• Contenu principal
  • Menu
OpenEdition Books
  • Accueil
  • Catalogue de 15363 livres
  • Éditeurs
  • Auteurs
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Partager
    • Facebook

    • X

    • Accueil
    • Catalogue de 15363 livres
    • Éditeurs
    • Auteurs
  • Ressources numériques en sciences humaines et sociales

    • OpenEdition
  • Nos plateformes

    • OpenEdition Books
    • OpenEdition Journals
    • Hypothèses
    • Calenda
  • Bibliothèques

    • OpenEdition Freemium
  • Suivez-nous

  • Newsletter
OpenEdition Search

Redirection vers OpenEdition Search.

À quel endroit ?
  • Presses universitaires de Rennes
  • ›
  • Histoire
  • ›
  • Communautés déchirées ?
  • ›
  • Deuxième partie. Des communautés urbaine...
  • ›
  • Diego Gelmírez and the canons of Santiag...
  • Presses universitaires de Rennes
  • Presses universitaires de Rennes
    Presses universitaires de Rennes
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Liens vers le livre
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Formats de lecture

    Plan

    Plan détaillé Texte intégral Presentation The rite and the condition of Compostelan canons The manners and appearance of the canons Opposition to Diego Gelmírez Training and aspirations Problems among the canons The revolts Notes de bas de page Auteur

    Communautés déchirées ?

    Ce livre est recensé par

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    Diego Gelmírez and the canons of Santiago de Compostela

    A Gregorian conflict?

    Amancio Isla

    p. 129-152

    Texte intégral Presentation The rite and the condition of Compostelan canons The manners and appearance of the canons Opposition to Diego Gelmírez Training and aspirations Problems among the canons The revolts Notes de bas de page Auteur

    Texte intégral

    Presentation

    1The Historia Compostellana informs us of two revolts that took place in the city of Santiago de Compostela twenty years apart.1 The target for these revolts was the head of the Jacobean see, Diego Gelmírez (ca 1070-1140), and his power. These accounts are detailed and comprehensive enough to provide us with abundant information about each revolt. However, their versions of both the events and their participants’ intentions originate from Gelmírez’s own environment. They are therefore not only partisan in their assertions but they silence and possibly obscure the ideas of the prelate’s opponents. We presume, therefore, that they present us with a biased opinion of the process.

    2The revolts have also been analysed by recent historiography. These analyses have often included other revolts with a similar chronology that occurred in the kingdom, especially the one that took place in Sahagun. In this paper we investigate several elements that appear to be less important (and are less commonly addressed). We expect that more accurate knowledge of these aspects will help not only to better comprehend these events, their causes and their objectives but also to better understand the era in general.

    The rite and the condition of Compostelan canons

    3Despite the abundant information available on Santiago de Compostela, no detailed account exists of the imposition of the new (Roman) rite or the effects it produced.2

    4The change was introduced at the time of Diego Peláez, a bishop appointed by king García (or perhaps by king Sancho) who would later be expelled from the see by Alfonso VI.3 The Historia Compostellana associates Peláez’s expulsion with his interest in political affairs,4 though these may have had less to do with supposed strange alliances than with his likely opposition to the full re-establishment of the bishopric of Toledo.5 His replacement by Pedro of Cardeña did not provide a lasting solution, given the short duration of Pedro’s prelature, and would not have led to actions of any great intensity.6

    5Neither this upheaval nor the long, intermittent bishops’ interregnum would have favoured a gradual and fluid change of ritual. However, with the arrival of Dalmacio, a monk from Cluny, in 1094 these dynamics were consolidated—at least for a short time, given Dalmacio’s early death in 1096.

    6The first information provided by the Historia Compostellana about the cathedral canons presents a bleak and perhaps overly calamitous picture as it asserts that those who should have been models of ecclesiastical quality were in fact not. Rather, the canons were experiencing financial hardship and were unaware of the consuetudines of ecclesiastical doctrine. Moreover, they sang in the choir inordinate.7 Assertions of this nature appear regularly in this text, which was composed at Gelmírez’s request.

    7The author of this section of the Historia Compostellana associates the decadence of the Compostela clerics with their impoverished situation, which in turn was caused by the financial oppression exerted by the regius villicus, i.e. individuals such as Pedro Vimáraz and Arias Díaz, who were aristocratic laymen appointed by the king to temporarily govern the vacant see. This is a central theme in Diego Gelmírez’s ideology and his Registrum.8 With several variations and nuances, this analysis, which became the hallmark of canons before Gelmírez’s appointment, appears on numerous occasions in the Compostellana. However, since the poverty endured in the see in ca 1090 could not have been responsible for a situation that was presumed chronic in the past, further financial difficulties and other causes must be taken into account.

    8On several occasions, poverty is not the decisive element for explaining this decline. The Compostellana asserts that the see had seven canons during the time of bishop Cresconio († 1066). It also notes, with a clearly critical intent, that, despite the wealth the see enjoyed at that time, the number of canons was minimal and their conditions were deplorable. The author mainly highlights the canons’ lack of culture and their inability to lead a fitting lifestyle.9 When it mentions the congregation in Iria, the Compostellana once again asserts that, prior to the reform, the canons were unfamiliar with clerical offices—unlike those who were later appointed by Gelmírez, who are described as adequately trained.10

    9We know that seven as the number of canons was fairly frequent in the western sees.11 In Santiago the number later increased to twenty-four, which was relatively frequent in medieval and modern congregations. Indeed, although Diego Peláez, who was deposed in 1088, surrounded himself with twenty-four canons, according to the Registrum those canons were just as ignorant as the others.12 It was Gelmírez who further expanded this number to seventy-two.13

    10As this repeated reproach was taken literally, historians interpreted that the situation in the Jacobean see had been calamitous.14 Since the Registrum complained time and time again15 about the state of ignarus that defined the canons before Diego Gelmírez’s episcopate, this reproach was considered valid. While the previous canons had been unfamiliar with ecclesiastical service, those appointed during Gelmírez’s episcopacy were educated in the arts and of course well versed in this service: “litterarum studiis eruditos, ecclesiastici officii peritos”.16

    11There is little information to suggest a decline in the pre-Gregorian Hispanic Church. Rather than encouraging a prudent approach, however, this lack of information has led to an overstatement of the condition of the canons in the Compostela see prior to Gelmírez’s reforms. This description of the former canons appears rather extensively in traditional historiography17 and it has also been accepted recently as the “most expressive” source for the Church’s situation in the kingdom at that time. In this context, Gelmírez would be just another reformer who encountered resistance from his community.18

    12The description may indeed match the situation and level of training of the canons at that time. However, we believe it is more plausible that it was actually a biased interpretation that misrepresented their training. It seems clear, as Díaz y Díaz described,19 that here we are witnessing a “dialectical hyperbole”. However, it may also be worth considering whether this is not also a biased assertion designed to exaggerate Gelmírez’s achievements in comparison with what is presented as a bleak past.

    13Training and proper chanting of the Hours had not concerned the bishops who were present at the 1056 and 1063 Councils of Compostela, who legislated on the matter and would have thought that the Jacobean see had no problem in this regard.20 However, a serious accusation was now being levelled against them. Not knowing the practices of ecclesiastical doctrine or conducting choir singing improperly rendered pre-Gelmírez canons unsuitable and made them become viewed as unworthy. It would have been no surprise, therefore, if they were dismissed or replaced since they would not have conserved the legitimacy to retain their positions.

    14In reality, all Hispania would have been described in the past by members of Gelmírez’s circles as rudis and illiterata.21 This was a rather peculiar and, we should also say, biased approach to the early medieval Hispanic cultural tradition. Also described as “rough” was the old altar at Santiago, which merited Diego Gelmírez’s restorative and reconstructive intervention. Such descriptions afforded greater value to the changes Gelmírez was introducing in the new era. With their pejorative assessments, Gelmírez’s supporters sought to obscure a past and a cultural and liturgical tradition compared to which they could present their changes as a leap forward in terms of training and excellence. The Historia Compostellana associates this roughness and ignorance with the Hispanic Church’s rejection of Roman influence and the papacy and asserts that this estrangement had led to the dense fog of ignorance that had endured up until that moment.22 Specifically, the reason for this deterioration (and therefore the reason for the break) was the Hispanic connection to the lex Toletana, i.e. the liturgy of Hispano-Gothic tradition. To counteract this dependence on Toledo, supporters of change advocated close, subservient ties to Rome.23

    15In other words, Gelmírez’s diatribes against the traditional Compostela canons and his perception of the Hispanic Church in general were due to the canons’ estrangement from Rome. Their ignorance was therefore not generic but linked to their ignorance of Roman practices. Gelmírez equated the performance of various practices and a lack of specific skills to an utter inability to conduct an ecclesiastical function or to properly perform ecclesiastical duties. Moreover, knowledge of traditional rules and culture was interpreted plainly and simply as manifestations of coarseness and ignorance.

    The manners and appearance of the canons

    16The Registrum presents the canons as rough individuals totally lacking ecclesiastical discipline.24 It is this indiscipline that led the bishop to impose French ecclesiastical customs in order to transform external practices, change how their duties were performed, and alter the contents of those duties.25 Our opinion, however, is that this accusation that the ecclesiastical community was coarse and undisciplined contained a novel nuance. The accusation implies roughness in terms of manners but also suggests deficiencies in mores and a certain degree of insubordination. These characteristics enabled the author to refer to the canons of both the recent and distant past as bruta animalia,26 which reflects both the aggressiveness of the diatribe and the desire to degrade this historical group while simultaneously praising the new one that was forming during Gelmírez’s episcopacy. For their part, at least some of the canons refrained from following the bishop’s instructions and asserted themselves by continuing their traditional practices. The Compostellana associated this wayward behaviour with a total absence of mores that sometimes even led to extreme physical violence, i.e. homicide.27

    17This negative representation of pre-Gelmírez canons was backed up by the description of their external appearance.28 We are informed that they were unshaven and that they wore non-uniform cloaks (i.e. each cloak was different).29 Once more this depiction differs from that of Gelmírez’s canons, who wore surplices and whose cloaks were made of silk.30 In this new era, nobody who was not dressed in this way was able to join the cathedral choir. Moreover, the new canons’ cloaks were homogeneous and worn by all.31 Naturally, this dresswear uniformity meant the new canons were viewed as a collective of equals who supported the bishop and were led by him. Traditions that, presumably, allowed canons to wear different vestments depending on their situation or status were abolished. Criticism in this context, which targeted not excess luxury but a lack of homogeneity among the group, sought to promote a truly clerical appearance compared to that of the laity.

    18This external appearance of the Santiago canons has also been used to highlight a trait that was traditionally associated with clergy before the ecclesiastical reform. Some historians, strictly following the arguments contained in the Compostellana, have associated this trait with the suggestions made earlier about their lack of culture, i.e. the clergy and their behaviours were indistinguishable from those of the laity. Similar descriptions are therefore made of their external appearance, with specific references to footwear. The Compostellana asserts that the canons before Gelmírez wore a singular kind of footwear similar to that worn by knights, ad modum equitum. Such assertions are usually also made in reference to the canons’ beards, though beards were a polysemic feature often associated with monks, which suggests that they may well have originated in the former monastic traditions of the Jacobean congregation.32 However, we should also bear in mind that bishops also wore beards.

    19Of course, the Registrum wished to conclude its depiction of the Santiago canons as a group that was barely clerical. However, we know that the kind of pointed shoe referred to here was extremely widespread, even if it generated much criticism as a fashionable garment popular amongst aristocrats.33 Despite this constant criticism, we know that numerous ecclesiastical groups continued to use this footwear throughout the Middle Ages.

    Opposition to Diego Gelmírez

    20These are the canons, therefore, who opposed Gelmírez’s reformative activities, one of which was the construction of a new altar. Gelmírez decided to demolish the old altar, which was located on what were believed to be the Apostle’s remains. In the Compostellana, this altar is described as small, crude (i.e. rough and poor) and deformed. Gelmírez believed it should be demolished and replaced by one of better and greater proportions. His action, however, was fiercely rejected by one group of canons, who believed the altar should not be changed. The arguments in favour of preserving the original altar were probably based on the fairly widespread belief that it had been built by disciples of Santiago the Apostle, i.e. the altar’s roots lay at the very core of the Jacobean cult. However, the views of this group are described as fundamentally a superstition that should not be allowed to oppose the will to enhance and magnify the cathedral’s prestige via such a major undertaking that would amplify the whole area.34

    21Nevertheless, opposition to Gelmírez’s project must have reached remarkable proportions. The oath of allegiance the canons were forced to take in April 1102 was introduced as a way of controlling them since Gelmírez is likely to have anticipated problems.35 Its inclusion in the Compostellana was intended to highlight mutual obligations as part of a wider policy that aimed to contain any confrontation. Gelmírez and his proposals must already have been well known thanks to his previous functions as administrator of the see, and disagreements soon ensued. Munio, the Registrum’s first author, reports that certain individuals were opposed to Gelmírez’s way of working (for example, he banned anyone not wearing the required vestments, including the surplice, from approaching the altar and therefore from receiving any income that derived from it).36

    22These feelings of resentment probably did not dissipate following this episode, while other actions taken by Gelmírez also probably helped to keep them alive. We have no details of the reaction that may have been caused by the destruction of an original panel from the ancient altar, a gold tabula smelted, on Gelmírez’s instructions and with the assent of his inner circle of canons, to provide resources. These resources were needed to help gain access to pope Gelasius, who was in France at that time, to obtain his predisposition towards granting the see the status of archbishopric. The capture of the gold by Alfonso I of Aragon must have sharpened the criticism voiced in opposition to the operation.37

    23A similar story refers to the monetization of a silver table from the see’s treasury. This table must have been rather famous since it was known among the populace as the intremissa. The silver obtained from it was given to pope Callixtus as an expression of gratitude for the privileges he conferred on the see. The smelting of the table and other pieces taken from the treasury was not made public but was made known only to a select group of canons.38

    24I presume, therefore, that a clerical milieu came to oppose the enormous expenses generated by Gelmírez’s aggressive policies, whose aim was to promote both the archbishop and the see. We have no information available that would clearly indicate that such criticism was framed within a general negative perception of the wealth thus obtained. What we do know suggests that the debate was limited to more specific matters even though Gelmírez’s circles of influence had indicated that this flood of riches was a necessity for the new era. On the other hand, tenuous evidence suggests that Gelmírez’s critics were opposed to the devastation the bishopric’s representatives were causing the poor.39 From the perspective of Santiago’s citizens, we can point, for example, to the rebels’ animosity towards the bishop’s financial officers.

