The incidence of princeps in the ninth- and tenth-century charters of northern Spain
p. 217-232
Texte intégral
1This paper is about the occurrence of the word princeps in northern Spanish charters of pre-1000, excluding Catalonia (excluded because there are distinctive differences both of background and development in that region). The word is clearly used as a title and its incidence is potentially significant; the probing questions posed by our conference organizers about the relationship between the prince, the people and the common good, on the other hand, do not result in much explicit comment in these texts, although there is a little which is worth noting. Both royal titles and the ideology of rulership have been the subject of recent studies by Spanish scholars, whose work provides very helpful context and some valuable insights.1
Context: texts and rulers
2There are over 2,000 northern Spanish charters of pre-1000; 95% comes from the tenth century and the great majority of those occurs from the 930s onwards. Most are known from cartulary copies, of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, but there are several hundred surviving originals, especially in the great collections of the meseta, the high central plateau of Spain (León and Sahagún material especially). The biggest collections are from the bishopric of León and monastery of Sahagún on the meseta, León collections including material from many different original sources;2 the monasteries of Celanova and Sobrado in Galicia;3 the monastery of Cardeña in Castile;4 and that of San Millán de la Cogolla in the Rioja.5 Each of these has over a hundred tenth-century charters, while León has nearly 600. There are also important smaller collections: that from Otero de las Dueñas on the northern edge of the meseta, which includes a lay archive with a high proportion of originals;6 that from the monastery of Santo Toribio, way to the north in the Liébana, the tenth-century material coming from its predecessor San Martín de Turieno;7 that from Oviedo, also in the far north but farther west in Asturias, with a high proportion of originals;8 and that from San Juan de la Peña, a monastery in Aragón patronized by the royal house of Navarre.9 Other collections with relevant material are those from the monasteries of Samos in Galicia, Valpuesta in Castile and Albelda in the Rioja; and an interesting set of charters comes from northern Portugal, much of which is not yet available in modern editions.10 There is therefore a good spread of textual data from Galicia to Castile, but that from Navarre and Aragón is thin.
3This period of the late ninth and tenth centuries has traditionally been associated with the so-called Reconquista, a time when kings of northern Spain began to recover control of some territory from the Muslim state (or states) of the South, established following the collapse of the Visigothic state in the early eighth century.11 There are issues about that historiographical framework, which do not need to be dealt with here, but it is relevant that some of the northern kings were involved in campaigning southwards in this period and some had to deal with Muslim expeditions into their territory.12 Rulership therefore had a practical military dimension. “Government” was relatively limited, but kings had courts and officers and in the tenth century they certainly delegated administrative duties to regional officers, usually called counts, who—for example—presided over a system of well established public courts; kings sometimes used major clerics for regional administrative and political purposes too. They had significant personal properties, from which they appear to have derived the greater part of their income.
4There were essentially two kingdoms in this period, although there are distinct zones within them. Firstly there was the kingdom of Pamplona/Navarre, about which we know relatively little, although its kings seem to have acquired considerable power by the late tenth century. Secondly, there was the kingdom of Asturias/León, about which we know much more. The latter had its origins in the very far north, with Oviedo its royal base for most of the ninth century; the capital moved to the old Roman city of León in 910-913/14. Within the kingdom of León there were four distinct zones: the North, including the Liébana valley, to the north of the Cantabrian Mountains; Galicia, in the west (including much of modern northern Portugal), which had its own distinctively regional aristocracy and sometimes a separate king in the tenth century; the capital city of León and the meseta that surrounded it; and lastly Castile, on the eastern edge of the meseta— an unusually large county, whose count grew in power across the tenth century and at times operated as a quasi-independent ruler.

Iberia in the 10th century.
The occurrence of princeps
5The word princeps is used as a royal style in charter texts and in their associated witness lists in the ninth and tenth centuries. Most obviously it occurs in formal protocol, initial and final, but it can also occur in a narrative context, in the body of a charter text, in reference to past actions. Hence, Ordoño III’s 956 grant to the monks of San Martín de Fonte de Febro begins “In nomine Domini. Hordonius princeps, vobis Iuliano…” and the witness list records Ordoño’s presence as “Hordonius serenissimus princeps;” while the royal Elvira’s 970 grant to Sahagún refers to her late brother Sancho I (956-966) as “Ego autem suprafata Giloira licet indigna cogitavi infra me ob honorem horum sanctorum martirum seu et in memoria sepedicti fratris mei principis Sanctioni […] ut facerem sicuti et facio scriptura testamenti atque concessionis firmitatem de ipsas villas.”13 There is an alternative to princeps in the word rex, as in “Nos exigui famuli vestri, Hordonius rex et Urracca regina,” with witness list “Hordonius rex hanc scriptura testamenti a nobis facta atque confirmata” (Ordoño III and Urraca to the monks of Pardomino in 954).14 Usage is in fact very uneven: princeps is much more common at some periods and in some collections than in others (see Table 1), although it is not used for clerics in this period, as it is in some other regions we have discussed at this conference.15

Princeps and rex in Northern Spanish charters of 9th & 10th centuries.
