this is not implied by Bermejo. ran into problems.²⁴ Another type of marriage settlement (also acquired land) was that which a husband or his family conveyed to his wife. Propiedad. A. Cel409 (990). given that sexual union had taken place. 291–314. The detail of dowry (casamento) from mother to daughter. 8 (2001). who focuses on the thirteenth century and later as the time of change). ²⁴ Couple: OD27 (987). Bougard. for terminology and practice in the early middle ages. Lii355 (962). 313–14. See F. and stock. 2001). ibid. ‘Transferencias patrimoniales entre los cónyuges por razón del matrimonio en el derecho medieval castellano’. has a very long list of furnishings and household goods. ²³ OD50 (tenth century). the casamento that had been transferred from father to daughter in a Galician charter of 952 included a house. perhaps man only: Lii304 (957). but when they are the detail is interesting. one could view this as a bestowal of the dowry on his daughter’s (?new) partner’s paterfamilias. as well as giving in or pro nuptias. it must be likely that such property had come as dowry.²³ We can also see some couples handling land that had come from the wife’s father. de la Iglesia Duarte (ed. although arras occurs too. which might possibly have been used to support the couple in some way. the ‘morning gift’. In most others the couple exercised power of disposition. although occasionally the man may have done so. 2002). ²⁵ Dos is the most common Latin term in these texts for morning gift (‘dot indirecte’ and ‘Morgengabe’ in French and German historiography). and for a proposed change in marriage gifts from ‘morning gift’ to ‘dowry’ during the middle ages. Le Jan (eds. ‘ ‘‘Ex parte matris mee’’. Cel72. as well ²² See M. Feller.). the father recovered the dowry and gave it to the local bishop. and ended up in court. as also Dr Rodríguez’s warning that the terms used in practice often do not reflect the prescriptions of the law.

a gift pro nuptiis had to be renegotiated when another woman called Guntroda left her husband for a life of confession and he took a new wife. although his main argument is that new procedures were also evident in the tenth century. Portugaliae Monumenta Historica. perhaps. and Sam198 (1013). Isla Frez. But see Bermejo Castrillo.6. on the continuity of Visigothic traditions. ten named male and ten named female slaves. and equipment. very unusually.i. as well as extensive stock and thirty villas in the former case and at least eight villas in the latter case (although most marriage settlements were clearly much more varied than allowed for by this ancient law). in which a husband. of distinctively female property rights. The property that Seniorina had from her father-in-law may well have come to her for similar reasons. seems to have lain with the woman to whom it had been given. unus ad alius de nostras ereditates. citing Sob119. Sam239. Sam239 (pre-985). while making provision for his sister from another villa. then. Ov18 (974).²⁷ Earlier. stock.Men and Women 169 as land. 124–6. Fruela gave his wife Fernanda a villa in Mao. in Portugal. 67. A. in which a couple made explicit provision for each surviving the other. as it were. as well as villas. LVI (946). and. Oliti Tetoniz provided for his wife Adosinda to have precious silverware and silken clothes. above. Cel577. for more limited powers in the longer perspective. have already been noted. differently. in a remarkable reflection of the provisions of Visigothic law. . Sob14. Forum Iudicum III.²⁹ Practical control of the morning gift. A man’s or a woman’s name might be attached to a property but did this mean that the man or woman was in practice in control of it? Reading the documents. the patterns suggested by the records are so varied that it is difficult to be certain about practical control. one still cannot help coming away with a sense that overall men had greater powers of control ²⁶ Cel576 (916). Eldontia and Guntroda. Portugaliae Monumenta Historica. 1992). CXLVI (985). women’s property. In many other cases. 224–6. ²⁷ Sob119 (887). Sob14 (942). T7. in which.²⁶ Both Sisnando and Gunterigo gave their wives. ²⁹ Cf. and Gonzalo’s gifts to Elvira of land in at least eight different locations. Cf. and a tenth of his goods. Cf. Cel577 (926). ²⁸ T7 (831). a woman called Proflinia had referred to the villas and other properties in two locations in the Liébana that her husband had given her. p. La sociedad gallega (Madrid. divided his property between his wife and the monastery of San Vicente. in Galicia..²⁸ All the unambiguous cases show the women controlling disposal of lands acquired in this way—a case. Count Gutier’s widely scattered gifts to his wife Ilduara. on his deathbed. ‘Transferencias patrimoniales’. S207 (962). in another reflection of a Visigothic rule.

although the plot was actually the wife’s. Revel and his wife together ‘equally’ gave land to Abellar and he made sure she had half of their common property. rather than that of a daughter. pp. ³³ e. ³⁴ Li90 (931). the form of the record is sometimes ‘I. or disposed of it themselves. did women exercise these comparable powers? The easiest way into this issue is to look at relative powers within the context of marriage. 1975). something which may also be emphasized by a specific phrase or recorded action: a couple sold land together. very unusually. Sob100 (945). married and widowed (for example. However.³⁴ All of this is what one would expect from a western European early medieval society. a transaction which was witnessed.³² To what extent. 207–11. A14 (947). The over-riding impression that men dominated property rights is largely sustained within the married context. in respect of the mother’s land.³⁰ reservations were made in the event of birth of a son. warned that conditions were not uniform. husbands consented to wives’ disposal of their own property. Ov8 (937). the separate juridical personality proposed for Leonese women: J. Li131 (939—‘quam abui de parte uxori mee’). then. ‘Documentos para el estudio de la condición jurídica de la mujer leonesa hace mil a˜ nos’.g. a wife confirmed her agreement to what her husband had decided. ³¹ Provision for sisters. sell’ rather than the commoner ‘man and woman sell’. Ov9 (946). ³² Cf. E. 154–71. de Arvizu y Galarraga. a man. 171–3. e. Cel256 (936—‘quod vir meus elegit … ego confirmo’). by ³⁰ See further below. a husband instructed his wife to donate from his share of his parental inheritance.³³ This recording practice seems to point to male superiority. C204 (993). Sam29 (post 976). Cel506 (955). When couples transacted together. a husband witnessed on behalf of his wife. women did act alone and in their own right.³¹ Despite all that. Cf. Cuadernos de Historia de Espa˜ na. in which a man and his wife are recorded together in the witness list. Lii329 (960). Li57 (921). Guallart.170 Men and Women than women: there were many more male than female transactors. La disposición ‘mortis causa’ en el derecho espa˜ nol de la alta edad media (Pamplona. Sob11 (945). S41 (930). and the extensive literature of the twentieth century on the law of women. although she does not feature in the main text.50–64. 71. 1977). men made this or that agreement about disposal. filius. together with (una cum) a woman. brothers made provision for sisters. there are some exceptions to these patterns. a man acted on behalf of his sisters and mother. Lii288 (955).g. 222–5). Sometimes we read that husband and wife had equal shares: Zelano and his wife Valeria together ‘equally’ sold some land near Valpuesta. male control was not invariable. Sam239 (985). but note that F. La condición jurídica del cónyuge viudo en el derecho visigodo y en los fueros de León y Castilla (Seville. 6 (1946). . Gacto Fernández.

una aristócrata del siglo X (La Coru˜ na. six were made with men and three with women. nine from women. cf.³⁸ We may also get ³⁵ V9 (913). Cf.³⁵ Some authors. together with man. The key question is therefore one of relative proportions. fall into the same category of common marriage property. a distinctive circulation pattern for property inherited from a mother can sometimes be traced: such property would move from mother to son to his wife. the comments of M. at least. Li200 (948). this was property for female control—perhaps a second type of distinctively female property right at this period. within a general context of predominantly male control. in the later middle ages. S131 (951). S109 (948). in the inventory of transactions made by a lay couple near Otero de las Due˜ nas. as in the examples which began this chapter. even in Galicia. Sob14 (942). ³⁶ T27 (921). pp. and one as characteristic of the meseta as of Galicia. S103 (945). three were made by men. and eight from couples. three (or perhaps four) were made by women. especially peasant couples. three were made by couples. transacts’ become ‘woman and man transact’ and ‘woman. ³⁷ See Rodríguez. Li223 (950). ‘ ‘‘Ex parte matris mee’’ ’. Li203 (948). differentiated common marriage property from both the man’s and the woman’s property. 1998). 54–9. although all did not do so. There are also exceptions of a different kind. but there are some suggestions. and two by mixed groups (usually comprising siblings or cousins). that where property came to a woman from the female side. transacts’. T57 (959). see above. V12 (929). ³⁸ S94 (945–54). At times the record presents the woman as taking the lead: the common formats ‘man and woman transact’ and ‘man. a couple sell. Li118 (937)— una pariter . By implication the many acquisitions made by married couples. del C. Ilduara. together with woman.³⁷ There are not enough consistent indications to make the same point for the tenth century. 304–12. So. women could control property too. Li179 (944). a woman gives and her husband confirms.³⁶ In Galicia. OD22 (976). on women as principal actors in Galicia. nineteen were bought from men. . It is obviously impossible to answer this conclusively but one way of approaching it is to look at participation in multiple transactions: in the note of a series of mid-tenth-century sales to a lay couple in Melgar.Men and Women 171 three couples. Cel454 (936–77). Li195 (947). but the woman is named first and is first to be named in the witness list. and some took care to stress equal rights in it. and in the list of purchases made by the deacon Quintila. Pallares Méndez. through buying and selling small plots of land. in Lemos. 70–3.

by collection and region Men Cel Sam Sob L OD S C SM V Ar A SJP T Ov Galicia W meseta Castile North Total 42 70 38 43 37 48 46 49 56 33 61 56 55 44 45 45 48 52 46 Women Couples Mixed Groups 16 16 25 18 15 15 14 7 13 17 7 11 9 32 19 17 12 15 16 34 14 28 31 41 28 28 22 24 29 11 28 23 20 29 30 25 22 29 8 0 9 8 7 9 12 22 7 21 21 5 13 4 7 8 15 11 9 some guide by looking at overall proportions of alienators of land. family and women in continental Europe. 185–8. the 12% of the names cited in the Celanova collection pre–977. 29% were couples. 701–1200’. and 9% were mixed groups. male ³⁹ Recipients of land are obviously just as important. ⁴⁰ On the importance of action by couples. Pallares Méndez. and exchanging property. pp. but did not invariably do so.1 Percentage of alienators of property.172 Men and Women Table 7. that are women’s names.. . within marriage it looks as if males normally took the lead. ⁴¹ The overall female proportion strongly supports the estimate made by Herlihy for Spain in the tenth century (17%). 18 (1962). but since so many recipients were religious institutions it would be difficult to get usable comparative figures by gender. across all collections. but gives some sense of the proportion of property that may have been distinctively within the power of women. 89–120. by gender. Cf. Traditio.⁴¹ One might suggest that. rather differently. at 108. 16% were women. 54. broadly. Herlihy. although he used a smaller Spanish data set. 46% of alienators were men. that is at those who are named as giving. selling.⁴⁰ This would suggest that women were far from exercising equal powers of control over property to those of men. D.³⁹ Overall. see further below. ‘Land. Ilduara.

⁴² The other interesting question is change over time. pp. and we ⁴² Variations from the mean are partly due to the very small size. aunt.⁴⁴ Once. of some collections and partly due to the kinds of transaction recorded—where cartulary compilers recorded more gifts than sales. Such women had public roles. Bearing in mind that the bulk of recorded transactions falls in mid-century. probably nuns). not very many of them. but 4% in Oviedo). proportions of male alienators tend to be enhanced. Small Worlds: The Village Community in Early Medieval Brittany (London. and other women). Ov18 (974—five deo votae. but 9% in the Liébana. and her associates. T32 (925—cousin of principal actors. 22% mixed groups in San Millán. that female . 72–5. 41% couples who alienated in Otero de las Due˜ nas. but other women too are recorded as witnesses of transactions. W. but sufficient to differentiate these societies from some in parts of northern Europe. Women also feature in witness lists: not just the alienator of property. sister. Sob36 (964—four sorores. and were not confined to the domestic sphere. ⁴⁴ For example. there is very little difference between regions: Galician proportions are much the same as those of the western meseta. and unrepresentative character.⁴³ Apart from that. Cel2 (942—the donor’s mother. and that the León collections come from a number of different sources. and especially in the last thirty years of the century. Liii538 (990—a mother).000 witnesses cited in ninth-century east Breton charters. there are no noticeably consistent trends. aristocrat and peasant alike. Lii313 (959—a neighbour’s wife). but not strikingly in others. although there is great variation between different charter collections (70% men alienators in Samos. a woman identified as Olalio’s wife. WO M E N I N P U B L I C That women could take the lead in property transactions is quite clear. ⁴³ See above. but 38% in Sobrado. There was a relative increase in female participation in the latter half of the century. the Galician woman Argilo was named as guarantor for a priest in a dispute over control of a church. 77. that is probably significant and may at least partly be a consequence of increasing freedom of disposition. Cel462 (985—the donor’s mother and four other women). Interestingly. Davies. 1988). but 14% in Samos. note that Sarah Halton has warned. however. in Leonese collections. Only a handful of women feature in the 6.Men and Women 173 interests predominated over those of women in the ratio of something approaching 3:1. 32% women in Oviedo. most unusually. together with her brother and husband). Cel444 (933—a wife). and another woman). which are much the same as those of Castile and those of the north.

⁴⁷ All of these cases indicate a role in public for women. several charters term her regina. the acts of kings: Toda. S159 (958). a man. during her nephew’s minority—Arab historians certainly treated her as ruler before her sister-in-law Teresa took witnesses have often been ignored by commentators: ‘The church and communities: Cluny and its local patrons 900–1050’. but she also bestowed property on her uncle. Cel206 (977). 97–8. above. are especially notable in being formally associated with. Lii486 (982). Sob70 (941). another woman unsuccessfully sued the monks of Sahagún over property in Cerecedo.⁴⁶ Women transacted on their own.⁴⁵ At least twice. his wife. Lii482 (981).D. ⁴⁹ See the comments of Ann Christys. ch. C. or consenting to. Medieval Queenship (New York. without any reference to males. Liii519 (987). manipulating. ⁴⁸ A5 (928). 1993). p. 164. women brought court cases. ‘Queens-dowager and queens-regent in tenth-century León and Navarre’. like the confessa Gundisalva. and the wife Sisgundia. SJP17 (947). R. ⁴⁶ Above. ‘Creating the social relationship’. although tenth-century charters hardly prefigure the later stories. mothers as well as consorts. Cel338 (989). 169. is one such. Sam115/199 (982). who gave on her own. p. there is probably an element of truth in those perspectives of power. and. ⁴⁷ Sam157 (993). aunt and mother respectively of Ramiro III of Asturias-León.). make the public authority of women such as Toda. and in one early sale in the Liébana. S262 (971). perfectly clear. presumably as executors. each of whom took control during royal minorities.⁴⁸ Later chronicles present these tenth-century royal women as powerful. Lii411 (969). University of Birmingham Ph. 5. Collins. emphasizing stronger queenships in Navarre. however. and another person all had separate prices paid to them for their individual portions of a vineyard. as Fernanda successfully defended her marriage gift against her sister-in-law’s claim. Parsons (ed. Elvira. thesis. ⁵⁰ Cf. Royal women. one woman actually said that she was giving on her own behalf (in mea voce). 2002). who gave from her own as well as giving with her husband. as also Elvira and Teresa. although she had an advocate to speak for her in court. Christians in Al-Andalus (711–1000) (Richmond. 2006.174 Men and Women see her speaking to ‘the people’ in the council. and Teresa. Lii442 (975). SM72 (957). abbesses. S261 (971). Guntroda and her daughter gave to a nunnery on behalf of the committed ancilla dei. SM81 (959).⁵⁰ We have already noted Elvira’s gifts in memory of her brother. although she was not the wife of a king. in J. T11 (868). S293 (978). ⁴⁵ Sob130 (992). 79–92.⁴⁹ They do. queen. Aroza. . and the purchaser Leda. the latter appears in a particularly wide range of different charter collections. mother of King García Sánchez I of Navarre.

Liii543 (990). plate 27. Liii521 (987). for example. Ilduara. though usually placed before. One royal associate. as well as his son and brother. transactions in the tenth century. for example.1).Men and Women 175 over. Sam56 (988).⁵⁴ Sancha’s wife Urraca is even portrayed in the formal pages of fine Riojan manuscripts of the period (see Fig. Iconografía del siglo X en el reino de Pamplona-Nájera (Pamplona. ⁵³ Cel249 (941). Sam115/199. sub manus mater tua. cf. Ilduara. Ramiro II. other royal women and her authority as queen was still being invoked some years after her son’s death. her son Ramiro III’s wife. plate 26. Cf. SM91 (972). 1984). Sam6 (997). his widow still ruling thirty years later with her grandson Sancho el Mayor.⁵¹ Teresa appears with. Liii567 (994). de Silva y Verástegui. for a full study. ibid. Vermudo II’s successive wives Velasquita in the 980s and Elvira in the 990s. as is well evidenced by the charter texts. see Pallares Méndez. for example. Liii560 (994). even if they did not do it as often as men.⁵⁶ MALE AND FEMALE IN RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES All kinds of women. often associated with their husbands in the dispositive texts and high in the witness lists. .. ⁵¹ See Collins. who married the León king’s wife’s brother. S. then. was the mother of Bishop Rosendo. 85. the much earlier Sam39 (962). in which she confirms. Ilduara. ⁵² Lii482. certainly amassed both considerable property and public position in southern Galicia. before Teresa. SJP34 (1005). although the male interest was overwhelmingly dominant. it may be recalled. and was aunt of three kings.⁵² Other royal consorts witnessed and confirmed—Ramiro II’s wife Urraca in the 940s and 950s. her brother’s gifts. of 974–6. Sam27 (981). founders together of the monastery of Celanova. preceding Sancha. delegated authority to her son Fruela it was explicitly to be exercised under the guidance of his mother. ‘Queens-dowager and queens-regent’. tie nostre Ilduare. Cel5 (986). when her nephew.⁵⁵ These royal females appear so often that it clearly must have been normal for royal women to be publicly associated with their husband’s. Cel503 (985). Property was in many respects a domain of shared activity. ⁵⁵ In the Codex Albeldense. ⁵⁶ Cel499 (942). Sam156 (983). could play a public role. 7. Sam2 (951—or just possibly Ordo˜ no III’s wife in this case). and sometimes son’s or brother’s.⁵³ Sancho II Garcés Abarca of Navarre made gifts with the consent of his wife and sister (both called Urraca). ⁵⁴ SM88 (971).

in the Codex Albeldense. MS D. with Visigothic kings and a tenth-century king and scribes.2. Biblioteca de El Escorial.176 Men and Women Figure 7. fol. 428r .1 Sancho II and Urraca.I.

remaining in their secular households and continuing to live secular lives—the texts convey the same impression of shared male and female activity as conveyed by many of the property interests discussed above. and ⁵⁷ See above. confessa. Sob121 (964). his wife continuing to live for twenty-three years sub religioso grado. Sob110 (pre-955). much earlier Arborio and his wife María gave everything to the monastery of Abellar. ⁵⁸ Liii570. twenty years before. together gave their church of San Cebrián and its appurtenant property to the monastery of Carde˜ na. monk. or did men and women for the most part do the same things? If we look at lay religious families—laity. also deo vota. giving lands and agreeing to put themselves under the rule of Santa Cristina. ⁵⁹ Sam198 (1013). together had a daughter Genobreda. is an extremely unusual case. deo vota (committed to God). cf. respectively.⁵⁷ A confessus and his wife.⁵⁸ Men and women made this commitment together. four abbots.Men and Women 177 What about religious commitment? Were there distinctively male and female spheres of activity. .⁶⁰ While couples committed to religion and family monasteries show men and women pursuing the religious life together. termed abbess. who left her husband for the religious life. committed to follow a religious lifestyle. 4.⁵⁹ Family monasteries were in some respects similar: Metereo and his mother Abodimia. the act was witnessed by three confessi. 110–12). though frequently marked out by the special terms confessus and confessa and publicly identifiable as different from the uncommitted laity. Arborio achieving the status of confessus (grado confessionis) by the time of his death. Velasquita. her brother Valero. use of these terms in some texts suggests alternative paths. Li72 (927) and Li256 (952). made generous gifts to Santa María de Oso˜ no. gave to the nunnery of Santiago in León in 995. Argilo. C187 (981). and Abbot Senior and his wife Leovegodo. termed abbot and abbess respectively. endowed their priest son with substantial goods in Galicia. who was controlling properties inherited from them in the mid-tenth century. Sob8 (964). Sam61 (976—see Appendix to Ch. above. the confessus Sunilano and his wife Nunnita. a confessa. did things together. Married couples stayed together. with their children. pp. Cel566 (950-59). and conversa. The words confessae and confessi are used to refer to groups of committed religious. ⁶⁰ SM86 (967). and her sister Onega. C207 (994). The confessa Guntroda. pp. as well as to couples: when a count’s widow. 107–08.

⁶³ If we look at those who chose to make a break with family and live a religious life within a separate religious community. Cabre i Pairet argues convincingly that in Catalonia at this time deo votae and deo dicatae could refer both to nuns and to women living a religious life outside a regular community. Although some communities were for men and women together. Sob88 (996). more distinctions between the sexes begin to become apparent. 169–82. That of San Cipriano del Condado had connections with the nunnery of Santiago in León. ‘ ‘‘Deodicatae’’ y ‘‘deovotae’’. SamS-3 (961). Note that all of these cases are Galician (but see also the Oviedo case above. Las mujeres en el cristianismo medieval. n. cf. both of whom lived in the monastery of Sobrado. which has one confessa and one deo vota as principle actors. under their Abbess Gontina. her main argument is that the terminology of female religious was ambiguous until the impact of the Gregorian reform in the later eleventh century. M. and the monastery of Sobrado was a community of brothers and sisters. The terms deo vota and deo dicata. when Leodegundia made several gifts to the monastery of San Mateo de Vilapedre.⁶¹ It looks as if confessi and confessae might also be admitted within monastic communities. four confessae. in northern Spanish texts. confessae.178 Men and Women four confessae. accordingly. or Li42 (917) which implies some difference between the sorores. La regulación de la religiosidad femenina en los condados catalanes. an abbot. . and five priests. it is applied to abbesses.). at the time of donations in 976. religiosae. Cel505 (935). hence. the monks and nuns in Sam171 (988). 1989). Imágenes teóricas y cauces de actuación religiosa (Madrid. siglos IX–XI’. Sob121 (964). cf. the act was witnessed by a confessus. the community of Santa Eulalia de Airas. Sob64 (984). an abbess. Cel61 (871). were clearly interchangeable. the deo vota sub regula et abbate [Samos]. ⁶² Sam93 (951). Sob88 (996). cf. etc. cf.⁶² How far they were consistently differentiated from monks and nuns must be arguable. as directly suggested by Baltario’s gifts to the monastery of San Miguel de Pi˜ neira. which were for the benefit of the priests and confessi serving the church. each acting in their own right (as elsewhere in Europe and the Near East in the ⁶¹ Cel492 (988). appears to have had five men and six women associated. including both abbot and abbess (OD20). although it is again striking that the different terms are used in these charters and that their use does not appear to reflect distinctive scribal habits. to which it was ultimately given. 44). lived together for a period. noting use of the terms in patristic writing on virginity and widowhood. SamS-5 (963). cf. ⁶³ The extent to which the deo vota was different from the confessa is also arguable. Li201 (948). and virgines in the nunnery of Santiago in León. Lii412 (970). an exchange between monasteries witnessed by nine deo votae.⁶⁴ there were many communities just for men and many just for women. ⁶⁴ For example. in A. there were both prominent abbots and prominent abbesses. Mu˜ noz Fernández (ed. while it looks as if ancilla Dei/Christi was a term to describe the quality of religious commitment rather than a distinctive state. the fifteen men and two women who signed a monastic pact with Abbot Fulgaredo. Sam175 (973) and the deo dicata and perhaps her deacon husband. and deo dicatae alike. although the fact that different terms were selected is striking.