    25A component of this debate is the apparently confused accusation by Gelmírez’s opponents that he was lowering the dignity of his bishopric. The formulation presented in singular fashion by the Compostellana aimed to highlight the vacuity and even ridiculousness of the allegations made by the bishop’s enemies. However, it is possible that the accusers were aiming their fire in a different direction, suggesting that Gelmírez’s actions were actually destroying the see’s traditions and squandering its heritage while offering few advantages, all for the benefit of a select group of individuals. To report the bishop’s behaviour according to his enemies, the Registrum uses the term diminutio and alludes to the notion that the aim of the bishop’s activities was to reduce the see to nothing, ad nihilum redegit. This vocabulary, which presents the discussion in economic terms, reveals at first glance the incongruousness of the accusation.

    26Effectively, and somewhat in passing, the Compostellana presents the rebels’ agenda, reporting their complaints about the oppression enforced by the dominus of Santiago, who was undermining the dignitas of the bishopric.40 Given Gelmírez’s indefatigable desire to promote his see, this would help to ensure that the second accusation is dismissed as absurd and also, at least to some extent, that the first accusation, that of oppression, becomes blurred.

    27On the other hand, Gelmírez’s displeasure and that of his supporters were directed against bishops throughout history who had done nothing to promote the see, i.e. to obtain the status of metropolitan archdiocese or to acquire new dignitates.41 Every bishop except the Cluniac bishop Dalmacio, they claimed, had done little more than wage wars. This severe criticism can be interpreted in this context as a way of dismissing the past, irrespective of how much it ignored Gelmirez’s own military operations. According to the Compostellana, Gelmírez was the only prelate who had truly expanded the dignity of his see. If Dalmacio had obtained the libertas, his exemption for the metropolitan see of Braga,42 Gelmírez had obtained the confirmation of that exemption.43 Moreover, he had also successfully achieved the rank of cardinal for some of his canons44 and, most notably, he had been elevated to archiepiscopal dignity and obtained the transfer of metropolitan status from Merida to Santiago. It was not taken into account whether someone would consider as a debasement submitting strictly to Rome (a see considered just as apostolic as St Peter’s) and breaking with a past that stretched as far back as the roots of the Jacobean cult itself.

    28It is from this perspective that we should understand the account expressed in the Compostellana of a certain amount of tension in past relations with the see of Rome. In an account more interesting for its moral content than for its historical accuracy, the Compostellana asserts that, at an unspecified time before the change of rite, an envoy sent by the pope was received with haughtiness and arrogance (the Compostela treasurer had been advised to treat the envoy with the same diligence with which their own envoys were received in Rome). Gelmírez and his circle viewed this as an arrogant and impetuous act that should be met with outright rejection, a slight that would later take a considerable amount of effort to rectify.45 Two attitudes to Rome were in opposition here. On one side was deferential treatment and, to some extent, submission to the papacy, which involved not only formal subjugation but also a huge financial cost. And on the other was a position that valued a more balanced relationship between the two apostolic sees but that could be interpreted as improper arrogance. In my opinion, the reference to the loss of dignitas, which supposedly affected both the city and the see, derived from this deference to Rome and the expenses that were incurred as a result. A similar though perhaps more extreme proposal had already been condemned in 1049 by the pope.46 We usually understand the reasons for pope Leo IX’s response to Compostela’s affirmation of apostolicity but perhaps we do not sufficiently take into account the effects that the condemnation of this widespread use of the apostolic title may have had on the Jacobean see.

    29Gelmírez’s request in relation to the canons’ well-being and training is reiterated throughout the Registrum. We are therefore led to understand that the revolts against him should be interpreted as resulting from arrogance and ingratitude rather than from interventions or decisions that may have been considered as acts of oppression. The bishop’s relationship with his canons was also rather uncertain and, at times of great tension, Gelmírez often mistrusted many of them. This suggests that he suspected a certain level of covert animosity towards him.47

    30Several canons clashed with the bishop and participated in the revolts against him. Many others abandoned him during the violent episodes of the first revolt (1116). After the most dramatic moments had passed and some canons went to inquire about his situation, Gelmírez questioned their intentions. He would have considered suspicious, suspecti, the canons who dined at the home of one of his supporters, canon-cardinal Pedro Gundesíndiz.48 Some sympathized with him and even lamented his misfortune but others, perhaps quite a few of them, were not so sympathetic.49

    31Among the rebels were numerous canons whom the bishop had supported. However, it was during the second revolt (1136) that an even greater presence of these privileged canons was seen. The Compostellana underlines the fact that this rebellious spirit among the senior canons probably affected the minores and helped to mobilize those in the urban population that supported the revolt.50

    Training and aspirations

    32Gelmírez’s actions over his canons and the see as a whole had impacts on several fronts. They strengthened discipline over them, increased their moral standards, and obliged them to study.51 As we mentioned earlier, the repeated argument about the canons’ lack of culture had a correlate with life in general, in the sense that without knowledge or philosophy there is no adequate bene vivendi. It was understood that a major component of this education was the assimilation of mores, i.e. training and educating oneself had moral implications.52

    33Our references to Gelmírez’s canonical reforms constantly reiterate his desire to offer the canons a cultural training. Training was what would counteract traditional practices and elevate the see to a position of excellence out of the darkness caused by the ignorance in which the congregation had lived until Gelmírez’s pontificate.53 A related issue here are the financial rewards that were provided by the episcopate, since canons who reinforced their training were also offered generous emoluments.

    34We also mentioned earlier that Gelmírez related the healthy religious and cultural condition of his canons to the see’s wealth and associated their former lamentable cultural and ecclesiastical status with the poverty of the episcopate in previous eras. The financial references to increased revenues in the church of Padrón, therefore, were combined with allusions to the clergy’s training. Canons in the past were unaware of clerical offices, clericalis officii penitus expertes, but now they were fully trained, competenter instructos.54

    35Gelmírez’s commitment to his canons’ academic development meant that the see was obliged to hire professionals to improve its ability to train them. For example, it hired a teacher of doctrina eloquentiae.55 We do not know if this was Roscelino, a member of the Compostelan delegation who attended the council convened in 1119 by Gelasius II56 but if it was, it would demonstrate that the magister had become fully integrated into Gelmírez’s dynamics. Again, the Compostellana treads carefully over the fact that these actions were simply a further development of an existing school in which Gelmírez and others like him had been educated.57 Young ecclesiastics from the see were sent abroad. We know, for example, that canons from Santiago visited Bologna, Paris and perhaps other French cities.

    36This system involved considerable expense. Canons were awarded allowances and other income from the see58 based on merits no doubt evaluated by Gelmírez himself. On numerous occasions the Compostellana mentions grants and promotions received by canons, while also expressing the prelate’s surprise, given his generosity, that the canons joined in the revolt and subverted his authority.

    37A canon’s career followed a veritable cursus honorum. The egregiae atque uenerabiles personae of the bishop’s entourage aspired to gaining promotion. Their models may have been two canons, Hugo and Munio, who were of French and Hispanic origins, respectively. Both had enjoyed a long history in the see and were trusted by the bishop, having conducted legations in his name and helped to write the Historia Compostellana. Hugo, a chaplain and later archdeacon, was appointed to the see of Porto, while Munio Alfonso, the treasurer, occupied the see of Mondoñedo. Both were ordained on 23rd March 1113.59 For his part, Pedro, a chaplain of queen Urraca, was offered the see of Lugo, where he was ordained in April the following year.60 No doubt some Compostelan clerics hoped to pursue a similar career to that of Gelmírez, who, according to the Compostellana, rose steadily through the ranks on account of a good education and his own merits before being appointed to governmental positions in the see and finally to the episcopate.61 It is highly likely that other individuals with his training and characteristics expected to enjoy a similar career. Of course, in addition to Gelmírez and the speed of his progression, the description of the bishop’s career also mentions the part played by forces that had a positive influence on his ascent. Most notably, these were king Alfonso VI and his son-in-law, Raymond of Burgundy, for Gelmirez’s promotion was not automatic. In contrast, the canons of Santiago were not rewarded with the promotions their merits led them to expect, firstly because there was no tier to aspire to and secondly because everything depended on Gelmírez’s goodwill.

    38Gelmírez’s ascent to the archbishopric and his appointment as papal legate for the western territories in 1120 may have suggested that this stream of appointments would continue, but it did not.62 From that point onwards, ecclesiastical careers stagnated. A Compostelan canon named Diego had acceded to the bishopric of Ourense shortly before Gelmírez’s appointment but was replaced in 1130 by Martín, who at that time was a chaplain in royal circles.63 And although canon-cardinal Arias was appointed to the see of Leon, he had previously been the king’s chaplain between 1127 and 1130. Strictly Compostelan promotions were limited during those years. Alfonso Pérez, a canon of Santiago, became the bishop of Salamanca at the Council of Carrión in 1130. This may have been the most obvious of Gelmírez’s achievements in all that time: Pérez had been the archbishop’s legate for several operations, some of which were even conducted outside the Iberian Peninsula—for example at Cluny, where he died in 1131. It is also likely that Pedro, who became bishop of Leon in 1135, rose from Gelmírez’s circle of influence, where he would have enjoyed a very long career.64 This appointment is therefore the last example of promotion among Santiago’s clerics.

    39After the appointments of 1112-1113, two decades would pass before any new promotions were made, which would have been a long wait for such a large group of canons full of expectations. The consolidation of Toledo’s leading role under the archbishopric of Bernardo (1086-1125) also attracted monks from beyond the Iberian Peninsula from the late eleventh century onwards. Two of these monks were Giraldo, who was appointed bishop of Braga in 1097, and Mauricio, who became bishop of Coimbra in 1099 and bishop of Braga in 1109. Others came to occupy episcopates in the early 12th century, including those of Osma, Palencia, Siguenza and Segovia. At the same time, other sees that were perhaps closer to Santiago’s ambitions, such as those of Zamora, Salamanca and Avila, remained outside its control.65 Nor was Gelmírez able to benefit from the later career of Mauricio of Braga, whose archbishopric was left vacant when he was appointed (anti-)pope in 1118 and replaced by Pelayo Menéndez.66 For its part, Coimbra passed into the hands of Gonzalo and distanced itself from Santiago’s sphere of intervention.67

    40We should conclude, therefore, that many expectations that were common in around 1113 remained unfulfilled. This slow pace of promotions also underlined the fact that to attain an episcopal position it was more important to be a member of the queen’s chaplaincy or, increasingly, that of king Alfonso.68 Moreover, the archbishopric of Toledo had managed in 1121 to obtain as suffragan dioceses the exempt sees of Leon and Oviedo, though it sometimes encountered difficulties when attempting to exert its influence. In any case, it succeeded in avoiding any interference from Gelmírez. Raimundo, the new archbishop of Toledo, had once been a canon of that see and bishop of Osma before returning to Toledo in 1125.

    41The success of individuals such as Bernardo of Agen († 1152), imperatoris capellanus, from the Toledo chapter, who became bishop of Siguenza in 1121 before being appointed to the Compostela see in 1151, illustrates the advantages of choosing other career paths. In Santiago he replaced Berengario, who came from royal circles, had once been bishop of Salamanca, and appears in some documents as imperatoris capellanus.69

    42On the other hand, Diego Gelmírez awarded prebends to those he believed were well placed in his personal hierarchy. For example, he rewarded a close canon of his whom he had earlier sent to study in France with several parishes, including Arnois and Cée, plus half of Serantes and Santa María de Noya. Though this was undoubtedly a considerable prebend, it presumably diverged greatly from the expectations of one who had successfully completed such extensive training.70

    43There was also a certain pressure in relation to income. When a canon such as Pedro Fulco, a man trusted by Gelmírez, was sent on a mission to Rome, the income that corresponded to him was conferred on third parties. It appears that the demand for rents was considerable.71 More importantly in this case, the Compostelan chaplain felt obliged to ask pope Innocent II to help him recover this income. Treatment of this nature was not applied to highly influential canons such as Deusdedit, who often made similar claims while stipulating how the emoluments for his hebdomadary duties should be forwarded to him.72 Treated in a similar way to Deusdedit was the bishop of Braga, though that relationship was not without difficulties.73

    44This income and extra payments awarded to members of the congregation depended ultimately on Gelmírez. We have already mentioned that Fulco was granted a church and lands “in fiefdom” to reward him for his efforts.74 This is how resources were allocated to reward the positive attitudes of those in Gelmírez’s circle of influence. Among those most favoured in this way were the bishop’s own relatives. The presence of family members in European sees was fairly commonplace. In Santiago, for example, as well as the Gelmírezs were other brothers, such as the Budáns, the Estévezs or Estébanezs, and the Alphonsuses. One of the canons was Diego’s brother Pelayo, while one of the priors was his nephew, Pedro. He also assigned his own brothers, Munio and Gundesindo, to positions—the former becoming tenant-in-chief of castles and the latter becoming the city bailiff. This designation of relatives, or nepotism, consolidated Gelmírez’s authority over the canons and the city, since he was able to count on agents who were directly linked to him. The drawback was that it makes grievances visible and focused them on the bishop’s persona.

