Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-t6hkb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-14T08:53:24.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Feuding and Peace—Making in the Touraine Around the Year 1100

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2016

Stephen D. White*
Affiliation:
Wesleyan University

Extract

The conflicts commonly known as feuds, private wars (guerres privées), or vendettas constituted an important type of recurrent political process in Northern France during the later eleventh and earlier twelfth centuries, as well as in earlier and later periods. Because the conflicts to which medievalists have applied these terms could take different forms and cannot be routinely distinguished from other sorts of disputes and because at least one of the most common medieval terms for ‘feud’ — namely werra or guerre — covered such a wide and variable field of meaning, no rigorous definition of the medieval French feud for our period can now be formulated, or, perhaps, should ever be proposed. Nevertheless, the conflicts analyzed in this study of feuding and peace–making in the Touraine during the years around 1100 had several identifiable traits in common. The combatants were adult or at least adolescent males who came from relatively restricted and elevated social circles. A few were the lords of castles. The others, at least some of whom were explicitly identified as ‘noble,’ can generally be identified as the tenants or clients of castellans and/or as the men of a particular castle. All these men carried on feuds as members of armed groups, not as isolated individuals. While taking many different actions in feuds and striving for various goals through this political process, their avowed objective throughout these conflicts was to gain revenge for an alleged injury. This they tried to achieve by expressing, in conventionalized and well–understood ways, their hatred and loathing for their enemies and their anger. Nevertheless, because the opposing parties to feuds were never complete strangers to one another, but belonged to the same loosely defined regional community, conflicts of this kind could, in theory, be ended or at least temporarily halted in such a way as to create or restore amicable relations between groups that had previously been at war. Whether in practice such settlements could actually be established and create real social peace is another matter.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Fordham University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 On the prevalence of feuding in medieval Western Europe, see Bloch, Marc, Feudal Society (trans. Manyon, L. A., 1961; rpt. Chicago 1962) 125; Verbruggen, J. F., The Art of Warfare in Western Europe during the Middle Ages: From the Eighth Century to 1340 (trans. Willard, Sumner and Southern, S. C. M.; New York 1977) 30–31; Le Goff, Jacques, La Civilisation de Voccident médiéval (1964; rpt. Paris 1982) 260. On the frequency of feuding in eleventh-century France, see Duby, , ‘The Middle Ages,’ in Duby, Georges and Mandrou, Robert, A History of French Civilization (trans. Atkinson, James Blakely, 1964; rpt. New York 1967) 3–196 at 51. On medieval French feuding generally, see Bloch, , Feudal Society 125–30; Goebel, Julius Jr., Felony and Misdemeanor: A Study in the History of Criminal Law (1937; rpt. Philadelphia 1976) 15–44 and 93–96; Bongert, Yvonne, Recherches sur les cours laïques du X e au XIII e siècles (Paris 1948) 48–56; Fossier, Robert, Histoire sociale de l'occident médiéval (Paris 1970) 92,136–37; Fossier, Robert, Enfance de l'Europe, X e XII e siècles: aspects économiques et sociaux (Paris 1982) I 423–25; Duby, , ‘The Middle Ages’ 51–52; Duby, Georges, Le Dimanche de Bouvines, 27 Juillet, 1214 (Paris 1973) 76–114; Poly, Jean-Pierre and Bournazel, Eric, La Mutation féodale, X e XII e siècles (Paris 1980) 110, 240, 247.Google Scholar

Recent discussions of feuding in pre-modern Europe include: Wallace-Hadrill, J. M., ‘The Bloodfeud of the Franks,’ Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 4 (1959); rpt. in idem, The Long-Haired Kings and other Studies in Frahkish History (London 1962) 121–47; idem, ‘War and Peace in the Earlier Middle Ages,’ Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser. 25 (1975) 157–74; Davies, R. R., ‘The Survival of the Bloodfeud in Medieval Wales,’ History 54 (1969) 338–57; King, P. D., Law and Society in the Visigothic Kingdom (Cambridge 1972) 85–87, 222; Bonnassie, Pierre, La Catalogne du milieu du X e à la fin du XI e siècle: Croissance et mutations d'une société (Toulouse 1975) II 539–74; Wormald, Jenny, ‘Bloodfeud, Kindred and Government in Early Modern Scotland,’ Past and Present 87 (1980) 54–97; Byock, Jesse L., Feud in Icelandic Society (Berkeley 1982); Miller, William Ian, ‘Choosing the Avenger: Some Aspects of the Bloodfeud in Medieval Iceland and England,’ Law and History Review 1 (1983) 159–205; idem, ‘Justifying SkarpheÐinn: Of Pretexts and Politics in the Icelandic Bloodfeud,’ Scandinavian Studies 55 (1983) 316–44; idem, ‘Avoiding Legal Judgment: The Submission of Disputes to Arbitration in Medieval Iceland,’ American Journal of Legal History 28 (1984) 95–134 and the literature cited 100 n. 15; Campbell, James, John, Eric, and Wormald, Patrick, The Anglo-Saxons (Ithaca 1982) 56, 68, 89–99, 115–16,138, 155, 173, 176, 225, 228; Brunner, Otto, Land und Herrschaft: Grundfragen der territorialen Verfassungsgeschichte Südostdeutschlands im Mittelalter (2nd ed.; Brünn 1942) 1–123. For references to older discussions of feuding, see Bloch, , Feudal Society 462. On definitions of the term ‘feud,’ see below, pp. 198–99 and nn. 16–19.Google Scholar

