Church Property on the European Continent, 701-1200 David Herlihy Speculum, Volume 36, Issue 1 Jan., 1961), 81-105. ‘Your use of the ISTOR database indicates your acceptance of ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use. A copy of JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use is available at hup://www,jstororg/abouvierms.himl, by contacting ISTOR at jstor-info@umich.edu, or by calling ISTOR at (888)388-3574, (734)998-9101 or (FAX) (734)998-9113, No part of a JSTOR transmission may be copied, downloaded, stored, further transmitted, transferred, distributed, altered, oF otherwise used, in any form or by any means, except: (1) one stored electronic and one paper copy of any article solely for your personal, non-commercial use, ot (2) with prior written permission of JSTOR and the publisher of the article or other text, Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the sc printed page of such transmission. Speculum is published by The Medieval Academy of America. Please contact the publisher for further permissions regarding the use of this work, Publisher contact information may be obtained at hutpulwww.jstor.org/journals’medacad.html. Speculum ©1961 The Medieval Academy of America ISTOR and the ISTOR logo are trademarks of JSTOR, and are Registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office For more information on JSTOR contact jstor-info@umich edu, ©2001 JSTOR hupslwww jstor.org/ Pri Feb 23 12:12:13 2001CHURCH PROPERTY ON THE EUROPEAN CONTINENT, 701-1200 By DAVID HERLINY Aw studying the economic history of an agrarian community there is hardly ‘more fundamental a question than “who owns the land?” In reconstructing the history of the predominantly agrarian economy of the early Middle Ages, there is hope of answering that question at least partially and approximately, at least in regard to the portion of the soil claimed by the greatest landowner of all, the Church. That hope is based upon our mass of private contracts, land convey ‘ances chiefly, from well over 900 predominantly ecclesiastical archives. Already numerous by the middle of the eighth century, by A.D. 1200 they are numbered in the tens of thousands. They provide abundantly kind of information of value for our purposes — information in regard to boundaries. The seribe, of course, faced the problem of identifying precisely the real prop- erty with which his contracts so largely deal. While most notarial usages vary widely among regions and over time, it is still possible, I believe, to discern certain uniform practices in regard to the identification of land, evident already in our earliest contracts and collections of formulas, and (with certain major exceptions later to be noted) thereafter fairly consistently followed. The property conveyed might be a farm or estate, including a homestead, garden, arable, meadows and so forth; it might constitute, in other words, what an agrarian economist might call a “complete productive unit.” Here the scribe would typ- ically describe the nature of the property (e. villa or mansus), its appurte- nances (e.g., eum terris, domibus, aedificiis, accolabus, mancipiis, vineis, silvia), and the place where it was located. He would not usually list the precise boundaries, in the sense of identifying the owners of contiguous lands. When (as typically in ateas of fairly dense settlement) a farm might consist of many separated fields, the exact boundaries would be tedious to record and at times difficult to learn. “It is not possible to describe {this property's] boundaries and size,” reads aan eleventh-century charter from the monastery of Marmoutier near Tours, “because of the diversity of places and of the unknown surrounding lands among which it lies dispersed.’ ‘Moreover, the listing of boundaries was not really essential, even if the title to the property had latter to r owner often received with his land the “charters of acquisition” showing how individual parcels had been ac- quired and listing their boundaries. “The boundaries (of this mansus),” says a donation from Auvergne in 943, “are to be understood in the manner they are contained in the charters of acquisition,” Failing such written records, the serfs \ CL, Formulae merowingict et karin’ avi, ed. K. Zoumer, Monuments Gormanice Historica henceforth, MGH), Lequm Seotio V (Blanover, 1886), p. 91, no. * Marmoutier-Chartularium vindocinense, no. 116, 01 1064. Chartularies are cited in the notes according to their place of proveniene; for fll titles, ee the Appendix. " Brioude — Saint-Jaon, no. 07, July O4882 Church Property on the Continent, 701-1200 who worked these “complete productive units,” who were often conveyed with them, could be expected to know the boundaries and would be as interested as the new owner in defending them. Or neighbors might be expected to remember which ficlds traditionally belonged to which farms or estates. “It is not necessary to put here their boundaries . . .” explains a seribe at Gorze in Lorraine in 985 in regard to the appurtenances of « mansus, “because they are sufficiently known to the neighbors of that village.”* For the conveyance of complete farms or estates involved no rearrangement of fields or changes in the way the land had been traditionally worked. Usually, the rent collector alone is different. And the new rent collector could defend his ttle as had the old, by whatever “charters of acquisition” he possessed in regard to indi- vidual parcels, or by the testimony of neighbors. ‘The conveyance of property less than a complete farm or estate presented & different problem. The transfer of even the smallest field meant a rearrangement, however slight, of productive units and a break with the way the land had tradi- tionally been worked. The traditions of the community, the memory of neighbors, ‘might not now prove sufficiently reliable, and it seemed advantageous to identify the property by more detail than mere location. In our earliest mediaeval collec- tion of private acts, the “Tablettes Albertini,” dating from 498-96 during the period of Vandal rule in North Africa, a parcel of land is thus identified“... in the boundaries of the same field from the north-west, Martalis the seller ‘and Januarius Fortunati; from the north, the said Martialis the seller; from the south, Quintianus; from the south-west, the said Quintianus and Vietor.”® Our collections of Merovingian and Carolingian formulas also cal for a similar accuracy in listing the boundaries of land not comprising complete farms or ‘states. Thus, in a contract of exchange from the Formulas of Mareulf afield is identified: “which joins from one side so-and-so, from the other side or front, (the land] of so-and-s0.” In the charters themselves, at least when a full text has been preserved, we are ally informed concerning boundaries whenever land not a complete pro- unit was involved. For example, a meadow sold to the monastery of Gorze in 775 is described: “from one side Severus holds; from the other side Dodo holds; from both fronts the forest ends the meadow.”” A donation to the monastery of Fulda in 71 identifies a vineyard: “on the one side, the land] of Saint Martin; on the other, [the land] of the same; on the side, [the land] of Saint Liutgarius; on the fourth side, [the land] of Roceholfus’ ‘To proceed to much later examples, a donation from a Genoese notarial char- tulary in 1190 identifies a meadow: “above and below there adheres the land of “ Gorae, no. 08. Cf sao Marsile — Saint-Victor, no. 820, 12 Februsry 1095, “‘domos in civtate ot de ors suns hereditates determinatas sicut ab omnibus vicinis mote sunt.” “Tales Altertini: Actes print de Vépaque sandale (fn du Ve idl), ed. C. Courtois, I. Leschiy Perea, and C. Saumagne (Pari, 1052), 1, 12, p. 2. * Formulae Zeumer,p.B2, no. 24 Gorse, no. 28. Fulda, no. 54Church Property on the Continent, 701-1200 83 Pinascus and his consorts, from one side the land of King William and his eon- sorts, from the other the Brugeda.”