6If we start to look for patterns of occurrence, we can see that princeps occurs in Sahagún material in the body of charter texts and also in the witness lists throughout the tenth century, when the ruler features, and almost invariably from the 930s, both in cartulary copies and originals. There does not appear to be any significant difference between charter text and charter witness list patterns in that corpus. It occurs quite frequently in León material and also in Celanova and Samos material, although not as often in the latter cases. It is rare in Sobrado charters; very rare in some others; and it does not occur at all in Santo Toribio and San Juan de la Peña texts and witness lists of this period. Both of the latter lie in regions that are physically distant from the field of operation, and power centre, of the León ruling family, and so the absence of the term might well be explained by the absence of that ruler; in fact, San Juan lies firmly in Navarre territory.16 Indeed, where the use of princeps in text or witness list is very rare, as in Otero, Oviedo, Valpuesta and Santo Toribio material, it is often because royals did not appear at all as actors in these charters. In contrast, Sahagún was closely connected with the León royal family—Alfonso IV retired there himself for a short period c. 93117—and the frequent use of the term seems to relate directly to a close relationship and personal contact. Contact with the ruler is therefore one factor that can influence diplomatic practice.
7Despite that, the style rex often occurs alongside princeps: “dominus noster et princeps magnus rex domnus Ranemirus” and “Ego vir serenissimus et princeps Ranemirus, nutu Dei rex.”18 Princeps can also vary with rex in the same text of the same person—one line will have princeps and the next rex; indeed, one scribe will use both, of the same individual; and originals and copies use both. Indeed, in some collections, rex is more common than princeps as a style for the rulers who are called princeps in other texts: in Samos and Portuguese material, for example, in that from San Millán, and in that from San Juan de la Peña. Royal confirmations of earlier royal gifts, or of private transactions, much more frequently use the style rex but do use princeps too.19 Hence, Vermudo II’s late tenth-century confirmation of Ordoño III’s 956 grant reads “Veremudus rex confirmans,” but Sancho I’s mid-century confirmation of the same grant has princeps. There are plenty of apparent inconsistencies, although it is clear that different collections have different practices.
8If we turn from dispositive texts and formal protocol to the dating clauses of charters, there are quite different patterns in the words’ occurrence, not least because reference to the ruler does not depend on ruler presence and/or participation; here the proximity/distance rule does not seem to operate.20 Firstly, princeps is frequently used of the ruler in dating clauses in Sahagún charters, as one might expect, but also in the more distant Liébana charters and in the small group of Albelda charters: “Regnante principe nostro domnisimo Ranimirus in Obetum anni regni eius xii feliciter comorante in Leeone” (Sahagún);21 “Regnante principe nostro Ordonius in Legione et comite nostro Adefonso in Levanensem” (Piasca); “regnante principe nostro Froilani in Asturias” (Liébana); “imperante principe Garsea Sancionis in Pampilona” (Albelda—of the Navarre king).22 Secondly, rex is more frequently used than princeps in León dating clauses, and far more frequently in San Millán, Valpuesta and Cardeña dating clauses: “Regnante […] Sanctius rex” (León), “regnante rex Ordonio in Legione, et comite Fredinando Gundessalvez in Castella” (San Millán), “regnante rege Ordonio et comite Fredenando Gondesalbiz” (Valpuesta) and “regnante rex Ranimirus in Legione et comite Fredinando Gundissalbiz in Castella” (Cardeña).23 Thirdly, some charters in the above collections use both terms in dating clauses: “sub principe domno Sanzius rex in Legione” (Liébana) and “Regnante principem Ranimiri rex in Leione” (Sahagún).24 Lastly, both words are rare in San Juan, Otero, Oviedo, Samos, Sobrado and Portuguese dating clauses—because in these cases dating by reference to the ruler is itself very uncommon;25 they tend to date by Spanish era, rather than by era alongside a regnal year, as some other charters do.26
9There are clearly some regional difference in these practices, not simply differences between individual authors or collections: Portuguese and Galician texts rarely refer to the ruler in dating clauses; Castilian texts do normally refer to the ruler, and normally use rex; Liébana texts also normally refer, but they use princeps much more often than rex (a habit which is particularly striking since the ruler was rarely an actor here); and the meseta texts have much more mixed practice.
10Finally, if we look at the chronology of occurrences of princeps, we can see that be it in protocol, narrative or dating clause, where the word occurs, it can be found from the early ninth century onwards. However, although rex remains the more common term, princeps is used more often across the early to middle decades of the tenth century. This phase of more frequent use runs from 914 to 956, but it is especially notable in the reign of Ramiro II of León (931-51).27 This is true of many different collections, again both in originals and in cartulary copies; it is also reflected in the Portuguese material, where ruler references of any kind are relatively rare and the term rex more common, except for the notable use of princeps for Ramiro II and Sancho I (within the period 931-964).28
11Overall, then, there is a tendency for some regions to show greater preference for princeps; a tendency for institutions close to the León ruling family to use it, but not all of those close to the Navarre ruling family; and some intensification of use in the middle of the tenth century, especially under Ramiro II, although rex remains the more common style.
Explanations
12Can we unpick what was going on here? We might expect usage to reflect Isidore’s definition of meanings: kings (reges) are so called because they govern (regere); they must behave rightly; and there are distinctive royal virtues of justice and mercy. According to Isidore, the term princeps, by contrast, is a mark of rank, and also of precedence in time (in other words, the pre-eminent one and the first person to do this or that)29. We should also note that the Visigothic law codes used princeps in the general sense of “ruler,” but used rex as a formal style or title: “Flavius gloriosus Reccessvindus rex,” for example, and “Placitum Iudeorum in nomine principis factum. Clementissimo hac serenissimo domino nostro Reccessvindo regi” and “transierint in principis potestate […] a tempore Svintilani regis.”30 The Visigothic ecclesiastical canons used the terms in a manner somewhat similar to that of the tenth-century charters—sometimes together, sometimes alternating, and so on: “ex permisso gloriosi atque sanctissimi principis Reccaredi regis” in Zaragoza II (592); “regnante domno nostro gloriosissimo principe Sisenando […] diligentia religiosissimi Sisenandi regis” in Toledo IV (633); and “gloriosum principem nostrum Egicanem vel subsequentes principes […] serenissimum ac piissimum dominum nostrum Egicanem regem” in Toledo XVI (693).31 Princeps is more notable in seventh-century material, however, especially in the period of Isidore. This background provides a very clear rationale for differentiating between the terms, but also practice which is much more mixed than that rationale would suggest.
