Ecclesiastical Proprietary Communities and the Restitution of Local Churches in the Loire Valley during the Age of Reform, c. 1050-c. 1150
p. 155-164
Texte intégral
1Churches in the age of the Gregorian reforms were very valuable things. It is well known that the great ecclesiastical communities, such as the Burgundian abbey of Cluny or German imperial bishoprics like Mainz and Cologne, were veritable lordships in their own right, but each of the thousands of smaller churches which existed in rural communities throughout Latin Christendom also possessed significant material resources. In accordance with the canon law which had been promulgated and promoted under the Carolingian emperors, churches were to be endowed with a minimum amount of resources to support their clergy and the upkeep of their fabric.1 In reality, many churches had greater endowments than this, and ongoing value in the form of the various revenues they collected from the wider Christian community. In Berry, the church of Neuilly-en-Dun (Cher) had, in 1108, an endowment of local fields, meadows, vineyards and rents.2 It also held the rights to what was known as the priest’s fief (fefum presbiteriale). At Neuilly this consisted not only of all of the tithes, but also all offerings, all dues paid at burials, baptisms, weddings, confessions and vigils, payments rendered for visitations of the sick, blessings of the harvest, and the singing of cycles of masses, as well as the fee paid by women to re-enter the church after childbirth (relevationes feminarum). Alongside these payments, the document from Neuilly also mentions offerings made at annual religious festivals; these were considered separate from the priest’s fief. Taken together, even a small village church could be a very lucrative asset.
2At a local level, the Gregorian reforms were directly concerned with authority and control over these kinds of local churches. In the traditional grand narratives of reform, these local churches were the sites of many of the abuses against which reformers struggled, emblematic of a church ruled by the corrupting influence of the material world.3 Most of these churches were what historians refer to by the German term Eigenkirche—a “proprietary church”, founded by and controlled by an aristocrat as a piece of personal property.4 These were the archetypical “churches in the power of the laity”; seen as an anathema to both church reformers and later historians, proof of the corruption of the pre-Gregorian system.5 Lay owners had the potential to exploit the resources of the church: to distribute its endowments to supporters as benefices or fiefs; to appoint or remove the priest; to reserve the profits for themselves at the risk driving to church to destitution.6 It is of little surprise then that the phrase “no layman may justly hold a church” quickly became a maxim of reformist churchmen in the eleventh century.7 Material and spiritual interests combined in the effort to deprive lay owners of these small churches and to integrate them into the developing parochial network. In practice, they tended to come under the authority of monastic institutions, who appointed a vicar and received the church’s tithes.8 Based on the standard historiography, this was a process of the transfer of ownership of churches from lay aristocrats to monastic houses. This stands in stark contrast to issues surrounding appointments and investiture which typically animate discussions of the Gregorian reform, which are concerned with authority over churches, rather than ownership of them.9
3These binary grand narratives of reformers versus lay aristocrats are now unsustainable. In the past four decades, there has been a sustained emphasis on what Leidulf Melve has called the “pluralization of ecclesiastical reform”: a recognition that rather than a top-down, unitary drive by the papacy, reforming impulses emerged and operated at local levels, often with purely local concerns.10 Reformers shared ideals, rhetoric and strategies through networks of written and oral communication, but these were put into practice in a wide variety of contexts, with divergent results.11 Historians have increasingly sought to nuance the narratives around ecclesiastical reform by focusing on local case studies, which highlight the complexities, compromises and contradictions of the movement.12 These studies have shown that, far from being implacable opponents of reform, lay aristocrats could be major supporters and drivers of change, actively funding and recruiting prominent churchmen to reform and renew churches in their localities.13 However, this recent work has tended to focus on larger units of analysis, such as monasteries or dioceses, rather than on small, local churches, which often remain enmeshed in older frameworks of analysis.