    Problems among the canons

    45If Gelmírez aimed to increase the number of canons and include bishops, ecclesiastics from other sees and even Alfonso VII75 in their number, new rents would have to be made available for them. However, certain incomes and dignities, such as those derived from archdeaconries ceded to the see of Mondoñedo, were being lost.76 These losses were likely perceived as the result of agreements that were deemed detrimental to the see on account of Gelmírez’s own actions. It appears that it became difficult to maintain the rate of income. At the same time, expenditures became multi-directional, including for constructions of new buildings (churches and idonea palatia) and the generous benedictiones Gelmírez distributed here and there to create goodwill.

    46These problems had to be partially resolved using income from the canons iuniores. On the other hand, the avarice of the canons maiores led them to demand ever larger amounts of income, the lion’s share of which, according to the Registrum, they kept for themselves. However, this voraciousness seems to have been handled with a certain insouciance: the Compostellana speaks of a tolerantia it describes as iniqua that ended up destroying the equilibrium and causing serious discontent.77 In other words, this practice was met with a permissiveness that other canons were forced to endure and, although the Compostellana shares responsibility for it among the whole congregation, Gelmírez should be assigned a prominent role. It was perhaps becoming increasingly clear that the path towards external promotion was narrowing and that the absence of career prospects had to be counterbalanced by increased internal revenue, the scope of which was limited.

    47We have very little and perhaps only biased information about the leaders of the revolts. We know of the involvement in 1116 of Arias Muñiz and another unnamed individual who is portrayed as vir impius et valde nequissimus. Of the latter we are told that he had been raised and educated by Gelmírez, that since childhood he had received his training in episcopal circles, that he had then continued his apprenticeship in France, but that later he had deemed it appropriate to lead a revolt against the very person who had supported his training.78 A similar narrative could be told of Arias Muñiz, though no proclivity towards him on the part of Gelmírez can be asserted in this case. Of course, the pessimus Arias had enough connections in the city to enable him to hide in an urban monastery and obtain enough support among the populus to promote himself among the canons.79 Gelmírez was acutely aware of Arias’s ability to inflame the populace and encourage them to act violently against his palaces or whatever; in other words, he recognized that Arias was capable of seducing and leading the Compostelan people. His elevation to archdeacon by popular demand suggests that new patterns of promotion were being developed among the congregation that were at odds with the mere designation by the bishop. This way of assigning promotions was probably one of the complaints made against Gelmírez by the instigators of the revolt.

    48From his name and the inconspicuousness of his career (he was raised and educated in Compostela), Arias Muñiz must have been of Galician origin, though there was no strict alignment by either the Galicians or the French in relation to the bishop. Generally speaking, many of the bishop’s supporters were French and those with whom he escaped the 1116 Compostela revolt were simply described as Francigena, by which we assume they were supporters of the bishop. However, the first author of the Compostellana, Munio, was Galician, as were many others in the bishop’s circles, including his family. Although the French group had been more favourable to the bishop during the first revolt, during the second their relationship seems to have been more nuanced. It appears that no distinction based on origin existed, though the canons who led the opposition, Bernardo and Pedro Helías, were Galician. It is likely that a generalized opposition grew out of an increasing dissatisfaction among the clerics with Gelmírez’s trajectory and their limited prospects for furthering their own careers.

    49Not all of the bishop’s adversaries were in Santiago, however. He also had enemies in other parts of the kingdom as well as in Rome. The Compostellana complains, for example, that the delegates of both Bernardo of Toledo († 1125) and the bishop of Coimbra were stirring up the curia against Gelmírez with multa fictitia atque falsa. A letter Gelmírez received from pope Honorius infers some of these criticisms since it reminds him that the dignity of the pallium—with which he had been presented—is a symbol of humility, which suggests there had been criticism over practices of a different nature. In another letter the pope informs Gelmírez that he has heard sinister and superstitious tales about him80 of a perverse and even deathly81 hue. In other words, the archbishop’s enemies were spreading rumours that he was an arrogant individual who was prepared to do anything to fulfil his ambitions. Although these rumours may have been somewhat exaggerated (especially the more extreme ones), the bishop’s arrogance was probably clear and this no doubt affected his relationship with his congregation.82

    The revolts

    50We should ask ourselves whether the canons’ revolts were successful. Of course, some canons did achieve promotion more quickly. We know, for example, that one of the few rebel leaders we can identify with any degree of certainty furthered his career considerably: Arias Muñiz, who, as canon, signed the oath at the bishop’s insistence in 1102, demanded before Gelmírez that he be promoted to the position of archdeacon, a post he appears to have occupied with constant activity among Gelmírez’s circles, even acting as a legate to important embassies (if, as it appears, we are discussing the same person).83 It is interesting how Giraldo reports this demand: Arias’s promotion had to be accepted because his appointment—and, naturally, those of all the others involved—depended not on the bishop but manu populi84. This illustrates a general feature of the revolt, i.e. the positions held in both the council and chapter had to be agreed by those assemblies.

    51We are unable to detail many other cases. The reluctance of the Compostellana’s authors to mention them may be a result of damnatio memoriae but it is more likely that a prudent and voluntary silence prevailed in relation to individuals who still held a great deal of power. This is what occurred, for example, with Arias Muñiz who, as we know, is not mentioned by name as the leader of the revolt in the body of the text but is mentioned as such in the rubrics, which were written at another time. Reports in the Compostellana about the involvement of other influential individuals may have been altered. Examples are those of Pedro Helías, who became archbishop in 1143, and others in his circle. To some extent, Pedro Helías’s appointment suggests that a certain degree of success was enjoyed by the rebels against Gelmírez, at least in the short term since this was just a temporary victory as royal appointments later became more generalized.85

    52The appointment of Gelmírez’s successor († 1140) was not going to be easy. Royal ambitions in relation to the archbishopric were felt because a see of such importance could hardly be expected to remain outside the influence of royal circles. Hence Alfonso VII’s support for bishop Berengario of Salamanca. To counteract these claims, Pedro Helías acquired the endorsement—and ultimately appointment—of pope Innocent II in what we assume was a continuation of Gelmírez’s practices regarding access to Rome. Helías and his entourage had been among those behind the revolt in 1136 of a group of canons. These canons may have been concerned about a gradual decline in archbishop Gelmirez’s health that could have paved the way for an unexpected solution that acceded to royal pretensions or even led to the direct royal appointment of an archbishop from within the king’s own circle. The revolt sought to force an immediate decision by the king to remove Gelmírez and promote individuals currently in opposition to him.86

    53Helías had developed his career alongside Bernardo, a relative and another canon who had also enjoyed a long career. The fact that Bernardo had occupied positions as chaplain and chancellor in Alfonso VII’s circles would have been reassuring for someone preparing initial measures to pressurize and perhaps rebel against the archbishop. It is this threat that led Gelmírez to urge Bernardo to leave the position, an idea for which Gelmírez obtained royal approval.87 Although this action contained the opposition’s movements for a while, neither the imprisonments of Bernardo and Pedro Helías nor the death of the former ultimately prevented it.

    54The question we should ask is whether this revolt had anything to do with the ecclesiastical reform. The issue remains problematic, especially as we have not yet outlined the significance of this reform. In my opinion, from the perspective of the western Iberian Peninsula, the reform was connected with, at least, the change of rite, papal presence in the Hispanic Church, and the consolidation of the role of the bishops, all of which were inter-related. We should of course highlight other components, some of which have administrative or patrimonial associations, such as the acquisition and recovery of income and the delimitation of territories and their inhabitants. However, we prefer to focus on the former aspects.

    55Of course, Gelmírez’s policies continued to pursue the connection with Rome and to accept the effective maximum authority of the papacy. And of course, they involved a confrontation over a tradition that was considered censurable and that needed to be challenged. One decisive reason behind the revolt, on the other hand, was the strengthening of episcopal power. Gelmírez and his circles presumably fostered an ecclesiology that reinforced the episcopal authority that promoted various dignities and supported all kinds of constructions and restructuring.

    56Gelmírez’s circles probably believed that the see’s links to the high Galician aristocracy had been detrimental to its interests (particularly its prestige, wealth and influence) and highlighted the perverse effects of the earlier, dark period when lay vicars were leaders of the bishopric. The described the whole past, especially since the end of the 10th century and with rare exceptions, as a time of subservience to the aristocracy. Throughout the Registrum this entire tradition and its actors are presented as individuals imbued with chivalric habits as far as training and behaviours were concerned. Hence the emphasis on physical and even moral descriptions of canons who were capable of violence, as if they were aristocrats.88 This condition would be little different from that of a bishop who has become baculus et balista—an expression used to sum up an entire episcopal era that should be overcome and forgotten.89 This description of the past completely silences the activities conducted in the Santiago episcopate to support the revitalization and consolidation of the clergy, as manifested by their presence at the Council of Coyanza and their leading roles at the Compostela councils of 1056 and 1063.90 Evidently, a central argument of the reformists is used that illustrates how far the appeal to remain autonomous from regional nobility has permeated these clerical circles. It is in this context that Gelmírez’s episcopate, which was responsible for breaking with this past, is projected. However, this presentation is benevolent with the bishop’s accession and with his maintenance of links to aristocracy while also obscuring the process of reform previously initiated by the canons.

    57Alfonso VI and Raimundo de Borgoña, for their part, sought to reduce the power of the aristocracy by removing its control over the episcopate that had been so evident during the first few decades of the eleventh century. Alfonso VI used foreign bishops to try to break this dominance. After several failed attempts, a sort of intermediate solution was ultimately imposed in Santiago involving a new bishop who was sufficiently close to the environment but who also enjoyed important royal support. The aim of Gelmírez’s circles was to eradicate what it considered to be a burden. They offered an opening-up towards Europe and a new era of wealth, culture and expansion in comparison with a past that was considered introspective and was characterized by dark elements such as smugness, ignorance, violence and poverty.

    58The flow of riches, Gelmírez’s political intelligence, and his ability both to understand the importance of international ties and to develop them led to the bishop’s prominence. Gelmírez designed a fitting canonical structure for his episcopal project, and his maximalist approach exceeded that of any other see. For example, he assembled a huge group of clerics, from whom he demanded strict compliance, while strengthening their training, dressing them accordingly, and offering excellent opportunities for promotion in the ecclesiastic cursus honorum (maiores, archdeacons and cardinals) in the see, in other bishoprics and dignities of the kingdom, and even in royal circles.

    59The author of the final pages of the Historia Compostellana describes how Diego achieved true exaltatio for the see in general and for the canons in particular. Once again, we find the pejorative description of the group to which he belonged and in which he was raised. The author maintains that, to those who followed him, sibi acquiescentes, he gave doctrina and operatio, education and the capacity to act.91 In this way, the canons received a training that enabled them to become more virtuous. However, there were others, the non-acquiescent ones, who did not participate in these dynamics. Probably, in the first few years after Gelmírez’s accession, numerous practices that were intended to eradicate the past and “adapt” the see to the new era were met with rejection, especially those related to certain constructive (and destructive) actions or to demands for uniformity. Gelmírez’s huge expenditure also probably caused concern at a time when the income generated was insufficient for every purpose, especially when certain territories (as well as their rents and dignities) were being lost. The general outflow of riches and the construction of palaces (fit for a king, according to the Compostellana) and other buildings must have been seen as a constant reference for the urgencies of the financial situation at a difficult time given the political and military crisis. To meet these payments, the see’s historical treasury, containing objects of great value acquired by Santiago in more buoyant times, was accessed.92

    60Around 1130, the problems likely began to take on new forms. The archbishop’s firm control over every decision, albeit with the support of a group of close colleagues who shared his deliberations, meant that all measures were in his hands. His entourage is described as comprising prudentiores, discretiores and, of course, familiares.93 Others, however, did not partake in this close relationship. These tensions among the canons, including within this smaller circle, probably began to mount. Added to the weakness of the income were difficulties over promotions. Moreover, the archbishop’s advancing years made the issue of succession a priority. Despite the commitments he had made,94 the king could either appoint another lay vicar as archbishop for a while or designate someone close to him, which is the course of action he eventually decided upon. In view of these threats, Gelmirez’s circles may have sought to hold onto their positions via a controlled succession in which the monarchy itself was also able to participate. It seems likely that Gelmírez’s own resignation may also have been proposed.95

    61It was the uncertainties surrounding the system of accession to the episcopate, which was no longer controlled by the regional aristocracy and was suffering royal interference, that set in motion the second revolt with the participation of a large number of leading canons who aimed to maintain the status quo. This revolt still had an anti-seignorial component involving the Santiago bourgeoisie but all aspired to rid themselves of Gelmírez’s tutelage. However, the clergy wished both to choose the next archbishop (in accordance with reformist ideology) and, of course, to accelerate the process. Their attitude ran in parallel to that of the bourgeoisie: i.e. both wished to participate in the decision-making process. In this context, the rebels were not opposed to the reformists’ proposals, especially when it came to the issue of episcopal appointments. Also, at this juncture of the twelfth century, any traditionalist component that may have reigned at the time of the first revolt had now become blurred. The participation—and indeed leading role—of the canons in the revolt sought to retain the clergy’s trajectory (with its cursus honorum), probably by lowering the rate of expenditure and requirements imposed by Gelmírez. This desire to maintain the prevailing conditions explains the involvement of individuals who had been strongly supported in previous years but who perhaps understood that their positions were now in danger.