185. prominent monasteries like Celanova. retired to the nunnery of Santa María of Vilanova at the end of her life.⁶⁹ Rosendo’s mother. ⁷⁰ Pallares Méndez. Cel530 (999). Note the provision of Visigothic councils that widowed queens should not remarry but retire to the church: Collins. Ilduara. Cel209 (997). but the picture is very mixed and it is difficult to identify consistent trends across northern Spain during the tenth century. 174–6. 124–27. whether they maintained the lay lifestyle or were adopted within a monastery. SM39 and 40 (945). there appear to be many more. 84–5. as it is also notable that women of the high aristocracy had a tendency to adopt a religious way of life on widowhood: hence. of San Martín of Fonte de Febro. the sheer variety of terms available for religious women is notable. S77 (941). monks and nuns associated with Valdevimbre could not agree to live together.⁶⁵ Apart from the family monasteries. deo vota. the East Frankish women discussed by Karl Leyser. although in Castile there ⁶⁵ See. or Sahagún. Ilduara. although they might—like Abbot Cipriano and Abbess Felicia⁶⁶ —negotiate with each other. confessa. likewise Onega. ‘Queens-dowager and queens-regent’. Lii295 (956). who made a gift to Celanova requesting a place for her own burial there. for the most part monks and nuns seem to have kept themselves separate in the tenth century. and—though never married—the powerful queen Elvira. XI. 16. pp. OD29 (988). ⁶⁷ Cel511 (955)—see further below. . ibid. ⁶⁶ Li180 (944). ⁶⁸ Cel230 (995). ancilla Christi. are also more notable than those to lay men with religious commitment. Cel492. particularly in León collections. as examples. ancilla ancillarum. chrétienté à Byzance (London. and of San Salvador de Loio. ⁶⁹ See above.⁷⁰ References to lay women with religious commitment. It has been argued that ‘double’ communities were an older norm and the establishment of separate houses a result of the influence of Carolingian ideas. the widows Aragunti and Countess Velasquita. confessa. widow of a duke. women could achieve considerable secular power by adopting the religious life). Ilduara. Rule and Conflict in an Early Medieval Society (London. and the sisters of prominent nunneries like Santiago in León. and there were brothers of San Clemente in Melgar.. 130–2. deo dicata. of San Miguel of Pedroso. his daughter joined a nunnery.⁶⁸ So also the dowager queen Teresa. So. famille. when Aseredo joined a monastery. Structure sociale.⁶⁷ While there were both male and female houses. besides the brothers of large. Pallares Méndez. cf. but sisters of Santa María of Porto Marín. confessae. or Carde˜ na.Men and Women 179 early middle ages. and the Byzantine women discussed by Evelyne Patlagean. for example. 1979). VIII. Cel179 (927). 1981). p. of Santa Olalla in Camellas. Lii312 (959).

Guntroda’s grant to Samos uses the first person to emphasize her personal plea for mercy.⁷³ It seems likely that some of these texts were written by the women themselves and hence that we may well have examples of distinctively female writing⁷⁴ —an expression of the feminine. Abbess Argilo’s gift of her family church includes a long preamble on preparation for the day of judgment. p. ⁷⁵ See C. Cf. as it were. Gudilonis. Sister of Wisdom: St. on the feminization of religious language. very unusually.180 Men and Women are relatively few of either. in the early eleventh century. he went to the cross. without any feminization of religious language itself. her son ultimately taking on the pain and weariness of the world as. 107.⁷⁵ they were. Sam198 (1013). see the fabricated record SJP21 (981) for an unusual Spanish example from these collections: mother church nourished the faithful as mother’s milk feeds children. 107. 1982). modest forerunners of some better known communicators of female piety of the central and later middle ages. Walker Bynum. the Word thereby being made flesh. . over and over again. ⁷⁶ Such as Hildegard of Bingen. Hildegard’s Theology of the Feminine (Berkeley. however. daughter of Duke Arias and deo vota. the immutable essence of Father. male and female numbers look more comparable.⁷² The gifts of the confessa. Ar6 (929). C187 (981). to the monastery of San Juan de Quarto were preceded by a far from standard preamble: invoking the Virgin Mary. in Galicia. ⁷³ Sob38 (985). the authors and the scribes were men. Newman. unambiguously named as such. Ar5 (923). 113–14 and passim. Son. it notes how the Holy Spirit came down and entered Mary’s womb. these texts elaborated standard ideas into developed and individual expressions: the invocation to the record of a different Elvira’s gift to Celanova. The text finishes. perhaps. ⁷² Cel8 (962). where the religious culture seems to have had a different quality. Jesus as Mother: Studies in the Spirituality of the High Middle Ages (Berkeley. and Holy Spirit was lodged in her virgin entrails. the long preambles in records of gifts attributed to Countess Mumadona.⁷⁶ For most records. flogged and stoned. 1987). Liii520 (987). However. above. a little later. elaborates on the virtue and wisdom of God and lists some of the saints sent to the world. with a note on fine cloth. the preamble to the record of Sarracina’s gift to Abellar. see especially B. ⁷⁴ Although note the case of the abbot who wrote on behalf of nuns. just as the clergy ⁷¹ p.⁷¹ Often adorned with biblical quotations. a writer of extraordinary power and sensitivity in the twelfth century. perhaps a twelfth-century fabrication. some of the texts associated with female religious have a particularly pious turn of phrase. as well as the Holy Trinity. plays on the notion of the light of truth. As noted in Chapter four. Christi ancilla deo dicata.

Lii321 (959). and nuns. They attacked. or indeed feminine.⁷⁹ To begin with distinctions between different categories of offence. Sob64 (984). Lii486 (982). 116. Men were presented as overwhelmingly confrontational and combative. on the other hand. Monks or nuns qui militant : SM86 (967). ‘ego exigua et inutilis Goncina’. . were characteristically male offences. Smith. In this case or that. Europe after Rome: A New Cultural History 500–1000 (Oxford. provision for pastoral care. Sob5 (966). abduction. Lii329 (960). assault. V19 (950).⁷⁸ If authorship was so intransigently male. H.⁷⁷ Religious virtue. ⁷⁸ Male and female saints: passim. or femininity. whether related briefly or in some detail. seems almost to have been gender blind: sanctity was as much feminine as masculine. humility applied to the best of men and women alike. seems to have been male. masculine behaviour was in some respects presented as distinct from feminine behaviour in these texts. Is it possible to pursue the perspectives of these narratives at all? Were there standard values or models? Is there a consistent picture of masculinity. of which there are over a hundred. despite the formulaic nature of charter texts. Lii302 (956). in so far as it existed. C161 (972–6). and the political offence of rebellion. ‘ego humilima vestra ancilla’. the comments of J. were masculine. ‘ego exiguus licet inutilis presbiter’. killing. but I focus on those for which there is narrative detail. they seized people and ⁷⁷ Cf. M. Sob107 (968). Lii412 (970). If we look at the detail of disputes which are narrated in this material. Lii333 (960). Offences such as rape.Men and Women 181 were unambiguously men. there is a fair amount of narrative detail embedded within them. fought the good fight of spiritual warfare. ‘pusillus atque exiguus famulus vir ego Adelfius’. the deity was male. and religious virtue was undifferentiated by gender. ⁷⁹ There are glancing references to half as many disputes again. Li42 (917). but especially Sam99 (854). to be drawn? MASCULINITY AND FEMININITY Despite the capacity of the men and women discussed above to do the same kinds of things. it is men who were portrayed as the perpetrators. Loving: passim. Religious authority was male. most of the perspectives on the tenth century that have been transmitted to us were male. just as much as monks. Sam18 (933). attributes ever conceptualized and applied in these cultures? We clearly have only a very partial picture but. Sam43 (938). loving was as much a male as a female characteristic. there are some quite striking patterns. 2005). glorious and majestic.

S287 (977). and Lii400 (966). this young man was the countess Ilduara’s retainer and in consequence Pelayo had to give her half of his rights in twelve separate villas. ⁸⁴ Cel165 (963). by chastising. with open violence. the court cleared the men of the suggested theft and Tegino’s parents had to pay Paterna a third of the inheritance they had in several villas. and the latter’s son Armentario. ⁸⁵ Lii378 (964). chestnuts. Pelayo’s more aristocratic gang of ruffianly companions battered a young man called Fruela to death. he had to compensate Sandino with two vineyards in Quiroga. in which a disruptive family group promised not to cause more trouble. ⁸² S84 (943). With less fatal consequences. in Galicia. raping by force. Senuldu roughly removed three men from the house.⁸² Farther west.⁸¹ Dom Patre’s ‘gang’. ⁸³ Cel456 (940). on the road. killing and perpetrating ‘many very bad evils’. they killed. p.⁸³ A case which looks like a case of legitimate distraint which went wrong is also characterized by violence: the men Senuldu and Eizon entered the house of Sandino Moniz. accusing them of stealing a cow—perhaps also a case of arguably legitimate distraint. if the latter ⁸⁰ Lii442 (975). in front of everyone. Gontino. doing so with such ferocity that one died. and punishing. terrorized the neighbourhood of Valdávida in the hills off the Cea valley. garden. 25 km north of Sahagún. entered Do˜ na Paterna’s woods. as one author put it. but still with violence.⁸⁴ Whatever legitimate case there may have been to start with. with saiones (legal officers) accompanying them. in the fields. until they were thrown out of the kingdom and their property was confiscated by the king. and correct. ⁸¹ OD33 (992).⁸⁵ Violence is used as a distinctively masculine trait—just as abbots were expected to castigate and correct their monks: one abbot was encouraged to teach. within the homestead. and held them for fifteen days. seized two of her herdsmen. in which a man broke down the doors of a church and killed a monk inside it. censure. 127. Distraint: seizing someone’s goods or person. and rough land.182 Men and Women animals. their cousins Fafila. consisting of himself. Menendo. Cf. cited above. Tegino. training. another was asked to correct a donor. .⁸⁰ Argimiro went to Licinia’s house at night and took her virginity per violentia. unfortunately for them. ‘incensed with diabolical fury’. Ansuro. The portrayal of this aspect of the masculine is decidedly physical and decidedly violent. his sons Prudentio and Sebastiano. in order to force him to go through due legal process. son of Braolio and Farella. together with their associated fruit trees.

. cf. Ar8 (930) is very unusual with its stress on the humiliation of women before the abbess. emphasizing the necessary submission of women to men: he says that the word mulier. p. 318. ‘Pelagian’. although they certainly suggest a stereotype of marriageable woman as sweet. 168. Sob119 (887). on the other hand.⁹⁰ Again.⁸⁸ Several of these marriage texts explicitly mention the modesty of the wives. 329. Gil Fernández. 1985). see above. about the characteristics that women did not have—but the feminine is not drawn in any detail in these texts. and the fact that the husband’s gift to them was made in respect of their virginity—a particularly apt way of referring to the morning gift. Moralejo. ⁸⁶ Sam210 (907). ⁹¹ Crónicas Asturianas. is much the same. does not have these attributes of violence. 1952). comes from mollities. 169. The Chronicles of the late ninth and tenth centuries portray a world almost entirely inhabited by men. L. Looking beyond the charter texts does not add much to this limited picture. again emphasizing woman as subject of marriage and procreator of children: ‘King A took wife B and produced son C’ is a repeated format. LVI (946). for terminology.⁸⁶ Portrayal of the feminine. 169. J.ii. however. p. and the rather later propter pudorem et decorem virginitatis tue. modest. ⁸⁸ Portugaliae Monumenta Historica.18. It is relatively easy to make this negative point—that is. although women certainly committed offences. 320. Perez de Urbel. p.⁹² Sampiro.⁹¹ Sampiro’s Chronicle. mentioning them only as objects of marriage or seduction. Sam31 (1059). these look like stock phrases. LVI. The author of the text of Gunterigo’s marriage settlement with Guntroda stresses her sweetness—three times in quite a short text—but this looks like a topos from the store of language appropriate for such transactions: ‘with love for your sweetness and with gratitude that we are bound together in a marriage agreement’. 333. su crónica y la monarquía leonesa en el siglo X (Madrid. softness. of the early eleventh century. the later. J. Sampiro. Ruiz de la Pe˜ na (Oviedo.⁸⁷ A Portuguese text of mid-century uses the same words. ⁹⁰ Sob119. T56 (959). Cf. ⁸⁷ Cel577 (926) and above. ⁸⁹ See above. ed. Etymologiae. and a Sobrado text of the late ninth century elaborates the notion. Isidore. ⁹² Chronicle of Sampiro in J. or as models of virginity. pro decorem … castitatis et pudorem tue virginitatis (for the distinction of [your] chastity and the modesty of your virginity). especially 315. XI. J. 335. the rare references to women are brief. Portugaliae Monumenta Historica. and virgin.Men and Women 183 should be stubborn or disobedient.⁸⁹ ‘et tue virginitatis intemerata pudicia elegi’ (and I have chosen the spotless purity of your virginity) was Sisnando’s comment when he recorded his gifts to Eldontia. woman. shows some interest in Elvira.

Abbots and priests could be accused of sleeping with concubines and nuns of sleeping with allcomers. ibid. and other Spanish Passions. 11 (2002). there is no need to suppose that this fine was paid in silver. The Passionaries are. ⁹⁵ Cel72 (952).184 Men and Women redaction of this text calling her regina. Responsibility for fornication was attributed to women as well as to men: when the girl Bitillo slept with the monk from Celanova. Liii561 (994). a Passion whose context is Andalusian but which may have had a northern Spanish origin. ibid. is difficult to date. Cel338 (989). Carde˜ na scribes certainly had an interest and perhaps made their copy—the only copy—in the later tenth century. OD38 and OD39 (995). ‘Sale. price and valuation in Galicia and Castile-León’. agreed to pay a fine to the value of five solidi. when Gigulfo slept with his godmother (comatre). deo devota. for one of the Silos manuscripts is a compendium of material for nuns. not only did he make a substantial penitential payment of property himself. to a value of twenty-two to the pound-weight of silver. who evokes this interest.⁹⁶ The lapsed nun Menosa. Sampiro. however. date and place of original composition is even more difficult. relevant. other kinds of offence are not so gendered. however..⁹³ The virtue of female chastity was very much the subject of the ‘Passion of Argentea’. but the man Flaino. it was the girl’s parents who made reparation for her offence. 82–8. and killing were distinctively masculine offences. 144–6. Early Medieval Europe. Solidi were units of account. 149–74. see W. was eventually forced to make a deal with her abbess. 5. 94–5. it is only the chaste Elvira. but his wife Sisgundia—for some reason acknowledging that she shared his sin—made over her vineyard as well. and attributing some authority to her.⁹⁴ These are interesting perspectives—as male images of the feminine—but they are obviously very limited and give a rounded picture neither of feminine attributes nor of male attitudes to them. 329–32. and as a result handed over her own property (although not that shared with her husband) to the local presiding judge. ⁹⁶ Lii278 (954). For fines. who kept slipping in and out of the community of San Julián in Castile.. If rape. Crónicas Asturianas. though it may have been. 101–7. her godfather. Cida Aion slept with Peter. Davies. assault. ⁹⁴ See Christys. 16. 338–9. female saints’ Lives and works on virginity were also clearly copied in the tenth century. beyond the likelihood of something before the late eleventh century. Sob122 (960).⁹⁵ Blame for the lapses of monks and nuns similarly lacks gender specificity. . chs. not—as might be expected—the monk’s abbot. see above pp. as pride and the Devil took hold of a community. notably. like the charters. Christians in Al-Andalus. at 159–65. The copying of this. admitting in court that he had slept first with another man’s wife and then with her daughter. handing over to the ⁹³ Perez de Urbel.

Men and Women 185 sisters cloaks. ⁹⁷ C129 (966). as soon as the documents were completed. ⁹⁸ Cel511 (955). and then reassigned their property to Bishop Rosendo. S358 (998). the couple Aderico and Sesina. Gonzalo and his wife Elo did likewise. see above. Sob21.⁹⁹ Another couple. Aderico and Sesina started to insult their benefactors. perhaps in Lemos. 84. but males and females together might well take responsibility for paying the penalties—as must in any case have been the consequence of most peasant offences. bedding. theft—were as likely to be attributed to married couples as to men. Offences involving households and household goods—breaking and entering. and are presented in comparable terms. in due course Reparado and Trasvinda were rescued. by ‘taking on as child and heir’). Sob24. and two vineyards. and held them by force for two days and a night. but in all this males and females behaved in similar ways.¹⁰⁰ These cases are not gendered: males or females might commit the offences. 160–1. listening to the advice. Eirigu and his wife Seniorina. an overcoat. Lii432 (974). a fine on the perpetrator was a fine on the household. Hearing this. stole their stock. tied them up. ejected them from their home. Liii556 (993). Cf. and certainly responsibility for the offence was often recorded as borne by a couple. and his daughter entered the nunnery of San Miguel. ‘stung by the arrows of the devil’. Lii507 (985). ‘of vipers’. but he and his wife made reparation together. .⁹⁷ When Aseredo entered the monastery of San Adrián in Galicia. substantial quantities of grain and wine. as heirs (by profiliatio. Rather ungratefully. ¹⁰⁰ Cel169 (962). a priest negotiated on her behalf and she named two (male) guarantors for the property she was giving. and perhaps Sam156 (983). S322 (984). and the bishop. as it were. stole sheep from the monk Marín and ate them. he lapsed into secular life and the to-and-fro of the world. revoked their bequest to the ungrateful cousins. the man Ramiro stole a horse from a monk. 179. pp. in order to be permitted to leave once and for all. the king intervened and empowered the local bishop to take action. Cel179 (927).⁹⁸ Subsequently he dropped out. he split his property between the two houses. The childless couple Reparado and Trasvinda took on their cousins. although we do not know why the monk was in chains. see above. The destination of a monk’s or a nun’s property was obviously critical to the resolution of such cases. Aseredo returned to the monastery and his property was then split three ways—between the house of San Adrián and that of San Miguel. For profiliatio. p. ⁹⁹ Cel228 (936). Sob29 (all 931). Cf.

¹⁰¹ It is interesting that these problems are presented as household responsibilities. laying siege to it all day. it was Lupi and his wife Elo who met the consequences. As it stands. see above. bread. he was not pursued.186 Men and Women So. pp. see the next case. not Lupi and his mates. and also Cel393 (961). there they came to an agreement that they would sell to the monks of Abellar the trees Velite had planted. for which they received some grain. cf. his wife and children were taken to court in the city of León. and wine. There is something missing or confused in this record. n. in some circumstances. they ¹⁰¹ Lii360 (963). 144–9. his offence did not die with him. just as the very male acts of homicide might. an all-inclusive (but gendered) ‘men’ of villa Santa María and Vilazá. Fruela must have been a judge. they paid this off with half their inheritance in La Ba˜ neza—perhaps half a villa. Hazeme and his wife Felicia unsuccessfully took the priest Cedino to court in 997 over a disputed property and ended up by having to compensate both the priest and the local count.¹⁰³ So also the several communities involved in disputes with landlords over the boundaries of estates: although the latter are often simply termed homines. So. ¹⁰² Lii450 (977). for slaughter and for the fire. 219–20. 101). The priest and a nun had expressed the wish that Lupi should stand in court before Fruela. not the perpetrator of the deed. be paid for by associated females. The sums are high but enforced sale of valuable property could be a penalty. Velite was the gardener of the monastery of Abellar and. and that Lupi and his wife sold their vineyard to Fruela Vélaz for the substantial sum of 100 solidi. and burning it down. if Velite was still alive. so quite substantial. like Munio Fernández and Flaino Mu˜ noz. also planted fruit trees for himself and his family on a plot nearby. and that the sale is not directly connected with the affray. this sale looks like a benefit to Lupi. At some point he killed someone (and perhaps was killed himself—we do not know. they had to give a horse to the value of forty solidi. C151 (972). reflecting their less active presence in property deals—women. not a penalty. that took the brunt of the penalty. However. it is perhaps more likely that two different records have been conflated in this cartulary copy. Liii525 (989). respectively.¹⁰² Again it was the household. pp. the consequence was that damage was assessed at the value of 130 and 60 solidi. when Lupi and several of his mates surrounded a priest’s house. a standard record of sale and a note of an affray. Property disputes were similarly presented. to get some idea of the values above (nn. See further below. if he was dead. ¹⁰³ Liii578. for the penalty of forced sale and the relative value of land and movables.102. 95. while gardening for the monastery. who also made purchases. eventually setting fire to it. but he disappears from the record). for another case of a man losing a case and the wife and children meeting the penalty with him.. the actors were as likely to be couples or groups of men and women as men or—more occasionally. .