® A sale from the archives of the monastery of Pobict in Catalonia describes a piece of land: “from the east, the road; from the south, the river Ebro; from the north and west, the land of the Knights (militia) of the Temple. For Italy, from the collections of charters listed in the Appendix, we have nearly 90,000 such references to contiguous owners antedating the year 1200 — over 17,000 of which antedate 1000 and over 8,400 antedate 900. These numbers fare tribute to the wide use of the written instrument in Italian life even in the carly Middle Ages, to the wealth of our surviving Ttalian archives, and to the consistent clarity and precision of the Italian notariate. ‘The collections listed inchide the bulk of Italian charters antedating 1000, and a substantial portion thereafter. Such references become numerous from the second quarter of the cighth century and multiply rapidly up to the early eleventh eentury. Curiously, their numbers then diminish, particularly over the period 1051-1125. This seems to reflect a stabilization of land tenures, a falling off in the frequency of convey- ances (especially exchanges) of detached parcels, and a consequent diminution in the numbers of boundary identifications. ‘Spanish documents, too, show the consistent clarity of a strong Latin tradition. ‘The nearly 10,000 references to contiguous owners provided by the published collections listed in the Appendix may be taken as representative of the still sub- stantial numbers of Spanish documents yet to be edited. They derive chiefly from ‘the Christian lands of the Spanish north, and of these Catalonia is the richest. The marked stabilization of land tenures in the eleventh century which we noted in Ttaly is perhaps even more evident in Spain and partially explains the decline the number of boundary identifications after the year 1000. We shall consider French lands as divided into the two great regions of North and South. Our line of division roughly follows the Loire valley from the Atlantic to Burgundy; it leaves the Loire valley to cut across north-central Burgundy south of Langres and north of Dijon. From lands south of ths Tine our references exceed 21,000, They become numer- ‘ous from the first quarter of the ninth century and continue to increase up to the year 1000. As in Italy and Spain, their number falls sharply in the eleventh century and remains low particularly for the years 1026-1185. The explanation for this impoverishment would seem partially diplomatic. We are here encounter- ing, particularly in northern and central France, an apparent “degeneration” of, the written instrument, a tardy triumph of a “Germanie” reliance on symbolic acts and oral testimony over the “Latin” dispositive act, and a growing prefer- ence for the brief and poorly informative notice or memorandum over the full- dressed charter But the explanation for this impoverishment would seem economic as well. We here encounter in the eleventh century a stabilization of * Genova — Oberta Seriba de Mereato, no. 04 20 January 1190 * Poblet, uo. 188, 1 March 1180. C4, Alinde Botard, Manuel de diplomatiquefrangute et pontifical 1: L'Acteprieé (Pais, 1048),84 Church Property on the Continent, 701-1200 tenures even more pronounced than that evident in Italian and Spanish lands. Our chartularies come largely to record the conveyance of complete farms or estates or of tithes and rents, and this kind of act, as we have noted, typically did not record the exact size and boundaries of property. ‘From northern French lands, our series (amounting to less than 1,000 refer- ences) is considerably poorer than for Europe south of the Loire, It likewise shows, after the year 1000, a similar impoverishment. The explanation for th ‘gain, partially diplomatic: the wide-spread utilization of the poorly notice. But as the legal historian J. F. Lemarignier has remarked in regard to the virtual disappearance of sales in our nothern chartularies dating from the late Carolingian period, the explanation would seem economic as well: the stabiliza. "tion of land tenures which reflected the establishment of great properts From German lands our series of references is unfortunately fragmentary. While our German charters are numerous enough, the bulk have been preserved only as highly abbreviated transcriptions in “Books of Donations” (Libri tradi- tionum). References to boundaries was just the kind of incidental information the transcriber was likely to omit. Then, too, the poorly informative notice comes to Prevail over the full-dressed charter even earlier in German lands than in French {as early as the ninth century. The bulk of our German boundary identifica ions, some 700 of them, are concentrated in the period 751-825. They therefore illuminate property distribution in the early Carolingian period, one of the great “turning points in mediaeval agrarian history. For this reason, they are preciou ‘This mass of references to contiguous owners amounts, in total, to over 120,000 names, of which $5,000 antedate the year 1000 and 6,000 antedate the year 900, ‘These references provide us.a kind of inventory of owners which, if carefully used, might provide a basis for the study of property distri countryside. Specifically, this inventory might permit us to assess what percent- «age ofthe land was owned by the Church, and even to judge how that percentage varied over time. For in describing boundaries, our charters cor clearly distinguish between ecclesiasti land of a saint) and lay property. Moreover, we ean exclude from our inventory references to owners, whether lay or ecclesiastical, who themselves figure in the conveyance as givers or receivers of property. We can thereby base our inventory "upon information indirectly supplied by our charters, and ean render it independ. cent both of the nature of those charters and of their provenience. Such factors as le growth in lay literacy or lay utilization of written instruments ought not Is such an inventory of owners, compiled from such seattered material, indica- distribution in the mediaeval countryside? The statistical “sample” our charters provide is of course fantastically random, ‘These names are drawn from all sorts of acts, involving all kinds of owners doing all manner of 1 “Las acts de droit privé de Suint-Bertin au haut Mayen Age," Reowe internationale de dots de Anta, v (1960), 89-72. ‘SCL HE Aubis, Vom Atertam sum Mitelter: Atterben, Fortebn und Erneurung (Munich 1040), par.Church Properly on the Continent, 701-1200 85 things with all types of land. But precisely because our sample is so random and, at least for Europe south of the Loire, so wealthy, we can hope that changes in our inventory over time will primarily reflect changes in the real distribution of property in the mediaeval countryside. This is how we shall attempt, on the basis of this inventory of contiguous owners, to estimate the extent of Church property in early mediaeval Europe. We shall count up all the references to contiguous owners contained in the chartulaties and parchment collections listed in the Appendix. We shall, however, exclude from our final total, references to lay and ecclesiastical owners who themselves figure as principals in the transactions. We shall then calculate what percentage of the total is represented by ecclesiastical institutions. Eeclesiastical property, usually characterized as the land of a saint, is also ‘occasionally described as the land of a church, monastery, episcopate, or canonry. We also count as ecclesiastical property land described as belonging to a bishop or abbot. The land of individual priests is, however, considered lay property. Occa- sionally the charters give the name both of the owner and of the one who works or holds the land; in such cases the property is classified according to whether the ‘owner isa layman or an ecclesiastical institution. Sometimes too, the charters give ‘a place name as a boundary, such as the name of a neighboring villa, fundus, o ‘mansus, Such names are not included in the count, unless of course the current owner is also mentioned. “Natural” boundaries, such as roads, rivers, and waste- lands, are similarly not inctuded in the count. ‘The bulk of our references comes from land conveyances — sales, exchanges,, donations, leases, and so forth. For individual conveyances, the dates given them by their editors are followed; where that date is in a period (e.g, 970-900), the date is assumed to be the middle year of that period (e.g, 980). Some few surveys ‘or inventories of property are also included in the count. They are included, how- ever, only when they are accurately datable within a twenty-five-year period. ‘Thus, we do not include the two undated but presumably Carolingian surveys of the lands of Saint-Maur-des Fossés within and near the city of Paris, although they do list boundaries. As most surveys are either difficult to date accurately ot list, no boundaries, they contribute only a small fraction of our total references. In surveys, boundary references to the landlord who is redacting the survey are excluded from the final total. This we do in order to base our inventory exclusively ‘upon indirect evidence and thereby minimize the importance of the fact that most ‘of our documents are ecclesiastical in provenience. ‘Table 1 gives the results of our count on the basis of centuries, for each of the five regions of continental Europe we are considering. ‘We must first of all comment that these percentages would illustrate the divi sion in ownership not of the total land area, not of the vast forests and wastelands that still commanded much of the countryside, but of developed lands, the gar- % Published by R. de Lasteytie, Cartulsire gladrale de Paris ow recut de documents relatife & Uhisvire ea topapraphiede Por, x (Paris, 1887), no. 4, and by B. Gubeard. Polyptymue de abt Irminom (Pavia, 1844), 1, 288-288. We might note that both surveys would illustrate the extraordinary ‘wealth of the Chureh in northern France in the nth century.86 Church Property on the Continent, 701-1200 ‘Tame 1 ‘Pencentaan ren Cawruny or Eccurstasmical, INstiTUTI0NS Apreanina as Coxtiavovs Owxnns 10th uth 1th Region th ee Italy ut 31 25 0 16 Germany. 