13To pursue the meaning of the terms in tenth-century contexts: where both terms occur together in the charters, they often seem to be used synonymously. By contrast, however, in some texts there is an indication that princeps was applied to the more senior, for example, or to a recent ancestor, as in “Ranemirus rex prolis domni Sanctioni principis,” after Sancho I’s death,32 or to a royal father in contrast to his sons, with the ruler as princeps and his sons reges: “Hordonius rex […] patris nostri dive memorie domni Adefonsi principis” or Vermudo princeps and his son Alfonso rex.33 For a time, and in some places, although this is not consistent, it is as if the term princeps was applied to the most senior of kings or of the ruling family (there were sometimes concurrent kings), as in Isidore’s definition;34 he was in a sense princeps regum. The perspective from the Liébana is in a way comparable: the valley was a long way from the León court, across a significant mountain range; the ruler was never an actor in these texts, but the charters are consistently dated with reference to the León ruler, and more often than not they call him princeps. In other words, from their vantage point across the mountains, where observers could in fact see several kings, the León ruler was the chief one.
14The Liébana perspective is an interesting contrast to that of most places at a distance from the León/Castile core. It thereby emphasizes the fact that there are differences between different collections, as already noted above. The issues here are complex because there is a range of different variables. Let me take them one by one.
15Firstly, authorship. Charter texts of this period were composed in different ways. Beneficiaries drafted charters, especially if the beneficiary was a cathedral or a major monastery; clerics in the royal household drafted charters, especially if the ruler was a principal actor; donors who were committed religious persons—a pious woman, a member of a religious household—drafted; local priests and small monasteries drafted too, especially drafting records of transactions between lay persons, in effect performing a notarial function for them (such records were often copied into cartularies, although they were not directly relevant to the compiler’s interests).35 Differences in terminology might arise, therefore, because different classes of author had different writing habits.
16Secondly, collecting and copying. When collections of charters were made, changes or additions might occur—or might not. Hence, sometimes, but by no means invariably, the writing habits of the religious house responsible for the collection can have a bearing on the formulation of the texts. This is particularly noticeable with dating clauses. The Cardeña cartulary, for example, almost invariably uses the format “regnante rege” [or rex]: hence, “regnante rex Santio in Legione et Fredinando Gundisalbiz comite in Castella;”36 the latter formula is so common (almost invariable after 961) that it looks like house style. The same is true of Valpuesta charters, with the exception of the Buezo group of the early 950s in that cartulary (which use princeps).37 San Millán charters tend to note the León ruler (called rex) in dating clauses, even though this was a monastery heavily patronized by Navarre rulers and even though Navarre rulers are actors in the texts, whereas the charters of Albelda (which is physically very close to San Millán) note the Navarre ruler (called princeps);38 hence, “kalendas iulias, era DCCCCLX, regnante rex Ordonio in Legione” from the former but “regnante Domino nostro Ihesu Christo et principe Semeno Garseanis in Pampilona” from the latter.39 When we find such patterns consistently through a single collection, they must be a characteristic of the collecting house.40 Differences in formulation might therefore also arise because the source of a collection either drafted most of the charters in the first place, or made additions at the point of copying.41 By contrast with these editorial signatures from major religious houses associated with high culture, rulers were often not noticed at all in what I shall call “local” practice, in which records were made for local people, often for small-scale transactions. This is most striking in the Otero and Oviedo collections, where many charters are originals, but it occurs elsewhere too. It is particularly significant that it happens in local records from Oviedo, given Oviedo’s status as a royal centre during the ninth century; and it is particularly significant that one of the few contrasts to this practice in Oviedo material was written by a bishop, of a bishop’s donation: “Regnante domno et serenissimo principe nostro domno Ranimiro,” the ruler also confirming the grant, as princeps.42
17Thirdly, to pursue the latter point, where the ruler is noticed in León material, records of small-scale, lay to lay transactions, especially sales, have a tendency to use rege regnante, whereas records of gifts, and of large, scattered donations, are more likely to use principe regnante. For example, of the 38 records with usable dating clauses in the León collections occurring between 961 and 985, 19 use rege regnante and 19 use principe regnante; sales between lay persons constitute 42% of the former but only 21% of the latter; gifts to the church constitute 16% of the former and 47% of the latter.43 In other words, those making records for rich donors were more in touch with current thinking about ruler seniority; those making records for peasants were closer to an older standard.44 This was not invariable, and is no more than a tendency, but it is another useful indicator that there were different writing habits. There could also be differences in formulation, then, because of differences in scribal training and development.