    62The fact that Pedro Helías succeeded in becoming archbishop and the presence in Santiago of the (lay) rebel leader, Guillermo Seguín, demonstrates that, despite the revolt’s initial failure and the repression that came later, the rebels were able to hold onto their power and positions in society.96 Moreover, Pedro Helías’s episcopate, which on occasions has been described as innocuous,97 is in fact likely to have been the embodiment of a more moderate perception of socioeconomic actions.

    Notes de bas de page

    1This research (PGC2018-098306-B-I00) has been funded by a national program of the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033).

    2In hoc tempore [Diego Peláez’s bishopric] apud Hispanos lex Toletana obliterata est et lex Romana recepta (HC, I, 2, 12; Historia Compostellana, ed. Emma Falque, Turnholt, Brepols, CCSL, 1988). We cite the Historia Compostellana (or Registrum) by the book, chapter and epigraph of this edition, which coincides with that of Flórez in España Sagrada, t. XX.

    3Portela has defended the role of García (Portela Ermelindo, García II de Galicia. El rey y el reino (1065-1090), Burgos, La Olmeda, 2001, p. 106).

    4“curis exterioribus implicitus exstitit, quod ecclesiastici habitus normae internam intentionem, ut debuit, non submisit”. Use of this quote from pope Gregory the Great (Moralia, I, 1, 2 and 30, 18, which refers to 2 Tim, 2, 4; ed Marc Adriaen, Turnholt, Brepols, 1979) is an obvious attempt to legitimize his loss of dignity. Diego Peláez had been present at several campaigns prior to the conquest of Toledo and is likely to have been fully aware of what Toledo’s full recovery could imply. Moreover, there was a double threat, given the restoration of the see of Braga (López Alsina Fernando, “De la magna congregatio al cabildo de Santiago: reformas del clero catedralicio [830-1110]”, IX centenário da dedicaçao da Sé de Braga, Braga, Universidade Catolica Portuguesa, 1990, p. 736).

    5Diego Peláez may have been reluctant to support the primacy of Toledo, which went against both his interests and, to a certain extent, those of the Aragonese, among whom he would later find refuge. This was, of course, a fundamental issue throughout 1086. The primacy would be recognized in 1088 by Urban II (Ep. 5, PL, 151, col. 288).

    6His appointment at the council of Husillos in 1088 was immediately disputed by Rome and he was deposed at the council of Leon in 1090. On this period, see Portela Ermelindo, “Diego Gelmírez. Los años de preparación (1065-1110)”, Studia historica, historia medieval, vol. 25, 2007, p. 121-141; Vones Ludwig, “Diego Xelmírez et les courants de la politique ecclésiastique de son temps”, in Fernando López Alsina, Henrique Monteagudo, Ramón Villares and Ramón Yzquierdo Perrín (ed.), O século de Xelmírez, Santiago, Consello da cultura galega, 2013, p. 93-116, esp. p. 97.

    7“quasi totius doctrine ecclesiastice consuetudinis expertes in choro laudes Deo inordinate cantabant” (HC, I, 3, 2).

    8Numerous studies have been conducted on the authors of the Compostellana: see the substantial Vones Ludwig, Die “Historia Compostellana” und die Kirchenpolitik des Nordwestspanischen Raumes, 1070-1130, Köln, Böhlau, 1980, p. 43, and Falque Emma, “Los autores de la Historia Compostelana”, Habis, vol. 15, 1984, p. 157-172. Also, López Alsina Fernando, La ciudad de Santiago, Santiago de Compostela, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 2013, p. 48.

    9III, 36, 1: “licet Compostellana ecclesia diuitiis polleret, honoribus habundaret, soli tamen septem canonici in ea seruientes nullius ordinis regulam nec saltem habitum obseruantes nec etiam tonsuram corone habentes nec barbam deponere uolentes, minus canonice degebat”.

    10“Clericalis officii penitus expertes, [but later] […] competenter instructos” (HC III, 36, 3). The reform took place during Gelmírez’s time in office. What happened to those who were canons before the reform is not known.

    11Act, 6, 1-6. Council of Neocesarea of 314-319: De diaconibus septem (c. 14. Martínez Díez Gonzalo and Rodríguez Félix [ed.], La colección canónica hispana, t. III, Madrid, CSIC, 1982, p. 108). On the deacons in Rome, see Saxer Victor, “La Chiesa di Roma dal V al X secolo: amministrazione centrale e organizzazione territoriale”, Roma n’ll’alto medioevo: settimane di studio del Centro Italiano di studi s’ll’alto medioevo, 48, 2001, p. 493-632, esp. p. 524 and 540.

    12“ecclesiastici officii penitus ignaros” (III, 36, 1).

    13The evangelical model of Christ’s disciples (Luc, 10, 1) and elders selected by Moses (Num. 11, 24-26). On the council, see Pérez Rodríguez Francisco J., La Iglesia de Santiago de Compostela en la Edad Media: el Cabildo catedralicio (1110-1400), Xunta de Galicia, Santiago, 1996. Also, Barreiro Somoza José, El señorío de la Iglesia de Santiago de Compostela, Coruña, Diputación, 1987, p. 192.

    14Antonio López Ferreiro defines Gelmírez’s task as “re-establishing discipline” (Historia de la Santa Apostólica Metropolitana Iglesia de Santiago, Santiago, Seminario conciliar, 1900, III, p. 249).

    15On numerous occasions throughout the Compostellana, III, 36.

    16III, 36, 1.

    17Flórez Henrique, España Sagrada, Madrid, t. XIX, 1765, p. 219: “the canons […] had neither science nor culture nor civility […] [and specific actions by Gelmírez were necessary to make] the body more respectable”. Fletcher describes the Hispanic episcopate at the Council of Coyanza of 1055 as provincial, conservative and retrograde (Fletcher Richard, “El episcopado en el reino de León, c. 1050-1150”, in Fernando López Alsina [ed.], El Papado, la Iglesia leonesa y la basílica de Santiago a finales del siglo xi, Santiago, Consorcio, 1999, p. 29). The canons of Santiago are described as a “demoralized bunch of men” (Fletcher Richard, Saint James’s Catapult: The Life and Times of Diego Gelmírez of Santiago de Compostela, Oxford, OxfordUniversity Press, 1984, nª 27, p. 172).

    18See Calleja Miguel, “Los canónigos regulares en los reinos de León y Castilla”, in José Ángel García de Cortázar and Ramón Teja (ed.), Entre el claustro y el mundo. Canónigos regulares y monjes premostratenses en la Edad Media, Aguilar de Campóo, Fundación Santa María la Real, 2009, p. 45. Vones emphasizes the reform from the canons’ perspective; however, the bishop would emerge from such an analysis as an ecclesiastical reformer (Vones Ludwig, « Diego Xelmirez et les courants…”, art. cit., p. 104). Francisco J. Pérez Rodríguez points out the rather unflattering condition of the canons and draws attention to Gelmírez’s work in refining and promoting them (La Iglesia de Santiago…, op. cit., p. 23).

    19Díaz y Díaz Manuel, “La escuela episcopal de Santiago en los siglos xi-xiii”, in Escritos jacobeos, Santiago de Compostela, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 2009, p. 48.

    20Canon 2 (Martínez Díez Gonzalo, “El concilio compostelano del reinado de Fernando I”, Anuario de Estudios Medievales, 1, 1964, p. 127).

    21“Nec mirum, cum tunc temporis tota fere Hispania rudis et illitterata esset; nullus equidem Hispanorum episcopus Sancte Romane Ecclesie matri nostre seruicii uel obedientie quicquam tunc reddebat. Hispania Toletanam non Romanam legem recipiebat” (HC, II, 1).

    22“nebula inscientiae” (HC, II, 1).

    23Obviously, the comparison negatively affected Toledo as head of the church in the past. Fletcher already intuited that some of these problems and the constant reference to the clergy’s ignorance were associated with the difficulties in finding individuals who were familiar with Roman liturgy (Fletcher Richard, Saint James’s Catapult…, op. cit., p. 164). José Barreiro Somoza maintains that this lack of culture was only liturgical (El señorío de la Iglesia de Santiago de Compostela, op. cit., p. 190). Wright asserts that the description illiterati was used to define those who were unfamiliar with the new litterae (Wright Roger, “Las reformas del siglo xii y su vertiente lingüística”, in Fernando López Alsina et al. [ed.], O século de Xelmírez, op. cit., p. 449). Certainly, Gregory VII urged Alfonso VI to appoint as the new archbishop of Toledo someone with litteralis scientie peritia (Reg. IX, 2, ed. Erich Caspar, Das Register Gregors VII, Berlin, M.G.H., 1923), probably in the hope that he would be familiar with Roman liturgy. Here, however, the issue is more hard-hitting: the accusation about the canons’ ignorance is comprehensive as it also includes a reference to their character and customs, thus reinforcing this devastating image. On the promise of obedience to Rome (HC, I, 17, 3), see Portela Ermelindo, Diego Gelmírez (c. 1065-1140): el báculo y la ballesta, Madrid, Marcial Pons, 2016, p. 42.

    24HC, I, 20, 2.

    25“ut consuetudines ecclesiarum Francie ibi plantaret” (II, 3, 1).

    26“ueluti bruta animalia” (I, 20, 7); “tamquam bruta animalia” (I, 81, 1). An assessment that depicts pre-Gelmírez canons as totally irrational beings (Hugh of Saint Victor, Didascalicon, I, 4; trans. J. Taylor, The Didascalicon of Hugh of St. Victor, New York/London, Columbia University Press, 1961, p. 40).

    27With Gelmírez’s effort to impose authority and education on the canons “honestate morum ornavit” (I, 81, 1); “morum honestate redundabant” (I, 20, 7).

    28There was a tradition of criticizing the clothes worn by individuals whom one wishes to define as different. The accusations in the Compostellana about the external appearance of former canons should be interpreted in a similar way to those Siegfried of Gorze made about individuals who arrived at the court of Henry III in the entourage of queen Agnes of Poitou (Letter from Siegfried of Gorze to Poppon of Stavelot in 1043; vid. Parisse Michel, “Sigefroid, abbé de Gorze, et le mariage du roi Henri III avec Agnès de Poitou [1043]. Un aspect de la réforme lotharingienne”, Revue du Nord, vol. 356/357, 2004, p. 543-566). See Geary Patrick, Phantoms of remembrance, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1996, p. 3, for a similar reflection on Constance of Arles’s entourage (Glaber, Historiae, III, ix, 40; Cronache dell’anno mille, ed. Guglielmo Cavallo, Milano, Mondadori, 1989).

    29“capis dissutis et uariatis” (HC, II, 3, 1). The unstitched (dissutis) cloaks did not necessarily mean they were frayed, unkempt or dishevelled but that they were more open, perhaps looser-fitting and more flamboyant, and allowed for more folds than closed ones. Perhaps it is a more fitting interpretation for the various described in the text.

    30“canonici superpelliciis et sericis capis induti” (HC, I, 82, 3).

    31“eiusdem canonici capa coopertus” (III, 47, 2).

    32Constable (Constable Giles, The Reformation of the Twelfth Century, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 195) asserts that the beard may have signified an intention to resemble the hermits of old. In Santiago it is probably a tradition and, of course, a way to look like a bishop.

    33Paschal II prohibited certain hairstyles and clothes: “rostratos sotulares […] prohibemus” (Blumenthal Uta Renate, The early councils of pope Paschal II, 1100-1110, Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1978, 94 [c. 8]. The shoes were probably curved and pointed. See also Ott John, Bishops, Authority and Community in Northwestern Europe, c. 1050-1150, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2015, p. 75). Orderic Vitalis attributes the invention of these shoes to Fulk of Anjou, who probably designed them with their toes pointed and curling upwards to conceal his deformity: “in summitate acutissimos subtolares…”, but mainly demonstrates that their use was extremely widespread (Historia ecclesiastica, IV, viii, 10, 186; ed. Marjorie Chibnall, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1973). Persistent criticisms suggest that ecclesiastics continued to wear them, though their use was condemned at the IV Lateran Council.

    34HC, I, 18. A superstition because Gelmírez’s opponents predicted that St James will exact revenge and punishment upon them.

    35Portela Ermelindo, Diego Gelmírez…, op. cit., p. 315.

    36I, 20, 7.