1 35 = = = Northern France wo “4 a 30 se Southern France = 31 31 31 18 Spain = 3 7 15 13 Based onthe collections of private ate Utd in th Apponis andthe detaed analyes f boundary references contained within them giten in Toble 3. dens, vineyards, fields and meadows, with which most of our conveyances are concerned, and which provided the productive base of the agricultural economy. Understandably too, the bulk of our sources derive from regions which were “old. settled” and which reveal, even in the Carolingian period, characteristic features of a fairly dense settlement: scattered, intermixed holdings; frequent sales and exchanges of land. The extraordinary wealth of our conveyances from southern France, from Italy and Spain, in contrast with our records from the French North and German East, would seem not entirely due to the persistent use, in these Latin areas, of the written instrument and the abiding accuracy of their notaries, ‘This wealth would seem also to reflect the peculiar importance in southern Europe of regions which, even in Carolingian times, were old-settled and densely settled, + in which the “dominant settlement pattern” is one of relatively small, scattered and fluid holdings. This is not surprising, as large parts of southern Europe were of course old-settled even in Roman times. Such old-settled, densely settled regions seem to have had a much more restricted importance in the French North and German East, areas characterized for most of our period by wide expanses of thinly populated lands. The “dominant settlement pattern” evident in our sources from those areas is one of relatively large, compact holdings, with little noticeable fluidity — evidence, primarily it would seem, of relatively thin settle. ment. As frequent conveyance of land is characteristic of areas of dense settle ment, so the European South has produced the bulk of such conveyances in the period we study!" In regard, therefore, to the developed lands of continental Europe, our inven- 2 Southwestern Germany (notably Bavaria) is another region which witnessed an extraordinary ‘mount of land trading in the late ninth and tenth centuries. This trading taken the form prodous, {nantly of land exchanges; sales ae rare Unfortunately for our purposes, however the land exchanges {rom such rch eallectons as thoue of Freising or Salzburg donot lst hourdares. This high frequency of land trading in southwestern Germany occurs at the same tte (late nth and tenth enturieg) fs the similar Guidity in southern France, Italy, and norther Spain, and presumably f smiley ‘evidence of high and growing density of settlement. However, insofar s we sat juige from ove brief and often vague German documents, the land trading in Germany sem to have invlved areater proportion of complete farms as distnet fr detached pieces than did the trading evident in those other regions.Church Property on the Continent, 701-1200 87 tory would illustrate a striking increase in the portion of land claimed by they Church between the eighth and ninth centuries. In German lands, in northern ‘France, and in Italy the Church owns twice as much land in the ninth century as in the eighth. In southem France, too, between the first and second quarter of the inth century, Chureh property increases from 21 to 40 per cent. Only in Spain do ‘we have no indication that Church property grew substantially in the Carolingian period. ‘We can illustrate this growth with greater chronological aceuraey by con- structing a table, based upon the totality of our boundary references from all parts of continental Europe and calculated on the basis of twenty-five-year periods.* ‘This table, and the graph accompanying the text based upon it, would illus- trate, that for the European continent as a whole, Church property triples over the seventy-five years from 751 to 825, leaping from a figure of hardly more than 4 Teese ees BE 8 PEGGGEEEET za Graph 1. Percentage of Beclesiatical Institutions Appearing as Contiguous Owners, 701-1200, 10 per cent to over $0. This same, startling growth would seem also reflected in our collections of Merovingian and Carolingian formulas. In our earliest formulas, out of some fifty references to contiguous owners, a saint or church is mentioned not once.” The redactors of these collections apparently presumed that only lay- ‘men would appear as contiguous owners — quite a contrast to our later Caro- lingian formulas and charters, in which saints crowd the borders of Europe's fields sand farms. “That Church property grew enormously during the Carolingian period is not a table 9 in the Appendix: ‘Saints appear in our enlist formulas as ovelords of property, but not es contiguous owners. (Ct. "Formlee andecavenses” Forma, ed. Zeuner, . 6, no. 4 “in teraturium sanctus.” ‘The aia reference to saint asa contiguous owner i apparently the “Formulae salicae merkeisnae ‘ti p.242, no 8, "de uno fronte terra sancti lua.” This calletion seems to have ben made before 500, probably during the reign of Charlemagne. Ct. also the “Formulae imperals e cura Ludoviet ibid, p. 805, no. 28.88 Church Property on the Continent, 701-1200 novel conclusion. ‘To an older generation of German manorial historians — G, yon Mauer, K. Lamprecht, K. T. von Inama-Sternegg are perhaps the most important names — the history of individual monasteries, the multiplication of donations in our Carolingian chartularies, the many protests in the eapitularies concerning the dispossession of small landowners by the “powerful,” offered con- vincing evidence that ecclesiastical property had grown at an extroordinary rate in the late eighth and ninth centuries, at least in German lands. This growth, they felt, was part of a vigorous advance of great properties (Grundherrachaften), promoted if not directed by the Carolingian rulers, in the wake of whieh the small independent farm, and the free peasant, were all but erased from the German countryside. Among many more recent critics of this view Alfons Dopsch was pethaps the ‘most outspoken.” Dopsch argued that the Carolingian great property in Ger- many was not the result of rapid growth and reorganization of estates in the late cighth and ninth centuries, but the result of an extremely long, slow, and con- ‘tinuous evolution. Our graph would therefore strongly reinforce the old view as against the re- visionism of Dopsch. Tt would indeed extend it, suggesting that ecclesiastical 3 G.L. von Maurer, Gschiht der Fron, der Bouernhifewnd der Hofverfaseung in DeutcNand Erlangen, 1902-48); K. Lamprecht, Deutches Wirtechaftlaon im Miller (Lelpeig, 1850), and especially K. T. von Tnama-Sternegg, Die Auabreisong der grossen Grundherracheftn in Deutriand tullzend der Karolngerzeit(Leipig, 1878). Many examples could be given to illustrate the sizeof Carolingian great properties. The lands ofthe monastery of Fula in Germany apparently included ‘over 15,000 mansi, from the Alps tothe North Sea. Two generations after its foundation the mon tery of Lorach owved lands in over 540 villages. The church of Pais had property in the past of Fréjusand Marscilles on the Meiiterancan. The church of Reims had land in Buegundy, Marcelle, Rennes, Tours, Poitiers, nd Limoges. The numerous references in the Carolingian capitalaries an ‘other soures to the oppression ofthe poor have often been reviewed. Se, for example, H. Ste, Let Classes rarates tte rigime domanial en France x Moyen Age (Pars, 101), pp. 48-50; H, Fichtenau, ‘The Carolingian Empire, tanslated hy Peter Muns (Osford, 1057), pp. 144-178. Numerous efforts ‘have been made to illustrate the importance of great properten statistically. See, forthe lands of Suint Gall, G. Caro, “Studien zu den alteren Sankt-Galler Urkunden,” Jabriueh ir wheaeische Geschichte, xxv1 (1901, 205-294 and xvi (1002), 186-870, summarized in idem, "Dis Grand. besiteveretung in der’ Nordostschweis und angrensenden lamanniachen Stamsmesgebiten, rar Karolingeract," Jahrbcher fir Nationalokonomis und Staitt, xxt (1001), and reproduced fn the author's Beitrag sur aren detachen Witschafteschichte: Genommalte Aufritce(Leipai, 1908). Fora similar study ofthe division of the land in Westphalia, W. Witich, “Die Prage der Freitauern,” Zeitcrift der Savigny-Stiftung fr Recktgeeckichte, Germ: Att, xxi (1901), 249-859. Se also P. Gutmann, Die sete Giderung der Bayern sur Zot det Volereches (Evil, 192). For criticisms of such efforts at statistical analysis, mostly on the basis of the incompleteness of the records and the arbitrarines of some of the assumptions as to wht constituted great and small properties. ve A. Dopach, Wirtchafsentwickluny der Kartingerait eornekmich in Deutschland, nd edt (Welown, 1081-28), 1, 87-96, and by A. Déleage, La Vie rurale en Bourgogne, 1 (Macon, 1941), pp. 191-251, “la repartition dela terre.” 2% As expressed particularly in his Wirtshaftenticklung der Karolingerzsit. The entiquity of the ‘reat property is also assumed by such prominent historians as L. Halpen, “Lagrculture et la roprité rare dans "Empire caroingien,” Btu eitque ur Phitive de Obatemagne (Pari, 1921), . 200; by Mare Bloch, Zer Coratreoriginaus de histoire rurale frangie, ed. B. Dauvergne (Pie, 1055), 1,77; by F. Lot, Lea Ineasionsgermanigues (Pata 1048). 