No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
The two Rouen provincial councils that were held in May 1281 and October 1282 are known only from three petitions addressed to Pope Martin IV that survive in a single manuscript. One was printed by Champollion-Figeac in 1839, another by Professor Gaines Post in 1936, but the third remains unpublished because its historical interest has not been apparent. The first two can be readily related to famous events of their day: one urged the canonization of Louis IX, while the other protested the renewal of papal privileges to the mendicant orders. The third, however, has been neglected because its contents do not seem to rise above the commonplace and trivial.
I am indebted to Knox College and the University of Kentucky for summer research grants and to the Belgian American Educational Foundation for making possible a vist to the Britigh Museum.—The following sigla will be used: HLF = Histaire littéraire de la France (Paris, 1733 ff.)Google Scholar. RHF = Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, ed. M. Bouquet et al. (Paris, 1840–1904).Google Scholar L = London, British Museum, MS. Cotton Domitian A. XI.
1. The Benais affair is the subject of my article, “Martin IV and the Fugitive Bishop of Bayeux,” Speculum xl (1965), 460–83.Google Scholar The ease for enlarging the documentation of French provincial councils will be presented in my essay, “Mansi & Rouen: A Critique of the Conciliar Collections.”
2. My description is largely drawn from Omont, H., “Anonyme, auteur lie formulaires de l'abbaye du Bee,” HLF, xxxvi (Paris, 1927), 100–109.Google Scholar For f. 142r.154r see also Post, O., “A Petition Relating to the Bull Ad fructus uberes and the Opposition of the French Secular Clergy in 1282,” Speculum, xi (1936), 231–237, esp. p. 236,CrossRefGoogle Scholar n.1. The MS consists of 180 parchment leaves (f. 106, 154, 180 blank) 203 x 135 mm (8 x 5¼ in., viz. demy octavo). The shclfmark, “Dom. A. XI,” is that now used by the British Museum, although in Planta's catalogue, the A was omitted because no Class B existed: Planta, J., A Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Cottonian Library Deposited in the British Museum (London, 1802), p. 574.Google Scholar The A had been used in the earlier description by Smith, Th., Catatogus librorum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Cottonianae (Oxford, 1696), pp. 134–35.Google Scholar There nra two sets of foliation: the older one in ink on the upper outside recto corners, the younger (1876) in pencil on the lower corners. To avoid confusion, I shall adhere to the older series used by Planta, Omont, and Post; Pantin (n. 6 below) uses the newer.
3. The titles nre listed by Smith and, more completely, by Planta, Ibid.
4. Omont, , “Formulaires du Bee,” HLF, xxxvi, 101–2,Google Scholar prints the prefaces of both formularies from f. 107r and 155r.
5. E.g., four letters on f. 148r.149v. See Post, , “Petition,” Speculum, xi (1936), 237,Google Scholar where a fifth letter (f. 147r) is dated 1289 or early 1290.
6. Pantin, W. A., Documents Illustrating the Activities of the General and Provincial Chapters of the English Black Monks, 1215–1540, Camden 3rd Series, xliv (London, 1937)Google Scholar, has printed a number of the documents in the Bee formularies that relate to English affairs (pp. 263–75). Concerning the provenance of the MB, he reports that it was “once in the possession of Henry Parry, M.A., in 1617, from which Twyne took extracts” (p. 263). See also his “English Monastic Letter-books,” in Historical Essays in Honour of James Tait, ed. S. G. Edwards et al. (Manchester, 1933), pp. 201–22.Google Scholar Letter- books like the Bee Formularies, that were made up of letters written for actual use on particular and actual occasions rather than of generalized forms without historical content (p. 201–2, 206) appear in England just about the time that Formulary A was being compiled at Bec (P. 203), so it would appear that it was one of the first of its kind.
7. At f. 172r the account concludes with the abbot's return and installation by the archbishop, followed by a brief note, obviously an afterthought, on the decree of election given earlier on f. 161r.162v. Then begins a series of letters (f. 172r-179v) dating from 1317–19. For the first few folios, the hand seems to be the same as before, but f. 175r begins a new quire with an altered hand in the middle of a letter. If the hand that copied the materials dating from 1304–5 is indeed the same as the one(s) that copied those of 1317–19, the date of transcription may well be ca 1320, although of course the same man may have added entries from time to time. From the homogeneous nature of the contents, we may be sure that Formulary B up to f. 172r was at least compiled, if not transcribed, ca 1305.