Guestrilli gave the priest Munio a vineyard in place of wine to the value of thirteen and a half solidi. Hecce nos homines qui subter notatee sumus et signa facturee —the names listed are female. women discharged them (perhaps because they were often widows. Cel409 (990).¹⁰⁷ The practicalities of living and of resources intrude in records of this kind—there is little gendering of the presentations because the authors thought in terms of the responsible unit rather than in terms of this or that person. and that the creators of most records were men. If we look at the pattern of debt redemption overall. OD14 (964). ¹⁰⁶ Cel229 (947). it is extremely interesting that so much of the life that they portray was not particularly gendered. Offino and his wife Savilli gave Ilduara land with apple trees and cherry trees in lieu of the forty sesters of cider they owed her. 127–8. La familia en la alta edad media espa˜ nola (Pamplona. The portrayals of male behaviour and female behaviour are close to common stereotypes in western European history. Montanos Ferrin. As already indicated in the context of debts to the church and to lay persons. Femininity was not conceived as violent. in its secular manifestations it was. Li116 (937). Cel272 (993) and Ar18 (965). the women of Piasca who made a pact with Abbess Ailón are called homines. the importance of couples as actors in the statistics compiled by E. ¹⁰⁷ For example. In view of the fact that religious authority was proper to men. see below. 199–202.¹⁰⁴ Debts were a different case. cf.Men and Women 187 clearly included men and women. ¹⁰⁸ Cf. masculinity was conceived as both extremely violent and extremely quiet and contemplative. couples: Cel411 (989). for communities and disputes. left with clearing the obligations) and couples also discharged them. . Vegilio and his wife Gontrodo gave Fruela Vimáraz and his wife a vineyard in lieu of the stock which Vegilio had contrived to lose. and many more such.¹⁰⁶ At least two thirds of these cases are attributable to couples—once again because these were mostly peasant obligations which fell on households rather than individuals. Lii457 (978).¹⁰⁸ So. which she owed him. be it noted). S198 (962). as much as anything.¹⁰⁵ women are disproportionately prominent in the discharge of debts. women: Lii465 (979). pp. 337–53 (spanning eighth to thirteenth centuries. Men and women ¹⁰⁴ Cel93 (950). ¹⁰⁵ See above. pp. young and old. in its religious manifestations it took on a particularly pious air. 1980). OD41 (995). busy with things to do. Lii473 (980). to lay and ecclesiastical creditors. then we find that very few men acting alone are presented as responsible parties. that clergy were male. with the contemplative sometimes interrupted by the violent. S79 (941). OD40 (995). 157–60.

women were listed as witnesses. and property was transmitted through them. C197 (985). Li179 (944). As we have seen. ¹¹⁰ Spokespersons for men: S88 (943). Lii492 (983). Forum Iudicum II. But so did men. 173–4. cf.iii. a queen could preside over a court case. pp.¹⁰⁹ Although they certainly sometimes had people to speak for them in court. and they did sometimes take memorializing initiatives. women could be taken to court and sometimes they themselves brought court cases. for women: S159 (958). On women’s capacity to conduct a case.188 Men and Women did things together. Lii410 (968). Both peasant and aristocratic women seem frequently to have operated in the public sphere. so did men. exercised property rights together. and were not confined to the domestic interior—which is farther away from European stereotypes. ¹⁰⁹ Above. .6. and did both separately as men or as women. but people of both sexes seem often to have spoken for themselves. and thus were present at public meetings. they did of course transfer property. Li253 (952).¹¹⁰ Although women do not seem to have exercised any special role as preservers of family memory.

1980).8 Peasant Society It was the peasant couple which so often featured as the responsible household unit. Li158 (942).⁴ Farther west. in contrast to the farms and estates of lesser and greater aristocracy?¹ What were its constituent parts? Most of the material suggests that a household’s property would have consisted of a mixture of different plots scattered within a community territory. ⁴ Lii435 (974). some uncultivated land with apple trees round it. Valencia and her nine children sold three lots of arable in different parts of Villobera in 950. ⁵ Cel380 (961). acting for his sister María as well as himself.⁵ As it happens. in southern Galicia. El monasterio de San Pedro de Carde˜ na. in a water meadow. Moreta Velayos. by his father’s house. García de Cortázar. and another orchard. some plots of arable. he received in return another house with its surround. were included with the house and arable. he gave a small house (casa) in Villaverde with its immediate surround. El dominio del monasterio de San Millán de la Cogolla (siglos X a XIII). and in a vineyard. water rights. Historia de un dominio monástico castellano (Salamanca. as well as some cherry trees. . many plots ¹ Much can be gleaned from the excellent discussions of the countryside in J. half a mill. and Ziti accepted five small plots for half his portion in La Bra˜ na. some plots of land. a vineyard on a different stretch of the road. M. El dominio del monasterio de Sahagún en el siglo X (Salamanca. S. and peasant behaviour has often been identified and differentiated in this book. Mínguez Fernández. ² Li216. with an orchard at the head of the arable. Justino and his wife sold several plots in Rabal to Bishop Rosendo: some arable which lay beside another man’s house. shares in a garden. leading to his father’s house. 1969).³ When Jimeno and his wife sold Leonese property to the priest Vallito. What do we know of peasants and peasant society? What shape did a peasant property have. half a meadow. ³ Lii388. especially 65–133. Introducción a la historia rural de la Castilla altomedieval (Salamanca. J. more arable. 1971). and some money. and half a bramble patch. lying beside the road.² When Rebelle and his wife swapped houses with Salvador and his wife in Leonese territory in 965.

cf. n.⁸ A sense of similar size is conveyed by the many statements of boundaries: back in Leonese territory. Pallares. a village territory which Pallares Méndez has plausibly reconstructed as being about 3 km x 3 km at maximum extents (see Fig. Ilduara. pp. so this meadow was property of a small monastery. of the nuns. 44. one piece of Andisilo’s arable in Sollanzo had the Abellar monks’ land on one side.⁶ So many of these plots were sold to Celanova that none of them can have been large. ⁸ See above. presumably of the nuns. the house plot. expressed in terms of the amount of grain needed to sow them. ibid. ⁷ This estimate is based on an assumed surface area for Rabal of 9 km2 . there were vineyards and orchards. 8. in salt pans.⁹ We have seen that portions of inherited land might be reserved for siblings or cousins. of field size rather than farm size. in meadows. Pallares Méndez. she notes thirty-two Rabal documents from the period 956–97. of Mexite. scattered across ⁶ M. 5–6. Lii366 (963). 23. but the point is still made: these were small plots. Hamama’s meadow in San Ginés was bounded by the lands of Brother Abolbalite (to whom she sold it in 982).. 37. The equivalent of about twenty entire properties (whole hereditates and packages of separate plots) was alienated to Celanova in the later tenth century. a total of say sixty properties). they are referring to units that were relatively small.190 Peasant Society and orchards were sold in Rabal in the 960s. and the road to Sollanzo on the fourth. Some have associated measurements.⁷ When these texts refer to plots. and that portions were often identified as fractions. an orchard). and Abolcazeme respectively. there were shares in mills. there must have been at least twice that number that were not alienated (i. a vineyard or two. 108. whether owned by peasants or small religious communities. and each property must have been composed of at least six plots (several arable. Gratiosa. mostly as separate plots in the 960s. that of Queia and of Manne on two other sides.. Ansilda had two vineyards in Valdevimbre. All indicate the mixed character of a peasant holding. her comments on intensity of exploitation. una aristócrata del siglo X (La Coru˜ na. ⁹ Lii383 (965). Lii485 (982).1). Orondone. in fruit trees. 1998). no more than a very rough estimate. Ilduara. and in the other by those of Faino. Compare the 170 casas listed in the 1764 Rabal cadaster. of course. del C.e. ibid. and by the road. . from halves to ninths. an entire peasant property may at maximum have been of the order of 15 ha and one of its constituent plots of arable or vines of the order of 2 ha maximum. which were surrounded in the one case by the lands of García. These calculations are. and the monks of Valdevimbre. allowing for variations. and in gardens. inherited from parents. Balderedo. Hamama was abbess. 38–47. although in practice there must obviously have been great variation.

accessed by roads that were old. new. an orchard. C175 (978). one or two vineyards. Li229 (950). and ‘public’. Pallares Méndez) community territory. . several plots of arable. Lii445 (976). Lii391 (965). Lii422 (973). ¹⁰ For example.Peasant Society 191 Figure 8. Ov19 (978). C89 (956). del C. hard by the plots of friends and neighbours.¹⁰ We might therefore think of a free peasant’s property as consisting of a house. OD12 (961).1 The territory of Rabal (after M. Cel197 (975–1011). SM18 (912). T69 (963). C211 (999). Lii430 (974). Lii361 (963).

¹³ See above. cattle. 62–3. rather more plots of arable and vineyards. horses. with a share in rights to use water.¹¹ Rich peasants will have had several houses.192 Peasant Society Figure 8. two vineyards in Grajal. perhaps a patch of uncultivated land or a copse. three barrels. by then his ¹¹ See above. and sometimes plots in a neighbouring community. sheep. and scarce things. bigger shares of mills and scarce resources. 65–71. and pigs. all lying within a single community territory. mills. more vineyards in Zeion.2 Small fields and orchards in Rabal perhaps a meadow. Juliano gave his church and its property to Sahagún. this is probably a fair representation of the goods of a wealthy peasant (we should envisage local priests rather as we might envisage rich peasants. two beds and their bedding. particularly in the period before private churches were absorbed by local monasteries¹³). More than twenty years later. pp. the list includes an unspecified number of arable plots. poor peasants will have had fewer of all these. The priest Juliano endowed the church of Santa Juliana at Pe˜ nacorada with property inherited from his father. oxen. with some family members having rights to share in some of the plots (but not all). a quarter of an orchard. use of the mill by the church of San Cipriano for two days and a night. two meadows. a chalice and patten. three farmhouses.¹² Apart from the liturgical vessels. pp. . ¹² S274 (974). barns with grain within them. for family sharing and dividing.

Peasant Society 193 Figure 8. besides the land which went with Santa Juliana. Sharing was not the same thing as common rights: in these texts shares are often very precisely defined as that proportion which a party had a right to use him.3 Traces of former fields beneath the Porma reservoir in northern León property interests had expanded and he had benefited from several gifts. there were shares in two more mills. whether larger or smaller. although peasant collaboration and co-operation in a more general sense is implicit throughout the corpus of charters and is sometimes explicit. it also lay within an economic framework that shared scarce resources and recognized the rights of individual households to known shares. of six days and three days respectively.or herself. and there were six vineyards. gifts of land and water courses given in 987 (S338).¹⁴ COMMUNITIES I have used the notion of ‘community territory’ in the above discussion in order to convey the fact that peasant property did not comprise a series of isolated holdings but lay within a network of inter-related. adjacent plots. . The fact of collaboration does not of itself mean that these people ¹⁴ S350 (996). cf.

particularly those of the aldeas. (Madrid. pp. cf. argued that pasture rights implied a communal regime. in I. Comunidades locales y poderes feudales en la edad media (Logro˜ no.). . and subject to the control of chiefs. ‘De ‘‘se˜ nores y campesinos’’ a ‘‘poderes feudales y comunidades’’. 28. indeed of a larger collective as opposed to household or family identity? And to what extent. La formación del feudalismo en la península Ibérica (Barcelona. at 121–7. Sánchez-Albornoz. Álvarez Borge. The issues addressed in these debates are important. n. while the aldeas were more likely to have had nucleated centres. at 1465–7. if at all. 1978). in his Viejos y nuevos estudios sobre las instituciones medievales espa˜ nolas. Escalona Monge. 3 vols. p. For lordship. The notion of peasant community has been important in Spanish historiography of the second half of the twentieth century. without village centres. 1315–1521 (first published 1978). has been central to the model of increasing lordship that is seen to characterize northern Spanish development of the late tenth and eleventh centuries. to what extent. 1976–80). see references above. many of which are supposed to have grown out of a colonizing effort. for a brief survey and for a third type of community. the valle communities being dispersed. Elementos para definir la articulación entre territorio y clases sociales en la alta edad media castellana’. for a recent critique. and increased hierarchization within it. So. see J. Álvarez Borge (ed. have any sense of community identity. Barbero and M. the comunidades de ciudad y tierra characteristic of lands south of the river Duero and of a later phase of development. This is because community identity has been equated with egalitarianism. 26–30) but also to feudalization and seigneurialization. and I. The two have been seen to have had different characters. had community identities. iii. or others. nor that community territories were necessarily strictly defined and differentiated one from another. 1988). except in the context of proposed change in the very late tenth century. ‘El régimen de la tierra en el reino asturleonés hace mil a˜ nos’. although there has been relatively little investigation of direct expressions of identity or of the structure of such communities. 2001). La sociedad rural en la Espa˜ na medieval (Madrid.¹⁵ There have been assumptions that these populations.194 Peasant Society had a developed sense of community. Vigil. on the north. and relate not only to depopulation and repopulation (see above. ‘Estructuras de poder en Castilla en la alta edad media: se˜ nores. did a group of neighbours. ‘village’ communities). 115–55. lacked chiefs. was group territory defined as group territory? These are difficult questions to answer but there are some things to be said. García de Cortázar y Ruiz de Aguirre.¹⁶ Some extension ¹⁵ See J. 25–9. below. especially 279–85. with a tendency to draw a distinction between the aldea communities of the meseta (loosely. 45. cf. and by convention had a more egalitarian character. and the more scattered populations (comunidades del valle) of the more mountainous north. ¹⁶ C. A. A. and because the destruction of ‘community’.

for owning in common. Poder y relaciones sociales en Castilla en la edad media. or in a valley. Isla Frez. one going to León and the other running through the valley of Ardon’²¹ —although it may be difficult to trace these points on the ground now: property boundaries indicated precise location partly by using streams and roads but largely by naming those siervos. or at the west to Galicia. 2002). and such an extension ultimately had some impact upon the freedom and status of the peasantry. in Se˜ nores. ‘De ‘‘se˜ nores y campesinos’’ a ‘‘poderes feudales y comunidades’’ ’. Estella. 269–308. a plot of land in a named place in a villa. for tribal society. quite differently.Peasant Society 195 of the powers of lordship in that period has been demonstrated. ¹⁸ See the comments of Escalona. ²¹ Lii327 (960). Li91 (931). Los territorios entre el Arlanzón y el Duero en los siglos X al XIV (Valladolid. 201. ¹⁷ See above. or at the classic aldea country of the Duero valley. some arable in a villa. 17–22. without those particular assumptions. or in the valley of Covellas. Lii323 (959). Cel386 (961). since settlements or territorial units could in practice have provided frameworks for community development. in the villa de Bera (Villobera). for peasant freedom. vasallos’. there was a wide range of ways to locate settlements and name land units: some arable in or beside a named place. Barbero and Vigil.¹⁷ however. or in the mountains (for example. siervos. for detailed examination of southern Castile. 1996). Recorded place-names may have some bearing on the issues. or on the Aurio mountain’). 228. A look at the contemporary evidence suggests that there is some material pertinent to community activity and identity but that there are a lot of things that we do not know.¹⁹ We need to look again at these issues. and idem. on the adoption of the English model. Siglos VIII–XI (Madrid. to the classic valle country in Cantabria or in northern Castile. between two roads. See above. in the agro de Bromedo in the villa of Rabal. Li152 (942). ‘in La Bra˜ na. it does not have to follow from this impact that peasant communities must have been egalitarian before. 370–80.¹⁸ That such an idea has been current at all owes much to the completely inappropriate model of the English village community of the late middle ages. 16 a 20 de julio de 2001 (Pamplona. pp. as also.²⁰ Sometimes plots were located more topographically—‘arable below the monastery. La formación del feudalismo. Whether we look at the north. on the inappropriateness of the egalitarian assumption. pp. 2002). to the assumption that a past phase of ‘tribal society’ must have been characterized by co-proprietorship. La alta edad media. Li153 (942). vasallos en la alta edad media. XXVIII Semana de estudios medievales. ²⁰ Li158 (942). 67–9. 142. beside the river Esla. ¹⁹ See A. with its open fields and rights in common pasture. . at 282.

‘El alfoz castellano en los siglos IX al XII’. in G. for the larger territories of León and Astorga. It does not follow that they should have done so. Lii508: ‘valle cum suas villas’. a villa called Castrello in the district (alfoz ) of Siero. Territorial names were clearly of several orders: the smaller villa in the larger territorium or valley in the even larger region (the latter sometimes comparable to the modern ‘autonomous region’ (see above. a villa in the territory of Coyanza in the region of Cantabria [sic ]. Fig. 1984).1)). Reynolds (eds.196 Peasant Society people who had adjacent plots. Sam18 (933). ²⁴ See W. S337 for examples of villas in valleys. orchards in the villa called Amoroce in the territory of Sorga. and alfoces. ‘village’ and then ‘town’. Estepa Díez. 1–12. 0. for regions. both in W. 2007). As in many parts of western Europe. C53 (945). A. although both relatively small and relatively large settlements could have a ‘territory’ attached and ‘territory’ itself could be larger or smaller. pp. the change from classical Roman ‘estate’ to French ville. ‘Introduction—community definition and community formation in the early middle ages: some questions’ and ‘Populations. See C. cf. practice might in any case be expected to vary from region to region and from time to time. a vineyard in the place Rennones in the villa called Setimo in the territory of Astorga. ²³ S123. as we saw above. S225. Davies. Angel Ferrari Nú˜ nez (Madrid. Arce. and see also above.). IV. Christie (eds. but it is possible. 305–41. villages. the significance of the term ‘villa’ has been much discussed. The most consistent suggestions that this sometimes happened relate to the word ‘villa’.²⁵ In Spain. Estudios dedicados al professor D.²⁴ much less develop structures of community regulation. Halsall.²² However. 300–1300 ( Turnhout. People and Space in the Middle Ages. territory and community membership: contrasts and conclusions’. the categories of settlement name—hamlets. territories. Ripoll and J. Li162. G. OD37 (994). Sometimes place-names fitted within a hierarchy of naming—land in Torío in the territory of León. Towns and their Territories between Late Antiquity . See G. S335 (987). the territorial import of the word has been ²² Li162 (943—Torío is a river name). for administrative units. in a manner that was as meaningful at the time as it is useless to us now. Sob8 (964) for villas within other villas. ²⁵ Cf. and larger settlements—and of territorial name are not consistently expressed and it is often unclear if a place-name refers to a settlement or a district. Li138. ‘The transformation and end of Roman villae in the West (fourth–seventh centuries): problems and perspectives’.). a villa in the vega (meadows) of San Adriano in the district (pago) of León. S219 for the territory of Melgar and S126 for its boundaries. Davies. Brogiolo. P. S192 (961). Liii530 (989). 14–16. in Espa˜ na Medieval. or had themselves been shaped by communities. 295–307.²³ Such units potentially gave shape to their residents as communities. N. Gauthier and N. Cel254 (942—Sorga also).

1991).²⁶ In many of the examples cited above. Estepa Díez. although villas within the territory of Melgar must have been smaller. orchards. houses. at 291–4. cf. for Frankish examples. 201. La tierra de campos. 1985). 2005). ²⁷ Lii333 (960). just as churches. Agustí Altisent ( Tarragona.³⁰ As always. Martínez Sopena. see G. Pallares Méndez. Reynolds (eds. ‘Villas. People and Space. Verín. ‘villa’ was a territorial designation (although it could be a term of proprietorship—X’s villa—or a settlement name). What is important in the present context is not so much size as the fact that the word villa could signify a definable territory. p. 119–25. and some criticisms. in Miscel-lània en homenatge al P.²⁸ Some of the villas on the meseta look bigger: those to the west and south-west of Sahagún are up to 5 km across. though always with wide variations. Halsall. 510–13. See the maps of Mínguez. and Abedes. P. while its initial reference to nucleated settlements has been noticed in the western Tierra de Campos. 465–81. cf. at approximately 20 km2 . S299 (979).²⁷ As for size: the Rabal villa discussed above was something like 3 km across. the differences should not be a cause of surprise or concern: we should expect plenty of variation. Framing the Early Middle Ages (Oxford. 65–6. Small Worlds. Halsall. for Galicia. 232. 242. La tierra de campos occidental (Valladolid. ²⁶ C.²⁹ The largest of these. Ilduara. ³⁰ Of the order of 50 km2 . especially 209–19. territories and communities in Merovingian northern Gaul’. ²⁸ Cel95. .Peasant Society 197 emphasized in the context of the Alto Esla on the southern side of the Cantabrian mountains. 63–114. ‘Poder y propiedad feudales en el período astur: las mandaciones de los Flaínez en la monta˜ na leonesa’. see also the discussion of C. see Davies. 199. in Davies. were no more than 2 km across. see further below. although smaller than the English hundred or Breton plebs of the early middle ages. plots of arable. 285–327. 24–5. Cel390 (961) and the examples above. 2000). ²⁹ S265 (972). both within regions and within Spain. The inhabitants of a local territory clearly did sometimes develop a collective identity in tenth-century northern Spain. There were at least three kinds of context for this: inhabitants of a territory who shared a relationship with a landlord. 106. 189. Cel502.). and of Martínez Sopena. pp. were frequently sited within them. farther south in Galicia. that this was so is made quite clear by the fact that villa boundaries could be described. both using the framework of the villa and sitting across and outside it. and vineyards. El dominio del monasterio de Sahagún. Wickham. three adjacent villas of Pazos. 209–31. those who came together because of physical proximity and the Early Middle Ages (Leiden. are of a size comparable to village territory (the rural parish) as it emerged in southern England in the later middle ages. the villa in S100 (945) had at least seven houses.

1–2. in T. Walters (eds. all the inhabitants of Villa Castellana.³⁵ We see these people taking joint action together by virtue of their shared membership of a tenant or dependent relationship. although we may suspect episcopal drafting of a document confirming commitments that were already expected. That the residents of such estates were not passively compliant. are recorded as giving their villa and themselves to the bishop of León. might act together (or be forced to act together) to inaugurate similar relationships: twenty-one named men. Lawyers and Laymen (Cardiff. with the son of one of them. is demonstrated by occasional records of negotiations between lords and residents. 20. ³³ Lii443 (976). between Melgar and Gordaliza (south and west of Sahagún). M. who lived in three different settlements but worked on the Pardomino hills.198 Peasant Society and/or economic necessity. ‘Suretyship in the Cartulaire de Redon’. S262 (971). D. B.³¹ In 977 the people of the villa of Fuentes. this record cannot be earlier than the late tenth century and could be of the early eleventh century. . Owen. cf.³³ It is nevertheless significant that the record presents the action as a voluntary gift by the tenants. and above p. 72–91. on pain of a heavy fine. given to Sahagún by the king six years previously. because they had common interests in the face of the lord. p. given its relationship with the preceding charter in this collection. Charles-Edwards. three or four named people from each of seven different locations witnessed this deal. some of them stood as guarantors for each other.³⁴ Six named men. who knows what pressurized them to make such a gift. The three contexts were not necessarily exclusive. as their ancestors had done for two previous bishops. in other words. E.³² The year before. agreed to pay a quarter of their produce annually to the monastery in the valley below. M. Davies. see further below. Others. not necessarily residents of existing estates. cf. 18. negotiated use of a hillside with the abbot of San Martín de Cercito because their own lands were worked out. W. ³⁵ SJP32 (s. for similarly intricate patterns of suretyship. and those who shared use of a particular church. The residents of a landlord’s estate (sometimes called a villa) might take collective action by virtue of the fact that they were his tenants. or dependents.).). at 83. ³² S289. seven of them named guarantors for their undertaking. ³⁴ Lii290 (955). to serve him and his church of Santa María. As discussed above. as in the rent negotiations noted in Chapter one. the term villa was also used as a territorial designation without any necessary contemporary implication of single ³¹ pp. but took action on their own account. 200. 1986).d. agreed to serve the monastery and no one else.