200 8Church Property on the Continent, 701-1200 80 property grew enormously not only in German lands but in all Carolingian ‘Europe with the exception of the Spanish March,)To this conclusion we must, however, add one important nuance. It is incontrovertible, as Dopsch and others hhave emphasized, that the Church had been in some sense a great landowner long | before the Carolingian period, though our boundary identifications do not reveal it. The Merovingian King Chilperic, according to Gregory of Tours, protested in ‘584 that his fise had become poor, as his lands had passed to the bishops.*° Exag- gerated as his complaint may be, it argues pretty extensive ecclesiastical proper- ties. The very secularizations of Church property under the early Carolingians argue this too, From these and other indications, P. Roth and E. Lesne estimated that the Church owned pethaps a third of the lands of Merovingian France.” Perhaps we can reconcile this apparent contradiction if we recognize that the evidence from our boundaries and the protests from the eapitulaties refer not to the growth of ecclesiastical “ownership” in an absolutistic sense but of a particu-+ lar kind of ownership. That there were kinds of ownership, gradations of owner- ship, hierarchies of rights resting upon the land, is of course a fundamental prem- ise of mediaeval land law. In particular, we encounter in our mediaeval private charters as soon as we have them, and hundreds of times thereafter, those two fundamental kinds of ownership, roughly corresponding to what lawyers of a later period would call eminent ownership and immediate ownership (proche domaine). ‘To be sure, this is not the language of our early mediaeval charters. In them, proche domaine, the right to hold the land and to claim the major portion of its fruits, is most commonly expressed by some form of the word “usufruct.” Con- versely, the word dominium, ownership proper, comes frequently (though not consistently) in the charters to convey the sense of eminent ownership or over- lordship. The distinction between the rights of overlordship and usufruct is not the distinction between ownership and possession familiar from Roman law. To ‘enjoy the usufruct over the land is in a real sense to exercise a kind of ownership ‘over it, and our scribes at times even use dominium or its equivalents in regard to ite "Thus, as early as the fifth century in Vandal North Africa, as evidenced in the ‘Tablettes Albertini, so-called “Mancian” cultivators enjoyed the usufruct of land the overlordship over which rested elsewhere." The rights they enjoyed were © Tsing eB, Keusch and W. Levison, MOH, Sritores Rerum Merovingcarum, 1,1 (Hlavoves, 1951), p. 320."The evidence forthe existence of great properties in Merovingian times is reviewed by ‘student of Dopach, 8 Hofbauer, Die Ausbildung der green Grundherachaten im Reiche der Mero teinger (Vienna and Budapest, 1927) "P, Roth, Geschichte der Benfiatecaens (Eelangon, 1850), p. 249, estimates that third of the property was owned by the Church atthe end ofthe seventh century, and calls his estimate conserva= tives Es Lean, Histoire de la proprisolvistique en France, 1: Epoques romaine et mérovngi= ‘ne (Lille and Pais, 1910), p- 224, estzntes that third of “exploited and productive” lands was ecleiatia ‘CI, Angouléme, no, 41, March O44: “ipsa rea valeat surpare vel dominare usu frutuaro.” “Formulae andecavenses,” Formula, ed. Zoumer,p. 5, no. (¢), “Hace omnis subscripts jure et dominacione hoe recipere debi... sal iure sancti lis cuus terre ese videtur. "SCI. the analysis of Mancian tenancies by C. Saumagne, Teblatee Albertini pp. 81-188.90 Church Property on the Continent, 701-1200 extraordinarily liberal. Their tenancies were “protected” (in the sense that they could not be arbitrarily deprived of them) and heritable. ‘They could sell their Jand, apparently even without the permission ofthe man who i said inthe tablets to hold dominium over it. These Mancian cultivators were in fact the effective ‘owners of their tenures, in the sense that they were the real managers and that they claimed the major portion of the fruits. The rights of the dominus seem to hhave been limited to a tight to collect a small rent, a quitrent really. He had no ‘managerial rights over the use of the land technically his. ‘The Merovingian formulas of Anjou and Tours reveal similar tenures, and a salient contrast between wide rights of usufruct and restricted rights of eminent ownership." Here too, cultivators are able to sell o lease land apparently without consulting the lord who held dominium over it. The lord is this time, let us note, frequently a church, Evidently the settler, not the lord, is the true man- ‘ger of the property. Presumably here too the rights of the dominus were limited to the right to collect a census or quitrent, while the major portion of the land’s produce was retained by the settler on the land who enjoyed the “use of fruit” overt. A document of the year 918 from Angouléme gives further details concerning these liberal tenancies and offers an explanation as to how many of them were created: ‘The authority of the holy [canons] and Roman law decreed, justice normal commanded {that [if] any sort of person would wish to take possession of [ururpare] or improve [reading ameligrar for miltare land] trom the inheritance ofthe churches under a census, he should have the right of doing so and should fear no sutfealumami, but it should remain forever in his right, and to whomever he would wish to sell or to pass it on in inkertanoe under that census he should have the power todo so. = ‘We know that in Roman and Vandal North Aftica, the liberal rights of the ‘Mancian cultivators derived from the fact that they or their predecessors had colonized or improved deserted lands or wastelands. Evidently a similar custom granting liberal rights to the colonizers or improvers of land persisted long and was widely applied in the Latin West. A document of the year 851 from Catalonia offers us one further illustration of this custom.** Sometime before 851, a settler by clearance and improvement had raised vineyards “on the land of the king.” The vineyards he planted were herit- able in his family; his heir in 851 possessed them. The heir sold them in that years ‘the king’s permission for this alienation of technically royal land was again, apparently, neither required nor sought, Ct, my comments in the article, “The Caralingian Manaus,” Keonomic History Review, xt (2960), 780, * Angoullie, no. 2, November 918. The grandiose references to eanon and Roman law are typ of our documents and do not necessarily mean thet the sribe had certain text in mind, The ed suggest as an emendation for the nonsensical militar, Iimitare, “to encloses T think maionre, improve," a word commonly encountered in our charter, is a more likely emendation. ® Catalonin — Pallas i Ribagorgs, no. 44, 30 August 851, Cf right of setters to land improved by them are given in my ati 24 above,Church Property on the Continent, 701-1200 1 Inall these instances the doménus, in contrast with the settler upon his lands, enjoys only a shadow ownership, no managerial prerogatives, and only a small portion of the fruits which the quitrent provided. The kind of great property based upon such scanty seigneurial prerogatives was necessarily extremely looses in a managerial sense, it could hardly be considered a great property at all. Now, in our land conveyances, itis evident hundreds of times that the scribes, in identifying contiguous owners do not give the name of the one who held 1 shadowy dominium over neighboring property but that of the one who was its effective owner, in the sense of its real manager and collector of & major portion of its fruits’? In Merovingian times the Church, along with kings and great laymen, undoubtedly exercised a dominium over vast areas of Europe, but this dominium was dim and distant. As we watch, through our boundaries, the shadow of the saint fall ever more widely across the fields of Europe in Carolingian times, we are witnessing, it appears, the extention of the Chureh’s effective ownership and the growth of a new kind of great property based upon it. This new kind of great property is no longer based upon tenures worked by men who can do with the land what they will, provided only a modest. quitrent is paid. ‘The saints’ lands are exploited whether by the direct cultivation of the monks, by labor dues imposed upon neighboring dependent cultivators, by slaves, or ° (apparently too) by “housed” slaves and those who held in servile tenure. From what we can reconstruct of these latter, servile tenures, which were apparently ‘enormously extended in Carolingian times, they were still “protected” tenancies, in the sense that they were heritable." The right of inheritance seems, however, © This is already manifest i the Tabletor Albertini, where the neighboring owners are also MLan- «ian cultivators and not the domsnus of the region; ao also in the Merovingian formulas of Anjow and ‘Tours where the overlord is usualy « sant but the neighboring owners laymen. As the dominus ‘would usualy hold eminent ownership over Inge regions the citing of his name would not of course, help much in identifying individual elds, since he was pt to hold eminent ownership over al the neighboring fds too. Oceasionally our documents give both the neighboring owners and the overlord of the region. Thus in Spain (Bercelona — Archivo condal, no. $8, 20 June 918) piece of Ian ‘donated to one church reste