    37On the aurea tabula, que fuerat prioris atque minoris altaris, vid., HC, II, 4, 2.

    38HC, II, 16, 1. Secrecy was necessary to enhance security for the shipment. However, some individuals would not have supported this action and others would have been prepared to spread this information. Some concanonici should not be informed how these sums were sent so that they would be unable, with dolosa intentio, to pass the information onto third parties.

    39Thus, the Cronicón iriense, which distances itself considerably from the Historia Compostellana, informs us that the economus of the see removed a widow’s means of subsistence. The Compostellana pins the responsibility for this act on an implacable bishop but the Cronicón iriense suggests that it was in fact the economus, an individual very much hated by the rebels. On the Cronicón iriense, see Isla Amancio, Memoria, culto y monarquía hispánica entre los siglos xi y xii, Jaén, Universidad de Jaén, 2007, p. 187.

    40“Ille enim et ecclesie uestre dignitatem diminuit et uos dominii sui iugo grauiter oppressit” (HC, I, 114, 13). Practically the same words are found in II, 114, 14. This repetition confirms the importance of the argument.

    41HC, II, 3, 2.

    42I, 5, 2.

    43This is confirmed by Pascual II (HC, I, 12).

    44HC, I, 13, who were able to wear the mitre (I, 44).

    45Vid. HC, II, 1 and II, 3, 3.

    46Bishop Cresconio of Santiago was condemned at the council of Reims in 1049 for claiming the culmen apostolici nominis for himself (Mansi Jean, Sacrorum conciliorum collectio, Venice, 1774, XIX, col. 741; also, col. 738, which reserves the title of apostolic for the pope: “solus Romanae sedis pontifex, universalis ecclesiae primas esset et apostolicus”. On bishop Cresconio, see Isla Amancio, Memoria, culto y monarquía…, op. cit., p. 97.

    47He did not trust those who enquired after his situation at the time of the revolt (HC, I, 114, 7). Some are described as suspecti (I, 114, 10).

    48HC, I, 113, 7 and 116, 2.

    49“Flent super episcopo pars canonicorum” (I, 113, 9).

    50HC, III, 46, 2.

    51“uomere discipline excoluit, honestate morum ornauit, iugali asperitate depressos, scolarum studio desudare conpulit” (I, 81, 1). Similar in I, 20, 7.

    52Jaeger C. Stephen, The Envy of Angels. Cathedral Schools and Social Ideals in Medieval Europe, 950-1200, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994, p. 118.

    53“Preterea non solum illos ab ignorantie tenebris extraxit, uerum etiam unumquemque, prout merebatur, ad honoris fastigium sublimando ecclesiasticis facultatibus ubertim ditauit” (I, 81, 1).

    54“a religionis cultu penitus deflexit” (III, 36, 3). The fact that, when Gelmírez carried out this reform, the see was able to count on considerable resources makes no difference.

    55HC, I, 20, 3; Díaz translates this as “master of rhetoric and logic” (Díaz y Díaz Manuel, “La escuela episcopal de Santiago…”, art. cit., p. 49), while Antonio López Ferreiro translates it as “master of oratory and logic” (Historia de la Santa Apostólica…, op. cit., t. III, p. 256). On the scholarly tradition in Santiago, see also Rucquoi Adeline, “’De grammaticorum schola’: La tradición cultural compostelana en el siglo xii”, in Paolo Caucci von Saucken (ed.), Visitandum est. Santos y cultos en el Codex Calixtinus, Santiago, Xunta de Galicia, 2005, p. 235-254. Gregory VII had urged bishops to establish schools in their sees to teach the artes litterarum (1078 Council of Rome; Ep. VI, 5b, ed. Caspar, II, p. 402; Mansi Jean, Sacrorum conciliorum collectio, op. cit., t. XX, col. 509). A similar measure had been adopted during the Carolingian period (826 Council of Rome; canon 34; ed. Albertus Werminghoff, MGH, Concilia aevi Karolini, II, p. 581).

    56This was the opinion of Antonio López Ferreiro, Historia de la Santa Apostólica…, op. cit., t. III, p. 256. On the use of the title magister, see Barrow Julia, “Education and the Recruitment of Cathedral Canons in England and Germany 1100-1225”, Viator, vol. 20, 1989, p. 117-138. Giraldo, one of the authors of the Compostellana, is referred to as both magister (II, 56, 3) and didascalus (II, 6, 2).

    57This education is recalled in HC, II, 2.

    58“unumquemque, prout merebatur, ad honoris fastigium sublimando ecclesiasticis facultatibus ubertim ditauit” (I, 81, 1).

    59HC, I, 82, 2. Despite several conflicts over territories, they remained within Gelmírez’s orbit.

    60Risco Manuel, España Sagrada, Madrid, t. XLI, 1798, p. 2. HC, I, 97. Appointed at the Council of Palencia in October 1113, he was replaced by Guido in 1135 (ibid., p. 18). Ruiz Albi Irene, “Cancillería y documentos de Raimundo de Borgoña y la infanta Urraca”, in Fernando Suárez and Andrés Gambra (ed.), Alfonso VI, imperator totius orbis Hispaniae, Madrid, Sanz y Torres, 2010, p. 218.

    61Diego Gelmírez: “de gradu in gradum, de bono in melius, de uirtute in uirtutem ascenderet” (II, 2).

    62HC, II, 16 and 17.

    63Fletcher Richard, The Episcopate in the Kingdom of León in the Twelfth Century, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1972, p. 49. Flórez dates Martin’s arrival to 1132 (España Sagrada, Madrid, t. XVII, 1789, p. 83), citing a Segovian document in which he appears as capellanus regis. Reilly also dates his accession to 1132 (Reilly Bernard, The Kingdom of León-Castilla under King Alfonso VII, 1126-1157, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988, p. 162). Vid. Reilly Bernard, “The Chancery of Alfonso VII of Leon-Castilla: The Period 1116-1135 Reconsidered”, Speculum, vol. 51/2, 1976, p. 254. In 1133 Martín received a grant from Alfonso VII, who refers to him as his chaplain (Recuero Manuel et al., Documentos medievales del Reino de Galicia: Alfonso VII (1116-1157), Santiago, Xunta de Galicia, 1998, no 47 and no 49). On Martín Peláez, notary to Alfonso VII, see Reilly Bernard, “The Chancery of Alfonso VII of León-Castilla…”, art. cit., p. 246: he had been a canon in Santiago before becoming notary to queen Urraca and then to king Alfonso. An 1112 document contained in Tumbo C confirms him “as ecclesie Sancti Jacobi canonicus et eo tempore in Curia regine done Urraca cancellarius” (no 4; ed. Mercedes Extremadouro, La colección diplomática del Tumbo C de Santiago (Parte II), Santiago de Compostela, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 1967).

    64III, 14, 2. Reilly supposes that Arias belonged to the faction that opposed Gelmírez (Reilly Bernard, “Monarquía e Iglesia en el Reino de Castilla-León, 1037-1157”, in Fernando López Alsina [ed.], El Papado…, op. cit., p. 15). Fletcher believes—though this had already been confirmed by Antonio López Ferreiro (Historia de la Santa Apostólica Metropolitana Iglesia de Santiago, t. IV, Santiago, 1901, p. 194)—that it is at least possible that bishop Pedro, who was promoted to the see of Leon in 1135, was also dean Pedro Anáyaz of Santiago, who was already conducting missions of great responsibility in 1105 (Fletcher Richard, Episcopate…, op. cit., p. 171). Vid. Risco Manuel, España Sagrada, t. XXXV, Madrid, 1786, p. 190.

    65Reilly Bernard, “Monarquía e Iglesia…”, art. cité, p. 10 ; Fletcher Richard, “El episcopado en el reino de León”, art. cité, p. 34. The dispute over Salamanca dragged on. Gelmírez gave the position temporarily to Giraldo but the queen appealed and Bernardo of Toledo appointed Munio in 1123, though Gelmírez would secure his dismissal in 1130 (Fletcher Richard, Episcopate…, op. cit., p. 38; Reilly Bernard, The Kingdom of León-Castilla…, op. cit., p. 244). It should be understood that this subservience was merely formulary and would not have satisfied the Compostelan bishop. Subservience of this nature also established Sancho (HC, II, 37, 2) and Íñigo de Ávila in 1121 and 1133, respectively (HC, III, 34). Sancho was consecrated by Gelmírez in Compostela, though it would be an exaggeration to suggest he was Gelmírez’s protégé. Sancho confirms documents related to Santiago but as a member of the king’s entourage, one of which is a donation made by Alfonso in Santiago in March 1122 (Recuero Manuel, Documento…, op. cit., no 8), and the other a royal document drawn up in Segovia with Raimundo and other bishops of the kingdom (ibid., no 28, of 1128). It may be that the person chosen for Avila was actually somebody else, i.e. a Pedro who was summoned to the Council of Compostela in 1121 (HC, II, 26). It appears that royal will was also behind the appointment of his successor (and perhaps brother) [III, 34, 5]. Neither of their names appears to indicate that these prelates were of Leonese or Galician origin. In 1135 Berengario was appointed bishop of Salamanca (Fletcher Richard, Episcopate…, op. cit., 39f). In 1120 Bernardo was consecrated bishop of Zamora by the archbishop of Toledo.

    66quidam idiota, according to the HC, I, 117.

    67Fletcher Richard, Episcopate…, op. cit., p. 207. Fletcher suggests that Jerónimo’s replacement in Salamanca, Geraldo, who acceded to the post in 1120, was one of Gelmírez’s men but there is no clear evidence for this. Expelled from his see on the arrival of the Aragonese forces, he sought refuge in Santiago (HC, II, 52). If he received dona et capella, it was perhaps because he had no previous assigned income he could reclaim.

    68On these curiales bishops in general, see Jaeger Stephen, “The Courtier Bishop in Vitae from the Tenth to the Twelfth Century”, Speculum, vol. 58/2, 1983, p. 291-325.

    69On Bernardo and other ecclesiastics brought by the archbishop of Toledo, see Jiménez de Rada, De rebus Hispaniae, VI, 26; ed. Fernández Valverde, Turnholt, Brepols, CCCM, 1987, p. 210; López Alsina Fernando, La ciudad de Santiago…, op. cit., p. 82.

    70HC, I, 114, 13.

    71“Ea quae de redditibus capellaniae suae sibi sunt a fratribus imminuta” (III, 45). Fulco had also been given the church of Santa Anastasia in Entines and two properties in Salnés (II, 86, 2). Deusdedit, the Roman cardinal and designated canon of Santiago, received the emoluments to which he was entitled for his hebdomadary (II, 44, 1; II, 74, 2) but his is a special case and others were not treated so scrupulously. As Pedro Fulco embarked on some of his journeys with Pedro Helías, we can assume that a friendship existed between the two (II, 63, 1).

    72“De rebus mee ebdomade, quam in potestate uestra dimisimus, rogo, ut per primos romarios, qui ad nos uenerint, michi mittatis” (II, 44, 1). See also II, 74, 1-2.

    73It appears that the archbishop of Braga received (as a canon of Santiago) half the income from Braga and Cornelhá (HC, I, 81, 2).

    74II, 82, 3.

    75“In illo igitur capitulo factus est rex Ecclesiae B. Jacobi canonicus, et panem in canonica, et hebdomadam in altari, et caetera Ecclesiae beneficia, sicuti quisque canonicorum habet” (II, 87, 5). Diego, bishop of Ourense, and Alfonso of Tui appear as canons of Santiago in the list drawn up in 1120 (I, 20, 6). The bishops of Mondoñedo and Oporto may have retained their incomes. Hugo, who was now the bishop of Oporto, was cited as archdeacon of Santiago, a position he may have retained (HC, III, 62, 3).

    76The lengthy dispute with the see of Mondoñedo was finally settled by Gelmírez in 1122 in what may have been interpreted as a personal cession to the interests of another bishopric despite the necessities of the Santiago canons (HC, II, 56, 1).

    77H.C., III, 36. The number of canons would return to a more moderate figure: since the maximum number attested during the second half of the century was forty-two, there would have been fifty at most (Pérez Rodríguez Francisco J., La Iglesia de Santiago…, op. cit., p. 33). On patrimonial issues, see González Vázquez Marta, El arzobispo de Santiago: una instancia de poder en la Edad Media (1150-1400), Sada, Ed. do Castro, 1996.

    78I, 114, 13. On the education and recruitment of canons, see Barrow Julia, “Education and the Recruitment of Cathedral Canons in England and Germany 1100-1225”, Viator, vol. 20, 1989, p. 117-138. As we can see, in Santiago some canons were trained in the see, while others also visited other locations north of the Pyrenees.

    79“ipse pessimus [Arias Muñiz] exigebat honorem atque ecclesiae dignitatem ab episcopo manu populi” (I, 111, 5).

    80HC, II, 83, 1 y 2; “sinistra et superstitiosa” (II, 83, 3). Falque translates superstitiosa as exaggerated.

    81“quidam ciuium ceterique potentiores […] erat sinistra mens in episcopum” (I, 110), the meaning of which clearly entails doing harm and perhaps even committing homicide.

    82This reference to humility also appears in a later letter (HC, II, 84, 3). On his attitude in the conflict, we should remember his animosity towards Bernardo—canon of Santiago and chancellor of Alfonso VII—and his capacity for pretence.