Much of the research on which this paper is based was supported by grants from the American Council of Learned Societies, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the American Bar Foundation and from the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey, where the article was first drafted. A section of the paper was presented to the International Congress on Medieval Studies at Kalamazoo, Michigan in May 1984. I am grateful to Elizabeth A. R. Brown, Fredric Cheyette, Kate Gilbert, and William Miller for helpful and encouraging comments on the paper and to Lincoln Keiser for some valuable bibliographical references. I also wish to thank Stephen Dyson for help with the map, and Jeffrey Rider for help with translations from Old French.Google Scholar

2 For an indication of how variable feuding practices were even within a single Germanic tribe, see Wallace-Hadrill, , ‘Bloodfeud.’ Wallace-Hadrill also stresses that Frankish feuds may have differed significantly from those of other Germanic peoples: ‘Bloodfeud’ 123 and n. 1. For Wallace-Hadrill's definition of ‘feud,’ see below, p. 199 and n. 19.Google Scholar

3 Wallace-Hadrill, , however, claims that in the earlier Middle Ages feuding can be clearly distinguished from war: ‘War and Peace’ 159–60. On the problems involved in distinguishing between feuding and warfare in medieval France, see below, nn. 4 and 18.Google Scholar

4 On the term werra or guerre, see Du Cange III 585–87; Duby, , Le Dimanche de Bouvines 76144; Bongert, , Recherches sur les cours laïques 55; Duby, , ‘The Middle Ages’ 51; Fossier, , Enfance de l'Europe I 424. On the term faida, faidus, or faide, see Du Cange III 186–88; Wallace-Hadrill, , ‘Bloodfeud’ 122–23 and 122 n. 3; Poly, and Bournazel, , La Mutation féodale 110, 240, 247. Poly, Whereas and Bournazel, distinguish guerre from faide, Duby suggests that the two terms could refer to similar sorts of conflicts: ‘The Middle Ages’ 51. For uses of guerra and bellum in the texts analyzed here, see below, Cases 1 and 6. In early medieval Frankish society, according to Wallace-Hadrill, , ‘We must search for our feuds, incipient or flourishing, in a maze of terms that can mislead: the Frankish faithu, latinized as faidus, may mean what we are after, or it may mean something different; feud may lurk behind inimicus, vindicta, intentio, altercatio, bella civilia, or it may not. As an institution, feud remains undefined by those who have resort to it’: ‘Bloodfeud’ 122–23. The texts discussed here use the following terms to characterize the actions or attitudes of feuding parties: ira (Case 6), contentio (Case 2), inimicitia (Cases 3 and 6), odium and its various derivatives (Cases 2, 4, 6, and 7). Throughout this paper, the term ‘feud’ is used in preference to terms such as private war, guerre privée, or vendetta.Google Scholar

5 For various definitions of the feud, see below, pp. 198–99 and nn. 16–19. For critical analyses of these definitions, see Black-Michaud, Jacob, Cohesive Force: Feud in the Mediterranean and the Middle East (New York 1975) 132 and passim; and Boehm, Christopher, Blood Revenge: The Anthropology of Feuding in Montenegro and other Tribal Societies (Lawrence 1984) 51–58, 192–227. For references to selected studies on feuding by anthropologists, see below, n. 37.Google Scholar

6 For a fuller discussion of these common traits, see below, pp. 246–63.Google Scholar

7 Women appear in only two cases. In Case 1 women were killed in a night-time raid, not in an open conflict. In Case 6 the victim's mother joined in a reconciliation ceremony and forgave her son's slayer.Google Scholar

8 See below, Cases 1, 3, and 4.Google Scholar

9 See below, Cases 4 and 6.Google Scholar

10 See below, Case 4, for example.Google Scholar

11 See Duby, , ‘The Middle Ages’ 51.Google Scholar

12 On the importance of distinguishing the avowed objectives of feuding parties from less openly acknowledged goals, see below, p. 202.Google Scholar