18Fourthly, practice can also reflect individual scribal habits.45 Most obviously, a single author, within a single decade, may use princeps or rex of the same ruler, together or as alternates. So, for example, the Turieno priest Teudario wrote princeps and rex in dating clauses in the mid-940s of Ramiro II, as did the priest Adica of Sancho I in 963.46 Where habits are more consistent, they feature in initial protocol and witness lists and are most obviously attributable to scribes close to the León royal household. The deacon Ataulfo and the priest Amphilocio, writing for Ordoño II in the 920s, often used princeps; so did the priest Aspidio, writing for Alfonso IV and Ramiro II in the 930s and 940s; Menizio writing for Ramiro II and Ordoño III in the 930s to 950s; Sampiro writing for Ramiro III in the 970s and Vermudo II in the 990s; and Cresconio writing for Vermudo II in the 980s.47 All of their charters feature in different collections, so the expressions in these cases cannot be a simple effect of editing in the course of cartulary compilation and appear to reflect what the original scribes wrote; Ataulfo’s charters appear in both León and Sobrado collections, for example. (There was no formal chancery until the first third of the twelfth century but there were clearly clerics in the royal household who regularly wrote documents for the León king.)48 Since the available models, perceivable through formularies and the sixth-and seventh-century texts preserved on slate, all invariably use rex and not princeps, this must be significant;49 note the model formulas: “Gesta. Era ill., anno illo, regno gloriosissimi domini nostri ill. regis sub Calendis ill.”, “regnum gloriosissimi domini mei ill. regi gentique suae salutem.”50 It is extremely interesting that some of the authors close to the León ruler in the tenth century were choosing to vary from those standard models, whereas priests in the localities, writing for peasants, followed the older mode.
19Lastly, patronage. The other obvious variable was patronage. As we have seen, some places benefited often and directly from ruler patronage and were in that sense close to the ruler; Sahagún is a particularly clear example but several of the institutions which feature in the León collection were also close to the León ruling family, like the bishopric itself and the monastery of Abellar. It is worth recalling that it is the charters in the Sahagún and León collections that have the strongest tendencies to favour the use of princeps; in other words, this was more likely to happen where the recording institution was close to the León king’s tenth-century base, and often patronized by that king. (Although there is much less material on which to base a suggestion, this may perhaps be true of Albelda and the Navarre king–Albelda authors used princeps of the Navarre king, especially in the second half of the tenth century.)51
20There are then at least five different kinds of variable which bore upon the choice of rex or princeps. At one level, for some authors, the terms simply seem to have been interchangeable. For some, Visigothic precedents could be influential, but were not consistently so. There were also the variables of type of author, source of collection, individual scribal preference, training and patronage which pulled in the direction of one or the other.
Conclusions
21The word princeps tends to occur in records drafted in contexts close to the Astur-León ruling family, from the early ninth century but especially in the early to mid-tenth century; to a lesser extent it occurs in records drafted close to the Navarre ruling family in the late tenth century. It was sometimes used to denote a senior king (in time or status), but neither exclusively nor invariably. It is so common in Sahagún material, and in the early to mid-tenth century (the time of Ramiro II and his predecessors), that it looks as if court circles were encouraging its use at that time.
22The late ninth-century Chronicles of Alfonso III and Albelda use rex and princeps in a manner somewhat similar to that of the charters (although rex is far, far more commonly used than princeps):52 rex and princeps can be used alternatively for the same king, however, as in “rex noster […] princeps noster,” “Ranimirus princeps […] Ranimirus rex”, and “Ranimirus princeps […] bellis civilibus saepissime est impulsatus […] Duo magnati […] adversus regem in superbia sunt elati.”53 The Asturian court looked backwards to the Visigoths as significant predecessors: narratives stress direct succession from Visigothic kings; references to Visigothic law continue to feature in charters in the tenth century and Visigothic canons and law texts were copied in the tenth century too.54 The same applies to the Navarre royal house in the late tenth century: the Codex Albeldense of 974-976 depicts King Sancho, his wife and his brother, framed by Visigothic kings above and contemporary scribes below.55 However, one cannot say that a preference for princeps simply reflects a Visigothic habit.
23The usage of inscriptions on stone and metal is much more suggestive.56 There is a preference for the term princeps on surviving inscriptions of the ninth and tenth centuries, used alone, without rex; this is most striking in the case of Alfonso III at the Asturian court in the early tenth century, for whom a number of different pieces survive (866-910).57 Ramiro I and Ordoño I are called both in the mid-ninth century;58 the junior king Ramiro, son of Alfonso III, was rex only;59 and the tenth-century Fruela II and Ramiro II were both princeps, as also the text of one stone commemorating Vermudo II (982-999).60 It is extremely interesting that kings or their associates chose the term princeps when monuments were erected in their honour in the later ninth and tenth centuries—a practice which must imply that the term carried a sense of superiority.
24Use of princeps from the early ninth century probably belongs in the context of the efforts of the Asturian dynasty to seek legitimation in the face of competition from other families.61 The increased use of princeps in early to mid-tenth-century León may perhaps be best seen in the context of an increasing focus on a single monarch. There were real changes in train: Ramiro II built a new palace in León and fostered palace culture; diplomatic contacts with foreign powers were extended, with the Muslim powers of Córdoba, for example. The ousted Sancho I (El Craso) of León went to Córdoba in the late 950s, as did Sancho II of Navarre in 992 (though these contacts were by no means new in the tenth century: the Cordoban Eulogius went to the monastery of Leire in Navarre in 848).62 Given the deliberate use of the term princeps by scribes in court circles and in epigraphic material honouring rulers, and given the sense of seniority and superiority that was sometimes associated with princeps, it looks as if this was an aspect of royal image-building.