Cf. in Castile. 2nd edn. a little later twenty-six named people sold their mills in the river Cea. 79. the delegates seem to have spent a long time searching for stones and other markers out in the field.Peasant Society 199 proprietorship. also sometimes took collective action. 129.³⁹ The case concerning the villa of Santa Olalla in Lemos in 959 ³⁶ Cf.³⁷ Most of these groups are large and their collective action explicit. S327 (984). each taking action on its own account. of the villas of Castroncán and of Pascais recorded in Sam46 (933). with adjacent land and water. on their own account. ‘De ‘‘se˜ nores y campesinos’’ a ‘‘poderes feudales y comunidades’’ ’. S142 (954). ³⁷ S44. ³⁹ Sob109 (986–99). The inhabitants of such territories. Cel224 (934)—this text is ambiguous about which names participated. and engaged in disputes with neighbouring lords or communities. as were two from each of five communities in a late tenth-century Sobrado case. 1990. 204. In this case the bishop went to the king in or before 950 because he thought that the people of Santa María of Verín were encroaching on his own estate of Baroncelli (Pazos) from the east and that the people of Vilazá and of Albarellos were intruding from the west. possibly members of the same family. ³⁸ Cel93. . An extremely high-level delegation was sent from court to determine the true boundaries of the estate on the ground. and of other territories with different descriptors. of Villamol. Resistencias y luchas campesinas en la época del crecimiento y consolidación de la formación feudal. Castilla y León. local community representatives were called in to give evidence. as corporate bodies. Pastor. gave land to found a monastery. the rather similar case of boundary pressures by the inhabitants of Manzaneda and of Garrafe recorded in Li89 (931). Nine named people from Melgar gave a meadow to a local monastery in 932. up to seventeen named inhabitants of Quiroga and Caldelas gave several plots to San Xoán de Lamas in Galicia a couple of years later.³⁶ They gave and sold plots of land.³⁸ Here it is clear that there were three distinct communities surrounding the bishop’s estate. it is particularly telling that such care is taken to record the personal names of the actors. first published 1980). When bishops themselves disputed. and a generation later thirty-two people seem to have sold their entire settlement. p. but the Galician case of Bishop Rosendo against the inhabitants of three different villas is nevertheless instructive. (Madrid. twenty-four named people of Villabáscones. and of the Liébana recorded in T62 (962). Escalona. see R. on villas as communities. to Sahag´ un. to Vald´ avida. in the following decade. siglos X–XIII. There are not usually so many people named in records of disputes. C45 (944–50)—see further below.

in grapes and chestnuts. ⁴⁴ Sob129 (942). pp. cf. and C.⁴⁰ The case of the seven communities who entered monastic land on the hills of Pardomino. and then went on to trace the lines between three other villas. ⁴⁵ Also interesting that these boundary disputes are very rarely about grazing rights (although see the explicit gift of grazing rights in C109 (963)). 197–8. many are explicitly about ploughing rights. except that at that stage (in the 940s). C22 (932). is similar. similarly. 79. Pastor. Resistencias. Pastor. 85. Estepa Díez. and also Ranosendi. Named men of the villas of Sauto and Leginoso came before Count Gutier in dispute about their boundaries. Estructura social de la ciudad de León (siglos XI–XIII) (León. thirty named men from eight locations in the Lózara valley in Galicia agreed with the monks of Samos their rights to live in the valley. it was the bounds of ‘lay land’ that were defined.⁴⁵ There ⁴⁰ Cel446 (959—see above. the men of San Juan en Vega (de Infanzones). each with its own spokesperson. A panel of boni homines (respected elders) was despatched to ascertain where the line had run of old. took action against the abbot and monks of Valdevimbre on the grounds that the monastery had interfered with the water flow at the confluence of the rivers Torío and Bernesga (14 km south of León) and thereby damaged their mills. References to pasture rights are quite rare . excluding the communities from (monastic) mills and ploughed land. Cel507 (985). they found the point where the bounds of Sauto and Leginoso. and building houses. cf.⁴¹ Rather unusually. Resistencias. 1977). here they were taken to court as a group for entering that villa.⁴⁴ It is interesting that there seem to have been physical markers between these Galician communities. 198. the bishop of Santiago heard a similar case between two communities from farther north. p. to pay the monastery of San Pedro a quarter of their produce every year. it was again solved by boundary walking and finding stone markers. pasturing their animals. Sam247 (909). cf. markers which were regarded as ancient in the earlier tenth century. they agreed. ploughing.⁴³ A couple of years later. cf. planting vines and arable. above. ⁴³ Cel502 (940). 1–2). and cutting trees. ⁴¹ Li184 (944) (cf.200 Peasant Society has a few names—apparently the names of the heads of five families. ⁴² Li128 (938). led by one Gondemaro. like Sam247 (909). Cel150 (987). but also agreed not to encroach on monastic land. even more remarkably the king found in favour of the men against the abbot. ultimately. for three of the Pardomino communities subsequently ‘agreeing’ to give a quarter of their annual produce to the monks).⁴² The fact of collective action by communities is demonstrated even more strongly by records of disputes between communities themselves. intersected.

a sale to Sahagún of land in Ataula was witnessed by named persons and ‘many others of the council of San Andrés in Villa Mutarraf’. while a sale to the monastery of San Andrés itself was witnessed by the ‘assembly in in the tenth century and only occur notably in Castile. It is an important case since the bishop’s tenants appear to have included elders of sufficient status to resolve disputes between communities. Reynolds (eds. is common enough. Halsall. cf. This time a large group of the elders (maiores natu) of the bishop’s estate of Baroncelli (Pazos) was sent off to search for the markers. ‘Mapping scale change: hierarchization and fission in Castilian rural communities during the tenth and eleventh centuries’. was confirmed by the ‘assembly of San Juan’. 39. it is precisely what happened to the people of the parish for much of the subsequent millennium in western European society—but it is difficult to demonstrate unambiguously at this time.g. taking in the bounds of a further two communities on their travels. SM38. and more tentatively than the very clear cases above. are defined by the name of a church. in Davies. People and Space. rather than the territorial unit providing the framework for community development. This kind of grouping is inherently credible—after all. Ar4 (924). also the undated SJP31 in Aragón.). in Castile. Differently. Ar12 (932). a focal point did so. SM95 (979)). 143–66. V2 (notionally 804). 40 (all 945). as opposed to pasture rights. a sale between lay parties of a vineyard in the villa Rebolare. was witnessed by several named persons and ‘others of the council of San Julián’. a generation later. ⁴⁶ Cel95 (950 and 951). 58. it is likely that members of the lay community who related to a specific church or monastery sometimes took action together. the men are described as the men of the ‘assembly in San Juan’. When the king heard the case over water rights brought by the men of San Juan en Vega against the abbot and monks of Valdevimbre. a gift to the monastery of Santos Justo y Pastor of land at San Juan. in the villa Fuentes. called councils and assemblies in the texts.Peasant Society 201 is a similar case between the inhabitants of the villa Santa María (led by Countess Trudildi) and three neighbouring communities a decade later.⁴⁶ In this case representatives of the four communities in dispute were named. on Orbaneja. the implication must be that. they finally decided in favour of the Santa María community. outside Castile. especially in the San Millán charters (e. while a gift of vines in the valley of Covellas to the monastery of Abellar was witnessed by many of the ‘council of San Juan’. Reference to pasture. The suggestions lie in the fact that a few groups. in such cases. the rights were not a matter of competition in the tenth century. but note also. . near León. SM73 (957). at 155–9 and n. and see Escalona.

in later centuries the local council. See further comment below. at the least. Li88 (930).⁴⁸ It is also conceivable. a royal grant witnessed in the church of Santa Olalla. del C. La tierra de campos. Indeed. represented communities. lay/priest sale in front of the church of San Lorenzo. concilium and collatio (a farm associated with the proprietary church of San Andrés had been given to Sahagún in 959 (S165) and the Villa Motarraf had been given in 970 (S255). 55. 157–256. Ataula is about 40 km south-west of Villa Motarraf.⁴⁷ The named people. i. 202–7. collacio —see above for this case. and below. also C. in Castile. SM88 (971). in his Viejos y . came to be a familiar aspect of the rural landscape. ⁵⁰ See M. For the view that these. both in conventum/o ecclesiae. Lii493 (983) and Liii515 (986). ⁴⁹ Martínez Sopena. from these assemblies and councils. Sánchez-Albornoz. in meetings in church. ‘Repoblación del Reino Asturleonés’. Del concejo medieval castellano-leonés (Buenos Aires. but we have already seen that the words ‘council’ and ‘assembly’ (concilium and collatio) in some circumstances came to be used of their meetings. and many other collationes. but perhaps the church in the suburbs of León. groups of people—however they were defined—undoubtedly took collective action. on the meseta. ⁴⁸ Cf.⁵⁰ Reference to rural councils in the tenth ⁴⁷ Li128. collacio and concilium (it is unclear which San Juan). where it seems that the Ataula transaction was performed). and in Aragón. for councils. 1989). are not identified as priests or monks.202 Peasant Society San Andrés’. pp. in the first of which there was a lay/lay sale and in the second executors discharged their obligations before witnesses. hence the occasion and the location defined the groups. Estepa Díez. see C. It seems plausible that. Lii262 (953) and Li137 (940). We do not know much about the internal workings of such bodies. S300 (979) and S301 (979). 1968).e. given that nearly all meetings recorded in this way took place in winter. these were people who met in church. or how much structure there was. S341). The examples cited above show collective action in Galicia. cf. concilium (it is not clear which San Julián is intended. or even likely. I have used ‘assembly’ to translate collacio/collatio. n. although priests feature elsewhere in these witness lists. in the Liébana valley. since it is clear in other contexts (see below) that this word can refer to lay groups. ‘Formación y consolidación del feudalismo en Castilla y León’. Carlé. notes that the word collación came to refer to the association of parishioners. in En torno al feudalismo hispánico. at 191–2. 513. or concejo. I congreso de estudios medievales (León. as was clearly the case in later centuries. that the people of the councils were those who had a relationship with the churches.⁴⁹ COUNCILS Whatever we may think of the likelihood that some groups were defined by their relationship to a church. to make the point that the witnesses may have been other than monks. S268 (973). between November and February.

a common term for Sahagún’s monastic community. comprising different households. and occasionally aristocratic councils). already evidenced fifty years earlier as one of the Pardomino communities. ii. In the rural context.Peasant Society 203 century is not particularly common. ⁵⁵ S44. Liii572 (996). as also Estepa. ‘Formación del feudalismo’. a gift was confirmed in the council of Villalba in 950. as it were. and there were also kings’ councils. my hesitation at supposing that all of those associated with church names referred to the local lay. a substantial gift of several villas in 987 was witnessed by representatives of the Villa Motarraf assembly as well as by other groups. 581–790. p. here translated ‘assembly’. pp. León in Lii312 (959). ‘cum collatione fratrum Sancte Marie’ and T24 (918).⁵² bishops’ councils. C89 (956). (Madrid. cf. it must refer to quite a wide collectivity. La tierra de campos. a collectivity. in Rodrigo’s sphere of delegated authority. See also the collatio in Lii331 (960). explicitly. Estructura social de León. S275 (974). ⁵¹ See especially OD38 (995). OD43 (997). C151 (972). at iii. pace Estepa Díez.. 198–9. which may have been the assembly of people. 507. . but cf. sometimes occurs as a direct synonym for council:⁵⁴ the nine named people who made the Melgar gift in 932 were joined by all the collatio of Melgar. fecit collationem ‘he called a meeting’. Lii416 (972). S283 (976). a gift to the bishop of León of a vineyard in Perares was witnessed by thirteen named men and ‘more from the council’ in 979. 1447–75. both the interchangeability of concilium and collatio in the tenth century and the fact that these words refer to a collective.⁵⁶ Attendance was often by quite a large group—too large to constitute simply the ‘dominant lineages’ nuevos estudios sobre las instituciones medievales espa˜ nolas. cf.g. 3 vols. Liii577(997). ⁵⁴ Martínez Sopena. his comissorio (see above. 200. especially. Collatio is also frequently used of the coming together of a monastic community. Sam35 (944). S335 (987). S298 (979). It is. 236–40. ⁵⁶ Cf. Hence. for example. seventeen named men and all the council of Villabáscones made the agreement with their local abbot over water rights in 956. ⁵³ C70 (950).⁵⁵ Both words imply meetings.⁵¹ city councils. Liii532 (990). notes. cf. the word council clearly refers to an assembled group of people. large or small. Lii466 (979). from the numbers of individual names associated.⁵³ The word collatio. several times. where concilio is a synonym for iudicio. or may simply have been the community of Ferreras. 47 above. community. rather than a local religious. Li184 (944). also Cel173 (922). and the examples in n. at 753–8. e. ⁵² Of Burgos. and his ‘El régimen de la tierra’. Hence. that is when associated with people of a named rural settlement or district. and there may be no more than twenty such cases (although ‘council’ is of course a common word. a gathering. 14–15). see also concilia in Lii391 (965). the aristocrat Rodrigo Alvarez’s concilium and collatio. C192 (984). judicial courts described as councils. Lii396 (966). see above. A27 (978). or their representatives. ‘ex fratrum collacione’. 1976–80). a meeting subsequently referred to as council of Melgar.

When they came to negotiate over water rights. and Barrio. n. there was a castrum. . and Pastor. at Melgar. 281–2. and idem. see Álvarez Borge. leaders seem to have emerged.204 Peasant Society that feature in some of the Spanish historiography—although there is no need to suppose that all residents attended. Not long after. conscious collective identity or not. to the much larger monastery of Carde˜ na. appears to derive from an eleventhcentury rather than a contemporary text and is in any case doubtful. the farm at San Andrés. or at least spokespersons for the groups. villages. the Villabáscones council was negotiating with the abbot of the local monastery of San Martín in 956. The council therefore seems to have been the assembly of the group that—for whatever reason—took decisions for the whole community. and all of its lands and property rights. which they had certainly patronized and had perhaps created. If we look in detail at a few cases. in 963. 22. Resistencias. and the place had associated territory. clearly some were tenants. they are often places which remain in the landscape as. When they first appeared. or to become.⁵⁸ They were sometimes villas—Villalba. in which those who were male and free attended village meetings. ⁵⁹ C108. As noted above. perhaps some kind of fortification. and the unidentified San Juan and San Julián. Poder y relaciones sociales. the abbot of San Martín gave the whole monastery. Perares. Of course. of 955 (SM67). no collective term was used to describe the twenty-four. just as community representatives sometimes went to witness transactions in which the ⁵⁷ Compare ninth-century Breton village communities. Villabáscones. San Juan en Vega. as well as houses and farmsteads. The places named in association with such groups were often settlements—Melgar. ‘Estructuras de poder’. and perhaps some free males did not. 39. we can begin to glimpse the process that lay beneath these gatherings. 693. ‘Repoblación’. Sánchez-Albornoz. 88–9. see Davies. It is as if they developed a collective identity in the course of their changing relationship with the monastery. About ten years earlier. and often roads led to them.⁵⁹ The local householders of Villabáscones thereby lost their local monastery. Small Worlds.⁵⁷ We also do not have to suppose that all members of a council were proprietors. witnessed by some of the twenty-four of two decades earlier. Berbea. Cf. ⁵⁸ The reference to the much discussed joint council of the three settlements of San Zadornil. serfs and women did not. 36–7. the seventeen and others were called the council. and in 955 a few of them had sold some water rights to it. twenty-four members of that community had given land to endow their local church.

39). the Quiroga and Caldelas donors have one or two people named for each different set of relations. see P. later purchasing several small plots in the neighbourhood. even more interestingly the latter are identified as representatives of the plebium. 198–9). Cel95. 1979). In many areas. literally ‘ordinary peoples’. It is also striking that these councils are relatively unusual (they were certainly unusual in other parts of Europe at such a date). 35) and the community representatives who gave evidence (above. ⁶³ S44 (932). A. seven people were named as representatives (vigarii) and guarantors (fideiussores) for the seven communities working the Pardomino hills. Li102 (935)). n. pp. 20 (1983). 147. For the term plebs. Sob109 (986–99).⁶³ Spokespersons were not necessarily. 9–30. L’organizzazione del territorio rurale nel medioevo ( Turin. and later still giving many of those to the much larger monastery of Sahagún to the north-east. S164 (959). cf. a term used in other parts of Europe in the early middle ages for rural and other communities. She was the first-named (and by implication the spokeswoman) of the nine named members of the Melgar assembly who gave the meadow to the small monastery of San Juan. S162 (959). 143–65.⁶⁰ In many (though by no means all) of the instances of collective action cited above.⁶¹ There are also occasional Galician references to plebes at this period. the primary unit of social organization (which could of course have had its origin in adherence to a church). the witness groups in SJP32 (above. Revue de linguistique romane. W. Li184 (cf. of uncertain date but perhaps as early as 941.Peasant Society 205 community had an interest. 177–97. ‘La diffusion de plebs ‘‘paroisse’’ dans l’espace et dans le temps’. Aebischer. cf. The earliest reference to a rural council seems to come in 950 (collationes from 932) and the rest are scattered across the remainder of the tenth century. very interestingly. although in the Breton case it referred to a unit of civil association. at 177–82. two or three are named as representatives of the group: Gondemaro led the men of San Juan en Vega. by the ninth century. the richest. however. a sale witnessed by groups from seven locations. Vasalle and Haliffa were named for the Villa Castellana group that ‘offered’ service to the bishop. S364 (946). ‘Priests and rural communities in east Brittany in the ninth century’. El dominio de Sahagún. ⁶⁴ The concilium of Iubera (Castile) is mentioned in A8. See Mínguez. Castagnetti. Filauria’s husband. 28 (1964). S94 (945–54).⁶⁴ Their occurrence appears to be a new development of that ⁶⁰ E. Sob109 (above n. one or two were named for each of the four villas involved in the Santa María dispute. Cel224. S265 (972). the word plebs was most frequently used to denote the territory dependent on a baptismal church. She seems to have been a rich peasant. Études celtiques.g. Lii443. ⁶² Sam128 (849). . ⁶¹ Li128. for Isca. and. Davies.⁶² The case of Filauria is also interesting.

as befits an institution rather than an occasion. for example. While meetings began as occasions. Lii466. most are short. councils. by the time they were negotiating with the abbot. . and one record of a bequest from a father to sons. Interestingly. seem to have been a particular characteristic of the meseta at this period. Although there is good evidence of peasant community action in all parts. Liii547 (991).⁶⁸ We might therefore imagine that. while we hear of a concilium here and a collatio there. records. cf. written tradition. all these are cases of sales. in short basic records. ⁶⁷ Lii468. reference was made to people of or from the council. and thereby developed a greater sense of group identity as they had to negotiate with their own lords or with local larger landowners who were competitors. it was. Cf. began to institutionalize meetings. from the 960s the word collatio was developing a spatial sense too. then. small-scale. a term favoured by a few recording sources. T71 (?966). pp. They include records of sales between lay persons as well as of gifts to churches and monasteries. 108–9. we have noted that when the people of Villabáscones first met to endow their local monastery. the references come from a range of different sources. ⁶⁶ See above. most places had no such identifiable meeting.⁶⁵ Moreover. for the significance of brief records. land in the sphere of this or that assembly (or community meeting). even there. Moreover. the occurrence of councils is more restricted: there are Castilian and Leonese examples. as they ⁶⁵ There is a passing reference in a Liébana text. but they are not recorded in the west or the north. including at least nine on single sheets.206 Peasant Society time. ⁶⁸ S300. unelaborated. However. as the powers of lords developed. the semantic range of ‘parish’.⁶⁶ It therefore looks as if the practice of identifying the meetings of some rural groups as ‘councils’ was a local habit and quite widespread. their meeting was not called a council. which includes the land associated with the community for which pastoral care was provided. like the vineyard in ‘valle de Antimio in collationem San Juan Evangelista’ sold in 979. well before 1000. the usage again seems to reflect a local habit of locating properties rather than an established. Indeed. It is worth considering whether groups of people became more accustomed to meet. written by different scribes in different places. Liii572. It is tempting to suppose that reference to councils simply arose because of diplomatic practice. Liii546 (991). which suggests that the charter of donation was made in an unlocated concilio. especially but not exclusively near the towns of Burgos and León.⁶⁷ In any case. Lii391 (965). they were clearly on the way to becoming institutions by 1000. and local scribes in some parts were aware of the development. formulaic. The spatial sense of collación was common in the central middle ages.