8. Omont, , “Anonyme, auteur de formulaires de l'abbaye du Bee,” HLF, xxxvi, 102,Google Scholar does not attempt to determine if the same monk compiled both formularies, although his title assumes that they were the work of one man. A comparison of the prefaces (Ibid., pp. 101–2) suggests but does not prove that they ware the work of one man, for the first introduces the compiler (without naming him) while the second is impersonal, as if what had been said before were enough. While the first was prepared with novices like the compiler in mind, at the request of boys (“pueris eam petentibus exhibendam … propter novicios mihi consimiles, simplices et erudiendos” f. 107r), the second was compiled “propter juniores informandos” (f. 155r), which suggests an older man who cnn inform younger ones without apologizing for his presumption. This would certainly fit a compiler who had aged some fifteen years between 1289 and 1305.
9. Post, , “Petition,” Speculum, xi (1936), 236–37,Google Scholar n. 1, describes the appendix (f. 142r-153v) with bibliography, to which should be added his two later publications from this MS: “Petrarch and Heraclitus Once More,” Speculum, xii (1937), 343–50,Google Scholar and “Three Letters Relating to the University of Paris, ca 1284–1289,” Speculum, xiv (1939), 478–82.Google Scholar
10. L f. 107r, reprinted from Omont, , “Formulaires du Bee,” HLF, xxxvi 101–2Google Scholar: “… sepe rogatus a quibusdam predicti loci [Bec] fratribus parvulis et simplicibus, quatinus … electionis formas at causas quibus electio potest viciari, et quedam alia electioni necessaria, necnon processum circa electionem predicti domni Ymerii abbatis habitum ac formas quarumdam litterarum, quibus dictum monasterium so-let in causis et negociis uti, quarumdamque transcripta litterarum, pluribus et pro diversis negoctis transmissarum quarum cum precibus at labore copias procuraveram, diligenter perquirerem et in unam Summulam, pueris eam petentibus exhibendam, compilarem.”
11. L f. 142r: “Post litteras precedentes in causis & negotiis monasterii Beccensis hactenus haberi consuetis agendis & defendendis necessarias, Ad compilandas quasdam litteras a magnis & discretis clericis compositas, quarum habere transcripta ualebam spontaneum conuerti laborem. Et quamuis multo melior labor esset in epistolis Pauli & in registro beati Gregorii pape ac in epistolis beati Anselmi in quibus epistolarum copie fructuosarum reperiuntur studere & meditari quam in compiladis litteris mendicando quesitis hostiatim licet aliquatenus necessariis occupari, quia tamen aliquas congerere litteras dispersas inchoaui. Hoc idem in fine summule presentis facere congruum estimaui. Jncipiunt littere a multis composite. Littera bone memorie Gregorius papa ad archiepiscopum Rothomagensis & ad suffraganeos eius. Gregorius episcopus…” Post, , “Three Letters,” Speculum, xiv (1939), 478CrossRefGoogle Scholar prints the first sentence in n. 5 and the rest of the preface in n. 7.
12. L F. 155r, reprinted from Omont, , “Formularies du Bec,” HLF, xxxvi, 102Google Scholar: “…ea que circa predicti patris [Ymer] exequias et sepulturam, et electionem et benedictionem ipsius immediati successoris [Gilbert] … gesta fuerunt in processu qui sequitur, quanquam dictaminis rudis existat, propter juniores informandos plenius continetur.”
13. A terminus ad quem be provided by a verbal echo. the petition of 1282 to Martin IV begins, “Rumores de promotioni sanctitatis vestre dudum nobis leticie iubilum attulerunt…” (Post, , “Petition,” Speculum, xi [1936], 234Google Scholar), while a letter from a monk of Bec to the newly-elected chancellor of the cathedral of Paris, ca 1284, opens, “Rumores desiderati de vestra promotione ad culmen et honorem cancellarie parisiensis ad mee paruitatis noticiam peruenerunt …” (Post, , “Three Letters,” Speculum, xiv [1939], 479)Google Scholar. This suggests that a copy of the former may have been at Bec ca 1284 to provide a model for the latter.