    83HC, II, 81. Fletcher suggests it is likely this was not the same person, though this suspicion is possibly exaggerated (St. James’ Catapult…, op. cit., p. 186). He also confirms various documents, the last of which is dated 13th June 1145 (Tumbo C, no 18, ed. Mercedes Extremadouro). See López Alsina Fernando, La ciudad de Santiago…, op. cit., p. 83.

    84HC, I, 111, 5.

    85Fletcher Richard, Episcopate…, op. cit., p. 57; Pallares María del Carmen, Pérez Fransisco Javier, González Marta and Vaquero Beatriz, “La Tierra de Santiago, espacio de poder (siglos xii y xiii)”, Sémata, vol. 4, 1992, p. 142.

    86Fernando López Alsina mentions “haste and nervousness » (La ciudad de Santiago…, op. cit., p. 82). He may have been following the example of bishop Munio of Mondoñedo, who abandoned the episcopate before the end of 1136 and found shelter in Santa María do Sar (López Ferreiro Antonio, Historia de la Santa Apostólica Metropolitana Iglesia de Santiago, op. cit., t. IV, Ap. n. 8, p. 21).

    87HC, III, 39, 1. The winds of rebellion must have been blowing from 1130 onwards (III, 46, 1). Gelmírez’s reaction against Bernardo in III, 32, in the context of his visit to the royal court at Carrión in 1133 (Portela Ermelindo, Diego Gelmírez…, op. cit., p. 258).

    88“in mutuam cedem prorunpebant” (HC, I, 20, 7).

    89According to the Compostellana, this is the name by which the bishop was known (HC, II, 1).

    90Isla Amancio, Memoria, culto y monarquía…, op. cit., p. 117.

    91HC, III, 46, 1.

    92The origin of the table or panel is not specified but the Compostellana reports that a gold cross and a chasuble had been donated by king Ordoño (which dates it to the 10th century) and the intremissa had belonged to al-Mustain (HC, II, 16, 1); we do not know if this individual is the taifa king of Saragossa, Sulayman ben Hud (1039-1047), who paid high parias to his ally Fernando, king of León (Viguera María Jesús, “Historia política”, in Ramón Menéndez Pidal [ed.], Historia de España, vol. VIII-1, Madrid, Espasa, 1994, p. 76), or Ahmad b. Yusuf al-Mustain, who died in 1110 and whose sons paid a heavy ransom to queen Urraca in ca 1115 that may have included the intremissa (this suggestion was made by Fletcher Richard, St. James’ Catapult…, op. cit., p. 250), though there are no reports of the queen having donated it to the see. I am not certain that around 1120, which were difficult years, such a large quantity of silver was ever transferred to Santiago. Al-Mustain, rex Sarracenorum, could even refer to the caliph promoted by the berbers during the fitna in 1009. He required the costly help of count Sancho of Castille who received many gifts from him. It can be concluded, then, that the treasury was being drained through gifts of objects from all periods.

    93HC, II, 4, 1; II, 70, 3; II, 64, 5 and II, 86, 2.

    94Alfonso VII in 1128 agreed not to extend the see’s vacancy. He was also obliged to respect the election by the canons: “digna et sancta atque religiosa ab ipsis canonicis archiepiscopi fiat electio” (HC, II, 102). Evidently, the canons did not trust these royal promises too much.

    95This was the solution found in Mondoñedo, whose bishop, Munio Alfonso, must have resigned around that time since in September 1136 he was already installed in his own foundation, a collegiate church of Augustinian canons (López Ferreiro Antonio, Historia de la Santa Apostólica Metropolitana Iglesia de Santiago, op. cit., t. IV, Ap. 24).

    96Guillermo confirms an 1143 document from Pedro Helías’s circles (ibid., t. IV, Ap. n. 12, p. 35).

    97According to Fletcher his tenure was uneventful (The Episcopate…, op. cit., p. 57). Indeed, work on the cathedral continued (López Ferreiro Antonio, Historia de la Santa Apostólica Metropolitana Iglesia de Santiago, op. cit., t. IV, p. 231).

    Auteur

    Amancio Isla

    Universitat Rovira i Virgili (Tarragone).

    Amancio Isla est professeur d’histoire médiévale à l’Universitat Rovira i Virgili à Tarragone. Ses recherches portent sur l’histoire sociale et sur le pouvoir et ses manifestations dans les royaumes hispaniques du viiie au xiie siècle, ainsi que sur les questions de religiosité et de construction de la mémoire.

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

    Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

    Voir plus de livres
    Paysans des Alpes

    Paysans des Alpes

    Les communautés montagnardes au Moyen Âge

    Nicolas Carrier et Fabrice Mouthon

    2010

    Pérégrin d’Opole

    Pérégrin d’Opole

    Un prédicateur dominicain à l'apogée de la chrétienté médiévale

    Hervé Martin

    2008

    Prêtres de Bretagne au xixe siècle

    Prêtres de Bretagne au xixe siècle

    Samuel Gicquel

    2008

    Un constructeur de la France du xxe siècle

    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

    Ouvriers bretons

    Conflits d'usines, conflits identitaires en Bretagne dans les années 1968

    Vincent Porhel

    2008

    L'intrusion balnéaire

    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

    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

    L'éveil politique de la Savoie

    Conflits ordinaires et rivalités nouvelles (1848-1853)

    Sylvain Milbach

    2008

    L'évangélisation des Indiens du Mexique

    L'évangélisation des Indiens du Mexique

    Impact et réalité de la conquête spirituelle (xvie siècle)

    Éric Roulet

    2008

    L'étranger en Bretagne au Moyen Âge

    L'étranger en Bretagne au Moyen Âge

    Présence, attitudes, perceptions

    Laurence Moal

    2008

    Les saints bretons entre légendes et histoire

    Les saints bretons entre légendes et histoire

    Le glaive à deux tranchants

    Bernard Merdrignac

    2008

    Les miroirs du silence

    Les miroirs du silence

    L'éducation des jeunes sourds dans l'Ouest, 1800-1934

    Patrick Bourgalais

    2008

    Voir plus de livres
    1 / 12
    Paysans des Alpes

    Paysans des Alpes

    Les communautés montagnardes au Moyen Âge

    Nicolas Carrier et Fabrice Mouthon

    2010

    Pérégrin d’Opole

    Pérégrin d’Opole

    Un prédicateur dominicain à l'apogée de la chrétienté médiévale

    Hervé Martin

    2008

    Prêtres de Bretagne au xixe siècle

    Prêtres de Bretagne au xixe siècle

    Samuel Gicquel

    2008

    Un constructeur de la France du xxe siècle

    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

    Ouvriers bretons

    Conflits d'usines, conflits identitaires en Bretagne dans les années 1968

    Vincent Porhel

    2008

    L'intrusion balnéaire

    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

    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

    L'éveil politique de la Savoie

    Conflits ordinaires et rivalités nouvelles (1848-1853)

    Sylvain Milbach

    2008

    L'évangélisation des Indiens du Mexique

    L'évangélisation des Indiens du Mexique

    Impact et réalité de la conquête spirituelle (xvie siècle)

    Éric Roulet

    2008

    L'étranger en Bretagne au Moyen Âge

    L'étranger en Bretagne au Moyen Âge

    Présence, attitudes, perceptions

    Laurence Moal

    2008

    Les saints bretons entre légendes et histoire

    Les saints bretons entre légendes et histoire

    Le glaive à deux tranchants

    Bernard Merdrignac

    2008

    Les miroirs du silence

    Les miroirs du silence

    L'éducation des jeunes sourds dans l'Ouest, 1800-1934

    Patrick Bourgalais

    2008

    Accès ouvert

    Accès ouvert freemium

    ePub

    PDF

    PDF du chapitre

    Suggérer l’acquisition à votre bibliothèque

    Acheter

    Édition imprimée

    Presses universitaires de Rennes
    • amazon.fr
    • decitre.fr
    • mollat.com
    • leslibraires.fr
    • placedeslibraires.fr
    ePub / PDF

    1This research (PGC2018-098306-B-I00) has been funded by a national program of the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033).

    2In hoc tempore [Diego Peláez’s bishopric] apud Hispanos lex Toletana obliterata est et lex Romana recepta (HC, I, 2, 12; Historia Compostellana, ed. Emma Falque, Turnholt, Brepols, CCSL, 1988). We cite the Historia Compostellana (or Registrum) by the book, chapter and epigraph of this edition, which coincides with that of Flórez in España Sagrada, t. XX.

    3Portela has defended the role of García (Portela Ermelindo, García II de Galicia. El rey y el reino (1065-1090), Burgos, La Olmeda, 2001, p. 106).

    4“curis exterioribus implicitus exstitit, quod ecclesiastici habitus normae internam intentionem, ut debuit, non submisit”. Use of this quote from pope Gregory the Great (Moralia, I, 1, 2 and 30, 18, which refers to 2 Tim, 2, 4; ed Marc Adriaen, Turnholt, Brepols, 1979) is an obvious attempt to legitimize his loss of dignity. Diego Peláez had been present at several campaigns prior to the conquest of Toledo and is likely to have been fully aware of what Toledo’s full recovery could imply. Moreover, there was a double threat, given the restoration of the see of Braga (López Alsina Fernando, “De la magna congregatio al cabildo de Santiago: reformas del clero catedralicio [830-1110]”, IX centenário da dedicaçao da Sé de Braga, Braga, Universidade Catolica Portuguesa, 1990, p. 736).

    5Diego Peláez may have been reluctant to support the primacy of Toledo, which went against both his interests and, to a certain extent, those of the Aragonese, among whom he would later find refuge. This was, of course, a fundamental issue throughout 1086. The primacy would be recognized in 1088 by Urban II (Ep. 5, PL, 151, col. 288).

    6His appointment at the council of Husillos in 1088 was immediately disputed by Rome and he was deposed at the council of Leon in 1090. On this period, see Portela Ermelindo, “Diego Gelmírez. Los años de preparación (1065-1110)”, Studia historica, historia medieval, vol. 25, 2007, p. 121-141; Vones Ludwig, “Diego Xelmírez et les courants de la politique ecclésiastique de son temps”, in Fernando López Alsina, Henrique Monteagudo, Ramón Villares and Ramón Yzquierdo Perrín (ed.), O século de Xelmírez, Santiago, Consello da cultura galega, 2013, p. 93-116, esp. p. 97.

    7“quasi totius doctrine ecclesiastice consuetudinis expertes in choro laudes Deo inordinate cantabant” (HC, I, 3, 2).

    8Numerous studies have been conducted on the authors of the Compostellana: see the substantial Vones Ludwig, Die “Historia Compostellana” und die Kirchenpolitik des Nordwestspanischen Raumes, 1070-1130, Köln, Böhlau, 1980, p. 43, and Falque Emma, “Los autores de la Historia Compostelana”, Habis, vol. 15, 1984, p. 157-172. Also, López Alsina Fernando, La ciudad de Santiago, Santiago de Compostela, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 2013, p. 48.

    9III, 36, 1: “licet Compostellana ecclesia diuitiis polleret, honoribus habundaret, soli tamen septem canonici in ea seruientes nullius ordinis regulam nec saltem habitum obseruantes nec etiam tonsuram corone habentes nec barbam deponere uolentes, minus canonice degebat”.

    10“Clericalis officii penitus expertes, [but later] […] competenter instructos” (HC III, 36, 3). The reform took place during Gelmírez’s time in office. What happened to those who were canons before the reform is not known.

    11Act, 6, 1-6. Council of Neocesarea of 314-319: De diaconibus septem (c. 14. Martínez Díez Gonzalo and Rodríguez Félix [ed.], La colección canónica hispana, t. III, Madrid, CSIC, 1982, p. 108). On the deacons in Rome, see Saxer Victor, “La Chiesa di Roma dal V al X secolo: amministrazione centrale e organizzazione territoriale”, Roma n’ll’alto medioevo: settimane di studio del Centro Italiano di studi s’ll’alto medioevo, 48, 2001, p. 493-632, esp. p. 524 and 540.

    12“ecclesiastici officii penitus ignaros” (III, 36, 1).

    13The evangelical model of Christ’s disciples (Luc, 10, 1) and elders selected by Moses (Num. 11, 24-26). On the council, see Pérez Rodríguez Francisco J., La Iglesia de Santiago de Compostela en la Edad Media: el Cabildo catedralicio (1110-1400), Xunta de Galicia, Santiago, 1996. Also, Barreiro Somoza José, El señorío de la Iglesia de Santiago de Compostela, Coruña, Diputación, 1987, p. 192.

    14Antonio López Ferreiro defines Gelmírez’s task as “re-establishing discipline” (Historia de la Santa Apostólica Metropolitana Iglesia de Santiago, Santiago, Seminario conciliar, 1900, III, p. 249).

    15On numerous occasions throughout the Compostellana, III, 36.

    16III, 36, 1.

    17Flórez Henrique, España Sagrada, Madrid, t. XIX, 1765, p. 219: “the canons […] had neither science nor culture nor civility […] [and specific actions by Gelmírez were necessary to make] the body more respectable”. Fletcher describes the Hispanic episcopate at the Council of Coyanza of 1055 as provincial, conservative and retrograde (Fletcher Richard, “El episcopado en el reino de León, c. 1050-1150”, in Fernando López Alsina [ed.], El Papado, la Iglesia leonesa y la basílica de Santiago a finales del siglo xi, Santiago, Consorcio, 1999, p. 29). The canons of Santiago are described as a “demoralized bunch of men” (Fletcher Richard, Saint James’s Catapult: The Life and Times of Diego Gelmírez of Santiago de Compostela, Oxford, OxfordUniversity Press, 1984, nª 27, p. 172).