in records of gifts to churches. and never committed to writing. ⁷¹ See above. but sometimes—especially with sales to clergy—in effect a kind of payment for help in bad times past. Barnwell and M. to ecclesiastical landlords. It was peasants. Kosto. even if lightly. especially. While many transactions may have been orally conducted. as any aristocrat might do. 510. Mostert (eds.Peasant Society 207 undoubtedly did. rural communities became more likely to have regular meetings. sometimes as an aspect of the splitting and sharing. This is essentially the point made by Martínez Sopena about merino (lord’s agent) and concejo in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. dealing in fractions of increasing complexity—half a vineyard. perhaps quickly indicating a pious reason for making the gift but. ‘Reasons for assembly in Catalonia and Aragón. Sales also feature prominently in peasant dealing. councils. Again. . undertaking to pay regular renders and thereby committing their families to lasting obligations. Political Assemblies in the Earlier Middle Ages ( Turnhout. J. who would ‘share’ some of their property with a bishop or monastery. who uses many tenth-century examples. in P. who split and shared family property. Patterns of peasant behaviour were often distinctive. We can see a peasantry increasingly attached.). some peasants certainly used records. Martínez Sopena. a source of surplus in times of scarcity. S. pp. and it was individual peasants. 69–71. But peasants are ⁶⁹ Cf.⁷¹ Peasants made gifts to the church for different reasons. 2003). 506. also A. 900–1200’. to develop a common position.⁶⁹ This represents a change in the later tenth century. using standard formulas in brief and unelaborated texts.⁷⁰ We also get a glimpse of the procedures available to peasants for making deals. a fourteenth of the arable. a ninth of the meadow. 133–49. 156–8. as the identity of rural groups in the meseta —far from being destroyed—crystallized and formalized. 108–9. PE A S A N T D O N AT I O N Actions by rural groups in the tenth century and the increasing incidence of meetings indicate a growing sense of self-awareness by peasant communities in some parts of northern Spain. and so on. avoiding references to the torments of hell and the delights of heaven. La tierra de campos. and sometimes for purely pious reasons. pp. ⁷⁰ See above. in particular. Cf. Local priests and local monasteries made records for them. we see the role of the clergy becoming ever more prominent. the point can reasonably be extended back to the tenth century.

which remain marked even where collections of records are small: in other words. estimates can be made and.⁷³ it looks as if there were changes in the patterns of peasant donation across the tenth century and different patterns in different regions. something in the order of 25%. There are very strong regional differences. especially where numbers of records in a given collection are low. we may say that peasant giving constitutes a relatively small proportion of donation to the church recorded in this period. and some may have determined to deal with kings and aristocrats rather than with those who lived nearby. sometimes they also made them to secure support. the tenth-century material suggests that peasants had. it looks as if social access to ritual may have been slightly expanding by 1000. although two things here are notable: one or two peasants actually were involved in those kinds of gift. Can we pursue the incidence of peasant transactions in the record? We cannot always be sure of the status of the actors who appear in these charters. p. Ritual celebration and participation were less important here. the patterns are regionally consistent. there were both regional distinctions (it did not happen in Galicia) and differences in the kind of ecclesiastical communities patronized (they tended to give to small monasteries and avoid the powerful corporations). then. while remembering the uncertainties. Most abbots and bishops had more recorded dealings with kings and aristocrats in the tenth century than with peasants.⁷² Overall. but bearing in mind the criteria stated in Chapter one. or were developing. Indeed. 21–2. the large collections suggest broad proportions which are credible. Although there ⁷² See above. where they were. The proportion of peasant donation seems to have been relatively low in Galicia. this is not at all surprising.208 Peasant Society particularly notable for making gifts to pay off debts and to provide compensation for committing petty offences. as indicated above. Tentatively. ⁷³ pp. for a relationship that was clearly more economic and less spiritual. Peasants were not much involved in making gifts in order to secure liturgical or some other form of religious commemoration. as also in what we have from Aragón. 132. . It is obviously difficult to quantify peasant participation because of the inevitable uncertainties about status. or burial within the church. a rather different kind of relationship with priests and monks from that which aristocrats had. although a few peasants did enlist the services of priests and other religious for their own family purposes. However. and. By no means all of this was for pious reasons.

numbers from Valpuesta. and Albelda are too low to be statistically significant.⁷⁴ About 35% of the Carde˜ na donations could reasonably be classified as of peasant status. the San Juan de la Pe˜ na collection does not appear to have any records of peasant gifts at this time—numbers are small anyway. although peasant transactions with the laity feature very strongly in this group. In Aragón. n. in so far as we have statistically significant material from the north. Table 8. 49 for peasant activity in Castile. but small-scale peasant giving—often recorded in very brief notes—looks close to or above the mean. as also in Cantabria. but even so there are at least eleven records of royal or aristocratic gifts in the tenth century. Sobrado also has at most a handful of peasant gifts to the church. and although we also see peasants very clearly in the Celanova collection. By contrast with this Galician pattern. the number of peasant grants to the church looks relatively high in Castile. as % of all gifts to the church % of all gifts to the church Cel Sam Sob L OD S C SM* V SJP T Ov Total * 20 5 10 27 33 25 35 23 58 0 33 22 25 higher % if multiple transactions disaggregated San Millán records have more uncertainties. at most 20% of donations to the church could be attributed to peasants. Arlanza. by collection. above.Peasant Society 209 are many gifts by aristocrats recorded in the Samos collection. p. . and are notably marked by royal and comital gifts.1 Peasant donation to the church. no more than a handful could be from people of peasant status. because of the many sales recorded in mid-century. 52. ⁷⁴ Cf.

Unsurprisingly. T12 (both ninth century). that is of peasant transactions entering the written record at a noticeable point.⁷⁵ This pattern. . however.1). however. at nearby Sahagún it was also the 930s when this activity began to be noted. although it was the 960s before the proportions become notable. where the evidence in this respect is particularly strong: although ‘ordinary people’ start to feature as alienators around 920 in the León collections. collections of the western meseta. Total numbers of donations are also rather low in records from Cantabrian Liébana. there are also early gifts to lay recipients. Whenever a collection begins. Interestingly. Most of the charter collections considered here begin with records of the late ninth century but do not record significant numbers of transactions until the decade following 910. is reinforced if we also look at the recording ⁷⁵ For example. ?T24 (918). ordinary people do not play much part in the recorded transfer of property rights. In the northern collection of the Liébana (San Martín de Turieno and associated institutions). Where numbers of charters are lower. Valpuesta seems to have an extremely high proportion. be they lay or ecclesiastical. where numbers are vastly lower. there comes a clear time when the business transactions of ordinary people start to feature in the records.210 Peasant Society and peasant donation is certainly not notable in the latter two. T10. San Millán. but here too the peasant proportion looks higher than the mean (about 33%). and numbers of charters are high. where numbers are relatively small. But in many cases. records of peasant donation to the church appear to have begun earlier. and in most cases there is too little material to identify a point at which peasant records became common. This is most striking in the large. particularly where the collections are large. T29 (921). over 50% of gifts. there was not such a change in the 930s. where the proportion of peasant donation to the church is either relatively high or relatively low. however. it was also the 930s when records of peasant donation became notable: from 932 round Carde˜ na. and richly varied. at Otero de las Due˜ nas. it was in the 940s. there is—not surprisingly—much greater variation. peasant donation to the church is not notably recorded before the mid-930s. for Valpuesta it was the 950s. the earliest transactions are dominated by aristocrats. and also Celanova. peasant donation in the large collections of records from the western meseta comes closest to the 25% mean (see Table 8. although the percentage is skewed by the set of gifts of the 950s to the monastery of Buezo.

and Albelda collections have few sales at all in this period.4). sale to the laity is recorded from as early as the early ninth century. in the Sobrado collection. although there are some sales from the 930s. In the León collections. as also for Sahagún. sale is also relatively rare: it is not noticeable in Carde˜ na records until the 960s. Oviedo records peasant sales from 917. and the Liébana does so from the early ninth century (see Fig. the situation is different. Arlanza.Peasant Society 211 of transactions of sale. but is only notable from the 920s. in the collections from the north. Where records of peasant donation are relatively few. San Millán. in that of Celanova. there were earlier peasant sales but the main series began in the late 920s.4 Zones of different recording practice in respect of peasant transactions . in Galicia to the west. in Castile to the east. and arguably earlier. there are relatively few sales recorded: there are few sales of any kind in the Samos collection. Figure 8. By contrast. Outside the western meseta. the main bulk of peasant sales falls only in the 960s. Valpuesta records do include sales from 913. for just over a generation. but most of the collection records gifts. Where records of peasant donation are relatively many. 8. for the small but important collection from Otero this started in the 940s.

in most regions there is a horizon in the 930s at which peasant transactions start to show noticeably in the written record. and in the case of Sobrado. more records. alternatively. peasant gifts and sales to lay persons began earlier and were much more evident than transactions with the church until the mid-tenth century. the second kind of explanation is probably also relevant as well: ecclesiastical beneficiaries had reason to see transactions from which they benefited committed to writing—the increase in buying from peasants in the case of both Carde˜ na and Celanova in the 960s is directly attributable to entrepreneurial monastic policy. Clearly. although in the case of Celanova numbers of sales rose markedly in the 960s. it is extremely unlikely that there were no peasant transactions at all before the 930s: the smaller but longer series from Cantabria indicates that there were some. 100–1. The latter kind of explanation must certainly play some part. while the numbers of sales and gifts between purely lay parties which are particularly well demonstrated in Sobrado. I have argued above that ⁷⁶ See above pp. and peasant sale was not often recorded. In Castile. the 930s could be the period when peasants first began to make transactions. In Galicia. peasant donation and sale were for the most part recorded in relatively low quantities from the 930s. peasant donation was recorded in relatively large quantities from the 930s. or it could be the period from which records happen to be preserved. building up title to more and more property. . All three explanations appear relevant: more transactions from the 930s. and Otero collections show that peasant transactions could be recorded from an early date. for the interest of churches and monasteries in acquiring even small portions of land must have introduced more mobility in the transmission of peasant property. and even the first explanation probably plays a part. it could be the period when transactions began for the first time to be committed to writing.⁷⁶ Indeed. however. with the exception of that to Carde˜ na in the 960s.212 Peasant Society There are some major regional cultural differences here: in León and the western meseta north of the Duero. León. and more preservation of records. because of the acquisition policies of major monasteries. peasant sale and peasant donation to the church were recorded in notable quantities from the 920s/930s. In the north. Different kinds of explanation are conceivable: most obviously. Now. both peasant sale and peasant donation were recorded from the ninth century.

Peasant Society


there may well have been a long tradition of donation to lay patrons in some parts, some of which was certainly recorded.⁷⁷ Castile appears to have been different, perhaps because of a different economic base (there was either more pasture or more competition for pasture) or because of lower levels of recording independent peasant activity. Peasants did not begin transacting in the 930s and their transactions did not begin to be recorded then. There is background, in both respects. But there seem to have been changes at that time. What changed most obviously were the record-keeping habits of the larger monasteries. Our impressions are conditioned by the recording practice of major monasteries—hence, houses like San Juan de la Pe˜ na, Albelda, Arlanza, and Samos appear to have been more interested in recording and preserving gifts from aristocrats than from others. Our impressions are also conditioned by copying and keeping habits—houses like Carde˜ na, Celanova, and Sahagún did not copy much material from before their own foundation dates, while others assiduously kept or copied outdated archives; in some cases—Sobrado and Otero de las Due˜ nas especially—the chance incorporation of substantial lay archives in the monastic record reveals practices (the volume of lay/lay sale especially) which would not otherwise be suspected. If changes in record-keeping habits are the most obvious of changes, we should not forget the others. Overall the material also suggests an increase in the volume of peasant transactions, notably from the 930s, not least because most of the major monasteries sought to develop their relationships with local residents. This is most evident in and near urban León. We do not merely see procedures that had previously been hidden, we see new things happening. While peasants had clearly been buying and selling landed property for generations, and giving it to powerful lay patrons, they seem to have begun giving to churches in previously unimaginable quantities. That was partly an inevitable consequence of the increased significance of churches and monasteries as landlords, for more ecclesiastical landlords meant more ecclesiastical creditors and more ecclesiastical sources of support; it was also because some peasants actively chose ecclesiastical patronage.
⁷⁷ p. 163.

Rhetoric and Action
We have seen, again and again, how much the form and language of the record conditions our interpretation of northern Spain in the tenth century. This is precisely what we would expect as historians, although the particularities of some of the recording practice have sometimes had a quite disproportionate impact upon the historiography: the favourite phrase of this or that monastic house (like trado corpus et animam or incommuniatio) have taken on a life as distinctive institutions;¹ the words have seemed to indicate distinctive practice, when they have simply been a mode of reference. However, the way that scribes used standard formulas can be instructive, just as deviation from the favourite phrase can in itself provide insights. The interplay between the rigidly formulaic and the free flow of language is even more illuminating; all this, and the content of the non-standard, even florid, pieces of prose that scribes inserted, can take us beyond the record to tenth-century actions and attitudes. The considered inversion of the standard formula ‘man and woman give/sell’ to the occasional, self-conscious, ‘woman and man give/sell’ makes a significant point; and, despite the very formal genre, we sometimes glimpse the personal insight: witness the contrast between the stereotypical ‘sweetness’ of the bride and the very individual expressions of female piety.² There are, clearly, many things that we cannot see: most obviously, these texts overwhelmingly deal with transactions in land; we do not know about transactions in movables, nor about their relative volume, nor about many other aspects of ordinary and extraordinary life. In view of these unavoidable limitations of the source material, it becomes essential to take a comprehensive overview, and avoid arguing from the single case or even from the single collection, given how much the attitudes of the recording house condition the textual outcome.
¹ See above, pp. 54–6, 80–3. ² See above, pp. 183, 180.

Rhetoric and Action


House style is apparent in most collections;³ and, while some chose to preserve a range of types of record, others—like Carde˜ na’s focus on donation—chose to focus on a single type. This informs, but also distorts. Despite the limitations, language and form are themselves revealing. It is language and form that provide a clue to the status of principal actors, for the transactions of aristocrats are recorded in different ways from those of peasants.⁴ Language and form are also significant indicators of regional difference. There is insufficient material from Aragón and Navarre to draw distinctive regional pictures at this time. However, there is plenty of material from other parts. Although there are some strong similarities, the culture of Galicia frequently looks distinctive: there is more evidence of servile dependence, rather less of free peasant deals, a different quality to the religious culture, and a wider range of valuation systems.⁵ And then there is Castile. Again and again Castilian patterns look different from those found elsewhere: the region has more transactions in churches but fewer instances of donation for the purposes of commemoration, fewer gifts to discharge debts, lower proportions of female alienators and of gifts to lay persons, fewer indications of peasant buying and selling, and so on. This is not the place to pursue why this should have been so, and our perceptions are strongly conditioned by the particular preoccupations of the major recording centres, but there are nevertheless hints of underlying socio-economic difference, as also of less of a local recording tradition.⁶ Records of donation slightly outnumber other kinds of record;⁷ not surprisingly, therefore, giving to the church inevitably emerges as a major theme. It looks as if some ninth-century aristocratic families in northern Spain were as interested in ensuring perpetuation of their memory as were families elsewhere in Europe, at that time and earlier. That interest continued throughout the tenth century, although the mechanisms for commemoration tended to shift from founding churches and monasteries to providing, through land grants, for liturgical commemoration
³ See above, pp. 91–3. ⁴ See above, pp. 106–9. ⁵ For valuation systems, see W. Davies, ‘Sale, price and valuation in Galicia and Castile-León’, Early Medieval Europe, 11 (2002), 149–74, at 165–70, and references there cited. ⁶ See above, pp. 211–13. ⁷ Contrast Catalonia, where there are more records of sale surviving from pre-1000; Ll. To Figueras, ‘L’historiographie du marché de la terre en Catalogne’, in L. Feller and C. Wickham (eds.), Le marché de la terre au moyen âge (Rome, 2005), 161–80, at 162.


Rhetoric and Action

and sometimes burial.⁸ To that extent, the Spanish picture fits wider European models reasonably well, although the chronology of memorialization falls later and the commitment does not look as strong as it does in, say, eighth- and ninth-century Germany—there are, after all, no Spanish Libri Memoriales of this period. In fact, most families seem to have had no concern at all to ensure their own commemoration, and those that were so concerned did not invariably or even mostly entrust the act to women. This was only one aspect—and a narrowly restricted one—of the complex of motives impelling people to give landed property away to the church. People gave land for spiritual reasons and they gave for purely practical reasons; they gave land because they were forced to do so, to meet debts or pay fines; they gave land to reward past service or past assistance; they gave land to gain material benefits in life and to secure support in the short term or in old age.⁹ Giving for the sake of the soul— pro anima mea —accounted for at most two-fifths of all donation for which we have evidence, a significant proportion but not as much as we often tend to assume. People made gifts of land to the laity too, and had clearly done so for a very long time.¹⁰ Such giving goes back as far as we can see and is well-evidenced in parts of northern Spain which had unquestionably long-standing, stable, populations—in other words, in parts where there has been no suggestion of depopulation and repopulation. Giving to the laity does not seem to have been a particular response to tenthcentury developments but rather a standard mechanism for balancing resources in essentially self-regulating societies, and as such a mechanism for securing social support when family was not there to provide it. Families often were there, however, and family interests are reflected throughout the corpus of tenth-century records. Despite some of the earlier historiography, there is very little to suggest any significant change in family structure in this period: family interests are as evident in the year 1000 as in 900 and families at many social levels adopted strategies to protect the patrimony, as they did elsewhere in western Europe. The strategies they employed, however, were different from those beyond the Pyrenees, as the instruments that they used were different; sharing land beyond the circle of natural heirs served to maintain family interest, as did splitting and sharing with patrons. Hence, total alienation of their power over family property seems to have been rare; more usually, some control
⁸ See above, pp. 61–2. ¹⁰ See above, pp. 139–63. ⁹ See above, pp. 113–26, 126–34.

Rhetoric and Action


was retained, even if the family interest was squeezed. Fragmentation of family land is therefore not particularly evident, despite its recurrence in the literature—division and reassembly of property seems to have been the practice, rather than an unending process of morcellation.¹¹ Giving to the church and to the laity did not therefore constitute the total commitment signalled by commendation of the classic kind, nor did it lead to gifts returned as precaria, as it did in many parts of western Europe—a major contrast.¹² It certainly did not cause seigneurialization, although it may well in the long run, and indirectly, have contributed to an increase in seigneurial power by first establishing an increase in landlordship. The clearly observable increase in patronage networks of the second half of the tenth century must have contributed too—witness the disproportionate number of gifts to the powerful to procure support in the 980s.¹³ The level of seigneurialization in northern Spain was quite low by continental western European standards in the tenth century; as Spanish scholars have shown, the major changes came in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, as purely proprietary powers—landlord powers—developed to become seigneurial.¹⁴ Donation to the laity was socially and economically important, but donation to the church is stronger in the record; it led to enormous changes in both ecclesiastical proprietorship and ecclesiastical patronage in the course of the tenth century, itself a time of increasingly intensive agricultural exploitation. Huge estates were amassed, not least from the gifts of aristocrats, and some monks and clerics took on significant roles in secular society: an abbot could preside over a court case to settle purely lay disputes between lay persons.¹⁵ Again, as Spanish scholars have shown, one reason for the increase was the practical estate management of major monasteries, and of individual abbots, kicking in, as it did, at different points in the tenth century: land was exchanged, property consolidated, new lands acquired, both by encouraging gifts and by buying, in order to exploit the landed resource more effectively; hence the purchasing by Sahagún in the 930s and 940s, by Celanova in the 960s, by Carde˜ na in the 980s. And at least some abbots, perhaps
¹¹ See above, p. 86. ¹² See above, pp. 85, 134. ¹³ See above, pp. 58–60, 128–30, 149–56. ¹⁴ See the classic discussion of Estepa, ‘Formación y consolidación del feudalismo’, at 161–3, where he stresses the distinction between propiedad dominical, dominio se˜ norial, and se˜ norío jurisdiccional (roughly ‘landlord power, seigneurial lordship, and the full seigneurie’, where the latter is the ‘concrete expression’ of seigneurial lordship). ¹⁵ T66 (962), for example.

pp. 17–22. 120–6. which are not quite so familiar as the drift towards seigneurialization. established new rights to the product of peasant labour as they allowed peasants access to work monastic land. even if at other times they were clearly distinct. and from lay proprietors too. with both shared and complementary roles. for a robust criticism of the notion that gift economies characterized the early middle ages. building widespread networks of ecclesiastical institutions as they also began to build more local networks of lay clients. and could play a public role at several social levels. 179. 135–8. ‘Merovingian and Carolingian gift giving’. behaviour is frequently presented in ungendered terms. Curta.218 Rhetoric and Action not many at this stage. pp. as powerful monasteries absorbed minor churches and monasteries and broke the proprietary interests of lesser clerics. the shift is perhaps also signalled by the increasing number of references to female religious from the 970s and by the hints of the widening of social access to ritual late in the century. pp. ¹⁹ See above.²⁰ Although those who recorded transactions used a repertoire of model formats that ¹⁶ See above. 671–99. for the latter were tending to divest themselves of ecclesiastical property from that point. most people expecting a return on what was given. some comparable ‘confusions’ in eleventhcentury French records: S. The changing attitude to lay proprietorship accompanies a shift in the quality of (largely aristocratic) lay piety. especially 674–8. Weinberger. Speculum. Cf. ¹⁸ See above. Le Moyen Âge. 105 (1999). 81 (2006). ¹⁷ See above. Another thing that emerges is that in the tenth century donation and sale sometimes do not look very different.¹⁷ Churches were acquired in mid-century from lesser clerics.¹⁸ Some other things emerge from this study. 667–80. and records of sale could be used to mask a whole series of gifts. but men and women are more often shown doing things together. sharing responsibilities as a household unit. ²⁰ See F.¹⁶ We saw an increasing number of transactions in churches in the 940s. . The categories were occasionally openly confused. gifts could be retrospectively framed as sales. although women are more visible in Spain than they were in many parts of Europe at that time. pp. and it is not that these were ‘gift economies’ poised to transform into the fully commercial. 156–60. One of these is that. be it in this life or the next. ‘Donations-ventes ou ventes-donations? Confusion ou système dans la Provence du XIe siècle’. 62–4.¹⁹ It is not just that there was no such thing as a free gift. Masculinity may be indicated through a habit of violence and femininity through a stereotypical sweetness. as ritual celebration began to replace ownership.