on the “allod” of another church (inf fines dealode de domum sancti Tohannis monaster”), In Poitow in 055-8 (Polties — Saint-Cyprin, no. 172) a priest gives to the abbey of Sint-Cyprien and which “est alodus de terra Sancti Maric de altare, slvens i den. de ‘cena infest pais.” Tn neither ofthese documents is permission asked from or given bythe overlord to convey “hi” land. See lao Poitiers —Saint Hilaire, no. 35, May 068, lease of land resting “in potestatesancte Marie”; no. 58, 088-006, sae of land “in rem sancti Hylari; Saint-Jean Angty, ho 407, a 02, ale of salt at “in terra Sancti German." Again, there is no evidence of seigneural intervention in these conveyance Cl. also Saint-Jean-'Angély, no. 280, 1060-1001, where Benedict fives to Saint John and Saint Macutus a vineyard “quem sedifienverat in terra Sancti Butropi" This isanother indication ofthe importance of colonisation asa source af these liberal tenures. In te vast majority of our conveyances, however, the overlord i nat mentioned, ax his permiasion was apparently ‘ot sought forthe tinanction and his name didnot help Wdentfy the property ifthe names of the ‘contiguous owners were lzeady given. On seigneural intervention inland sales in the region of Paris, evident from the tellth century, ee F. de Fontette, Recherches our la pratique dela vente émobiliore ‘dans a région porivienne au Moyen Age (Pars, 1057), pT ‘The sense of the word mansus seems to be “inheritance.” Cl. my article “Carolingian Manus,” cited in n,24 The fact that Carolingian manai wer also parttionabe ia luteated by the fact that ‘quite early many ean be found occupied by several families, Ct. C, By Pein. “Observations sur le92 Church Property on the Continent, 701-1200 typically limited to the drvet lines alienation without the lord's permission is forbidden. And most important, « heavy rent and labor dues leftno doubt of the Chureh’s effective command over her property. ‘The wide extension of the Church's effective ownership which ous boundaries | reveal means, too, that many formerly free settlers were coming to hold land * under onerous and restrictive terms and were infact becoming serfs, None of these conclusions — the stupendous growth of Church property in Carolingian times, the development of the effectively onganized manor, the \ deine of the number of fee settlers and the extension of serfdom ic rovel Here, again, our graph would seem to support the conclusion ofthe older generas tion of manorial historians represented by KT. von Inama-Stemegg as against later critics, who have emphasized that some aspects of Carolingian manorial organization soem to hearken back to Roman ot Celtic times and who have therefore concluded that the manor, even in the eighth century, was already very old.® Our graph would agree with and extend the recent, judiions conch. sions of F. K. Litge, who finds in this period in Germany a “substantial” (ocsentiche) extension of great properties, paralleling the emergence of the “authentic (eelden) manor ‘The third of the land owned by the Church in the ninth century represents, scoording to our graph, the largest fraction of the sol she was ever to clam in our period. The trend thereafter is downward, though the fall sem to have Gee epoca eli dover the the fl sme to bare Thurch owned about 15 percent of the land. In southern Franee, in Spain, and in Tuly, the percentages are roughly the same (18, 1, and 10 per cont respec- tively). This decline seems to have continued into the thirteenth century. We do not, unfortunately, have sulicient boundary identifications from German lands for this period to hazard an estimate, and our numbers from northern France are scanty. But at least in this latter area, after the tenth century the trend of our curve would seem also to be sharply downward, _ Two explanations might account for this substantial and neasly continuous (drop: Church lands were being extensively secularized; or Church properties {remained relatively stable, while extensive colonization, pursued by laymen, was bringing about a large increase inthe cultivated area and a substantial fall in the pereentage of that total area claimed by the Church. We have, however, litle evidence of vigorous colonizing activity in the tenth ‘mange dans la rion parisenne au début du TXe sce,” Annales d'histoire sociale 1 (1048), 89-82 Later but indicative desriptions of the contrasting rights enjoyed by fee and servile tevants a regned to the inheritance and alienation oftheir tenures may be found in the “Lex taile wort tensa eocese," dated 1024, Urkundenbuck der Stadt Worms, ed, H. Boos, (Berlin, 1880), no 48, ‘nd Yonne, no. 186 (rom Vézelay, dated 1197, # Notably Mare Bloch, “The Rise of Dependent Cultivation and Seigniovil Institutions” The Cantridge Booomie History of Europe, + (Cambridge, Englend, 194), 24-27, © Deitache Sovial- und Wirtechaftgechilt. Bin Usterdick (Berlin, 1952), p. 80. Ct aso C. Ex Ferrin, “Le grand domaine en Allemagne: Son organisation et les grands traits de ton histone a ‘Moyen Age.” Le Domaine, Soclté Jean Bodin, Reeucils, 4 (Brusicls 1940), p. 120,Church Property on the Continent, 701-1200 93 ‘ceatury(The drop of our curve would seem, initially at least, explained by an outright loss of land on the part of the Chureh,) ~ ‘And evidence of seculatizations of Church property, whether by direct seizures or by easy leases to laymen, abounds in our sources." A. Péschl considers that these “great secularizations in the tenth century,” as he calls them, represented the height of the lay attack upon ecclesiastical property in the early Middle ‘Ages ‘Monastic lands seem particularly to have suffered. Thus, Otholonus, biog- rapher of Saint Boniface, in the eleventh century relates how the successors of Charlemagne either themselves “destroyed” monasteries or delivered them “to the bishops or even to certain laymen” to be destroyed. His description of the ‘mood of these secularizers is interesting: “Many men both clerical and lay keep saying, ‘What is the profit in so many monasteries or such large numbers of ‘monks? Tt would be better if the properties by which these same monks are uselessly fattened were given over lo our service."” But neither could episcopal lands escape this secularizing wave. “The wealth of the Churches of God,” Otto TIT flatly announced in 998, “is being annihilated.” “The Church,” announced the synod of Pavia (1022), “has been impoverished in our days." ‘But ifthe reality and importance of these “great secularizations” of the tenth century seem indubitable, we eannot take too literally the colorful descriptions of our literary sources as to the extent of this impoverishment. The tenth century, age of violent attacks upon ecclesiastical property, was an age, too, of numerous and generous donations of land, by which the Church's constantly pillaged” patrimony was constantly, if partially, restored. The Church still laims, accord ing to our composite graph, about a fourth of the land in the tenth century. Perhaps as great a source of ruin for the Church was that property, while technically remaining the land of a saint, in fact supported reprobate clerics, unruly lay functionaries and their unseemly doings. “The property of God's holy Church,” a seribe in Poitou explains at the end of the tenth century, “which the pious will of the holy fathers increased by uw cour times invaded with mounting eupidity . . . So itis that the properties which the holy fathers of holy Church granted, now are taken by force, now are alienated, now are claimed by unworthy ministers, and all the utility of ecclesias- tical estates serves certain unworthy scoundrels, with only the name of holy Church remaining.”* ‘Perhaps even more remarkable than this attrition and misuse of ecclesiastical property in the tenth century is another phenomenon evident in our conveyances. See for Ttaly my article, “The History of the Rural Seigneury in tay, 751-1200," Agricultural History, xxxae (1080), 68. Biechafaud wnd Menan epiwopaie: Bin Beitrag zur Gechihte des hirchlichen Vermogensrecte Darter Tels Die Enstchung det Moditbistume und die rosen Sikularisationen im 10. Jahrhundert (Bonn, 1912). ® Migne, Patologia Lat % MGH, Legum Satio IV, p. 72, no. 3h. icra — Saint Hii, no. 65. ocx, 680 C. 0.94 Church Property on the Continent, 701-1200 {, This is the extraordinary fluidity of agricultural holdings, particularly marked in southern France, in Italy, and in northern Spain (Catalonia) in the late ninth and tenth centuries. We have, in a previous article, attempted to illustrate this fluidity for southern France and Italy, by comparing the growing numbers of sales and exchanges of detached pieces of land — fields, vineyards, meadows With the sales and exchanges of homesteads or of full productive units.” This comparison showed an extraordinarily high level of fluidity, particularly in the late ninth and tenth centuries. This same phenomenon is indirectly reflected in our series of boundary identifications, which becomes so rich in the late ninth and tenth centuries, as our conveyances of detached pieces become so numerous. ‘This fluidity can also be crudely illustrated in another fashion. A tendeney con stantly to break down and reconstitute individual fields or