    18See Calleja Miguel, “Los canónigos regulares en los reinos de León y Castilla”, in José Ángel García de Cortázar and Ramón Teja (ed.), Entre el claustro y el mundo. Canónigos regulares y monjes premostratenses en la Edad Media, Aguilar de Campóo, Fundación Santa María la Real, 2009, p. 45. Vones emphasizes the reform from the canons’ perspective; however, the bishop would emerge from such an analysis as an ecclesiastical reformer (Vones Ludwig, « Diego Xelmirez et les courants…”, art. cit., p. 104). Francisco J. Pérez Rodríguez points out the rather unflattering condition of the canons and draws attention to Gelmírez’s work in refining and promoting them (La Iglesia de Santiago…, op. cit., p. 23).

    19Díaz y Díaz Manuel, “La escuela episcopal de Santiago en los siglos xi-xiii”, in Escritos jacobeos, Santiago de Compostela, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 2009, p. 48.

    20Canon 2 (Martínez Díez Gonzalo, “El concilio compostelano del reinado de Fernando I”, Anuario de Estudios Medievales, 1, 1964, p. 127).

    21“Nec mirum, cum tunc temporis tota fere Hispania rudis et illitterata esset; nullus equidem Hispanorum episcopus Sancte Romane Ecclesie matri nostre seruicii uel obedientie quicquam tunc reddebat. Hispania Toletanam non Romanam legem recipiebat” (HC, II, 1).

    22“nebula inscientiae” (HC, II, 1).

    23Obviously, the comparison negatively affected Toledo as head of the church in the past. Fletcher already intuited that some of these problems and the constant reference to the clergy’s ignorance were associated with the difficulties in finding individuals who were familiar with Roman liturgy (Fletcher Richard, Saint James’s Catapult…, op. cit., p. 164). José Barreiro Somoza maintains that this lack of culture was only liturgical (El señorío de la Iglesia de Santiago de Compostela, op. cit., p. 190). Wright asserts that the description illiterati was used to define those who were unfamiliar with the new litterae (Wright Roger, “Las reformas del siglo xii y su vertiente lingüística”, in Fernando López Alsina et al. [ed.], O século de Xelmírez, op. cit., p. 449). Certainly, Gregory VII urged Alfonso VI to appoint as the new archbishop of Toledo someone with litteralis scientie peritia (Reg. IX, 2, ed. Erich Caspar, Das Register Gregors VII, Berlin, M.G.H., 1923), probably in the hope that he would be familiar with Roman liturgy. Here, however, the issue is more hard-hitting: the accusation about the canons’ ignorance is comprehensive as it also includes a reference to their character and customs, thus reinforcing this devastating image. On the promise of obedience to Rome (HC, I, 17, 3), see Portela Ermelindo, Diego Gelmírez (c. 1065-1140): el báculo y la ballesta, Madrid, Marcial Pons, 2016, p. 42.

    24HC, I, 20, 2.

    25“ut consuetudines ecclesiarum Francie ibi plantaret” (II, 3, 1).

    26“ueluti bruta animalia” (I, 20, 7); “tamquam bruta animalia” (I, 81, 1). An assessment that depicts pre-Gelmírez canons as totally irrational beings (Hugh of Saint Victor, Didascalicon, I, 4; trans. J. Taylor, The Didascalicon of Hugh of St. Victor, New York/London, Columbia University Press, 1961, p. 40).

    27With Gelmírez’s effort to impose authority and education on the canons “honestate morum ornavit” (I, 81, 1); “morum honestate redundabant” (I, 20, 7).

    28There was a tradition of criticizing the clothes worn by individuals whom one wishes to define as different. The accusations in the Compostellana about the external appearance of former canons should be interpreted in a similar way to those Siegfried of Gorze made about individuals who arrived at the court of Henry III in the entourage of queen Agnes of Poitou (Letter from Siegfried of Gorze to Poppon of Stavelot in 1043; vid. Parisse Michel, “Sigefroid, abbé de Gorze, et le mariage du roi Henri III avec Agnès de Poitou [1043]. Un aspect de la réforme lotharingienne”, Revue du Nord, vol. 356/357, 2004, p. 543-566). See Geary Patrick, Phantoms of remembrance, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1996, p. 3, for a similar reflection on Constance of Arles’s entourage (Glaber, Historiae, III, ix, 40; Cronache dell’anno mille, ed. Guglielmo Cavallo, Milano, Mondadori, 1989).

    29“capis dissutis et uariatis” (HC, II, 3, 1). The unstitched (dissutis) cloaks did not necessarily mean they were frayed, unkempt or dishevelled but that they were more open, perhaps looser-fitting and more flamboyant, and allowed for more folds than closed ones. Perhaps it is a more fitting interpretation for the various described in the text.

    30“canonici superpelliciis et sericis capis induti” (HC, I, 82, 3).

    31“eiusdem canonici capa coopertus” (III, 47, 2).

    32Constable (Constable Giles, The Reformation of the Twelfth Century, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 195) asserts that the beard may have signified an intention to resemble the hermits of old. In Santiago it is probably a tradition and, of course, a way to look like a bishop.

    33Paschal II prohibited certain hairstyles and clothes: “rostratos sotulares […] prohibemus” (Blumenthal Uta Renate, The early councils of pope Paschal II, 1100-1110, Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1978, 94 [c. 8]. The shoes were probably curved and pointed. See also Ott John, Bishops, Authority and Community in Northwestern Europe, c. 1050-1150, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2015, p. 75). Orderic Vitalis attributes the invention of these shoes to Fulk of Anjou, who probably designed them with their toes pointed and curling upwards to conceal his deformity: “in summitate acutissimos subtolares…”, but mainly demonstrates that their use was extremely widespread (Historia ecclesiastica, IV, viii, 10, 186; ed. Marjorie Chibnall, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1973). Persistent criticisms suggest that ecclesiastics continued to wear them, though their use was condemned at the IV Lateran Council.

    34HC, I, 18. A superstition because Gelmírez’s opponents predicted that St James will exact revenge and punishment upon them.

    35Portela Ermelindo, Diego Gelmírez…, op. cit., p. 315.

    36I, 20, 7.

    37On the aurea tabula, que fuerat prioris atque minoris altaris, vid., HC, II, 4, 2.

    38HC, II, 16, 1. Secrecy was necessary to enhance security for the shipment. However, some individuals would not have supported this action and others would have been prepared to spread this information. Some concanonici should not be informed how these sums were sent so that they would be unable, with dolosa intentio, to pass the information onto third parties.

    39Thus, the Cronicón iriense, which distances itself considerably from the Historia Compostellana, informs us that the economus of the see removed a widow’s means of subsistence. The Compostellana pins the responsibility for this act on an implacable bishop but the Cronicón iriense suggests that it was in fact the economus, an individual very much hated by the rebels. On the Cronicón iriense, see Isla Amancio, Memoria, culto y monarquía hispánica entre los siglos xi y xii, Jaén, Universidad de Jaén, 2007, p. 187.

    40“Ille enim et ecclesie uestre dignitatem diminuit et uos dominii sui iugo grauiter oppressit” (HC, I, 114, 13). Practically the same words are found in II, 114, 14. This repetition confirms the importance of the argument.

    41HC, II, 3, 2.

    42I, 5, 2.

    43This is confirmed by Pascual II (HC, I, 12).

    44HC, I, 13, who were able to wear the mitre (I, 44).

    45Vid. HC, II, 1 and II, 3, 3.

    46Bishop Cresconio of Santiago was condemned at the council of Reims in 1049 for claiming the culmen apostolici nominis for himself (Mansi Jean, Sacrorum conciliorum collectio, Venice, 1774, XIX, col. 741; also, col. 738, which reserves the title of apostolic for the pope: “solus Romanae sedis pontifex, universalis ecclesiae primas esset et apostolicus”. On bishop Cresconio, see Isla Amancio, Memoria, culto y monarquía…, op. cit., p. 97.

    47He did not trust those who enquired after his situation at the time of the revolt (HC, I, 114, 7). Some are described as suspecti (I, 114, 10).

    48HC, I, 113, 7 and 116, 2.

    49“Flent super episcopo pars canonicorum” (I, 113, 9).

    50HC, III, 46, 2.

    51“uomere discipline excoluit, honestate morum ornauit, iugali asperitate depressos, scolarum studio desudare conpulit” (I, 81, 1). Similar in I, 20, 7.

    52Jaeger C. Stephen, The Envy of Angels. Cathedral Schools and Social Ideals in Medieval Europe, 950-1200, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994, p. 118.

    53“Preterea non solum illos ab ignorantie tenebris extraxit, uerum etiam unumquemque, prout merebatur, ad honoris fastigium sublimando ecclesiasticis facultatibus ubertim ditauit” (I, 81, 1).

    54“a religionis cultu penitus deflexit” (III, 36, 3). The fact that, when Gelmírez carried out this reform, the see was able to count on considerable resources makes no difference.

    55HC, I, 20, 3; Díaz translates this as “master of rhetoric and logic” (Díaz y Díaz Manuel, “La escuela episcopal de Santiago…”, art. cit., p. 49), while Antonio López Ferreiro translates it as “master of oratory and logic” (Historia de la Santa Apostólica…, op. cit., t. III, p. 256). On the scholarly tradition in Santiago, see also Rucquoi Adeline, “’De grammaticorum schola’: La tradición cultural compostelana en el siglo xii”, in Paolo Caucci von Saucken (ed.), Visitandum est. Santos y cultos en el Codex Calixtinus, Santiago, Xunta de Galicia, 2005, p. 235-254. Gregory VII had urged bishops to establish schools in their sees to teach the artes litterarum (1078 Council of Rome; Ep. VI, 5b, ed. Caspar, II, p. 402; Mansi Jean, Sacrorum conciliorum collectio, op. cit., t. XX, col. 509). A similar measure had been adopted during the Carolingian period (826 Council of Rome; canon 34; ed. Albertus Werminghoff, MGH, Concilia aevi Karolini, II, p. 581).

    56This was the opinion of Antonio López Ferreiro, Historia de la Santa Apostólica…, op. cit., t. III, p. 256. On the use of the title magister, see Barrow Julia, “Education and the Recruitment of Cathedral Canons in England and Germany 1100-1225”, Viator, vol. 20, 1989, p. 117-138. Giraldo, one of the authors of the Compostellana, is referred to as both magister (II, 56, 3) and didascalus (II, 6, 2).

    57This education is recalled in HC, II, 2.

    58“unumquemque, prout merebatur, ad honoris fastigium sublimando ecclesiasticis facultatibus ubertim ditauit” (I, 81, 1).

    59HC, I, 82, 2. Despite several conflicts over territories, they remained within Gelmírez’s orbit.

    60Risco Manuel, España Sagrada, Madrid, t. XLI, 1798, p. 2. HC, I, 97. Appointed at the Council of Palencia in October 1113, he was replaced by Guido in 1135 (ibid., p. 18). Ruiz Albi Irene, “Cancillería y documentos de Raimundo de Borgoña y la infanta Urraca”, in Fernando Suárez and Andrés Gambra (ed.), Alfonso VI, imperator totius orbis Hispaniae, Madrid, Sanz y Torres, 2010, p. 218.

    61Diego Gelmírez: “de gradu in gradum, de bono in melius, de uirtute in uirtutem ascenderet” (II, 2).

    62HC, II, 16 and 17.

    63Fletcher Richard, The Episcopate in the Kingdom of León in the Twelfth Century, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1972, p. 49. Flórez dates Martin’s arrival to 1132 (España Sagrada, Madrid, t. XVII, 1789, p. 83), citing a Segovian document in which he appears as capellanus regis. Reilly also dates his accession to 1132 (Reilly Bernard, The Kingdom of León-Castilla under King Alfonso VII, 1126-1157, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988, p. 162). Vid. Reilly Bernard, “The Chancery of Alfonso VII of Leon-Castilla: The Period 1116-1135 Reconsidered”, Speculum, vol. 51/2, 1976, p. 254. In 1133 Martín received a grant from Alfonso VII, who refers to him as his chaplain (Recuero Manuel et al., Documentos medievales del Reino de Galicia: Alfonso VII (1116-1157), Santiago, Xunta de Galicia, 1998, no 47 and no 49). On Martín Peláez, notary to Alfonso VII, see Reilly Bernard, “The Chancery of Alfonso VII of León-Castilla…”, art. cit., p. 246: he had been a canon in Santiago before becoming notary to queen Urraca and then to king Alfonso. An 1112 document contained in Tumbo C confirms him “as ecclesie Sancti Jacobi canonicus et eo tempore in Curia regine done Urraca cancellarius” (no 4; ed. Mercedes Extremadouro, La colección diplomática del Tumbo C de Santiago (Parte II), Santiago de Compostela, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 1967).