²⁵ Cel169 (962). ‘Précaires et livelli. we have no way of knowing the relative proportions (although it is notable that there are no incidental hints of this. some sales had much more to do with a land market. Les Abruzzes médiévales.²⁴ Sometimes the relative values look extraordinary to those used to modern western European land values: vineyards were handed over for stealing a few sheep. at 743. a distinction concealed by the standard format of the records. I have observed from time to time that many payments were made in land. and were embedded in the nexus of social relationships. the land given to cover a fine of a horse. the grain or wine owed to a landlord—they often paid off the debts with a gift of some of their land. Feller. vineyards and fields were handed over for missing rents too. in Feller and Wickham (eds. ‘Gifts’ often therefore had an element of sale about them.²² There are also deeper economic realities. arguing that land had low value in bad years. L. OD41 (995). économie et société en Italie centrale du IX e au XII e siècle (Rome. 392. our perceptions of what was gift and what was sale are mediated through the scribes’ need to choose between these two available formats. e. but the deals were not purely commercial. Feller and C. Liii556 (993). such as those of 850–70. ²⁶ Lii457 (978). Cel411 (989). who demonstrates that the economic function of the sale of land in the middle ages varied with the status and relationships of the actors. 111 (1999). there may well be an additional element of penalty in these cases and we may not simply be seeing the value of the loss returned. on the other hand.²⁵ Of course. a farmstead and houses for committing adultery. The relative value ²¹ Cf. in L. ‘Enrichissement. OD34 (993). p. see C. Wickham. 725–46.²³ And when peasants had to pay fines and provide compensation they often did so with a land grant. Feller.Rhetoric and Action 219 maintained a distinction between gift and sale. Quelques problèmes liés au marché de la terre’. When peasants were overwhelmed with debt—the annual render that could not be met. ²⁴ There may well have been payment in movables too. Liii561 (994).²⁶ Not only that. Moyen Âge. . Wickham (eds. in an earlier work. as one might expect. Territoire. worth 40 solidi. cf.). L. accumulation et circulation des biens.²¹ Accordingly. Sob31 (951). 1998). while there are plenty of explicit comments that the alienator did not have the wherewithal to pay rent or fine. which went unrecorded. Le marché de la terre au moyen âge. In effect deals were done in making gifts and most people seem to have known that they were doing deals. especially 28. Le marché de la terre au moyen âge (Rome. ‘Conclusions’. L. Liii578 (997) and above.g. ²³ Cf. sale formats were also sometimes used to record this kind of gift. that there are some close parallels in the contexts of Spanish tenth-century sales with those of ninth-century central Italy. Les transferts patrimoniaux ad tempus en Italie’. but.). Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome. Cel409 (990). 2005). 145). 625–41. 3–28. ²² For an illuminating discussion of the economic as against social bases of sale. Feller. however. as also. Liii590 (999). fields for stealing clothes or for cutting wood. and that peasants had nothing else to sell.

peasant farmers sought to extend the area under cultivation and produce more.²⁹ Peasant households seem to have numbered their stock on their fingers: nine cows and eight horses. Sob23 (949). that these people were happy to dispose of their land. goods were important. Firstly. ³³ See above.220 Rhetoric and Action of stock and land does not match our modern expectations: whole or half inheritances were handed over to meet the value of a good horse or a few sheep. ‘Sale.³³ whether because of demographic pressure. ³¹ Lii450 (977).³² Secondly. that during the Second World War food shortages forced the poor to sell to the rich whatever assets they had. an entire villa to meet the value of stolen horses (half of it was later sold for three horses. La Navarre. for increasing peasant production. 8–11. in the tenth-century world. p. three oxen. for a rich peasant household. in order to get necessities for survival. Larrea.³⁰ That does not mean. there was clearly pressure on food supply. 165–70.³¹ There are several points to note here. or because their own land was worked out. p.³⁴ The rhetoric of repopulation. 589–91. peasants—doubtless reluctantly—gave up land rather than any of their produce. Cf. or because they had been forced to alienate some of it. at many social levels there may have been a shortage of stock and goods. ³² As in other cultures at other times: Liesbeth van Houts points out to me. ²⁹ S340 (988). price and valuation’. S358 (998). Lii360 (963). having goods was desirable. ³⁰ Lii488 (944–82). as the many peasant encroachments on monastic land and the many border haggles testify.²⁷ (In recorded prices. 199–201.²⁸) Clearly we need to rethink our assumptions about relative values and go back to a world where there was not such a shortage of land as characterized the more recent past. ²⁸ See Davies. pp. there was wide variation in values so we should not in any case expect arithmetic consistency. Even monasteries might sell land in order to restock with animals. alienating land was the only option if they had insufficient consumables. rather. see above. on price varying with social relationship. and SJP32. especially 21. but. and Feller. Indeed. and a skin). conceals competition for practical control ²⁷ Cel248 (before 991). ³⁴ See above. which is prominent in some of these charters. as it was for the gardener’s wife who was compelled to sell her vineyard as a penalty for homicide and for the men who had committed arson who had to sell another. 186. of produce. all the same. . selling land could itself be a penalty. for example. shares in twelve separate estates (villas) to meet the value of five cows. of which one was a riding horse. 198. for worked-out land. be it noted. from family memory. Cel456 (940). ‘Enrichissement. accumulation et circulation des biens’.

So what changed in the tenth century? At one level. ‘Repopulation’ seems to have been more about establishing control of the exploitation of land by the powerful than about introducing new residents. as—quite simply—the rich got richer and the profile of social and economic differentiation became steeper. and what they gave or sold often went out of circulation into a ‘dead hand’. It was this new volume of peasant engagement with ecclesiastical landlords that ultimately made for significant change: as those landlords became powerful religious corporations. We have seen the strength with which peasant transactions began to show in the record in the 930s. were under some pressure. shared or not. What really changed was not the mere fact of donation to the church—which had also been happening for generations—but peasant donation to the church. had immensely important long-term consequences. Giving and selling had been going on for generations. any transfer of land from poor peasant to rich landlord.Rhetoric and Action 221 of economic resources. at all social levels. in the end. although some of the conditions for later change were established. collective identity sharpened in the localities. pp. although the consequences may not have been anticipated at the time. and long-established balances of give and take finally shifted. . Thirdly. 210–13.³⁵ peasants engaged with ecclesiastical proprietors at levels unseen before. free peasant farmers. ³⁵ See above. peasants joined monastic clientship networks as they chose monastic patrons. not so much. peasants often gave or sold to the church in order to clear debt.

This page intentionally left blank .

3). A. sectio 5 (Hannover. Cartulario de Valpuesta. 2 vols. P. Fernández Flórez and M. vol. 1970). Desamparados Perez Soler (Valencia. 1962–63). Documentación medieval de Leire (siglos IX a XII). Cartulario de San Pedro de Arlanza. I (775–952) ed. J. Monástico. ed. L. vol. Sáez and C. A. ed. J. ed. J. Sáez. . Lindsay (Oxford. M. (Valencia. E. Monumenta Germaniae Historica. M. ed. ed. W. Miscellanea Wisigothica. ‘Formulae Wisigothicae’. Sáez. Cartulario de San Millán de la Cogolla. 1985). ed. J. 3). Leges in quarto. 1988). Ruiz de la Pe˜ na (Oviedo. 1998) (older edition: Becerro Gótico de Carde˜ na. 1925). 1910) = Historia de Castilla por los PP. Ruiz Asencio (León. 1983). Ubieto Arteta. J. III (986–1031). Colección diplomática del monasterio de San Vicente de Oviedo (a˜ nos 781–1200). ed. Zeumer. Formulae Merowingici et Karolini Aevi. Colección documental del monasterio de San Pedro de Carde˜ na. L. 1904). 1976. 1990. Mínguez Fernández. ed. 2. Serrano (Silos/Valladolid. vol. Colección documental del archivo de la catedral de León. 1999). Cartulario de San Juan de la Pe˜ na. ed. Gil (Seville. Martínez Díez (Carde˜ na/Burgos. 1972). Silos. J. 1. G. Janini (Silos. Floriano Llorente (Oviedo. 1987. Herrero de la Fuente. 1987). J. ed. Gil Fernández. 1911). 1948). Benedictinos de Silos. Sánchez Belda (Madrid. antiguo monasterio benedictino. J. 1 (León. ed. Moralejo. Ubieto Arteta (Valencia. M. ed. vol. Crónicas Asturianas. Colección diplomática del monasterio de Sahagún. M. vol. ed. Serrano (Madrid. Ubieto Arteta (Valencia. A. Cartulario de Santo Toribio de Liébana. ed. ed. ed. II (953–85). J. Le Liber Ordinum en usage dans l’église wisigothique et mozarabe d’Espagne du cinquième au onzième siècle. K. Liber Ordinum Sacerdotal (Cod. ed. Arch.Bibliography P R I M A RY S O U RC E S Cartulario de Albelda. L. Martín Duque (Pamplona. vol. Hispalensis Episcopi Etymologiarum sive Originum Libri xx . Herrero de la Fuente (León. E. ed. ed. 1968). vol. Férotin (Paris. ed. 1960). ed. 1981). 70–112. M. L. A. Colección documental del monasterio de Santa María de Otero de las Due˜ nas. A. 1886). 1976). M. Isidori.

M. O Tombo de Celanova. J. Portugaliae Monumenta Historica a saeculo octavo post Christum usque ad quintum decimum. Alfonso.). Adels. in J. The New Cambridge Medieval History: Volume II c. 2 vols. vol. Poder y relaciones sociales en Castilla en la edad media (Valladolid. ed. M. 2004). J. 1868). Su cronica y la monarquía leonesa en el siglo X (Madrid. I. siglos VI–VIII) (Salamanca. ‘Judicial rhetoric and political legitimation in medieval León-Castile’. Barbero and M. in I. ‘La familia ante la muerte: el culto a la memoria’. Andrade. in Se˜ nores. Las Pizarras Visigodas. Álvarez Borge. ed. 2004). Lucas Álvarez (Santiago de Compostela. McKitterick (ed. H. ‘Estructuras de poder en Castilla en la alta edad media: se˜ nores. S. 695–708. La lengua hablada en Hispania. Vigil. 1952).und Königsfamilien im Spiegel ihrer Memorialüberlieferung: Studien zum Totengedenken der Billunger und Ottonen (Munich. I. 1995). Aventín. Alfonso. ed. Tumbos del Monasterio de Sobrado de los Monjes. de Arvizu y Galarraga. (Entre el latín y su disgregación. 1976). Estudio introductorio. J.). G. 1977). 269–308. 143–65. (Santiago. La familia en la edad media. Building Legitimacy: Political Discourses and Forms of Legitimation in Medieval Societies (Leiden. 387–412. 16 a 20 de julio de 2001 (Pamplona. Herculano de Carvalho e Araujo and J. ed. siervos.224 Bibliography I. Banniard. 196–223. ‘Debate: The ‘‘feudal revolution’’ ’. Kennedy. siervos. de la Iglesia Duarte (ed. M. D. White. Althoff. Apéndices e índices. 2001). La formación del feudalismo en la península Ibérica (Barcelona. A. 28 (1964). in R.700-c. da Silva Mendes Leal. ‘La diffusion de plebs ‘‘paroisse’’ dans l’espace et dans le temps’. Past and Present.900 (Cambridge. Estella. (Madrid. M. A. 1984). La disposición ‘mortis causa’ en el derecho espa˜ nol de la alta edad media (Pamplona. ‘Language and communication in Carolingian Europe’. Revue de linguistique romane. 152 (1996). Diplomata et Chartae. Aebischer. P. XXVIII Semana de estudios medievales. 2 vols. vasallos en la alta edad media. Sampiro. S E C O N D A RY WO R K S P. del 31 de julio al 4 de agosto de 2000 (Logro˜ no. 3. 1995). Velázquez Soriano. Loscertales de García de Valdeavellano. vasallos’.). . 1996). Barthélemy. I. Escalona (eds. XI semana de estudios medievales. J. 2002). 1978). Nájera. Perez de Urbel. Edición diplomática. 1 (Lisbon. 51–87. D. F. El Tumbo de San Julián de Samos (siglos VIII–XII). 1986).

R. Bonnassie. M. Le Jan (eds. and J. trans. in M.’’ Bilan intermédiaire d’un projet de recherche sur le Moyen Âge’. del 31 de julio al 4 de agosto de 2000 (Logro˜ no.-P. Der geschichtliche Zeugniswert des liturgischen Gedenkens im Mittelalter (Munich. Collection de l’école française de Rome. 1965 [first published in French 1939–40]). in K. 1984). M. in J. Bloch. 2001). Latin and the Romance Languages in the Early Middle Ages (London. Birrell (Manchester. La Catalogne au tournant de l’an mil.). Bischoff. Blake. Les tendances actuelles de l’histoire du Moyen Âge en France et en Allemagne (Paris.Bibliography 225 J. Borgolte. ‘Le clergé paroissial aux IXe –Xe siècles dans les Pyrénées orientales et centrales’. Ganz (Cambridge. Sharpe (eds.-C. Wollasch (eds. Latin Palaeography: Antiquity and the Middle Ages. in P. Ó Cróinín and D. 2002). Blair and R. matrimonio. Oexle (eds. Croissance et mutations d’une société (Paris. L. R. Memoria. Le clergé rural dans l’Europe médiévale et moderne (Actes des XIII e Journées Internationales d’Histoire de l’Abbaye de Flaran. (Toulouse.). 2 vols. 2001). 1990). Wright (ed. J. Schmitt and O. C. Past and Present. 153–66.). Invention et conformisme dans l’écriture médiévale (Paris. The Village of Lournand from Antiquity to Feudalism. ‘The ‘‘feudal revolution’’ ’. 295 (Rome. Blair and R. . Nájera. Les caractères originaux de l’histoire rurale française (Oslo. G. 93–150. 1992) (first published 1989). 1996). Illy. Bisson. Feller. J.). 2002). 1990). Bonnassie (ed. Belmon. 1984). 1931). Auctor et Auctoritas. 142 (1994). P. ‘ ‘‘In conscribendis donationibus hic ordo servandus est…’’: l’écriture des actes de la pratique en Languedoc et en Toulousain’. ‘Gedenkstiftungen in St. 6–8 septembre 1991) (Toulouse. in J. La familia en la edad media. Pastoral Care before the Parish (Leicester. ‘Syntactic aspects of Latinate texts of the early middle ages’.). 53–69. Parentesco. N. de la Iglesia Duarte (ed. XI semana de estudios medievales. Schmid and J. . 1975–76). Feudal Society. Galler Urkunden’.). L. 1–10. in J. A. B. Bougard. trans.). Spanish and Portuguese Monastic History 600–1300 (London. ‘Transferencias patrimoniales entre los cónyuges por razón del matrimonio en el derecho medieval castellano’. ‘ ‘‘Memoria. 1992). 283–320. propiedad y herencia en la Castilla altomedieval (Madrid. Zimmermann (ed. A. G. Manyon (London. in R. 1991). Bishko. 6–42. La Catalogne du milieu du Xe à la fin du XIe siècle: croissance et mutations d’une société. Bermejo Castrillo. Sharpe. 1995). M. F. Dots et douaires dans le haut moyen âge. D. I. 219–32.). T. 578–602. Bois. trans. J. The Transformation of the Year One Thousand. ‘Introduction’.

Medieval Queenship (New York. c. ‘The Spanish kingdoms’. The New Cambridge Medieval History. 337–66. 20 (1983). Bougard. Vocabulaire International de la Diplomatique.). Castillo Gómez (co-ord. M. Small Worlds: The Village Community in Early Medieval Brittany (London. Curta. Cabre i Pairet.). Le Jan (eds. 2002). ‘Escribir y leer en la alta edad media’.). W. . Transmission du patrimoine et mémoire au haut moyen âge. Clanchy. Las mujeres en el cristianismo medieval.900-c. ‘On servile status in the early middle ages’. Mu˜ noz Fernández (ed. Imágenes teóricas y cauces de actuación religiosa (Madrid. 1999). M. in M.). 489–512. L’organizzazione del territorio rurale nel medioevo (Turin. ‘Queens-dowager and queens-regent in tenth-century León and Navarre’. Early Medieval Europe. Carlé. R. 79–92. Les saints ottoniens. 177–97. ed. 1979). Christians in Al-Andalus (711–1000) (Richmond. 1–42. sainteté royale et sainteté feminine autour de l’an Mil. Études celtiques. Milagros Cárcel Ortí (Valencia. W. 2005). 1998). 1997). M. Serfdom and Slavery: Studies in Legal Bondage (London. 1968). M. Lawyers and Laymen (Cardiff. Collins. 1996). Corbet. 100 (1985). Brown. Castagnetti. 1979). Walters (eds. siglos IX–XI’. 113–77.-P. Reuter (ed. L. La Rocca. D. 13 (2005). 1986). ‘When documents are destroyed or lost: lay people and archives in the early middle ages’. Bournazel and J. 169–82. B.and tenth-century León and Catalonia’. English Historical Review. ‘Priests and rural communities in east Brittany in the ninth century’. Historia de la cultura escrita. ‘ ‘‘Deodicatae’’ y ‘‘deovotae’’. Martín Viso. R. E. Commission Internationale de Diplomatique. Davies. 670–91. Del próximo oriente antiguo a la sociedad informatizada (Gijón. Les féodalités (Paris. M. 72–91. 351 (Rome. F. 4 (1972). 2002). in T. in T. Collection de l’école française de Rome. From Memory to Written Record: England 1066–1307 (London. Bush (ed. C. S. ‘ ‘‘Sicut lex Gothorum continet’’: law and charters in ninth. Charles-Edwards. Early Medieval Europe. 459–85. ‘Saint Mary’s Worcester and the Liber Landavensis’. Journal of the Society of Archivists. Del concejo medieval castellano-leonés (Buenos Aires. ‘Suretyship in the Cartulaire de Redon’. Castellanos and I. Sainteté dynastique. Beihefte der Francia 15 (Sigmaringen. La regulación de la religiosidad femenina en los condados catalanes. A.). Christys. ‘Merovingian and Carolingian gift giving’.). T. Poly (eds. E. C. 225–46. Owen. in A. ‘The local articulation of central power in the north of the Iberian peninsula (500–1000)’. M. 1988). 81 (2006). 671–99.). III.226 Bibliography F. del C. A. Casado de Otaola. 1993). Speculum. Parsons (ed. P. Sauver son âme et se perpétuer. 11 (2002). in J. in A.). 1986). L.1024 (Cambridge. 1989).

‘Unidades territoriales supralocales: una propuesta sobre los orígenes del se˜ norío de behetría’. Reynolds (eds. G.-P. 157–256. in Espa˜ na Medieval. Hommes et structures du moyen âge. ‘Mapping scale change: hierarchization and fission in Castilian rural communities during the tenth and eleventh centuries’. Le chevalier. Estudios dedicados al professor D. 1079 (Oxford. R. Sauver son âme et se perpétuer (Rome. ‘‘Donation’’ pro remedio animae in tenth-century Galicia and Castile-León’.). Reynolds (eds. A. territory and community membership: contrasts and conclusions’. A. 115–55. 1991). Recueil d’articles (Paris. 21–46. 401–16. 111 (1999). ‘El alfoz castellano en los siglos IX al XII’. G. Halsall. Angel Ferrari Nú˜ nez (Madrid. in F. 285–327. ‘Buying with masses. People and Space in the Middle Ages. Halsall. Depreux. la femme et le prêtre. ‘De ‘‘se˜ nores y campesinos’’ a ‘‘poderes feudales y comunidades’’. La Rocca. 1–12. Estepa Díez and C. in C. C. Álvarez Borge (co-ord.). price and valuation in Galicia and Castile-León in the tenth century’. Escalona Monge. 305–41. Comunidades locales y poderes feudales en la edad media (Logro˜ no. J. G. J. Bougard. ‘L’apparition de la précaire à Saint-Gall’. Iconografía del siglo X en el reino de Pamplona-Nájera (Pamplona. Moyen Âge. 2007). 1984). Ph. J. 1981). C. 1973). Davies. Le mariage dans la France féodale (Paris. in W. 1953). Reynolds (eds. 649–73. 1989). 1977). La formación del alfoz de Lara. 2002). 300–1300 (Turnhout. 11 (2002). Los se˜ noríos de behetría (Madrid. in I. Économie rurale et société dans l’Europe franque (VI e – IXe siècles).). ‘Populations.). 295–307. in W.Bibliography 227 ‘Sale. Estepa Díez. Agustí Altisent (Tarragona. in En torno al feudalismo hispánico. ‘Formación y consolidación del feudalismo en Castilla y León’. Early Medieval Europe. 2007). A. Davies. 149–74. Sociedad y territorio en la alta edad media castellana. Devroey. in Miscel. Estructura social de la ciudad de León (siglos XI–XIII) (León. S.lània en homenatge al P. Mélanges de l’école française de Rome.). 2007). People and Space in the Middle Ages. de Silva y Verástegui. IV. BAR International Series no. Duby. in W. 2001). . G. . 2005). Jular Pérez-Alfaro (co-ord. 1984). 2003). 143–66.). Davies. . ‘Poder y propiedad feudales en el período astur: las mandaciones de los Flaínez en la monta˜ na leonesa’. vol. La société aux XI e et XII e siècles dans la région mâconnaise (Paris. ‘Introduction—community definition and community formation in the early middle ages: some questions’. 300–1300 (Turnhout. People and Space in the Middle Ages. 300–1300 (Turnhout. Le Jan (eds. I congreso de estudios medievales (León. 1 (Paris. Halsall. 2001). Elementos para definir la articulación entre territorio y clases sociales en la alta edad media castellana’. .

‘Poder condal ¿y ‘‘mutación feudal’’? en la Castilla del a˜ no mil’. 57–121. and E. Historia social. Le marché de la terre au moyen âge. J. García Turza (co-ord. J. Loring García (ed. La condición jurídica del cónyuge viudo en el derecho visigodo y en los fueros de León y Castilla (Seville. ‘Problemas y perspectivas de la diplomática de los reinos asturiano. . I. Les transferts patrimoniaux ad tempus en Italie’. Fernández de Viana y Vieites. 1998). 2005). Les Abruzzes médiévales. E. F. P. Gautier Dalché. 1890). 1969). ‘Le domaine du monastère de Santo Toribio de Liébana: formation. 5) (Paris. A. 3–28. Estepa Díez. Anuario de Historia del Derecho Espa˜ nol. Los libros de derecho. Feller. and C. 1988). García de Cortázar y Ruiz de Aguirre. 9 (1959).). 5th ser. 273–98. Los archivos familiares. Glick. 39 (1969). I.). ‘El fuero de León. Collection de l’école française de Rome. La sociedad rural en la Espa˜ na medieval (Madrid. I. 2003). in L. 2 vols. J. ‘Enrichissement. Initium. 350 (Rome. P. Pe˜ na Bocos. structure et modes d’exploitation’. Le bénéfice et le patronat pendant l’époque mérovingienne (Histoire des institutions politiques de l’ancienne France. textos y redacciones’. Mélanges de l’école française de Rome. Su historia. 2 (1965). Grierson. Territoire. in M. ‘La formación de la sociedad feudal en el cuadrante noroccidental de la península ibérica en los siglos viii a xii’. Moyen Âge. Islamic and Christian Spain in the Early Middle Ages (Princeton. 1997). accumulation et circulation des biens. Quelques problèmes liés au marché de la terre’. Las Behetrías Castellanas. García Gallo. 1994). Libros y Documentos en la alta edad media. Fustel de Coulanges. pensamiento historiográfico y edad media (Madrid. Arenga. économie et société en Italie centrale du IX e au XII e siècle (Rome. (Valladolid.). 2001). Los Se˜ noríos de behetría (Madrid. in C. Feller and C. 4 (1999). Phantoms of Remembrance: Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millennium (Princeton. Gacto Fernández. ‘Précaires et livelli. 111 (1999). 5–171. Jular Pérez-Alfaro (eds. Geary.. 63–117. T. leonés y castellano leonés en la alta edad media’. vol. A. Spätantike und Mittelalter im Spiegel von Urkundenformeln (Graz. J. Los manuscritos visigóticos: estudio paleográfico y codicológico. Actas del VI Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Cultura Escrita. L. 2002). Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. 1979). . Anuario de Estudios Medievales. vol. Les origines du système féodal. 2 (Alcalá de Henares. Sáez (ed. 39–53. 1975). H. 1957). C. Códices riojanos datados (Logro˜ no.). 123–40. Wickham (eds.). Introducción a la historia rural de Castilla altomedieval (Salamanca. 725–46. ‘Commerce in the Dark Ages: a critique of the evidence’. Fichtenau.228 Bibliography C. El dominio del monasterio de San Millán de la Cogolla (siglos X a XIII). 2002).