25Building the royal image takes us finally to expressions of the relationship between prince, people and the common good: it has to be said that no strong associations are expressed in these texts. However, now and then there is a glimmer of the approach. An expression of the princeps dominating the populus occasionally occurs in the time of Ramiro II, like the dating clause of a record of a priest’s gift to San Vicente in Coyanza, which reads “Regnante domno Ranimiro principe Legionense sedis, dominante populo christianorum in fide katolica.”63 The princeps certainly sat at the head of the populus christianorum.64 Occasionally preambles to Sancho I’s charters in the 960s hint at some more developed ideology: God established the ruler for the good (pro utilitatibus) of the peoples of the kingdom.65
“Ego Sanctius nutu divino regali in apice situs, quamvis omnipotens Deus pro utilitatibus populorum regni nostri culmen subire tribuerit et moderamine plebium non paucarum regie nostre cure comiserit meminimus tamen nos mortalium condicione constringi nec posse felicitatem future beatitudinis aliter promereri nisi nos cultui vere fidei deputemus et conditori nostro saltim confessione qua dignus ipse est placeamus.”
26There are therefore some hints of the ideologies that have been demonstrated in other contexts during this conference, although they were undeveloped in Spain at this time. In the longer term the emphases, and the words, changed. By the eleventh century it was imperial rather than princely terms that became prominent, and the emphasis on divine authority extended, as in fact it was extending through the later tenth century. The ruler rules nutu divino/Dei, and increasingly gratia Dei—Vermudo II is famulus Dei; Christ is king and the ruler is rex, set on the throne by the will of God.66 The ideology of rulership thereafter developed quickly.67
27It is particularly telling that inscriptions on foundation stones, altars and crosses in this period called the ruler princeps, with its overtones of superiority, and that royal writers of charters chose to vary from established standard models by using the term. The increased use of the term princeps in association with royal styles in tenth-century charters seems to reflect a phase in the development of royal ideology, as court circles sought to identify and differentiate pre-eminent rulership from the range of rulers around.68 This must be significant. It points to the beginnings of the search for an appropriate ideology, already in the 920s, 930s and 940s.69 It is also interesting that the incidence of the term gives us some insight into the differences between “local” diplomatic practice and that of the “high culture” of royal courts, bishoprics and great monasteries. Where high culture shared in royal image-building, the local did not. Perhaps it is not too much to say that it provides a kind of insight into the way local scribes and distant monasteries viewed the court and viewed different kingdoms.70 Distant monasteries might not notice the ruler; distant monasteries might notice one or another ruler; distant monasteries might notice the principal rulers, and rank them. Whereas the very local might not notice the ruler at all, and when they did, they usually called him rex, as the older models suggested.71
Notes de bas de page
1 Lucas Álvarez M., La documentación real astur-leonesa (718-1072), León, 1995 (= vol. 8 of El reino de León en la alta edad media) for some comprehensive listing of titles, and fundamental discussion; Isla Frez A., Realezas hispánicas del año mil, A Coruña, 1999, for exploration of ideology, as also Isla Frez A., “Building kingship on words. Magni reges and sanctus rex in the Asturleonese kingdom,” Journal of Medieval History, 28, 2002, p. 249-61, although he does not deal with princeps in the latter. See also García de Cortázar J.A., “Documentación real y espacios documentados en los reinos de Asturias y León (718-1065),” inTorres J. (ed.), Historica et philologica in honorem José María Robles, Santander, 2002, p. 169-82, which is more concerned with the actualities than the ideologies of royal power, especially its spatial dimension.
2 Colección documental del archivo de la catedral de León, vol. I (775-952), ed. Sáez E., vol. II (953-85), ed. Sáez E. and Sáez C.; vol. III (986-1031), ed. Ruiz Asencio J.M., León, 1987, 1990, 1987—the core of the edition is a large cartulary of the first third of the twelfth century; charters cited as Li1, Li2, Lii259, Liii512, etc. Colección diplomática del monasterio de Sahagún (Siglos IX y X), vol. I, ed. Mínguez Fernández J.M., León, 1976—from two collections, one a set of single sheets (including both originals and copies made up to the early twelfth century) and the other a cartulary of c.1110; charters cited as S1, S2, etc.
3 O Tombo de Celanova: estudio introductorio, edición e índices (ss. ix-xii), ed. Andrade Cernadas J.M., 2 vols., Santiago, 1995—a late twelfth-century cartulary; charters cited by number as Cel1, Cel2, etc. Tumbos del monasterio de Sobrado de los Monjes, ed. Loscertales de García de Valdeavellano P., 2 vols., Madrid, 1976—two twelfth-century cartularies, charters cited by number as Sob1, Sob2, etc.
4 Colección documental del monasterio de San Pedro de Cardeña, ed. Martínez Díez G., Cardeña/Burgos, 1998—an eleventh-century cartulary; charters cited as C1, C2, etc.
5 Cartulario de San Millán de la Cogolla, ed. Ubieto Arteta A., Valencia, 1976—an early twelfth-century collection, from many sources; charters cited as SM1, SM2, etc.
6 48 charters: Colección documental del monasterio de Santa María de Otero de las Dueñas, ed. Fernández Flórez J.A. and Herrero de La Fuente M., vol. I, León, 1999, cited as OD1, OD2, etc.
7 77 charters: Cartulario de Santo Toribio de Liébana, ed. Sánchez Belda L., Madrid, 1948, cited as T1, T2, etc.
8 25 charters: Colección diplomática del monasterio de San Vicente de Oviedo (años 781-1200), ed. Floriano Llorente P., Oviedo, 1968, cited as Ov1, Ov2, etc.