14. L F. 144r-145r, ed. Post, “Petition,” Speculum, xi (1936), 234–36.Google Scholar
15. L f. 145v-146r, ed. in Lettres de rois, reines et autres personnages des cours de France et d'Angleterre depuis Louis VII jusqu' à Henri IV, tirées des archives de Londres par Bréquigny et publiées par M. Champollion-Figeac (Collection de documents inédits sur l'histoire de France…, 1e Série, Histoire politique), i (Paris, 1839), 308–10. Copied from L by L. G. O. F. de Bréquigny ca 1765. At the end of the addrss, the edition reads, “devota pedum oscula. Beatorum benedictus,” but L has “devota pedum oscula beatorum. Benedictus,” which alters the incipit of the text. Bréquigny's transcription also differs from the MS in the following readings (page, line, and reading of ed.] reading of L):
On 23 Dec. 1281, Martin IV appointed a commision to enquire into the life and miracles of Louis IX but estensibly this was in responese to another petition which had been presented to him by the bishops of Chartres and Amiens: Les registres de Martin IV, ed. Olivier-Martin, F. et al. (Paris, 1901–1935), no. 85, cp. no. 84.Google Scholar
16. L F. 145r-145v ed. in App. below and first discussed by Post, , “Petition,” Speculum, xi (1936), 236n.Google Scholar
17. Post, , “Petition,” Speculum, xi (1936), 235,Google Scholar n. 1 a. For details on the Countances appointment, see below at n. 22 and ff. The opening words of Rumores refer to Hausta, establishing its priority: “Rumores de promotioni sanctitatis vestre dudum mobis leticie iubilum attulerunt…” (Ibid., p. 234).
18. Eubel, C.. Hierarchia catholica mediiaevi, i (Münster, 1898), 243.Google Scholar Cp.the entry in the Chronicon Rotomagense, ad an. 1281: “Obiit Philippus, episcopus Ebroicensis, circa octavas As sumptionis beatae Mariae et electus est eodem anno et consecratus dominus Nicolaus de Autolio in episcopum Ebroicensem>” (RHF, xxiii, 343)Google Scholar. Most of the MSS—three—omit the clause in brackets; its chronology is demonstrably faulty. The Maurist editors of Gallia Christiana report that the election of Nicolas d'Auteil as bishop of Evreux was confirmed on Wednesday, 22 October 1281, at Rouen, and that his consecration took place on the following Sunday, 26 October: “electus Nicolaus de Altolio … confirmatus est Rotomagi die Mercurii post festum S. Lucae 1281, consecratusque Dominica sequenti, quo tempore apud sanctum Audoëum hospitatus, cavit indemnitati monasterii” (Gallia Christiana, xi [1874, ed. P. Piolin], 591)Google Scholar. No source for the information is given, although one of the chartularies of St-Ouen seems likely. They date of confirmation is certainly incorrect, as Delisle pointed out, inasmuch as the archbishop's original notification of the confirmation to the king exists. dated 4 October 1281 “apud Mullentum,” but it is still possible that the consecration took place on 26 October. See Delisle, L., Cartulaire normand de Philippe-Auguste, Louis VIII, saint Louis et Philippe-le-Hardi, Mém. de la Soc. des antiq. de Norm., xvi (Caen, 1852), no. 975.Google Scholar The Maurists were not ignorant of this document but they did not use it for the article on Evreux, : Gallia Christiana, xi (1874), 73.Google Scholar
19. An earlier archbishop of Rouen, Odo Rigaud, had allowed almost a month between the date of his summons and the council. For his first council, to be dheld on 22 Jan. 1252 n.s., he issued standard eitation mandates to the provincial and diocesan deans on 28 Dec.; then on 31 Dec. and 1 Jan. they were sent supplementary instructions to issue certain special citations. Regestrum visitationum archiepiscopi Rothomagensis; Journal des visites pastorales d'Eude Rigaud, ed. Th. Bonnin (Rouen, 1852), pp. 122–24Google Scholar. At best, the trip from Rome to Rouen would have taken at least a month of determined traveling at the rate of thirty miles or so per diem. Although royal messengers sometimes travelled for a day or so at almost twice this rate (56 m.p.d.), over long distances 30 m.p.d. would be good traveling time and somewhat less would be more usual. See Boyer, M. N., “A Day's Journey in Mediaeval France,” Speculum, xxvi (1951), 597–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Simon's favors while legate were experessly recalled in Benedictus (ed. Champollion-Figeac, pp. 308–9 readings from L f. 145v-146r>: “… [Martin IV] eujus pree>minentiamnon solum fama deferente, sed oculata fide cognovimus, dum in partibus Gallicanis in minori officio constituti, legationis officium gerebatis. Tune enim frequenti experimento didicimus, nobis et eeclesiis nobis commissis, quotiens incumbebat necessitas, nom tam benigniter quam utiliter subvenire compatientes omnibus et singulis, et eos amplectentes in visceribus caritatis; ex quo omnibus et singulis accrevit cumulus gaudiorum, cum> sciamus talem habere pontificem qui sciet et volet compati infirmitatibus nostris, et suffici>entia remedia super hiis adhibere tanto facilius et dulcius quamlimpidius eas novit.”