701–1200’. 2006. 154–71. (London. Mostert (eds. territories and communities in Merovingian northern Gaul’. 2nd edn. Making Agreements in Medieval Catalonia: Power. Order. B. ‘Villas. J.Bibliography 229 J.-C. and the ‘‘Faithless Widow’’ in the middle ages’. Political Assemblies in the Earlier Middle Ages (Turnhout. Reynolds (eds. and the Written Word. ‘Challenging the culture of memoria.). J. 89–120. G. and documentary practices in the early middle ages: the example of Catalonia’. 105–26. 900–1200’. 44–74. Hispania. The Church in Early Irish Society (London. Kosto. 2002). Dead men. À propos d’un objet d’histoire en Allemagne’. Guerreau-Jalabert. Hughes. Schmitt and O. . La Navarre du IV e au XII e siècle (Paris and Brussels. 2007). 1000–1200 (Cambridge.D. 2002). B. Ph. La alta edad media. K. Cuadernos de Historia de Espa˜ na. Barnwell and M. in W. 60 (2000). Hispania. Halton.). Halsall. G. P. Latouche. La sociedad gallega en la alta edad media (Madrid. ‘Las relaciones de dependencia en la Galicia altomedieval: el ejemplo de la incomuniación’. P. La mémoire des ancêtres. Lauwers. D. rite et société au moyen âge (Paris. Historiography (Cambridge. Convergences 630–750 (Paris. A. 2001). le souci des morts. oblivion. M. Althoff. clerics. 209–31. 400–1000 (Cambridge. ‘The church and communities: Cluny and its local patrons 900–1050’. A. Essai sur l’origine de la noblesse en France au moyen âge (Paris. S. R. Living and Dying in England 1100–1540: The Monastic Experience (Oxford. trans. 1902). Siglos VIII–XI (Madrid. 1992). Geary (eds. 1967 [first published 1956]).-M. E. 1993). J. 2003). Fried. Isla Frez. ‘Reasons for assembly in Catalonia and Aragón. B. 300–1300 (Turnhout. ‘Laymen. 1993). La notion de donation. ‘Land. thesis. Traditio.). Guallart. 44 (1984). M. Oexle (eds. in G. 6 (1946). Innes. Guilhiermoz. State and Society in the Early Middle Ages: The Middle Rhine Valley. 133–49. Jobert. Les tendances actuelles de l’histoire du Moyen Âge en France et en Allemagne (Paris. family and women in continental Europe. J. O. Harvey. 27–62. ‘Caritas y don en la sociedad medieval occidental’. University of Birmingham Ph. 2000). 1977). Jussen. 1998). J. Memoria. ‘Commentaire. 80 (2005). A. Guyotjeannin. in J. People and Space in the Middle Ages. Pycke. ‘Documentos para el estudio de la condición jurídica de la mujer leonesa hace mil a˜ nos’. 1966). La Diplomatique Médiévale (Turnhout. 215–231. Herlihy. 1997). 2002). The Birth of Western Economy. A. Davies. M. Halsall. G. Medieval Concepts of the Past: Ritual. Memory. 18 (1962). Speculum. 5–18. Larrea. S. Wilkinson.). in P. Tock. Mort. J.

1990). La familia en la edad media. Past and Present. in R. M. Mauss. 457–97. Martín Viso. A familía e o poder . in J. Loring García. Martínez Sopena. XI semana de estudios medievales. História de Portugal. ‘Douaires et pouvoirs des reines en Francie et en Germanie (VIe –Xe siècle)’. 1995). del 31 de julio al 4 de agosto de 2000 (Logro˜ no. 2001). in J. La tierra de campos occidental. Essai sur le don (Paris. in F. Famille et pouvoir dans le monde franc (VII e –Xe siècle). I. pouvoir et société dans le haut moyen âge (Paris.). J. 1925). R. Martínez Díez. L. A nobreza medieval portuguesa. Relaciones de poder. (Lisbon. in R. 1994). I. Mattoso. 59–167. J. La Documentación real astur-leonesa (718–1072)=El reino de León en la alta edad media. McLaughlin. Le Jan (eds. ‘Las instituciones del reino astur a través de los diplomas (718–910)’. Femmes. 13–49. Bougard. Herencia y expectativa del poder entre los siglos X y XII’. 2nd rev. 2001). L. de producción y parentesco en la edad media y moderna (Madrid. Pastor (ed. de la Iglesia Duarte (ed. J.). Leyser. in Semana de Historia del Monacato: Cantabro—Astur—Leonés (Oviedo. 35 (1965). 1982). ‘El conde Rodrigo de León y los suyos.230 Bibliography R. 1989). Poblamiento. Anuario de Historia del Derecho Espa˜ nol. 51–84. La articulación política del espacio zamorano en la alta edad media (Zamora. P. VIII (León. McKitterick. Fragmentos del Leviatán. 25–53. 89–120. Consorting with Saints: Prayer for the Dead in Early Medieval France (Ithaca. Mattoso (co-ord.). 1993). poder y comunidad del siglo X al XIII (Valladolid. Rule and Conflict in an Early Medieval Society: Ottonian Saxony (London. 41 (1968). . Pastor (ed. Antes de Portugal (Lisbon. ‘Portugal no reino asturiano-leonês’. 441–562. 1990). M.). Martín. Relaciones de poder. M. R. 2002). ‘The German aristocracy from the ninth to the early twelfth century: a historical and cultural sketch’. ‘Sistemas de parentesco y estructuras familiares en la edad media’. 13–38. Studia Historica. M. Feller. I. Essai d’anthropologie sociale (Paris. K. 5 (1987). Historia medieval. Nájera. 1979). Dots et Douaires dans le haut Moyen Âge (Rome. The Carolingians and the Written Word (Cambridge. ‘Utilidad de las fórmulas ‘‘inútiles’’ de los documentos medievales’. ‘Nobleza e iglesias propias en la Cantabria altomedieval’. 1985). 1987). 1995). 81–6. G. 2002). edn. ‘Dominios monásticos y parentelas en la Castilla altomedieval: el origen del derecho de retorno y su evolución’. Lucas Álvarez.). Le Jan. I. de producción y parentesco en la edad media y moderna (Madrid.

Enciclopedia Lingüística Hispánica. La Iglesia en la Espa˜ na visigotica y medieval (Pamplona. Actas del VI Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Cultura Escrita. M. 1995). 1998). 1987). S. Los libros de derecho. Parisse (ed. La familia en la alta edad media espa˜ nola (Pamplona. Ilduara. Miller. 2nd edn. in J. M. Orlandis. Nelson. Sister of Wisdom: St. vol. La Iglesia en la Espa˜ na visigotica y medieval (Pamplona. Lindley Cintra (eds. 1990. Orlandis. 125–64. in J. Libros y Documentos en la alta edad media. R. 257–306. Laicos y monasterios en la alta edad media espa˜ nola’. Orlandis. 1971).). 1979). (Madrid. Sáez (ed. payment.). in C. Pastor. J. Morelle. 1980). Moyen Âge. Resistencias y luchas campesinas en la época del crecimiento y consolidación de la formación feudal. . The Frankish World. Montanos Ferrin. raid: case studies in the negotiation and classification of exchange in medieval Iceland’. L. F. El monasterio de San Pedro de Carde˜ na. Menéndez Pidal. ‘La elección de sepultura en la Espa˜ na medieval’. 111 (1999). 2 (Alcalá de Henares. instruments de transferts patrimoniaux (France du Nord et de l’Est. first published 1980). L. O. in J. 1971 [first published 1956]). El dominio del monasterio de Sahagún en el siglo X (Salamanca. Veuves et veuvage dans le haut moyen âge (Paris. 1960–67). (Madrid. 1971). ‘Gender and genre in women historians of the early middle ages’. L. Alvar. ‘Les ‘‘actes de précaire’’. Orlandis. Badía. Mínguez Fernández. 1976 [first published 1950]). Oexle (ed. Veröffentlichungen des Max-PlanckInstituts für Geschichte 121 (Göttingen. una Aristócrata del Siglo X (La Coru˜ na. Speculum. B. ‘Repoblación y tradición en la cuenca del Duero’. in J. 61 (1986). G. de Balbín. 1996). W. ‘Reforma eclesiastica en los siglos XI y XII’. Mélanges de l ’École Française de Rome. Hildegard’s Theology of the Feminine (Berkeley. 2 vols. Pacheco Sampedro. in J. 750–900 (London.Bibliography 231 R. E. Memoria als Kultur. Historia de un dominio monástico castellano (902–1338) (Salamanca. 1980). 307–48. J. Moreta Velayos. R. ‘Los monasterios familiares en Espa˜ na durante la alta edad media’.). Nelson. ‘ ‘‘Traditio corporis et animae’’. VIIIe –XIe siècle’. 1993). 607–47. R. 55–91. sale. in M. del C. i. xxix–lvii. A. Estudios sobre instituciones monásticas medievales (Pamplona. 1976 [first delivered 1974]). Newman. M. Pallares Méndez. ‘Gift. Orlandis. Estudios sobre instituciones monásticas medievales (Pamplona. Castilla y León. 217–378. Los archivos familiares.). L. 2002). J. siglos X–XIII. El monasterio de Sobrado: un ejemplo del protagonismo monástico en la Galicia medieval (La Coru˜ na. 18–50. ‘Arqueología archivística y documental’. 183–97.

‘ ‘‘Ex parte matris mee’’. Latin and the Romance Languages in the Early Middle Ages (London. C. Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome.). La mutation féodale X e – XII e siècles (Paris.-P.232 Bibliography R. 1994). Available in English translation as Beyond the Market (Leiden. in W. A. ‘Property transfers and the Church. herencia y dotes en las comunidades locales gallegas (siglos XII–XIII)’. Brogiolo. 138–67. 2000). Patlagean. ‘How was Leonese Vulgar Latin read?’. A. Burguière (eds. Marc Bloch aujourd’hui. 1996). 1981). H. 63–114. C. A. Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted (Oxford. 9 (1932). 1200–1300 (Madrid. 177–225. Histoire comparée et sciences sociales (Paris. ‘Debate: The ‘‘feudal revolution’’ ’. ‘Nuevos datos sobre el coste de la vida en Galicia durante la Alta Edad Media’. Christie (eds. Bournazel. Bisson. Arce. Anuario de Historia del Derecho Espa˜ nol. Pastor. Pensado. Rowlandson. E. Reynolds. Rodríguez López. 259–70. Riché. Poly and E. 190–204. 1989). J. chrétienté à Byzance (London. 1991). ‘The Christianization of society’. Historia. From the Vikings to the Normans (Oxford. ‘ ‘‘Donationes post obitum’’ y ‘‘donationes reservato usufructu’’ en la alta edad media de León y Castilla’.). 291–314. Structure sociale. Wright (ed. Pascua Echegaray. 563–75. ‘Sur la genèse du féodalisme en Castille et dans le León. 909–1049 (Ithaca. J. 1989). Documentos. 2002). Pastor Díaz de Garayo. B. Anuario de Historia del Derecho Espa˜ nol. E. ‘The transformation and end of Roman villae in the West (fourth–seventh centuries): problems and perspectives’. H. 17 (1946). 2003). J. N. écoles et enseignement dans le haut moyen âge (Paris. Landowners and Tenants in Roman Egypt: The Social Relations of Agriculture in the Oxyrhynchite Nome (Oxford. in G. N. E. Rodríguez. Rosenwein. 1–32. in R. P. G. 1990). 155 (1997). Rubio. in H. Pryce. Towns and their Territories between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (Leiden. A. 8 (2001). Gauthier and N. eighth to eleventh centuries. Past and Present. . Ensayo de crítica documental’. Reuter. Ripoll and J.). An overview’. T. E. Propiedad. To Be the Neighbor of Saint Peter: The Social Meaning of Cluny’s Property.). 24 (1997). 1999). Xe –XIIe siècles. Moyen Âge. Sáez. S. Instituciones. 1980). propiedad y redes sociales en la Galicia monástica. 355–79. Wickham. Sánchez León. Point de départ pour une histoire comparative’. Davies (ed. Atsma. 111 (1999). ‘Los testimonios escritos del sector meridional de Castilla (siglos X–XI). P. 865–88. P. famille. T. Arenal. Transacciones sin mercado: instituciones.

1976–80). Cristianizzazione ed Organizzazione ecclesiastica delle Campagne nell’alto medioevo. in F. R. Santinelli. Sotomayor. To Figueras.15–191. vasallos en la alta edad media. 13 (1966). and ‘Discussione sulla lezione’. ‘Les femmes et la mémoire: le rôle des comtesses dans la Francie occidentale du XIe siècle’. Europe after Rome: A New Cultural History 500–1000 (Oxford. 459–84. Gebetsgedenken und adliges Selbstverständnis im Mittelalter (Sigmaringen. León y Castilla’. siervos. La Rocca. C. 1 (1924). 3 vols. 158–336. Salrach. Una ciudad Hispano-cristiana hace un milenio. K. 671–83. 2005). 1983). Die Klostergemeinschaft von Fulda im früheren Mittelalter. ii. Transmission du patrimoine et mémoire au haut moyen âge (Rome. Sánchez-Albornoz. Jahrhundert’. 2002). Zeitschrift für die Geschichte des Oberrheins. 1966). Despoblación y repoblación del valle del Duero (Buenos Aires. 639–70. ‘Peque˜ nos propietarios libres en el reino Asturleonés. iii. . Smith. Ll. 3 vols. ‘Les féodalités méridionales: des Alpes à la Galice’. reprinted in his Viejos y nuevos estudios sobre las instituciones medievales espa˜ nolas. ‘Fondations monastiques et mémoire familiale en Catalogne (IXe –XIe siècle)’.). 1947 [originally published 1926]). i. ‘Repoblación del Reino Asturleonés’.). in F. Bournazel and J. XXVIII Semana de estudios medievales. 16 a 20 de julio de 2001 (Pamplona. ‘Penetración de la iglesia en los medios rurales de la Espa˜ na tardorromana y Visigoda’. J. Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’alto medioevo. in E. H.). Buenos Aires. Collection de l’école française de Rome. Bougard.. 183–222. R. M. (vol. M. C. E. La Rocca. Transmission du patrimoine et mémoire au haut moyen âge. 1978). Su realidad histórica’. Le Jan (eds. M. 2005). (Madrid. Les féodalités (Paris. 581–790 (first published 1971).-P. 108 (1960). Le Jan (eds. Sauver son âme et se perpétuer. 2005). Poly (eds. ‘Las behetrías: la encomendación en Asturias. in his Viejos y nuevos estudios sobre las instituciones medievales espa˜ nolas. 351 (Rome. Anuario de Historia del Derecho Espa˜ nol. Bougard. in his Viejos y nuevos estudios sobre las instituciones medievales espa˜ nolas. ‘Neue Quellen zum Verständnis des Adels im 10. (ed.Bibliography 233 J. C. Settimane di studio del centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo. 1315–1521. Sauver son âme et se perpétuer. 2 in 3 parts) (Munich. Estella. (Madrid. 1976–80). 1998). 28 (1982). (Madrid. ‘El régimen de la tierra en el reino asturleonés hace mil a˜ nos’. 185–232. 3 vols.). Münstersche Mittelalterschriften 8. 313–88. 1976–80). Estampas de la vida en León (4th edn. Se˜ nores. 293–329. 3 vols. Schmid.

234 Bibliography Ll. Ubieto Arteta. c . D. ‘Donations-ventes ou ventes-donations? Confusion ou système dans la Provence du XIe siècle’.). Women and the Past (Harlow. 1050–1150 (Chapel Hill. Walker. (Valencia.). in R. ‘L’historiographie du marché de la terre en Catalogne’. Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean 400–800 (Oxford. 1999).1250’. 271–339. 700–1300 (Harlow. Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France (Liverpool. R. J. Wickham (eds. R. 350 (Rome. 1999). Le marché de la terre au moyen âge. P. Anuario de Historia del Derecho Espa˜ nol. Wood. E. I. in L. Medieval Memories: Men. Atlas Histórico. 2006). 2001). 150–72. in L. 1970). 2005). 900–1200 (London. 105 (1999). The Mountains and the City: The Tuscan Appennines in the Early Middle Ages (Oxford.). C. L. 2005). ‘Images of royal and aristocratic burial in northern Spain. S. 31–52. Le Moyen Âge. T. Wickham (eds. 2005). ‘La cuota de libre disposición en el derecho hereditario de León y Castilla en la alta edad media’. Property and Power in the Early Middle Ages (Cambridge. Feller and C. Jesus as Mother: Studies in the Spirituality of the High Middle Ages (Berkeley. 156 (1965). Davies and P. Women and the Past. 1988). 161–80. 1982). ‘Conclusions’. 2001).). Como se formó Espa˜ na.). van Houts (ed. in W. Fouracre (eds. Walsh. Barbero. A. Wickham. Wright (ed. Witlaic and the history of Merovingian precaria’.950– c . Oxford. 1991). 667–80. Memory and Gender in Medieval Europe. The Making of English Law: King Alfred to the Twelfth Century (vol. 350 (Rome. Custom. Latin and the Romance Languages in the Early Middle Ages (London. Kinship and Gifts to Saints: The Laudatio Parentum in Western France. Cántabros y vascones desde fines del Imperio romano hasta la invasión musulmana’.). in E. 2nd edn. 129–76. ‘Spelling lapses in early medieval Latin documents and the reconstruction of primitive Romance phonology’. Wood. Wright. M. Wormald. Collection de l’école française de Rome. 1988). de Valdeavellano. ‘Teutsind. White. 9 (1932). (ed. C. 1995). Boletín de la Real Academia de la Historia. S. S. van Houts. Le marché de la terre au moyen âge. Weinberger. J. 625–41. Vigil and A. ‘Sobre los orígenes sociales de la Reconquista. The Proprietary Church in the Medieval West (Oxford. Walker Bynum. Medieval Memories: Men. Collection de l’école française de Rome. To Figueras. G. 1. Feller and C. . 1982). 205–18.

in Wright. Early IberoRomance. 1994).Bibliography 235 ‘The non-existence of ‘‘Leonese Vulgar Latin’’ ’. 127–34. Zimmermann. . 25–86. 4/2 (1982). ‘Un formulaire du Xème siècle conservé à Ripoll’. Early Ibero-Romance (Newark. M. Faventia.

This page intentionally left blank .

124. 12 slaves in 19 Asturias-Le´ on. 61 cartulary of 24. 9. 178 n. 116–29. 209. 132. 61 care of souls 49. 5–6. 107. 77. 217 cartulary of 24. 173 n. monastery of 59. daughter of Abraham 82 authority 165 ecclesiastical 44–50. 160 families of 15. 89 lay 79. 190. kingdom of 12 Aurifila. 179 Cantabria xiv– xv. 69 intensive 8. king of Asturias-Le´ on 15. 217. 128. 85. 54. 42 . monastery of 58. 82. 130. 148 boni homines 200 see also elders bonum facere 149–54 see also support systems books 8. quotations from 90. 103. 140. 69. 75. 63. monastery of 25. 95. 137. 69 Barbero and Vigil 27–8. 145. 77. 123–5. 186. 123 boundaries 8–9. 107 bishops 45–6. 209. 133. 63. 94. 215–16 gifts of 106. 179–80 arable 5–6. 68. 149. 81. 93. 11. 139–56 monastic 51–2. 130–1 Bible. 194 benefactoría agreements 83. Valpuesta Bo˜ nar. 107 see also Opila adoption. 23 Asturias xiv– xv. 180–1 Bagaudano and Faquilona 156. see profiliation adultery 127. 161 n. 119. 208 Arborio and María 177 aristocrats 12. monastery of 25. king of Asturias 36. king of Asturias-Le´ on 16 Ambrosio. 184 patronage of 59–60. 181 episcopal 45–6 authors 99–102. 2. 121. 54. 209–13 occurrence of corpus et anima in 54–6. 21. king of Asturias 26 Alfonso III. 93. 42. 159. 149. 8.Index abbots 52. 105. 11. 61 writing by 94. 11. 181 assemblies 201–7 Astorga 10. Rosendo bishoprics. 106 see also Diego. 63. 213 assault 127. 195–6 disputes about 199–201 Buezo. 22. 139 place of 50. 168 agriculture 2. 98. 106. priest and notary 95 ancillae Dei 107. see Le´ on. 109 n. 122. 156. 126. 204. 11. 9 plots 8. 177 Albelda. 64. 101. 7. 105. 123 charters of 92 patronage of 59. 213 aldeas 194–5 alfoces 196 Alfonso I. 54–64. 91. 50 Alfonso IV. 145. 196 n. 128. 25. 13. 189–90. 206 burial 49. The. 84 n. 106 Alfonso V. 150 beneficiaries: drafting by 91–3.78 cartulary of 24. support systems cartularies 22–5. 61 n. 2. 217–18 grants by 62. 147. 211. see also arable extensive 8–9 Abellar. 116 care (physical) see economic relationships. 165. 92. monastery of 65 Burgos 9 n. 10. 57. Froil´ an. 50. 58 occurrence of quintae in 76 monks at 47. 157 n. 130. 22. 211. 195. monastery of 9 n. 192 Arag´ on xiv– xv. 141 Arlanza. 209 slaves in 19 Cantabrian mountains 3 Carde˜ na. 25. 157 n.