4In the short study that follows, I would like to further this trend of placing reform efforts into local contexts by examining how the ideals of reform affected small, local churches in the Loire valley and the communities which controlled them. While eigenkirchen are, as their name suggests, often conceived of as in the private, exclusive possession of a single individual or institution—whether the church’s lay owner or its later monastic possessor—I would like to postulate that, in reality, control over these churches was a far more communal affair. The idea of communal or shared interests in property and churches is well known to historians of the middle ages. Barbara Rosenwein’s classic study of Cluny highlighted how repeated claims and counter-claims to donated property forged long-standing links between the monks and their neighbours, while the work of Karl Schmid and Joachim Wollasch on obituaries and other necrological documents showed the creation of communities of memory between monks and their lay benefactors.14 My own previous research has revealed how lay patrons were incorporated into ecclesiastical communities through grants of societas in eleventh- and twelfth-century France.15 What this study proposes is to make explicit, to name, these networks and connections of interests that historians have long recognised. By recognising the existence of local churches’ proprietary communities (as inelegant as that name may be), the complex impacts of reform ideals and activities on the eigenkirchen of the Loire valley can be better explored.
5Who did the proprietary communities surrounding small, rural, eleventh- and twelfth-century churches consist of? I would propose the following working definition: a proprietary community consisted of the people who had a material interest and investment in a particular church, including not only the clerics assigned to that church, but also its patrons, allies and vassals, whether lay or ecclesiastic. Together they formed an élite community which controlled the church, bound by links of property, lordship and liturgical rites. This was an informal community whose interests—spiritual, social, economic, material—were deeply intertwined with the ecclesiastical foundation.16 It encompassed owners, curates, ecclesiastical superiors and even rivals and enemies (whether secular or religious). It was not simply the church’s parish community, for the proprietary community did not include those who were only served spiritually by the church, but instead it represented those who had a stake, and a voice, in its direction. To borrow a term more usually associated with élite individuals, the proprietary community can be thought of as the church’s mouvance or retinue—not the retinue of the lay owner or the controlling abbot or bishop, but a retinue connected to the church as an institution. The medieval people themselves may have best understood the concept as those who formed the retinue of the patron saint of the church in question.
6The core question to be considered in the context of this essay is how the ideals of the reform movement—particularly after its invigoration during and after the pontificate of Gregory VII—impacted ecclesiastical proprietary communities in central France, communities which appeared to stand in direct opposition to the reformers’ core principles of lay exclusion from control over the material assets of churches. The topic will be analysed through a series of case studies from the Loire valley, in a rough triangle formed by the cities of Vendôme, Orléans and Bourges. This study concludes that, in practice, reformers took a conciliar approach to the ownership of churches, prioritising good relationships with their neighbours, while the lay aristocracy employed a variety of techniques to retain power and influence within the proprietary community, even after the church had left their formal possession. One striking feature of all of the examples is that the proprietary communities were not singular—they were connected, overlapping and interlinked, with members of one church’s proprietary community often involved with others as well. This is a key factor in the de-escalation of conflicts. Even in cases of direct confrontation, reconciliation and compromise—not victory—were the end goals for all parties involved. The proprietary communities of churches in the Loire valley were resilient and adaptable and they would continue to operate throughout the Gregorian period and beyond.