other pieces of prop erty will be reflected in our boundary identifications in that many of the pieces conveyed will touch upon land already owned. In other words, the principals in the conveyances will appear frequently as owners also of contiguous land, We can call this tendency to break down and rearrange fields through land conveyances “frictional mobility,” and can measure it by calculating the per- centage of the contiguous owners in our conveyances who are also principals in them, ‘This is done in Table 2. Tams 2 ‘Pencowtace o¥ Conmiavous Ownens Arrranine 4s ‘Prrxctrats 1x Lax Cos Contury Per Cent ‘th a oth a1 roth 31 ah 26 12th 20 Based on the collections of priate acte listed in the Appondic and the detailed analysis of oundary references contained within them giten in Table 3. ‘The high percentage of contiguous owners who appear as principals in the ninth and tenth centuries reflects, it would seem, their concern with rearranging their fields and farms. It would also illustrate the high degree of instability of those fields and farms, ‘What is the significance of this fluidity in agricultural holdings? Tt points up 4 pressing and persistent inefficiency in the physical layout of farms and estates — too many, too small, too scattered fields — which the owners seek to correct. through constantly rearranging their lands. A formula of exchange from Saint Gall says this=* “The Agrarian Revolution in Southern France and Italy, 801-1160," Srecovvs, xxx (1958), 29-41, © Pormaa, ed, Zeus, p. 404, no. 11.Church Property on the Continent, 701-1200 95 I, so-and-so, considering my poverty, in order that I may to some extent collect my possessions together, lest I perish from want, gave my possessions, which are located in ‘Such-and-such places, in exchange to the monastery of Saint M. so that I might receive from the monastery so-much [land] in places more opportune for me... - ‘What accounts for this apparent, widespread inefficiency in the physical lay- out of Europe's farms and estates, which landlords seek to correct by constantly trading their land? Must we not attribute it primarily to population increase, and to the excessive partitionings of productive units resulting from it? For the constant rearrangement of productive units evident in our conveyances seems to reflect a constant breaking up of productive units through partitionings among heirs. Tt suggests that, within many of the old-settled regions of Europe, the scattering and disruption of productive units through partitionings were reach- ing critical levels as early as the late Carolingian period. The fact that this fluidity remains so persistently high up to the year 1000 suggests further that the efforts to preserve the integrity and efficiency of established farms in the face of population increase were not proving adequate; it argues that the number of productive units comprised of too many, too small, and too scattered fields retained critically high and was perhaps even growing, In other words, this rate of fluidity persisting for over 150 years, not successfully overcome until the eleventh century, bespeaks economic trouble. It is, after all, a truism of agricultural economies that productive efficiency can best be maintained if “the integrity of the farm as a complete capital unit” is preserved. “Breaking up of productive units. .. often involves serious risks of capital destruction..." In the late ninth and tenth centuries, the integrity of Europe's “complete capital units” particularly south of the Loire was not being maintained. We cannot of course determine, by any absolute measure, the extent of the trouble. Tt would seem, however, only plausible to relate this evidence of persistent agricultural inefficiency to the frequent report of famine in tenth-century Europe. ‘Against the undermining of efficiency through excessive partitionings among. heirs not even the Carolingian great property was immune. The post-Carolingian period seems to witness, for one thing, a certain breakdown in effective manage- ‘ment, Ecclesiastical lords in particular seem in the tenth century hardly the ‘masters of their lands, which they gain so extensively and lose so easily. The xs of the unreformed clergy, the pressures of land-hungry laymen, the disruption of public order in the face of invasions and wars — all served to weaken the Church’s effective control over her properties. Still, perhaps a more fundamental source of difficulty was the tenure system ‘upon which the Carolingian great property was based. The characteristic depend ent tenancies (the “free” and “servile” mansi) of the Carolingian manor were protected, in the sense that the lord could not arbitrarily divest their occupants of the land nor prevent its partition among heirs.” Protected tenancies (especially ©, Dowsing, Land and Labor in Europe, 1000-1960: A Comparative Survey of Recent Agrarian History (Phe Hague, 1950), pp. 158-190 “The restictions upon the lords freedom of action were moral but none the les real. Ct the dire fate ofa lord who drove srs off a maneus nx recounted in th Vite Remipi epitcopi remenae auctor Hinemara, ed, B. Keussh, MGW, Sorptres Rerum Merevingcariom, ut, $25.96 Church Property on the Continent, 701-1200 ‘when combined with light dues as in the Carolingian “free” mansi) are attrac- tive to the settler. They can be used to offer powerful inducement to resettle- ‘ment or colonization. In the period of the late Empire and the early Middle Ages, resettlement and recovery of agri deserti had been, even in old-settled areas, a critical problem. The development of the custom favoring colonization which ve have mentioned, in accordance with which many of these protected tenancies inated, would seem a reflection of and a response to a pressing need to encourage resettlement. However, as resettlement progressed and the amount of easily available free land diminished in some regions, the agrarian community eame to face the problem of protecting the established farms from disintegration through partitioning and of encouraging emigration of unneeded ‘younger sous to less populated areas. Here the traditional and prevalent system of protected tenancies was obstructive. The partitioning among heirs which it permitted tended to undermine established farms and to discourage emigration, ‘each son could expect a portion of his father’s lands, however meager, and ight prefer to eke out an existence upon it rather than face the risks and un- certainties of emigration. The agrarian crisis of the late ninth and tenth centuries would seem primarily attributable to @ considerable population growth in the old-settled regions of Europe, to a breakdown of effective management, and to the prolonged failure of the agrarian community to adjust to the novel problems which confronted After this period of crisis, after the late tenth century, two new trends become evident in our documents. ‘The attrition of Church property is temporarily halted and even reversed. The new upsurge is most evident in Spain, where Church property grows over the century 951-1050 from less than 5 to 18 per cont. It is evident in southern France, where over the same period Church lands inerease from 28 to 85 per cent. In Italy the increase is later and still more ‘modest. Between the first and last quarter of the eleventh century Church prop= erty grows from 19 to 28 per cent. ‘This increase would seem to measure the success, partial but real, of the vigorous reform movement within the Church, which gains momentum from the late tenth century and reaches a sort of climax in the pontificate of Gregory VIT (1078-1084), The economic aspects of the reform movement — the role of the “great seculatizations” of the tenth century in aggravating moral abuses within the Church and the economic implications of the reform program itself —are subjects which are yet to be thoroughly investigated. It is, however, « But see the excelent study of the activities of one reform bishop, Ratheris of Verona, by F. Weigle, “Ratherius von Verona im Kampf um das Kirhengut,” Quellon und Forschengen ave dali: eniten Archiven und Biioteken, xocv (1087-1088), 1-85. When, in the 960’, Ratherius tril to {introduce celibate living among his elergy, he found “the excuse of alot everyone was ‘his can in no wise be hecause of our poverty; it wall eould be, if from the property ofthe Church we had our due stipend,"" Die Brigfe dev Biachofe Rather von Verona, ed. P. Weigle, MOH, Briefe der deutschen Keizer (Weimar, 1940), no. 29, p 165, Verona, mid-April 68. Retheriu,rgorist though be won ‘apparently saw some justice inthis excuse, at leat tothe extent that he entered into an energetic “atle" to recover the property of his church and to restore it to his clergy, who aid they need ft to lead upright lives. Numerous other examples could be given in which clerical poverty i given a3Church Property on the Continent, 701-1200 7 certain that the reformers were keenly aware of the past secularizations of Church property, and keenly interested in recovering what part of the pillaged patrimony * they could. Perhaps ev more striking than this partial recovery of Church property eleventh century. This stabiliza- © tion is evident in the falling off of our numbers of