    64III, 14, 2. Reilly supposes that Arias belonged to the faction that opposed Gelmírez (Reilly Bernard, “Monarquía e Iglesia en el Reino de Castilla-León, 1037-1157”, in Fernando López Alsina [ed.], El Papado…, op. cit., p. 15). Fletcher believes—though this had already been confirmed by Antonio López Ferreiro (Historia de la Santa Apostólica Metropolitana Iglesia de Santiago, t. IV, Santiago, 1901, p. 194)—that it is at least possible that bishop Pedro, who was promoted to the see of Leon in 1135, was also dean Pedro Anáyaz of Santiago, who was already conducting missions of great responsibility in 1105 (Fletcher Richard, Episcopate…, op. cit., p. 171). Vid. Risco Manuel, España Sagrada, t. XXXV, Madrid, 1786, p. 190.

    65Reilly Bernard, “Monarquía e Iglesia…”, art. cité, p. 10 ; Fletcher Richard, “El episcopado en el reino de León”, art. cité, p. 34. The dispute over Salamanca dragged on. Gelmírez gave the position temporarily to Giraldo but the queen appealed and Bernardo of Toledo appointed Munio in 1123, though Gelmírez would secure his dismissal in 1130 (Fletcher Richard, Episcopate…, op. cit., p. 38; Reilly Bernard, The Kingdom of León-Castilla…, op. cit., p. 244). It should be understood that this subservience was merely formulary and would not have satisfied the Compostelan bishop. Subservience of this nature also established Sancho (HC, II, 37, 2) and Íñigo de Ávila in 1121 and 1133, respectively (HC, III, 34). Sancho was consecrated by Gelmírez in Compostela, though it would be an exaggeration to suggest he was Gelmírez’s protégé. Sancho confirms documents related to Santiago but as a member of the king’s entourage, one of which is a donation made by Alfonso in Santiago in March 1122 (Recuero Manuel, Documento…, op. cit., no 8), and the other a royal document drawn up in Segovia with Raimundo and other bishops of the kingdom (ibid., no 28, of 1128). It may be that the person chosen for Avila was actually somebody else, i.e. a Pedro who was summoned to the Council of Compostela in 1121 (HC, II, 26). It appears that royal will was also behind the appointment of his successor (and perhaps brother) [III, 34, 5]. Neither of their names appears to indicate that these prelates were of Leonese or Galician origin. In 1135 Berengario was appointed bishop of Salamanca (Fletcher Richard, Episcopate…, op. cit., 39f). In 1120 Bernardo was consecrated bishop of Zamora by the archbishop of Toledo.

    66quidam idiota, according to the HC, I, 117.

    67Fletcher Richard, Episcopate…, op. cit., p. 207. Fletcher suggests that Jerónimo’s replacement in Salamanca, Geraldo, who acceded to the post in 1120, was one of Gelmírez’s men but there is no clear evidence for this. Expelled from his see on the arrival of the Aragonese forces, he sought refuge in Santiago (HC, II, 52). If he received dona et capella, it was perhaps because he had no previous assigned income he could reclaim.

    68On these curiales bishops in general, see Jaeger Stephen, “The Courtier Bishop in Vitae from the Tenth to the Twelfth Century”, Speculum, vol. 58/2, 1983, p. 291-325.

    69On Bernardo and other ecclesiastics brought by the archbishop of Toledo, see Jiménez de Rada, De rebus Hispaniae, VI, 26; ed. Fernández Valverde, Turnholt, Brepols, CCCM, 1987, p. 210; López Alsina Fernando, La ciudad de Santiago…, op. cit., p. 82.

    70HC, I, 114, 13.

    71“Ea quae de redditibus capellaniae suae sibi sunt a fratribus imminuta” (III, 45). Fulco had also been given the church of Santa Anastasia in Entines and two properties in Salnés (II, 86, 2). Deusdedit, the Roman cardinal and designated canon of Santiago, received the emoluments to which he was entitled for his hebdomadary (II, 44, 1; II, 74, 2) but his is a special case and others were not treated so scrupulously. As Pedro Fulco embarked on some of his journeys with Pedro Helías, we can assume that a friendship existed between the two (II, 63, 1).

    72“De rebus mee ebdomade, quam in potestate uestra dimisimus, rogo, ut per primos romarios, qui ad nos uenerint, michi mittatis” (II, 44, 1). See also II, 74, 1-2.

    73It appears that the archbishop of Braga received (as a canon of Santiago) half the income from Braga and Cornelhá (HC, I, 81, 2).

    74II, 82, 3.

    75“In illo igitur capitulo factus est rex Ecclesiae B. Jacobi canonicus, et panem in canonica, et hebdomadam in altari, et caetera Ecclesiae beneficia, sicuti quisque canonicorum habet” (II, 87, 5). Diego, bishop of Ourense, and Alfonso of Tui appear as canons of Santiago in the list drawn up in 1120 (I, 20, 6). The bishops of Mondoñedo and Oporto may have retained their incomes. Hugo, who was now the bishop of Oporto, was cited as archdeacon of Santiago, a position he may have retained (HC, III, 62, 3).

    76The lengthy dispute with the see of Mondoñedo was finally settled by Gelmírez in 1122 in what may have been interpreted as a personal cession to the interests of another bishopric despite the necessities of the Santiago canons (HC, II, 56, 1).

    77H.C., III, 36. The number of canons would return to a more moderate figure: since the maximum number attested during the second half of the century was forty-two, there would have been fifty at most (Pérez Rodríguez Francisco J., La Iglesia de Santiago…, op. cit., p. 33). On patrimonial issues, see González Vázquez Marta, El arzobispo de Santiago: una instancia de poder en la Edad Media (1150-1400), Sada, Ed. do Castro, 1996.

    78I, 114, 13. On the education and recruitment of canons, see Barrow Julia, “Education and the Recruitment of Cathedral Canons in England and Germany 1100-1225”, Viator, vol. 20, 1989, p. 117-138. As we can see, in Santiago some canons were trained in the see, while others also visited other locations north of the Pyrenees.

    79“ipse pessimus [Arias Muñiz] exigebat honorem atque ecclesiae dignitatem ab episcopo manu populi” (I, 111, 5).

    80HC, II, 83, 1 y 2; “sinistra et superstitiosa” (II, 83, 3). Falque translates superstitiosa as exaggerated.

    81“quidam ciuium ceterique potentiores […] erat sinistra mens in episcopum” (I, 110), the meaning of which clearly entails doing harm and perhaps even committing homicide.

    82This reference to humility also appears in a later letter (HC, II, 84, 3). On his attitude in the conflict, we should remember his animosity towards Bernardo—canon of Santiago and chancellor of Alfonso VII—and his capacity for pretence.

    83HC, II, 81. Fletcher suggests it is likely this was not the same person, though this suspicion is possibly exaggerated (St. James’ Catapult…, op. cit., p. 186). He also confirms various documents, the last of which is dated 13th June 1145 (Tumbo C, no 18, ed. Mercedes Extremadouro). See López Alsina Fernando, La ciudad de Santiago…, op. cit., p. 83.

    84HC, I, 111, 5.

    85Fletcher Richard, Episcopate…, op. cit., p. 57; Pallares María del Carmen, Pérez Fransisco Javier, González Marta and Vaquero Beatriz, “La Tierra de Santiago, espacio de poder (siglos xii y xiii)”, Sémata, vol. 4, 1992, p. 142.

    86Fernando López Alsina mentions “haste and nervousness » (La ciudad de Santiago…, op. cit., p. 82). He may have been following the example of bishop Munio of Mondoñedo, who abandoned the episcopate before the end of 1136 and found shelter in Santa María do Sar (López Ferreiro Antonio, Historia de la Santa Apostólica Metropolitana Iglesia de Santiago, op. cit., t. IV, Ap. n. 8, p. 21).

    87HC, III, 39, 1. The winds of rebellion must have been blowing from 1130 onwards (III, 46, 1). Gelmírez’s reaction against Bernardo in III, 32, in the context of his visit to the royal court at Carrión in 1133 (Portela Ermelindo, Diego Gelmírez…, op. cit., p. 258).

    88“in mutuam cedem prorunpebant” (HC, I, 20, 7).

    89According to the Compostellana, this is the name by which the bishop was known (HC, II, 1).

    90Isla Amancio, Memoria, culto y monarquía…, op. cit., p. 117.

    91HC, III, 46, 1.

    92The origin of the table or panel is not specified but the Compostellana reports that a gold cross and a chasuble had been donated by king Ordoño (which dates it to the 10th century) and the intremissa had belonged to al-Mustain (HC, II, 16, 1); we do not know if this individual is the taifa king of Saragossa, Sulayman ben Hud (1039-1047), who paid high parias to his ally Fernando, king of León (Viguera María Jesús, “Historia política”, in Ramón Menéndez Pidal [ed.], Historia de España, vol. VIII-1, Madrid, Espasa, 1994, p. 76), or Ahmad b. Yusuf al-Mustain, who died in 1110 and whose sons paid a heavy ransom to queen Urraca in ca 1115 that may have included the intremissa (this suggestion was made by Fletcher Richard, St. James’ Catapult…, op. cit., p. 250), though there are no reports of the queen having donated it to the see. I am not certain that around 1120, which were difficult years, such a large quantity of silver was ever transferred to Santiago. Al-Mustain, rex Sarracenorum, could even refer to the caliph promoted by the berbers during the fitna in 1009. He required the costly help of count Sancho of Castille who received many gifts from him. It can be concluded, then, that the treasury was being drained through gifts of objects from all periods.

    93HC, II, 4, 1; II, 70, 3; II, 64, 5 and II, 86, 2.

    94Alfonso VII in 1128 agreed not to extend the see’s vacancy. He was also obliged to respect the election by the canons: “digna et sancta atque religiosa ab ipsis canonicis archiepiscopi fiat electio” (HC, II, 102). Evidently, the canons did not trust these royal promises too much.

    95This was the solution found in Mondoñedo, whose bishop, Munio Alfonso, must have resigned around that time since in September 1136 he was already installed in his own foundation, a collegiate church of Augustinian canons (López Ferreiro Antonio, Historia de la Santa Apostólica Metropolitana Iglesia de Santiago, op. cit., t. IV, Ap. 24).

    96Guillermo confirms an 1143 document from Pedro Helías’s circles (ibid., t. IV, Ap. n. 12, p. 35).

    97According to Fletcher his tenure was uneventful (The Episcopate…, op. cit., p. 57). Indeed, work on the cathedral continued (López Ferreiro Antonio, Historia de la Santa Apostólica Metropolitana Iglesia de Santiago, op. cit., t. IV, p. 231).

    Communautés déchirées ?

    X Facebook Email

    Communautés déchirées ?

    Ce livre est diffusé en accès ouvert freemium. L’accès à la lecture en ligne est disponible. L’accès aux versions PDF et ePub est réservé aux bibliothèques l’ayant acquis. Vous pouvez vous connecter à votre bibliothèque à l’adresse suivante : https://freemium.openedition.org/oebooks

    Acheter ce livre aux formats PDF et ePub

    Si vous avez des questions, vous pouvez nous écrire à access[at]openedition.org

    Communautés déchirées ?

    Vérifiez si votre bibliothèque a déjà acquis ce livre : authentifiez-vous à OpenEdition Freemium for Books.

    Vous pouvez suggérer à votre bibliothèque d’acquérir un ou plusieurs livres publiés sur OpenEdition Books. N’hésitez pas à lui indiquer nos coordonnées : access[at]openedition.org

    Vous pouvez également nous indiquer, à l’aide du formulaire suivant, les coordonnées de votre bibliothèque afin que nous la contactions pour lui suggérer l’achat de ce livre. Les champs suivis de (*) sont obligatoires.

    Veuillez, s’il vous plaît, remplir tous les champs.

    La syntaxe de l’email est incorrecte.

    Référence numérique du chapitre

    Format

    Isla, A. (2025). Diego Gelmírez and the canons of Santiago de Compostela. In T. Martine (éd.), Communautés déchirées ? (1‑). Presses universitaires de Rennes. https://doi.org/10.4000/13mb2
    Isla, Amancio. « Diego Gelmírez and the Canons of Santiago De Compostela ». In Communautés déchirées ?, édité par Tristan Martine. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2025. https://doi.org/10.4000/13mb2.
    Isla, Amancio. « Diego Gelmírez and the Canons of Santiago De Compostela ». Communautés déchirées ?, édité par Tristan Martine, Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2025, https://doi.org/10.4000/13mb2.

    Référence numérique du livre

    Format

    Martine, T. (éd.). (2025). Communautés déchirées ? (1‑). Presses universitaires de Rennes. https://doi.org/10.4000/13met
    Martine, Tristan, éd. Communautés déchirées ?. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2025. https://doi.org/10.4000/13met.
    Martine, Tristan, éditeur. Communautés déchirées ?. Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2025, https://doi.org/10.4000/13met.
    Compatible avec Zotero Zotero

    1 / 3

    Presses universitaires de Rennes

    Presses universitaires de Rennes

    • Mentions légales
    • Plan du site
    • Se connecter

    Suivez-nous

    • Flux RSS

    URL : http://www.pur-editions.fr

    Email : pur@univ-rennes2.fr

    Adresse :

    2, avenue Gaston Berger

    CS 24307

    F-35044

    Rennes

    France

    OpenEdition
    • Candidater à OpenEdition Books
    • Connaître le programme OpenEdition Freemium
    • Commander des livres
    • S’abonner à la lettre d’OpenEdition
    • CGU d’OpenEdition Books
    • Accessibilité : partiellement conforme
    • Données personnelles
    • Gestion des cookies
    • Système de signalement