7The first example of a proprietary community in action is a simple one, which highlights the desire of reformers to prioritise and maintain good relations with a church’s proprietary community. Upon first reading, the case appears simply as the restitution of a local church. Raginaud Massellus, a miles, restored the church of Notre-Dame de Vernou-en-Solonge (Loir-et-Cher) to the cathedral church in Orléans in 1130, after which the bishop, John, granted the church to the monks of Micy Saint-Mesmin.17 On closer inspection, however, the charter of donation goes to great lengths to absolve Raginaud of blame or guilt for holding of the church prior to its restitution. The opening line of the preamble reminds the reader that when fideles of the church come before the bishop, they should be granted “paternal love […] without delay.”18 There then follows a (rather torturous) marriage metaphor, stressing the need for bishops to reconcile churches with the appropriate ecclesiastical authority. The donation itself was made by Raginaud “having done penance and recognised his sins.”19 The scribe, writing in the voice of Bishop John, is clearly making every effort not to alienate lay holders of churches, in spite of the reformers’ opposition to their very existence. Although there is some typically fiery Gregorian rhetoric contained in the text — for example, that the church at Vernou-en-Solonge had been “ripped like a limb from the body of holy mother Church by the crushing tyranny of secular power”20—the proprietary community remained intact. Raginaud conceded the church itself, with all the revenues pertaining to it, but he also donated grazing rights in his woods and a servile dependant named Guarinus. These two latter parts of the donation retained an active connection with the church at Vernou-en-Solonge for Raginaud. The sorts of personal links by which these gifts functioned in practice did not disappear once legal ownership was transferred; Raginaud would need to communicate frequently with the new owners of the church concerning the grazing rights and could continue to interact with his former dependent. Furthermore, Raginaud’s kinsman, Eudes Baderannus, along with his four sons, were also permitted by the bishop “to participate in the benefit and alms of their kinsman.”21 Eudes and his sons’ separate need for approval, recorded in a note clearly added after the initial donation, is confirmation of their involvement in Notre-Dame de Vernou’s proprietary community, and their inclusion in the charter a sign that the bishop of Orléans recognised and respected this fact. Although the traditional scholarship of the early twentieth century would no longer view Raginaud and his kinsmen as proprietors of the church at Vernou-en-Solonge and after 1130 is could no longer be considered an eigenkirche, they remained in a position of significant influence over the church, with the consent and approval of the local ecclesiastical hierarchy.
8In contrast to the cordial relationships established around the church at Vernou-en-Solonge, the next example highlights the continued material benefits that lay aristocrats could derive from membership of a proprietary community, even after a church was formally returned to ecclesiastical control. It also demonstrates the dangers of assuming a united reform movement among churchmen, as divisions could emerge even among religious institutions with seemingly similar goals. In 1085, Raoul of Beaugency donated the chapel of his castle at Montfollet—today in the commune of Vievy-le-Rayé (Loir-et-Cher)—to the monks of La Trinité de Vendôme.22 This was not a selfless act. The chapel was, at the time, little more than a flimsy wooden structure. In accepting Raoul’s gift, the monks of La Trinité committed to rebuilding the chapel in stone, as well as to establishing a bourg, with a cemetery and a market. Such an offer was not without appeal to the monks—Raoul donated all tithes, burial dues and customs from the new bourg and promised not to intervene in the affairs of the monks—but it also represented a considerable investment on their part. The benefits for Raoul were obvious: he had outsourced the capital costs of the development of a commercial settlement next to his castle, as well as forging a valuable alliance with the monks of La Trinité and formally remaining the secular protector of the chapel, now to be dedicated to Saint Nicholas. That is to say, in this instance the lay proprietor remained at the heart of the proprietary community, in spite of formally relinquishing his title to the church, while benefiting materially from the capital investment made by the monks of Vendôme; a very un-Gregorian situation.
9Raoul’s plans did not proceed smoothly, however. Over the following several years, the monks of the abbey of Saint-Lomer, in nearby Blois, claimed that the tithes and revenues which Raoul had granted away at Montfollet belonged rightly to the mother church of Saint-Jean d’Oucques (now Oucques la Nouvelle, Loir-et-Cher), which belonged to Saint-Lomer.23 The case eventually ended up before the court of Yves, bishop of Chartres, around 1105, where the abbot of Saint-Lomer stated that the abbey’s rights at Montfollet had been usurped by Lancelin II of Beaugency, Raoul’s father. In spite of the fact that the monks of La Trinité had been active in the region for twenty years, Yves ruled in favour of Saint-Lomer; the monks of Vendôme were expelled from Montfollet.