boundary identifications, particularly over the century 1026-1125, which is sharpest in southern France, only slightly less pronounced i, but still discernible, in Italy. Itis evident, too, in a diminishing tendency to sell or exchange pieces of land not. complete produetive units. Ttis further revealed in our index of frictional mobil- ity (Table 2), which drops from $1 per cent in the tenth century to 26 in the cleventh to 20 in the twelfth, How are we to explain this marked stabilization at a time when population growth was surely continuing? It would seem primarily to be explained by the emergence and maintenance of more efficient productive units, not subject to continuous partitionings among heirs, and of a more effective management that, created and sustained th of this agrarian reorganization took the form of a change in the great property itself. The Carolingian manor, as we have men- ned, was based on protected tenancies which left even the serf free to divide farm among his children and often enough to undermine its efficiency. We have indications that already by the twelfth century, the new managers are secking another basis for great properties. They are coming widely to insist that dependent tenancies be passed on to only a single heir, or are beginning + to rely on “true” leases that contained no provision for hereditary posse This manorial reorganization could not Ieave unaffected the social and legal status of the laborers on the great property, as servile tenancies and servile workers are replaced by free leaseholds and free tenants. ‘excuse for low clerical morality, but lt them walt a fll study. D. B. Zems, “Reform Legislation in the Eleventh Century and Tts Economie Impact" Catilie Hisorzal Review, xxvit (1941), 18-88, pleas for more attention to the econemic aspects of the reform movement. The same author bas ikewis studied the efforts ofthe papacy to rebuild its landed endowment Stud Greprian (17), 197-108 “Thus, Cardinal Humber insists Chat prince shold ai the Church nthe recovery of er lands “pro recuperatione insstant,” Adversus simoniacos, MGH, Liballi de Lite, 1 212. Popes se allow the spending of ecesiaatia teasre “pro enptioe seu redamptone bonorun.” Cf. Lane fede, no, 208,28 June 11105 Patfgia Zain, cc, 124, no, 170, yer 119, The {1 Cina Vilete expecially his a wi milan nll ed pracomanal Bai, 108) wn La Patria Ilana ela roa eceriatza, 1 Le prmewe (1085-1057) (Rome, 155), constitute w history of {is period in wich the ration of socal and sconomie change and religous reform are examined at length See 27 above 4 Gf, Saint-Martin de Pots, no. 164, 1101-1175, erdtary ewe, but “selendum vero quod eee terra a hnerdibus Also nutnquam divider seu parity Tino 17,1108, lease “ad telictten” for twenty-four years. Similar prohibitions agsinat divisions in Auch — Chapt cathbdrl, no 98, ca 140. Por example trom Maly, se Tey, “Rural Signury in Tay". 0, nos.98, Church Property on the Continent, 701-1200 If, however, the downward fall of our index of Church property is tempo- rarily reversed in the eleventh century, by the twelfth century that fall is clearly resumed. It is particularly pronounced in southern France, where the percentage of Church property, 95 at the middle eleventh century, is 12 at the end of the twelfth. In Italy, the corresponding drop is from an eleventh-century high of 23 per cent to 15; in Spain, from 18 to 11. The drop is evident in our poorer records of northern France too, and everywhere the fall is apparently continued into the thirteenth century. Secularization of Church property, in spite of the vigorous campaign the Gregorian reformers had waged against it, to some extent continued and to some extent accounts for this continuous decline. Then, too, commonly by the late twelfth century, numerous churches and monasteries, overexpanded with the enthusiasm of the reform period or finding it difficult to adapt to the new commercial economy, were being forced to sell part of their lands to meet their mounting debts. Stil, if losses of Church lands continued, aequisitions of prop- erty through pious donations or purchase continued too. We cannot, of course, determine the balance. However, rather than outright loss, a second explanat would seem here better to account for this quiet but substantial decline in the peteentage of ecclesiastical property: colonization, an increase in the total culti- + vated area while Church property itself grew at a relatively slower rate, ‘That the late eleventh and twelfth centuries witnessed vigorous colonization all ‘over Burope is well known. Of course monks too, especially the Cistereians, con- ‘tributed to this movement, but the bulk of the work seems to have represented the quiet accomplishment of peasant families ‘Thus, the monk Guimann of Saint Vaast of Arras commented in the late y of inhabitants, . C. M, Cipolla, “Une Crise ignorée. Comment sert perdue Is propritt eclésiastique dans ‘aie du Nord entre le XTe et le XV stele,” Annalee — Economien — Sovidés — Civeations, 1 (1967), 817-27. Cipolla estimates that inthe middle of the ssteenth century the Church owned 10, {015 percent of the land in Lombardy — a figure pretty much in Kine with our own estimates. We ‘would, however, disagree with his statement that Church property had repaid pretty auch intact from the early Middle Ages to the beginning fourteenth century. Cipolla estimates that up to the end ofthe eighteenth century the Church owned between OS and 70 per cent ofthe land of southern Italy ‘That is, in my opinion, an impossible gure. Denis Mack Smith, Ltaly: A Modern History (Ann thor, 1950), p. 86, estimates that in Silly the Church held in mortaiain 10 percent ofthe land. CCompatnbl estimates for the extent of eclsiastcal property in the eighteenth century in France are 6 percent according to Henri Sée, 10 per cent according to Goonges Lefebvre. Unfortunately, of the two sources Cipolla cites to justify this extraordinary figure, one is unpublished and inaccessible tome. He als cites L. Bianchin, Delia storia dle inane dal repna di Napoli Palermo, 1890), p 102 Unfortunately, the reference is garbled p. 192 seems to contain nothing bout Church lands. Bian- ‘hint does say (p. 407) rather vaguely that “two-thinds of the revenue of the properties of the king dom" were held hy ecclesiastics, but gives no basi for hia eatmate. 1 there is any justice at all it must rest upon a confusion between the amount of land directly owned by the Church (proce domaine) and the typically much larger amount over which she exercised eminent ownership, Even so it scems exaggerated. T would estimate that already by the late twelth century the Church directly owned no more than 20 per cent of the land in southern Taly-Church Properly on the Continent, 701-1200 99 [our predecessors] hardly foresaw what now exists, the plenitude of habitations, and the copious confluence of settlers.”# We may safely presume that part of this “copious confluence of settlers” represented an outflowing of men from the older centers of cultivation, pushed off the land by the agrarian reorganiza- tion there being accomplished. This coto was the fortune of the kings, the great laymen, and ecclesiastics who could claim the seigneurial prerogatives over the wide expanses of forests and wastelands now filling up with settlers. These colonists, to be sure, typically held their newly cleared lands under the favorable terms that seem s0 often to accompany and encourage colonization. ‘They were often responsible for no more than a quitrent (census) or tithe, and otherwise remained free settlers on what was virtually their own land.” But the dimensions of the movement made the income to be derived from quitrents, and tithes still impressive. We may hazard the estimate that already by the late twelfth century the tithe is coming to rival if not to surpass direct. owner- ship as the Church’s chief economic support. ‘The continuing decline in the percentage of ecclesiastical property would seem primarily a reflection of this colonizing movement and is in some sense ‘measure of it. In some sense, too, it measures the quiet emancipation of the predominant portion of the West European peasantry, as the free settler on newly colonized land, and the free leascholder on the newly reorganized great, property, come to replace the servile workers of the Carolingian great estate. Rapid growth in the late eighth and ninth centuries, slow decline thereafter nntal Europe, insofar sour statistical analysis of land conveyances permits us to know it. The author recognizes the dangers in reliance upon statistics for these dark centuries, and the real objections that could be raised against it. Are our scattered sources — clearly only a fraction of what once existed — truly indicative of agr ‘trends in the early mediaeval countryside? Do the changes in them refleet any- ‘thing more immediate than changes in notarial terminology and practices? These objections we could discuss. However, to argue out the theoretical justification for this use of statistics, and the theoretical objections to it, seems to me largely futile. To prove the pudding is eventually to eat it, and the proof of this method must ultimately be the value of its conclusions, judged