21. The case of Bayeux and Simon de Brion are treated at length in my article, “Martin IV and the Fugitive Bishop of Bayeux,” Speculum, xl (1965), 460–83.Google Scholar
22. Gams, P. B., Series episcoporum ecclesiae catholicae, i (Regensburg, 1873), 542Google Scholar; Eubel, , Hierarchia, i, 213.Google Scholar The editors of Gallia Christiana noted that the death occurred shortly after 28 Oct., the feast of SS. Simon and Jude, on 31 Oct. According to some authorities (xi [1874], 881): certainly he was dead on 2 Nov.: Delisle, Delisle, , Cartulaire normand, nos. 842 and 843.Google Scholar
23. The source for the foregoing account is the pope's letter notifying the king of the provision, the original of which survives as Paris, A.N., Trésor des chartes, Mélange de bulles, J699, no. 63. Printed by Delisle, , Cartulaire normand, no. 988Google Scholar (13 April 1282, inc. “Dudum Constanciensi ecclesia”). Not in Reg. Mart. IV but ep. nos. 132–33. The editors of Gallia Christiana, xi (1874), 882,Google Scholar must have known this letter, for they state that Eustache was provided and commended to the king by Martin IV during the second year of his pontificate (23 March 1282–1983). but they meither cite the letter nor give its exact date. Lecanu, A. F., Histoire du diocèse de Coutances et Avranches, i (Coutances, 1877), 313–15,Google Scholar describes the disputed election from the same letter. The last entry in the Chronicon Rotomagense recorded his appointment, probably because he came from Rouen: “Hoc anno [1282] creatus est in episeopum constantiensem frater Eustachius Cordiger de Rothomago a domino papa Martino” (RHF, xxiii, 343).Google Scholar
24. Gallia Christiana, xi (1874), 591,Google Scholar in the biography of Nicolas d'Auteil, bishop of Evreux: “Aemulum passus est Eustachium de Rotomago ordinis Minorum, qui a Martino IV institutus, possessionem adeptus est anno 1282 in festo sanctorum Simonis et Judae, quem idem pontifex Constantiensi praefecit ecclesiae victum a Nicolao.” On Nicolas, see n. 18 above.—Since Benedictus had escaped the notice of the revisers of Gallia Christiana, the earliest mention of Bishop Eustache has long been considered to be his letter of 4 November 1282 commending the newly elected abbot of Notre-Damedu-Voeu at Cherbourg to the king, which was printed by Delisle, , Cartulaire normand, no. 1008.Google Scholar For earlier editions, see de Bréquigny, L. G. O. et al. , Table chronologique des diplômes, chartes, titres et actes imprimés concernant l'histoire de France, vii (1863), 194.Google Scholar Cp. Gallia Christiana, xi (1874), 882 and 942.Google Scholar —Delisle, Cp., Cartulaire normand, no. 987Google Scholar (1 April 1282), in which the chapter of N.-D.-du-Voeu seeks royal approval for an earlier abbatial election, and no. 989 (30 April 1282), in which the chapter of Coutances, sede vacante, certifies to the king their confirmation of yet another abbatial candidate for the vacant abbacy.
25. Post, , “Petition,” Speculum, xi (1936), 236 n.Google Scholar
26. Bessin, G., Concilia Rothomagensis provinciae, i (Rouen, 1717)Google Scholar, in the table of contents includes councils of which he knows nothing more than the fact that they occurred. Such an entry records the existence of a council at Rouen in 1282 without any indication of his source.
27. See my doctoral dissertation, The Making of Statutes in French Provincial Councils 1049–1305 (Madison, 1959Google Scholar; microfilm and xerox eds. pub. by University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Mich.).