10Nevertheless, Raoul managed to salvage the situation and establish a similar relationship with Saint-Lomer as he had had with La Trinité. The charter he issued for Saint-Lomer shortly after Yves of Chartres’ judgment is an example of the repentant language seen in the case of Raginaud Massellus, intended to affirm reformist ideals.24 Raoul conceded that although he may have been a “reluctant traveller”, who had previously seized rather than given alms, he wished now to donate to Saint-Lomer, highlighting in the preamble to the charter the virtues of learning from and rectifying one’s defects.25 In reality, Raoul conceded very little to Saint-Lomer and instead sought to benefit his settlement. Using the excuse that Montfollet was too far from Oucques to effectively pay its dues to the mother church, Raoul convinced the monks of St-Lomer to build a second church at Montfollet, this one next to the castle, in the bourg (the monks of Vendôme having already funded the rebuilding of the chapel inside the castle itself). Raoul continued to ensure that he was at the heart of both churches’ proprietary communities, however. He naturally had considerable control over the chapel of Saint-Nicholas, located within the castle, while he also retained the right to levy customs upon his own men who lived in the bourg and his position as the defender of the settlement. In addition, he granted the monks of Saint-Lomer and their men the right to pasture their pigs in his woodlands, which ensured an ongoing relationship with the monks, as in the case of Raginaud Massellus. Although this case shows once again the extent to which lay members of the proprietary community (in this case the lords of Beaugency and their castellans) retained significant control over the churches even after their putative restoration, it also demonstrates that such a restoration was not necessarily materially detrimental to these proprietary communities. Raoul of Beaugency was perfectly willing to use the Gregorian drive for the restoration of churches to his own ends and was very likely wealthier after conceding control of the church of Montfollet than before. This was not a zero-sum game, however; the monks of Saint-Lomer also benefited from the increased revenues and opportunities their control of the bourg of Montfollet offered them, although they were required to invest in a new church. The only losers in this particular case are the monks of Vendôme, who invested in the growth of the bourg but lost the revenues after twenty years. The exclusion of La Trinité from the proprietary community of Montfollet is a testament to the community’s importance to its members.
11At both Montfollet and at Vermou-en-Solonge, the proprietary community emerged from the process of reform intact, and the restitution of these churches was achieved by compromise and negotiation, rather than through conflict.26 The final example in this study concerns a rare exception which proves the rule that this process of church restitution was one which did not result in the expulsion from proprietary communities. The career of Richard II, archbishop of Bourges, is an exceptionally antagonistic case of clerical reformers and the proprietary aristocracy in direct conflict.27 Throughout his pontificate in the 1070s and 1080s, Richard consistently and aggressively sought to bring local churches back under ecclesiastical control, chiefly through the instruments of anathema and excommunication. One document, preserved in the twelfth-century cartulary of Vierzon, goes so far as to claim that “in the time of Lord Richard, archbishop of the holy see of Bourges, a universal excommunication was placed upon those laymen who had obtained the churches belonging to God’s patrimony.”28 Although this is likely to be rhetorical hyperbole, churchmen were appealing directly to Richard to pronounce a sentence of excommunication in order to obtain the churches they desired. Abbot Eudes of the abbey of Saint-Sulpice de Bourges successfully petitioned Richard to excommunicate Stephen Turmellus, who held half of the church of Saint-Éloy-de-Gy (Cher) which (it was claimed) rightly belonged to Saint-Sulpice.29 But even in cases like this, where an aggressive, antagonistic approach was taken, the ultimate result was often the re-incorporation of the laity into the church’s proprietary community. Once Stephen Turmellus “recognised the injury he had done to Saint-Sulpice”, he restored the church to the control of the monks, did homage to Abbot Eudes and was received into the societas—the lay brotherhood—of the abbey.30 In spite of his previous excommunication, Stephen was firmly acknowledged by the abbot as part of Saint-Eloi-de-Gy’s proprietary community through his incorporation into the wider community of Saint-Sulpice.