9 31 ninth-and tenth-century charters, many of which are suspect; there are 11 credible tenth-century transactions: Cartulario de San Juan de la Peña, ed. Ubieto Arteta A., 2 vols., Valencia, 1962-63, cited as SJP1, SJP2, etc.
10 El Tumbo de San Julián de Samos (siglos VIII-XII), ed. Lucas Álavarez M., Santiago de Compostela, 1986; a cartulary of c. 1200, charters cited as Sam1, Sam2, etc.: 58 tenth-century transactions. Cartulario de Valpuesta, ed. Desamparados Perez Soler M., Valencia, 1970—a late eleventhcentury cartulary, cited as V1, V2, etc.: 36 tenth-century transactions. Cartulario de Albelda, ed. Ubieto Arteta A., Valencia, 1960, cited as A1, A2, etc.: 28 tenth-century transactions. Portugaliae Monumenta Historica a saeculo octavo post Christum usque ad quintum decimum, II, Diplomata et Chartae, ed. Herculano de Carvalho e Araujo A. and Da Silva Mendes Leal J.J., vol. I, Lisbon, 1867-73; charters, including both originals and copies from several different cartularies, cited by no. as PMH xiv, PMH xv, etc.: 184 charters of pre-1000.
11 For broad general surveys, see for example in English, Kennedy H., Muslim Spain and Portugal: a political history of al-Andalus, London, 1996; Collins R., “The Spanish kingdoms,” inReuter t. (ed.), The New Cambridge Medieval History, Volume III, c. 900-c. 1024, Cambridge, 1999, p. 670-91. And in Spanish: Isla Frez A., La alta edad media. Siglos VIII-XI, Madrid, 2002.
12 The issues are many, but centre on whether or not large parts of the North had been depopulated as a consequence of Muslim conquest; on whether “repopulation” was part of the northern kings’ recovery strategy; and on whether, therefore, colonizers came as free settlers, bringing an unusual spirit of freedom to peasant communities. The bibliography is enormous but key works are Sánchez-Albornoz C., Despoblación y repoblación del valle del Duero, Buenos Aires, 1966; Menéndez Pidal R., “Repoblación y tradición en la cuenca del Duero,” inAlvar M., Badía A., de Balbín R. and Lindley Cintra L. F. (eds.), Enciclopedia Lingüística Hispánica, 2 vols., Madrid, 1960-67, i.xxix-lvii. The maps in Ubieto Arteta A., Atlas Histórico. Como se formó España, 2nd edn, Valencia, 1970, at p. 38-49, 59 give a good spatial sense. There is a useful brief recent survey by Escalona Monge J., “Mapping scale change: hierarchization and fission in Castilian rural communities during the tenth and eleventh centuries,” inDavies W., Halsall G. and Reynolds A.J. (eds.), People and Space in the Middle Ages, 300-1300, Turnhout, 2007, p. 143-66, at p. 143-49.
13 Lii295; S255.
14 Lii280.
15 See in this volume, p. 115-124 and p. 411-420 [Constable G., Picard J.-M.]. In the eleventh century some abbots were said to hold principatus; e.g. S400 (1013), S458 (1040), and so on.
16 San Juan was patronized by the Navarre royal family in the late tenth century and was a key royal monastery in the eleventh century.
17 Cf. Lucas Álvarez M., La documentación real astur-leonesa, p. 50, on Sancho I making Sahagún his centre of operations after 959.
18 S287 (977), Sob107 (968).
19 See the lists compiled by Lucas Álvarez M., La documentación real astur-leonesa, p. 417-85, and discussion, p. 83-8.
20 For an overview of the incidence of all regnante dating clauses, whatever title the ruler was given, see the graph by region of northern Iberia, 718-1065, in García de Cortázar J. A., “Documentación real,” p. 178.
21 Note that these texts often deviate from classical Latin grammatical forms.
22 S87 (943), S136 (952)–a Piasca (i.e. edge of the Liébana) charter, T32 (925); A7 (933).
23 Lii333 (960), SM63 (952), V32 (956), C138 (968).
24 T60 (961), S281 (975).
25 But not unknown: see for example, OD21 (976) or Sam33 (902), which—unusually—dates by era and imperial year of princeps Alfonso III “anno feliciter glorie et imperii principis nostri domni Adefonsi xxxvi.” Note the parallel case of Catalonia: in a recent survey it was noted that kings were only mentioned in 24.5% of dating clauses of inscriptions between 925 and 1020; Santiago Fernández J. de, La epigrafía latina medieval en los condados catalanes (815-circ. 1150), Madrid, 2003, p. 249-51.
26 Cf. the comments of García de Cortázar J. A., “Documentación real,” p. 178, that dating by reign of the ruler is rare in Galician, Portuguese and Asturian documents; and p. 180, that such dating was very rare in Otero originals before 1000, though quite common thereafter. See further below, p. 226, on the addition of dating by ruler in cartulary copies of eleventh and twelfth centuries.
27 Lucas Álvarez M., La documentación real astur-leonesa, p. 276-84, indicates a reduction in the incidence of princeps in initial protocol across the tenth century. His point is essentially about the relative incidence of princeps to rex in royal charters, the latter gradually assuming preponderance. The point is entirely reasonable (although ninth-century occurrences are perhaps too few for confidence in comparative statistics), but it is a different point from the one I make here. If one looks at the occurrence of princeps in all parts of all charters, including dating clauses and including private charters, then there is a clear pattern of increased use in the early to mid-tenth century.