by the same eriteria by which other historical generalizations are judged, by the sense they make, by the amount they explain, So, too, the justification for trying this approach in the first instance can only be this: we must experiment with our methodology. ‘We must continually experiment, at the risk of false starts and wasted efforts, but in the hope of gaining from our sources additional light. Bry Mawr Conece “Arras — Saint Vans, p. 289, © As typically provided for in our numerous twelfth-cntury charters creating "fee villages.” Cl Bryce Lyon, “Medieval Real Estate Developments and Froodom,” Amerian Hittorial Review, sun (1087), 47-61,100 Church Property on the Continent, ¥01-1200 APPENDIX ‘The statistical count is based upon the following chartularies and parchment collec tions. Only those works are cited which contain documents giving some information regand to boundaries, The numbers in parentheses refer to the entries in H. Stein, Biblio. graphie générale des cartulares francaise (Paris, 1907). Only those chartularies not listed in Stein are cited here in full I. German lands (including Alsace, Austria, Luzemburg and German Switzerland). Alsace (Reyesta Alsatine aevi merovingici et karolini, 496-918, ed. A. Bruckner (Stras- bourg-Zirich, 1949]). Echternach (C. Wampach, Geschichte der Grundherrachaft Eekternach jim Frihmitelater [Loxembourg, 1929-80). Fulda (Coder diplomaticus fuldensis, ed. E.F.J. Dronke [Cassel, 1850); Urbundenbuck des Klosers Fulda, ed. E. Stengel, [Marburg, 1966)). Hersfeld (Urkundenbuch der Reichsaitei Hergfld, ed. H. Weirich (Marburg, 1936). Lorsch (Coder lavreshamensis, ed. K. Glickner (Darmstadt, 1920-86). Krems. miinster (Urkwndenbuek des Landes ob der Enns, 1 [Vienna, 1856)). Mittelrhein (3195). Niedershein ($198). Ratishon (Codex ekronologico-diplomaticus episcopatus ratisbonensis, od. T. Ried (Ratishon, 1816)). Sankt-Gall (Urkundenbuch der Abtet Sanct Gallen, ed, ‘H. Wartmann (Zurich, 1863-82)). Weissenburg (Traditiones postesionesque wisenbur- gonses, od. J. Zeuss (Spires, 1842)) IL, Northern France (including the Low Countries). ‘Amiens (97). Angers (Cartulaire noir dela cathédrale Angers, ed. C, Urseau (Paris — Angers, 1908)). Angers —Saint-Aubin (121). Autun (276). Autun — Saint-Symphorien (Recueil des actes du priewré de Saint-Symphorien d'Autun de 696 & 1900, ed. A. Déléage [Autun, 1956)). Bassefontaine (896), Belgium (Diplomata belgioa ante annum millesimum centesimum seripta, ed. M. Gijsselling and A. C. F. Koch [Brussels, 1950), Belgium — Duvivier (Actes ef documents ancions intéreseant la Belgique, ed. C- Duvivier [Brussels, 1898}; Nouvelle série (Brussels, 1903}. Belgium — Miraens (A: Miracus, Opera diplomatica historica, 2nd ed. (Louvain, 1723)). Bize (477). Chartres — Notre-Dame (886). Chartres —Saint-Pére (880). Compitgne — Saint-Comeille (1025). Cysoing (1118). France — Cartons des rois (Monuments historique, ed. J. Tardif [Paris, 1866). Gand — Saint-Bavon $81). Gand — Saint-Pierre (1498; 1513). Gorze (1588). Haute Marne (A. Roserot, tes inédites des TXe et Xe siécles appartenant aux archives de la Haute Marne,” Bulletin de ta sovité des sciences historinues et naturelles de 'Yonne, 1x (1897, 161-207). Josaphat (1750). Jumigges (Charles de Pabbaye de Jumidges, ed. J.-J, Vernier [Rouen Paris, 1916), La Chapelle-aux-Planches (1791). Laon — Saint-Vincent (1871). La Trappe (1917). Le Mans —La Couture (1979). Le Mans (1988). Le Mans — Saint. Vincent (2998). Le Paraclet (2020). Lille— Saint-Pierre (2188). Loo (2228). Louviers (2260). Marmoutier — Chartularium vindocinense (2951). Meulan — Saint-Nicaise (Reowei des chartes de Saint-Nicaise de Meulan, ed. E. Houth [Paris— Pontoise, 1924)) Molesme (Cartulaires de Pabbaye de Molesme, od. J. Laurent [Paris, 1911]). Montiéramey (2586) ‘Montiérender (2548). Montmartre’ (2562). Néronville (2709). Orléans —Sainte-Crois (2820). Orval (2844). Paris — Saint-Germain (2882). Paris — Notre Dame (2000), Pontoise ($007). Quimperlé (8125). Redon ($148). Rethel (8180). Ribemont (3200), Saint-Benott-sur-Loire (8824). Saint Bertin (9882). Saint-Gondon-sur-Loire (6487). itHlubert en Ardenne (S444). Saint-Jean-cn-Vallée (458), Saint-Maur-sur-Loite (3491). Saint Mihiel (Chronique et charles de Tabbaye de Saint Mihiel, ed. A. Lesert, ‘Mettensia, 6, (Paris, 1909-12), Saint-Trond (9501). Saint-Ymer-en-Auge (Cartulaires de Saint-Ymer-en-Auge ot de Brioguebec, ed. C. Bréard [Rouen — Paris, 1008)). Senkt-Arnult (B. Muscbeck, “Die Benediktinerabtei St. Arnulf vor Mets in der ersten Hlfte des Mite telalters,” Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft fur lothringische Gesohiohte und Altertumskunde, x11 [1901], 164-214). Stavelot-Malmédy (8761). Tournai — Saint-Martin (9905). ‘Troyes — Saint-Loup (3962). Verdun — Saint-Vanne (4002) Vendome (Charles tendomoives, el. C. ‘Métais (Vendome, 1905)), Vézelay (4074). Vosges (A. Philippe, “Les Chartes-parties deaChurch Property on the Continent, 701-1200 101 archives départementales des Vosges,” Comité dee travaur historiquee. Bulletin, 2000 [i920], 158-200). Yonne (4187) IIL Southern France (inluding Fronch Switzerland) (Gee thelist of chertulris in Srcunex, xxi (1058), 88-89; the following chartu- laries are supplementary to it) ‘Arles (Gaia Christina novssima, 11 [Valence, 1901). Bas-Poitou (3610). Berdoues (448). Bordeaux —Saint-Seurin (648). Bourbonnais (Charter du Bourbonnais, 918-1632, cd. J. Monicat et al. [Moulins, 1952)). Coudrie (1076), Die (1189). Dijon — Saint Bénigne (Charts et documents de Saint-Bénigne de Dion, ed. G. Chevrer and M. Chaume, it {Dijon 1045). Durbon (1250). Gimont (1575). Grenoble (1021). L’Absie (1774) "La Fertésur-Gromne. (Recueil des pancartes de Pabbaye de la Feréur-Grome, 1119-1178, ed G. Duby [Gap, 1958]). La MerciDiew (1849). Lausanne (Cartulaire de chapitre de Notre-Dame de Lawanne, ed. C. Roth, (Lausanne, 1948). Mareigny-sur-Loire (Le Car- fulaire de Marcignyrour-Loire (1045-1141), ed. J. Richard [Dijon, 1957). Orbestier (2808). Romainmotier ($220). Seint-Jouin-de-Mames (3499). Sauxillanges (8627). Sion (8710), Temple (Carhlaire générale de Cordre du Temple, ed, Marquis d’Allon (Paris, 1913}; also contains material for northem France and Spain). Thouars (8820). Touraine (J. Dela- Mille Le Roule, “Chartes tourangelles relatives & la Touraine antérieures & Van mi Bulletin deta oct arehélopique de Touraine, 1 [1877-70], 84-374). IV. Spain (including Portugal). ‘Aragén (Documentos correspondientes al reinado de Ramiro I devde 1034-1003, ed, E, Ibarra (Zaragoza, 1904]; Documentos correspondientes al reinado de Sancio Ramirez I, cd, J. Salarralana (Zaragoza, 1913)). Aragon — Archivo general (Coleccin de documentos indditor del archieo general de la corona de Aragén, ed. P. de Bofarull y Mascaré, 1¥ and ‘yur [Barcelona, 1949 and 1851)). Aragén — Liber feudorum maior (Liber feudorum maior, ced. F. Miquel Rosell (Madrid, 1945)). Arlanza (Cartulario de San Pedro de Arlanea ed. LL. Serrano [Madrid, 1925]). Barcelona — Archivo condal (El Archivo condal de Barcelona, ei. F. Udina Martorell [Barcelona, 1951)). Burgos (L. Serrano, El Obiepado de Burgos Castila primitiea, 1 (Madrid, 1985). Camprodén (E. Monsalvatje y Fossas, Monasterioe del antiguo condada de Besatu, vt (Olot, 1895)). Carden (Becerro gético de Cardeta, ed. L. Serrano [Silos —~ Valladolid, 1910)). Castilla (R. Menéndex Pidal, Documentos linguisticos de Bspafia, 1: Reino de Castilla (Madrid, 1919). Catalonia — Pallars i Ribagorca (Cata- lunya carotingia, in: Ele Comlats de Pallare + Ribagorca, ed, R. d’Abadal i de Vinyals (Barcelona, 1955); for documents after 900 see M. Serrano y Sans. "Documentos ribagor- ‘zanos del tiempo de los reyes franceses Lotarioy Roberto,” Revista de Archivos Biblioteca y ‘Museoe (RABM|, x1 [1919], 808-815; x11 (1920), 119-195, 449-461; 604-618). F1 Moral (Coleccion diplométioa de San Saleador de El Moral, ed. L. Serrano {Madrid — Valladolid, 1906)). Eslonza (Cartulario del monasterio de Esionza, ed. V. Vignau (Madrid, 1885)). Grandefes (A. Calvo, EI Monasterio de Gradefes (Leén, 1930-44). Huesca (F. Balaguer, “Notas documentales sobre los mozirabes oscenses,” Katudios de Edad Media de la corona de Aragin [EEMCAl, u (Zaragoza, 1046), 307-416). Leén ¥ Castilla (Documentos para la historia de las inctitueiones de Leén y de Castilla, ed. Ede Hinojosa y Naveros (Madrid, 1910}), Lighan (Cartulario deSanto Poribiode Liéhana, ed, L. Sanchez Belda[Madrid, 1948). ‘Navarra (Collecoén de documentos infditae para la historia de Navarra, ed. M. Avigta y Lasa [Pamplona, 1900)). Ona (Colecciin diplomética de San Saleador de Ora, ed. J. del Alamo [Madrid, 1080)). Oviedo (Cartulario de San Vicente de Oviedo (781-1200), ed. L. Serrano [Madrid, 1099)). Poblet (Cartulari de Poblet (Barcelona, 1988)). Portugal (Portugaliae ic i Academia portuguesa da historia. ‘Documentos particulare, ed. R. Pinto de Azevedo, 11 [Lisbon, 1940)). Retuerta (F. Ant6n, “Monasterige medicsales de a provincia de Valladolid (Valiadoli 1942). Rioja (I. M. Rodi gues de Lama, “Colleoeién diplométicariojana,” Bereco, 1x 1054), 90-106; x (1958, 101— 108; 220-240; 350-872; 477-400; xr [1956], 99-115; 228-281 ; 895-802; xis [1997}, 105-111; 285-252; 855-966; 495-602). San Juan de la Petia (Coleooin diplométioa de San Juan de