12There is even evidence that Archbishop Richard’s aggressive approach may have been counter-productive to the church’s interests, or at the very least ineffective. Richard, probably towards the end of his life, convinced Lord Arnulf II of Vierzon to restore to Saint-Sulpice two churches which he held in fief from the abbey. This was done, so the charter says, by explaining to Arnulf the decrees of Pope Leo the Great and the Roman church on the holding of church lands.31 Sometime later, however, Arnulf reneged on his pledge and claimed that he had never agreed to relinquish the churches. The dispute was only resolved and the restitution of the churches in question to Saint-Sulpice was secured by a counter-gift of eight libri to given to Arnulf (and a further sum of five solidii to his brother) in 1110, which was at least twenty years after the initial donation instigated by Richard (who had died in 1090). Once again the proprietary community was restored and the rights of the laity to be a part of the community recognised by the payment of counter-gifts. In spite of the aggression with which Richard had pursued the initial concession from Arnulf, the dispute was resolved through compromise and reconciliation. Richard’s militant attitude appears to have been an exception to the broader trends in the region and the drive to restore privately-held churches to ecclesiastical control was structured largely around existing patterns of interaction within the proprietary community, involving negotiation, compromise and spiritual and material counter-gifts to ensure continuing lay involvement. In short, the restitution of local churches to ecclesiastical control necessitated the preservation of their proprietary communities.
13To what extent were the proprietary communities of the churches of the Loire valley torn apart—déchirées—by the convulsions of the Gregorian reform? From the evidence of this study, it would appear to be very little. These communities were flexible, malleable and adaptable; although they changed and mutated in the face of the new ideals and expectations introduced by reformers, they persisted, nonetheless. New partners, in the form of monastic owners like those of Saint-Lomer and Micy Saint-Mesmin, were incorporated into the proprietary communities, and the aristocrats involved adopted the language of the reformers in their documents, as can be seen in the charters of Raginaud Massellus and Raoul of Beaugency. In these ways, the laity, in the form of local élites, continued to be involved with, and to have power over, the spiritual and material lives of these local churches throughout the period of reform and beyond, even after they no longer held proprietary control. Although this was not a period free from conflict, as the cases of La Trinité de Vendôme and Archbishop Richard of Bourges make clear, the “Gregorian period” of c. 1050-1150 saw a series of gradual, incremental shifts in the ecclesiastical landscape of the Loire valley, rather than a dramatic rupture. These conclusions echo some of the insights made by other contributors to this volume, based on evidence from other French and European regions, which saw lay aristocrats re-integrated and prioritised by reformers, and suggests that, in the context of local societies, the Gregorian reforms represent perhaps a more superficial and symbolic turn than a deep, systemic shift in relations within and between ecclesiastical proprietary communities.
14This conclusion is not to say that the reform movement was negligible or lacking in impact. It is simply to acknowledge the long-standing, existing communities and practices into which reform was, and needed to be, incorporated. Steven Vanderputten has written, in the context of monastic reforms in Flanders, that reform should be seen as a process, working through its local opposition and its inherent contradictions over many decades, rather than as a singular event.32 It is better perhaps to see the proprietary communities of the Loire valley in the same ways: as arenas in which reformers could negotiate, persuade, wait-out and wear down opposition, until their ideals became an integral part of the fabric of these communities. This explains the overwhelming evidence for strategies of persuasion, negotiation and compromise, the frequent presence of reformist language in the charters of lay proprietors and the exceptional nature of aggressive campaigns like Richard II’s. This was, however, a slow process. Even in 1149, at the very end of the period cover by this volume, Simon of Beaugency (Raoul’s son) could restore a church to the bishop of Orléans (and hence to Marmoutier), citing the precepts of church fathers explained to him by clerics—the same examples which had been used by Richard of Bourges nearly a century before!33 The laity were not torn from their proprietary communities by the Gregorian reforms, nor were the reformers given total control of local churches—slowly and steadily, both the laity and the reformers, together within the proprietary communities, were transformed.
Notes de bas de page
1Wood Susan, The Proprietary Church in the Medieval West, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 437-444.
2Buhot de Kersers Louis (éd.), “Essai de reconstitution du cartulaire A de l’abbaye de Saint-Sulpice de Bourges”, Mémoires de la Société des antiquaires du Centre, t. 25, 1912, p. 3-350, no 28.