28 Cf. PMH xxxvi (931-50), l (943), lxxi (957), lxxxiv (961), lxxxvii (964); for the latter, see also Livro Preto. Cartulário da Sé de Coimbra, co-ord. Rodrigues M.A., Coimbra, 1999, no. 139, p. 216.
29 Isidori Hispalensis Episcopi Etymologiarum sive Originum Libri xx, ed. Lindsay W.M., Oxford, 1911, IX.iii; see in this volume [Constable G.], p. 115-124.
30 Leges Visigothorum, ed. Zeumer K., MGH, Legum sectio I. 1, Hanover, 1902, II. 1.2-5, XII. 2.17, II. 1.6 (p. 46-7, 425, 50).
31 Concilios visigóticos y hispano-romanos, ed. Vives J., with Marín Martínez t. and Martínez Díez G., Barcelona/Madrid, 1963, p. 154, 186, 511-12; cf. p. 107 and 116 (Toledo III), 226 (Toledo V), 242 (Toledo VI). See the comments of Isla Frez A., La alta edad media, p. 26: rex and princeps were synonymous in Visigothic tradition. Cf. also inscriptions of the Visigothic period which mention kings: princeps was occasionally used but rex vastly more often; Vives J., Inscripciones cristianas de la España Romana y Visigoda, 2nd rev. edn, Barcelona, 1969, especially p. 77-129; cf. inscriptions on coins, ibidem, p. 152-58.
32 Cel92 (968).
33 Sob120 (922); Cel5 (986).
34 Compare the implications of the terminology of the several inscriptions mentioning kings; see further below, p. 229.
35 I have discussed the local production of charters at some length in Davies W., Acts of Giving. Individual, Community, and Church in Tenth-Century Christian Spain, Oxford, 2007, chap. 4.
36 C99 (961).
37 ‘Facta cartula tradictionis sub die quod erit XV kalendas maias, era DCCCCLXXXVIII, regnante glorioso principe Ranemiri in Legione sedis, comitem vero Fredenandus prolis Gundesalbi in Castella et Alaba’, V25 (950).
38 This Albelda practice is interesting, considering that ninth-century chronicles devoted to the fortunes of the Asturian kings seem to have been collected at Albelda; see further below, p. 229-230.
39 SM64 (952), A6 (931). Not A21 (955), which notes a princeps in León and a rex in Pamplona; unlike A22 (956), which notes a princeps in Pamplona and a rex in León.
40 The San Millán cartulary includes many forgeries and edited texts and much of the editorial work in fact belongs to the twelfth century; for detailed diplomatic analysis, see Martínez Díez G., “El monasterio de San Millán y sus monasterios filiales. Documentación emilianense y diplomas apócrifos,” Brocar, 21, 1998, p. 7-53. Much of the Cardeña editing derives from an earlier period, on the other hand, and is more relevant to tenth-century practice; see below, n. 41.
41 García de Cortázar J. A., “Documentación real,” p. 179-80, raises extremely important questions on the extent to which such patterns reflect original distinctive formulations (“costumbres de elaboración documental que resultan distintas en uno y otro territorio”) or editorial additions. The implication of his sample tests is that many regnante clauses, though by no means all, are editorial additions. Indeed, this seems likely to be the case for the Cardeña regnante rege N in Legione et comite N in Castella formula, which seems to become standard house practice after 961, used thereafter in the period 961-1023 both in drafting Cardeña documents and in editing those of other provenance that came within the Cardeña orbit. By contrast, some of the other regnante clauses, especially those of the 940s, seem to be original to the documents. This is an extremely complex issue, which I hope to consider at greater length elsewhere.
42 Ov11 (948).
43 Lii342 to Lii502. More than half are originals (but I cannot see any significant distinction between the usage of originals and copies).
44 For older standards, see below, p. 228.
45 We occasionally encounter both a dictator and a scribe (in other words, the functions of composition and of writing were separate—as perhaps implied by Li220[950]), but usually the only indication is of a single writer and we must presume that he both composed and wrote; see further my Acts of Giving, p. 99-100, for discussion of these issues.
46 T49 (945), T50 (946); T68 and T69 (963), and earlier princeps for Ordoño, T56 and T57 (959).
47 For example, Ataulfo: Li45 (918), Li51 (920); Amphilocio: S19 (920), Li45 (918); Aspidio: Li86 (930), S99 (945); Menizio: Cel62 (935), PMH l (943), S132 (951); Sampiro: S287 (977), Cel104 (994)—although Sampiro’s Chronicle has an overwhelming preference for rex at all periods (see Isla Frez, “Building kingship,” for Sampiro’s ideas on royalty); Cresconio: Lii506 (985), Lii507 (985). Some of these scribes also use princeps and rex together, but use of princeps is still more notable than is the norm.
48 For chanceries, which developed in the subsequent century, see COMMISSION INTERNATIONALE DE DIPLOMATIQUE, Vocabulaire International de la Diplomatique, ed. Milagros Cárcel Ortí M., Valencia, 1997, p. 33, 43, and Lucas Álvarez M., La documentación real astur-leonesa, p. 219-20, who does, nevertheless, refer to these pre-twelfth-century writers as “royal notaries,” especially from the second half of the tenth century, p. 221-8.