183–4 Cida Aion 73. 6. 188 rulings of 126. monastery of 25. 212 sharing with 81–3 cereals 5–6. 62 corrody 139 n. 164–5. 190 charters 22–6. 182. 105. 203 n. 21. 207 representatives of 204–05 compensations 127. Gutier. 213. judicial 16. 213. 46 authority over see authority (ecclesiastical) differentiation of from monasteries 47–8 foundation of 50–2 gifts to 113–34. 192 councils 201–07 countergifts 113–14. 204. 132. 110. 156 David and Regina 58. 63 diplomatic practice 54. 181–2. 151. 73. 160–3. 2. 155. 144. 204. 177–9 copyists 99–101 corpus et anima. 163 decanias 62–3 debt 127–8. Odoario. 184. 193–207 disputes between 200–01 identity of 194–200. 91–8. 151 n. 195. 168–72. 187 civitates 9–10 see also Le´ on clientship networks 59–60. 155. gifts of 52–61. 82–3. 214–16 monastic 120 royal 93–5. 49. 80. 88–91. 119. 184 cider 127. 8. Rodrigo couples. 157. diplomatic practice.238 Castile xiv– xv. 186. 96 n. 158 n. 9. 152. 7. 186. 206. 7 childlessness 72–3 churches 10. 159 property of 5. 137. 55 comitatus 14–15 Index commemoration see memorialization commendation 128–9. 128–9. 199–201 distraint 182 donation 113–15. 75. 217 cartulary of 23. 129. bishop of Valpuesta 59 n. 218 chronicles 174. formulas disputes 12. records chestnuts 2. 132 patronage of 59. 159. 140. 136 n. 214–15 see also formularies. 215 n. 155. 192. 9 Cea 10. 85. 159. language. 186. 15 of Catalonia 14 see also comitatus. 158. 141 peasants in 209–13 dependents of 20 diplomatic practice of 54. 135–6. lay beneficiaries in 79. 61. 177–80 confessi 47. 61 & 63. 94. 157. 79. 27. 14. 145–9 of Castile 12–13. 182 see also fines Coyanza 9 n. 152 n. 13. married 79. 105–6. 28. 54. 25. 34. 29 comissum 14–15. 50. 218 see also households courts. 185–7. 153–4. 106. local 28. 2 see also support systems cortes 10. 155. 217 commerce 10–11 common property see property communities. 209. 91. 152. 135–8 . 141. 36. 147. 77. 143. 221 lay community of 201–2 proprietary 36–64. 174. 10. 206 colonization 17. 11. 47 counts 15. 107–08. 128. 110. 178 nn. 110–12. 82. 169 n. 219 deo votae 177. 79. 179–80 depopulation 26–7. 163. 35. 29 Diego. 120 see also cartularies. 119. 143–9. 218 collective action 198–202. 144. 150–1. 215 County of 12. 76. 108–9. see also counts castles see fortifications Catalonia xiv– xv. 211. 11 Celanova. 85. 7 formulary from 102 cattle 5. 221 peasant 2. 158. 220 cattle standard 6 n. 2. 72. 140. 190. 187. 21. 146. 62. 219 confessae 107–8.

86. 197 Estepa Díez. 221 post mortem 34. 7. 190–3 Francia. 174–6. 195 Froil´ an. 214 memorization of 99–101 pious 101–02. quintae. 157–61 see also cereals. 66.95 ‘Visigothic’ 99 n.) chronology of 51. scribe 89 Geary. 144. 160 estates 5. 218 feudalism 27–8. 61. 162 fifths see quintae Filauria 205 fines 126. 9. 123–5. 54. 61–2. 195. 208–13 framed as sale 156–60 in vitam 84 by peasants 207–13. 107. 72 Ermegildo and Paterna 82. 189–93 in mountains 3 small 5. 38 Elvira. East 30–3. 216 burial places 50 remembrance 30–4. daughter of King Ramiro II. 69. 184. 12. 195 Ebro valley 2. 26. 120 exarator 99–100 exchanges 113 records of 96 familiaritas 53. 50. 156. 61 freedom 18–21. 140. 85. 161–2 fideles 141. 88–109. 184 see also adultery fortifications 10. 185. 164. 217 Esla. 117. 173. count 144–5. 146–9 food 150–3. 180 Tours 151–2. 184 Ermegildo. 2. 7. 142. 146 Flaino Mu˜ noz. 103 n. 140. 159. 217 n. 174 gardens 6. 132 records of see charters for secular reasons 126–34. sanctions. 27. 186 Flaino and Brunildi 139. 208. Patrick 33–4 . 128 n. 115–20. 3. 97. 163 Francia. 147. 220 elders 201 Elvira. 10. son of Gutier 15. 101. transactions donation practice 35 European 30–4 see also gift exchange dos 168–9 dowry 168 Duby. 134. bishop 70 Fruela. preambles. 62. 152 n. 143–6. 75–80. monk 72 Gauventio. king of Navarre 95. patrimony. 14 eternity. 119. 34 Duero valley 2. 207. 136. 124. 160. cider. 16 Forum Iudicum see Visigothic law fractions of property 65. 79. 135–8. wine formularies 100–02. 83. 86. 198–9. incommuniationes. Georges 31 n. river 146. abbess of San Martín of Grau 36. 12. 86. laity. property rights farms 10 n. 9 servile dependents in 20–1 sharing in 82–5 slaves in 18–19 García S´ anchez I. 9 prices in 6 n. 85. 189–91 Gaudinas. 163 n. 129–30. 153. armiger 95 Fruela. 153–4. 156.Index donation (cont. pro remedio animae. 152 n. 54 family 65–87. 134. 133–4. 117. 3. witness lists fornication 127. 105 see also corpus et anima. households. 150–1 formulas 6–7. desire for 89. 116. 8 239 see also agriculture femininity 181–8. 215 arable in 8. Carlos 79. 216. 161. 30–3. deacon 19. 140–1. 131. 84 by priests and abbots 61. 162 freedmen 19. 211–12. 176 Galicia xiv– xv. 125. 13 economic relationships 152. 109. corpus et anima. 61. 216 see also churches. 65. 215–16 tree 71 see also aristocrats. 150. 138. 139–63. West 13–14. 110. 18. 11. 20.

8. households (religious) landscape 3–5 land-use 1–11. 116. 124 Le´ on 25. 217. 143. 173 diplomatic practice in 42. 82–3. 176. count 15. 162 Spanish 17. 106–8. 103. 103–6 see also beneficiaries. 213. 84 Italy 33–4. 90–1. commemorative 19. 38. 182. 189–90 urban 10. 132 simple 88–9. 8. 152 n. 17 husbands see couples Ikila Fafilaniz 80–1 Ilduara. see also Barbero and Vigil. 102–5 law see Visigothic law legumes 2. 54. 146. 186 kings 52 chanceries of 95 charters of 93–5. Vermudo II kingdoms 11–14 government of 11. 114 n. 123. 73 lights. 102 n. 200 hell. 213 kings of 12–13. 16–17. 61. 59. 101. Romance Latin 98. 158. countess 67. 136. 79. Navarre. 6. 218 as communities of churches 201–2 gifts to 79. 43. 194–5. 115–16. Leonese Vulgar Latin. 106 Index dynasties of 12 see also Alfonso I. 209–12 city of 9. 107–8. 38. 218 religious 47. Amancio 83. 216 as transactors 96–8. 4. 40 Guntroda. 152. Le´ on. 50. 65. Alfonso V. 149. 154 Guimar˜ aes. Alfonso IV. 32. 121 goats 5. 134. 68 life interest 67 n. 134 Li´ ebana 3. 105. 185. 119. 163 territorial expansion of 11 see also Asturias-Le´ on. 69. 148. 198 n. 157. 69. 102. 115 n. 181. 161–2 laity 57–8. 180 judges 145–6. 3. 14. 186. 206 stereotypical 183. 26–30. Ramiro III. 139–56. 10. García S´ anchez. 192. queens. 182 incommuniationes 80–5 Ireland 62 Isla Frez. 149 n. 143. abbess of Paz´ o 36–8 Gutier. property houses 189–93 house plots 6. 220 households 153. 218 see also formulas. 169. 92. 123. Ordo˜ no II. Ramiro II. Navarre labour service 21. fear of 89 helping out in bad times 127–8. 185–7. 179 lay beneficiaries in 79. 159. 179. 196 n. 117. 166–8 historiography: European 18. 76. 206. monastery at 25. Sancho I. 53 Jobert. Alfonso III. 124. 120. 177–9 see also couples. 125 liturgical vessels 8. Ordo˜ no III. 121. 189–93 language 214–15 elaboration of 89–91. 143 peasant donation in 141. 67. 30–4. 68 Libri memoriales 30–1. 140. 192 . 169. 23 bishopric of 40. S´ anchez-Albornoz horses 5. 69. 159 heritability of property 67. 44. 12. 6 Leire. 181–8 of donors 52. 198 charter collections of 23.240 gender 130–3. 132. 151 grammar 102–5 grants ad imperandum 15 guarantors 174. see also kings Leonese Vulgar Latin 103 n. monastery at 25. Latin. 205 gubernare 151–2. 95 alienation of proprietary churches by 51. 172 Gesmira 139. 14. Sancho II Garc´ es Abarca. 117 judgement. 163 killing 127. 96–8. 6. 101–2. 218 gift exchange 32 n. 14–16. day of 89. Ph. 151 gift economies 114. 108–9. 149. 151–2.

39. 123. 200 modii 5. 47 Melic. 136 see also liturgy. 155. Santa Comba. Celanova. 22. king of Asturias-Le´ on 20. 123. 119. 196 n. San Mill´ an de la Cogolla. 54–64. 77. 220 see also cattle. 183 see also morning gift masculinity 181–8. 25. 93. pigs. 157 Munio Fern´ andez . 106. Samos. 137. 187 Pamplona see Navarre paradise. desire for 89 . 76. 130–2. 7. 65 kingdom of 13. 178–80. 79. 141. 95 originals see single sheets Orlandis. 23.Index liturgy 120 n. 192. 205 church of Santa Columba in 40. 218 masses 121. monk of Santa Comba 36–8 Opila. 203. 76. 25. 14 notaries see scribes notarius 99 Nu˜ no Sarracíniz 139. 211 oxen 5. 219 marriage settlements 67. 213 Oviedo 12. 170–3. 152 n. abbot of San Martín de Turieno 58. 62 monasteries 23. Buezo. ritual meetings 202. Leire. 68 orality 101–2. 185. 168–73. 185 foundation of 50–2 networks of 60. Sobrado monks 49. monastery of Santa María at 25 charters of 24. 125. 8. 172–3 role of in memorialization 131. 187. 207. 62–3. 41 monastery of San Vicente in 24 charters of 24. 79. 178–80 grants by 74. 218 see also Abellar. 78 mills 7. 189–93. 147. 124. 203. 133 meseta 3. 124. 141 Ordo˜ no III. 220 pacts. 7. 107. 165 Muslims 11. 206. Santiago. 141. 199. 194–5. marriage settlements markets 10. 128 arable in 8 western xiv– xv. 186. 95. Albelda. 125 livestock 5. 129 Magnus est titulus donationis 104–5 mandationes 14–16 Marialba 39 marital property 70. 159. 71. 209. 63. Sahag´ un. 197. Carde˜ na. 103 orchards 6. 152 nuns 56–7. 73 Munio. 177–80 as beneficiaries 51–2. 210–11. 93. count 36–9 Odoíno. Piasca. 163 memorialization 31–4. 164–88 dominance of 166. 159. 2 kings of 13. sheep lordship: growth of 19. Arlanza. San Miguel de T´ amara. 140. goats. 46–8. Bo˜ nar. 6 n. 123–6. 53–4. 103. king of Asturias-Le´ on 15. 26. 9. Santos Justo y Pastor. 30. 190 oblates 55 Odoario. 129. 215–16 men 132. 19. 126 Navarre xiv– xv. 56–7. 204. priest 128. 143. 145–6. 83 n. 26. 211–12 millrace 65. 116–29. 170–3 see also couples. Otero de las Due˜ nas. J. 20 n. 132 see also abbots. 9. Santo Toribio. 130–1 entry into 55–7. 54 orthography see spelling Otero de las Due˜ nas. 189–93 ordinary people 16–22 see also peasants Ordo˜ no II. monastic 56. 121. 129. count 95. 11. Gaudinas morning gift 168–9 mountains 8 as power base 3 Mumadona 82 n. 181 as donors 130. Oviedo. San Juan de la Pe˜ na. Santos Cosme y 241 Dami´ an. horses. 121 n. 206 Melgar 10 n. priest 128. 121 n. 134. 119. 149. 217 monastic 9. 133–4. 155 Munio Flaínez 146–8.

28. 21. 205 monks of 20 parishes 45. 211–13 personal 102. 110–12 preservation of 211–13 see also cartularies. 219–20 property of 189–93 sharing property 81. 9. 176 Ramiro III. king of Le´ on 20. 75. 108–9. 121. marriage settlements. 79. 187. 218 monastic 61–3. 91–8. 38. 180. 207–13 see also colonization.242 Pardomino mountain 20. 194 n. 79 Rabal 189–92. 185–7 debts of 127–8. 48–9. 103–6 transmission within families of 66–7. 132. 132. 82. 120 n. 116. 217 prices 5–6. 216 see also formulas pigs 5. 25. 86. 9. 76–80. 94 pasture 6 n. 100 n. 74–5. 157. 107. Munio pro anima cuota 117 see also quintae pro anima gifts 32. 180 n. 89–91 see also life interest proprietorship: entrepreneurial 9. small-scale 17–18. 193 transactions by 52. 148 peque˜ no propietario 17. 140. 141. 181. 6 n. 78 Piasca. 115–26. sales . 161. 72 precaria 85. king of Le´ on 15. 167. transactions property rights 127. 86. 105. 80. 63–4. 217 see also churches pro remedio animae 116–20 protection see clientship networks. 113. 56. 61. 162. 189–90 freedom of disposition of 72–5. 74. 133. preservation of 34. 122. 165 of children 72–4. patronage public power 16. 124 preambles. 133–4. 192 appointment of 45–6. 217 lay 40–52. 55. 59. 102 n. charters. 105–6. 201 peasants 17–22. 61–3. 84. formulaic 89. 129 in court cases 126. 12. 85. 174 rape 145. 201–2 Passionaries 184 n. 95. 191–2 interests of bishops 45–6 transactions. 134. 216 productivity. 166–7 see also heritability. 83. 103. communities Pedro Flaínez 96. 76. 8. 199. 221 in clientship networks 58–60. 166–7. 94. 200 n. 57. 203 n. 19. 158–9 priests 46. nunnery at 8. 144. 181 Reconquest 26 records. 170–1. 18. 187 piety 113. 75. 166. 82–3. agricultural 11. 47. 169 poultry 5 prayers. 160. 171 transfer of vii. 173 see also quinta held in common 67–9. 212. 128–9. 63. 65. 155. 116–20. 29 Index profiliation 73. 83–4. 217 see also proprietorship Pazos 197. 78–9. 157. 198. 135. 142. marital property. 62. 135 n. 182 rebellions 15. 65–87 female 169. 192 place-names 195–7 plebes 205 Portugal xiv– xv. 207. 80–5 of a household 189. 75. 200. 116. regular 50. creation of 49. 163 n. 149. 197 Ramiro II. 160–1 property: appurtenances of 6–8 control of 166–73 division of 69–70. 40. 80. 16. 27. 85–7 patrocinium see patronage patronage 57–8. 132 notarial functions performed by 95–7. 212. 48 grants by 52. 151. 29 queens 174–6 quintae 76–8. 106 see also Melic. 45 pastoral care see care of souls patrimony. 189–213. 78. 154. 80 family 38–44. 79. 160–3. 151. 162–3.

monastery of 65. 157 Schmid. 189. 78. 36–9. 73. Santo Toribio San Miguel de T´ amara. 107. monastery of 36–40. monastery of 11. 146 243 San Juan de la Pe˜ na. monastery of 79 Santos Justo y Pastor. 106 n. 25 San Juan Bautista de Le´ on 144. 16 Sancho I. 81. 92. 42. 211. nunnery of 40. 157 records of 89. 15. prayers roads 8. 218 see also liturgy. 79. villa of 1. monastery of 25. 79. 86. Karl 30–1 scribes 89. 124. 209. 136. 65 patronage of 59 Santa Comba. 94. 173. 211–13. 151. 127. bishop and abbot of Celanova 5. 54. 182 sales 113–15. 83 n. 89. 149. 217 serfs 8. 54. 131. 20–1 see also tenure service (servitium) see labour service services. 135–8. 21. 148. 209–11 dependents of 20 n. 152 n. 141. monastery of 25 cartulary of 24. religious 33–4. 95–8. 82–3. 121. 77. 102–4. 80. masses. 101 language of 121. 70. 211. 6. 192. 202–5 see also houses. pro remedio animae Samos. 54. 155. 25. 205 patronage of 59 saiones 16. 30. 76 see also San Martín de Turieno Santos Cosme y Dami´ an. 179 Santo Toribio. king of Le´ on 94 Sancho II Garc´ es Abarca. count 73. 209. 167 sheep 5. monastery of 25 cartulary of 24. 140. 199–201 Rosenwein. 62. monastery of 6. 29. 119. 187. 189–91 Rodrigo. 18. 17. villas share-cropping 81 sharing property 80–5. 69. king of Navarre 124. 164. 217 charters of 23. 105. 121. 114 n. 166–7 intervention by 129. 219 training of 99–101 scriptor 99 scripts 99 see also writing seigneurialization 12. 218–19 salt 158 saltpans 21. church 48–9 settlements 6. 26–7. 185. 119. 210–13 gifts to 146. 208. 191–2. memorialization. 49. 175. 58 n. 65. 215 rents 20. 63. 9–10. 93. 76. 3 Sahag´ un. 220 shops 11 siege 145 . 18 199–200 Santiago in Le´ on. 151. 143. 119. 122 Romance 103–4 Rosendo. 128 n. 7 San Mill´ an de la Cogolla. 201. 158–60. 190 salvation see pro anima gifts. 205 San Martín de Turieno. 63. 54. 49–50. 105. 72. 119. 37. 38. 17. 213 San Juan en Vega de Infanzones 200. 100–1. 194 n. 141 n. 91. 150–1. 68 charters of 91. 220–1 ritual. 77. 6. monastery of San Juli´ an at 25 cartulary of 23. 213 gifts to 73. 195. 96. 59. 82. 42. 68. 206. 104. 195–7. Claudio 10 n. 94. 186 n. 83–4. 128. 70. 11. 62 n. 124 Savarigo and Guestrilli 149. 26–7. 108. 198 Reparado and Trasvinda 185 repopulation 17. 61. 42. 194 n. 78 S´ anchez-Albornoz. monastery of 60. 112. 25. 156–60.Index Recosinda 139. Barbara 32. 157 regional differences 42. 145 n. 209–11 patronage of 59–60 see also Opila. 158. 28. 8. 157. 214. 140. 119. 176 sanctions 88. 39 Santa Olalla of Lemos. 144. 208–9. 124 cartulary of 24. 61.

4 & 5. 95. 187 witness lists 88. 148. 68. 21–2. 77. 169 Sobrado de los Monjes. 159. 90. 105. 189–93 violence 181–3 virginity 182. 148 Valpuesta. 189–93 see also orchards tribal society 28. 206 tradespeople 17 trado me 53–6 transactions 78 in churches and monasteries 41–2. 149–54 Taj´ on. 98. 26. 211 patronage of 59 valle country 194. 209. 218 lay 103. 186. 101 slaves 18–20. 21. 16–17. 141 suburbio 9. 106–9. 54. widows wounding 145 writing 49. 79. 153. 11. 147. 141 Taurelo and Principia 70. 130–1 taking the lead 171. 185 towns 9–10. 115 n. 139. 92 n.244 sin. burden of 89. 215 of donors and founders 52. 177 support systems 57. fruit 7. monks of 200. 183. 63. 203 villas 1. 54 Villab´ ascones 39. 209. 201 Valdor´ e 146 n. 146–9. 80. 202 n. 9. 8 widows 176. 184 see also morning gift Visigothic law 66. 199. 7. 103. confessus 110–12. 211–13 habits of. 143. wife of Sancho II Garc´ es Abarca 175. inscribed 99 n. fidelis of Ordo˜ no II 20. 195. 126. 198. monastery of 14. 159 tenants 18–21. 173 wives see couples. 81–2. 167 n. 73. 145 n. 57. 30. 10 . 68. 157. 187 see also queens. 140. 158. 139. 178 n. 102–5 status 18. servile 19–20 Teresa. 106 n. 99. 186 n. 94. queen. 199 Vermudo II. 70. 78. 61 cartulary of 24. 76. wife of King Sancho I 174–6 terra calva 9 terrae indomitae 8–9 territorial control 14–16. 184 n. 104 n. 128–9. 106 n. 18. 102. 9. 158. Stephen 31–2. 93. 94. women women 132. 195 Turieno see San Martín of Turieno Urraca. 116 single sheets 22. 47. 211. 169 see also formulas vows 107 water rights 11. see diplomatic practice Zalame. 158. 112. 218 role of in preservation of memory 33–4. 63. 186 n. 195. 103 spelling xvi. 84 n. 204 tenure. 176 usufruct 86 Index Valdevimbre. 144–5. 179–81. 103. 172–3 in public 173–6. 18. 179 wine 127. 189–93 White. 176 ˜ ez 146. 157. 51–2 trees. 78. 164–88 as donors 130. 204 Villa Motarraf 201. 182. 95. 160 solidi 6. priest and notarius maior 95 Zamora 9 n. 130–3. 165. 67 n. 54. 11. 203 n. 218 numbers of 25–6. 80. 141. 188. 10 Sunilano. king of Asturias-Le´ on 20. 61 cartularies of 23. 119–20 slates. 155 Vermudo N´ un victum et vestimentum 152 n. 15. 76. 55 territorial units 195–7. 218 religious 107. 141. 25. 196–8 vineyards 6. 52. 114 nn. 50. bishopric of 25. 213 gifts to 65. 219–20 Verín 197. 206 theft 127. 11. 168. 195 value of property 18. 49. 141. 100.