3The most important of these early twentieth-century grand narratives are those of Fliche Augustin, La Réforme grégorienne, Paris, Honoré Champion, 3 t., 1924-1937 and Tellenbach Gerd, Church, State and Christian Society at the Time of the Investiture Contest, trans. R. F. Bennett, Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1940. See the overviews given in Jasper Kathryn L., “The Economics of reform in the Middle Ages”, History Compass, t. 10, 2012, p. 440-442 and Howe John, “The Nobility’s Reform of the Medieval Church”, American Historical Review, t. 93, 1988, p. 318-320.
4On the original, very simplistic view of Eigenkirchen by Ulrich Stutz in the late nineteenth century, see Wood Susan, The Proprietary Church…, op. cit., p. 731-733; on the origins of Eigenkirchen, ibid., p. 92-100. See also Trumbore Jones Anna, Noble Lord, Good Shepherd: Episcopal Power and Piety in Aquitaine, 877-1050, Leiden, Brill, 2009, p. 84-86.
5Amann Emile and Dumas Auguste, L’Église au pouvoir des laïcs (888-1057), in Augustin Fliche and Victor Martiti (ed.), L’histoire de l’Église depuis les origines jusqu’à nos jours, 21 t., Paris, Bloud et Gay, 1934-1964, t. VII, Paris, Bloud et Gay, 1942.
6Wood Susan, The Proprietary Church…, op. cit., p. 451-452 and 457-458.
7La Cartulaire du prieuré de La Charité-sur-Loire (Nièvre), ordre de Cluny, éd. René de Lespinasse, Nevers/Paris, Gremion/Honoré Champion, 1887, no 94: “ecclesiam […] quam nemo laicus juste tenet”.
8Constable Giles, Monastic Tithes from their Origins to the Twelfth Century, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1964.
9It is, of course, a scale. Wood Susan, The Proprietary Church…, op. cit., p. 3-4, proposes a “sliding scale” from authority to property, in which “lower churches” look far more like property than “greater churches”, which are far more likely to be under the authority of a lay lord (albeit an authority which included a proprietary aspect).
10Melve Leidulf, “Ecclesiastical Reform in Historiographical Context”, History Compass, t. 13, 2015, p. 213-216.
11Robinson Ian S., “The Friendship Network of Gregory VII”, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, t. 63, 1978, p. 1-22; Cushing Kathleen C., Reform and the Papacy in the Eleventh Century. Spirituality and Social Change, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2005, p. 111-138.
12Such studies are too numerous to list here, but see, for example, Bouchard Constance B., Sword, Mitre and Cloister: Nobility and the Church in Burgundy, 980-1198, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1987; Cushing Kathleen C., Reform and the Papacy…, op. cit., p. 91-110; Eldevick John, Episcopal Power and Ecclesiastical Reform in the German Empire. Tithes, Lordship, and Community, 950-1150, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2012; Mazel Florian, “Amitié et rupture de l’amitié. Moines et grands laïcs provençaux au temps de la crise grégorienne (milieu xie-milieu xiie siècle)”, Revue historique, t. 57, 2005, p. 53-95; Mazel Florian, “Seigneurs, moines et chanoines : pouvoir local et enjeux ecclésiaux à Fougères à l’époque grégorienne (milieu xie-milieu xiie siècle)”, Annales de Bretagne et des Pays de l’Ouest, t. 113, 2006, p. 119-132.
13Howe John, “The Nobility’s Reform…”, art. cit.
14Rosenwein Barbara H., To be the Neighbor of Saint Peter: The social Meaning of Cluny’s Property, 909-1149, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1989; Schmid Karl and Wollasch Joachim, “Societas et Fraternitas: Begründung eines kommentierten Quellenwerkes zur Erforschung der Personen und Personengruppen des Mittelalters”, Frühmittelalterliche Studien, t. 9, 1975, p. 1-48; Wollasch Joachim, “Les obituaires, témoins de la vie clunisienne”, Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, t. 22, 1979, p. 139-171.
15Ó Súilleabháin Niall, “Enduring Bonds: Social Prestige, Chruch Reform and Grants of Lay Societas in Central France, ca. 950-1150”, Viator, t. 51, no 2, 2020, p. 131-154.
16Ibid.