49 Zimmermann M., “Un formulaire du x e siècle conservé à Ripoll,” Faventia, 4/2, 1982, p. 25-86; cf. G il J. ed., “Formulae Wisigothicae,”Idem, Miscellanea Wisigothica, Seville, 1972, p. 70-112, for a probably Visigothic formulary (whose formulas recur in ninth- and tenth-century charters), preserved in an early modern manuscript. For the slates, see the comprehensive edition of Velásquez Soriano I., Las Pizarras Visigodas. (Entre el latín y su disgregación. La lengua hablada en Hispania, siglos VI-VIII), Salamanca, 2004; for example no. 43 (667), p. 245: “Factum pla[citum sub die […] augu] stas anno feliciter octabo dec[imo gloriosissimi domini] nostri Reccesuindi regis.”
50 Gil J. (ed.), “Formulae Wisigothicae,” nos. xxv, vii.
51 See below, p. 229-230, for Albelda portrayal of that royal family.
52 Bonnaz Y., Chroniques asturiennes (fin IXe siècle), Paris, 1987, p. 10-30 (Albelda), p. 31-59 (Alfonso III).
53 Chronicle of Albelda, 47, 4; Chronicle of Alfonso III, 15,1 and 15, 2; Bonnaz Y., Chroniques asturiennes, p. 27, 53-4.
54 See Isla Frez A., “Building kingship,” p. 250. For copying, see the large collection in the Albelda manuscript, Codex Albeldense; Biblioteca de El Escorial, MS. D.I.2. There was also an element of the Romans as predecessor too: there is a substantial list of Roman emperors in the Chronicle of Albelda; Bonnaz Y., Chroniques asturiennes, p. 14-16.
55 Biblioteca de El Escorial, MS. D.I.2, fol. 428r.
56 I am extremely grateful to Julio Escalona for supplying me with copies of inscriptions.
57 Diego Santos F., Inscripciones medievales de Asturias, Oviedo, 1994, p. 38, 58-60, 103-04.
58 Ibidem, p. 38, 70, 101.
59 Ibid., p. 70.
60 Ibid., p. 71, 196, 198.
61 Cf. García de Cortázar J. A., “Documentación real,” p. 171.
62 Isla Frez A., Alta edad, p. 102, 71; Christys A., Christians in al-Andalus 711-1000, Richmond, 2002, p. 55-62.
63 Li121 (937); cf. Isla Frez A., Realezas hispánicas, p. 78, and Idem, “Building kingship,” for other attributes.
64 Cf. the notice of Muslim threat to the regnum christianorum, Liii581 (998).
65 S175 (960), and S176, on the same day.
66 Cf. Isla Frez A., Realezas hispánicas, p. 73-8; he comments that the words, all used before, combined to take on new meaning from 985 and their repetition was significant. Idem, Alta edad, p. 96, also makes the point that in the time of Vermudo II the ruler worked with the episcopate and thereby adopted some clerical thinking; cf. also Id., Realezas hispánicas, p. 89-94.
67 See IDEM, Realezas hispánicas, passim; Alfonso I., “Judicial rhetoric and political legitimation in medieval León-Castile,” inAlfonso I., Kennedy H., Escalona J. (eds.), Building Legitimacy. Political Discourses and Forms of Legitimation in Medieval Societies, Leiden, 2004, p. 51-87, at p. 55, 72.
68 Although ninth- and tenth-century usage certainly differed from Roman use, where princeps was an appropriate senior title precisely in order that the notion of kingship could be avoided. In early medieval Spain the two very much went together. I am grateful to John North for advice on this.
69 Julio Escalona points out that use on inscriptions in the time of Alfonso III suggests that princeps was already rising as a favoured style for Astur-Leonese kings a generation before it peaked in the charters. And while it does not itself directly reflect Visigothic usage, its use at that time does coincide with a period when ideology was changing under neo-Visigothic influence; for which, see Escalona J., “Family memories; inventing Alfonso I of Asturias,” inAlfonso I., Kennedy H., Escalona J. (eds.), Building Legitimacy. Political Discourses and Forms of Legitimation in Medieval Societies, Leiden, 2004, p. 223-62.
70 For a comparable point, on the channels of transmission between central power and local communities, see Castellanos S., “Tributa and Historiae. Scale and power at a turning point in post-Roman Spain,” inEscalona J. and Reynolds A. J. (eds.), Scale and scale change in the Early Middles Ages, Turnhout, 2011, p. 187-214, at p. 199-208.
71 I am very grateful for feedback at the conference and for the stimulus of an excellent occasion; I am also indebted to Julio Escalona for comments on a draft of this paper, as also for his great kindness in supplying me with copies of articles otherwise unavailable in England.
Auteur
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Un constructeur de la France du xxe siècle
La Société Auxiliaire d'Entreprises (SAE) et la naissance de la grande entreprise française de bâtiment (1924-1974)
Pierre Jambard
2008
Ouvriers bretons
Conflits d'usines, conflits identitaires en Bretagne dans les années 1968
Vincent Porhel
2008
L'intrusion balnéaire
Les populations littorales bretonnes et vendéennes face au tourisme (1800-1945)
Johan Vincent
2008
L'individu dans la famille à Rome au ive siècle
D'après l'œuvre d'Ambroise de Milan
Dominique Lhuillier-Martinetti
2008
L'éveil politique de la Savoie
Conflits ordinaires et rivalités nouvelles (1848-1853)
Sylvain Milbach
2008
L'évangélisation des Indiens du Mexique
Impact et réalité de la conquête spirituelle (xvie siècle)
Éric Roulet
2008
Les miroirs du silence
L'éducation des jeunes sourds dans l'Ouest, 1800-1934
Patrick Bourgalais
2008