17Lemarignier Marie-Marguerite, Études sur les anciennes chartes de l’abbaye de Saint-Mesmin de Micy et essai de restitution des cartulaires, unpublished thesis, Paris, École des Chartes, 3 tomes, 1937, t. II, no 52.
18Ibid.: “cum paterna dilectione ab eis sine ulla procrastinatione obtineant”.
19Ibid.: “penitentia ductus et peccatum suum recognoscens”.
20Ibid.: “insistente Tyrannide secularium potestatum a corpore sancte matris ecclesie aurelianensis separate ac divise quasi membratim esse”.
21Ibid.: “beneficii et elemosine consanguinei sui […] participes esse”.
22Cartulaire de l’abbaye cardinale de La Trinité de Vendôme, ed. Charles Métais, Paris, Picard et Fils, 5 t., 1893-1904, t. II, no 324. See Livingstone Amy, Medieval Lives c. 1000-1292. The World of the Beaugency Family, Abingdon, Routledge, 2018, p. 14 and 221-223.
23Cartulaire de l’abbaye cardinale de La Trinité de Vendôme, op. cit., t. II, no 384.
24Ibid., t. II, no 385.
25Ibid.: “piger viator”.
26At Montfollet, the conflict between La Trinité and Saint-Lomer was over which institution should be included in the proprietary community, not over its control of the church.
27Devailly Guy, Le Berry du xe siècle au milieu du xiiie. Étude politique, religieuse, sociale et économique, Paris, Mouton & Co, 1973, p. 250-255.
28La Cartulaire de Vierzon, ed. Guy Devailly, Paris, Presses universitaires de France, 1963, no 78: “in tempore domni Richardi sancte Biturice sedis archiepiscopi facta est universalis excommunicatio super illos laicos qui patrimonio Dei obtinebant ecclesias”.
29Buhot de Kersers Louis (ed.), “Essai de reconstitution…”, art. cit., no 20.
30Ibid.: “recognoscens iniuriam quam de eadem ecclesia [Saint-Eloi] […] Sancto Sulpicio fecerat”. On lay societas, see Ó Súilleabháin Niall, “Enduring Bonds…”, art. cit.
31Buhot de Kersers Louis (ed.), “Essai de reconstitution…”, art. cit., no 55.
32Vanderputten Steven, Monastic Reform as Process; Realities and Representations in Medieval Flanders, 900–1100, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 2013, p. 1-14.
33Orléans, Archives départementales du Loiret, H 163.
Auteur
-
Niall Ó Súilleabháin
CNRS.
Niall Ó Súillebháin est historien de la société et de l’économie médiévales, spécialisé sur l’étude des structures et des hiérarchies sociales entre les ixe et xiie siècles. Il a soutenu en 2020 un doctorat à Trinity College Dublin. Il est actuellement « Postdoctoral Fellow », soutenu par un financement du Marie Sklodowska Curie Actions, au CNRS, accueilli à Poitiers au sein du CESCM (Centre d’études supérieurs en civilisation médiévale – UMR 7032).

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.
Un constructeur de la France du xxe siècle
La Société Auxiliaire d'Entreprises (SAE) et la naissance de la grande entreprise française de bâtiment (1924-1974)
Pierre Jambard
2008
Ouvriers bretons
Conflits d'usines, conflits identitaires en Bretagne dans les années 1968
Vincent Porhel
2008
L'intrusion balnéaire
Les populations littorales bretonnes et vendéennes face au tourisme (1800-1945)
Johan Vincent
2008
L'individu dans la famille à Rome au ive siècle
D'après l'œuvre d'Ambroise de Milan
Dominique Lhuillier-Martinetti
2008
L'éveil politique de la Savoie
Conflits ordinaires et rivalités nouvelles (1848-1853)
Sylvain Milbach
2008
L'évangélisation des Indiens du Mexique
Impact et réalité de la conquête spirituelle (xvie siècle)
Éric Roulet
2008
Les miroirs du silence
L'éducation des jeunes sourds dans l'Ouest, 1800-1934
Patrick Bourgalais
2008