13 On the use of the words ira, odium, and inimicitia in our cases, see above, n. 4. On the importance of anger and hatred in feuds, see Bloch, , Feudal Society 128; Duby, , Le Dimanche de Bouvines 137; and below, n. 25. On the ira and malevolentia of Angevin kings, see Jolliffe, J. E. A., Angevin Kingship, 2nd ed. (New York 1963) 87–109.Google Scholar

14 The claim that feuds were at least theoretically amenable to settlement is an integral part of one theory of feuding. For a critique of this theory, see Black-Michaud, , Cohesive Force esp. 3–17. For a response to Black-Michaud, , see Boehm, , Blood Revenge 191–227.Google Scholar

15 See below, pp. 258–63.Google Scholar

16 Lasswell, Harold D., ‘Feuding,’ Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 6 (New York 1931) 220–21 at 220. On the applicability of this definition to the Noyers cases, ee below, pp. 246–47 and n. 200.Google Scholar

17 Beattie, John, ‘Feud,’ A Dictionary of the Social Sciences, edd. Gould, Julius and Kolb, William L. (New York 1967) 267–68 at 267.Google Scholar

18 Beattie, , ‘Feud’ 267. In an effort to distinguish the blood-feud from other kinds of conflict, Beattie adds: ‘When hostilities are between whole societies and not merely between segments of a single society they are more conveniently described as warfare, and where, although the relation is an inter-group one, no means for settlement exist or are resorted to, the continuous course of reciprocal killings which ensues is more properly called vendetta’: ‘Feud’ 267. For other efforts to distinguish feuding from other kinds of conflicts, see Black-Michaud, , Cohesive Force 1–32, and Boehm, , Blood Revenge 191–227. In medieval France, where boundaries between distinct societies are hard to locate, the commonplace anthropological distinction between feuding and warfare is often difficult, if not impossible, to make.Google Scholar

19 Wallace-Hadrill, , ‘Bloodfeud’ 122. Wallace-Hadrill, also argues that in the early Middle Ages ‘composition was an accepted part of feud’: ‘War and Peace’ 159.Google Scholar

20 On the view that feuding flourishes only where state institutions are weak or non-existent, see Black-Michaud, , Cohesive Force 145–47; Beattie, , ‘Feud’ 267; and Goebel, , Felony and Misdemeanor 21. For challenges to this view, see Black-Michaud, , Cohesive Force 148–50; and Wormald, , ‘Bloodfeud’ 55–56, 95–97.Google Scholar

21 On the relatively slow development of state organization in eleventh- and twelfth-century Europe, see Cheyette, Fredric L., ‘The Invention of the State,’ in Sullivan, Richard E. et al., Essays on Medieval Civilization: The Walter Prescott Webb Memorial Lectures (edd. Lackner, Bede Karl and Philip, Kenneth Roy; Austin 1980) 143–78, esp. 145–48. For examples of the prevalent claim that eleventh-century people lived in a state of virtual ‘anarchy,’ see Luehaire, Achille, Les Premiers Capétiens (987–1137) , in Lavisse, Ernest, Histoire de la France depuis les origines jusqu'à la Révolution, II2 (Paris 1901) 12–13; Lemarignier, Jean-François, La France médiévale: Institutions et société (Paris 1970) 145–47; Hallam, Elizabeth M., Capetian France, 987–1328 (1980; rpt. New York 1983) 17. The question of whether a real ‘state’ existed in France in our period turns largely on how one defines this controversial term. For examples of definitions proposed by anthropologists, see Krader, Lawrence, Formation of the State (Englewood Cliffs 1968) 13; Roberts, Simon, Order and Dispute: An Introduction to Legal Anthropology (Harmondsworth 1979) 137–39; Fried, Morton H., The Evolution of Political Society: An Essay in Political Anthropology (New York 1967) esp. 227–42. On the implications of the existence of state organization for methods of processing disputes, including feuds, see Roberts, , Order and Dispute 139–43.Google Scholar

22 On the intimate relationship in medieval France between feuding and raiding or plundering, see Duby, , Le Dimanche de Bouvines 77; Fossier, , Histoire 137; Fossier, , Enfance de l'Europe I 424–25. For distinctions by anthropologists between feuding and raiding, see Black-Michaud, , Cohesive Force 28, 30–32, 198–205; Boehm, , Blood Revenge 194.Google Scholar

23 See Beattie, , ‘Feud’ 267; Black-Michaud, , Cohesive Force 118; Boehm, , Blood Revenge 182–83.Google Scholar

24 On the inability of French rulers after 1000 to restrain armed conflicts among their nominal subjects, see Duby, Georges, Les Trois Ordres ou l'imaginaire du féodalisme (Paris 1978) 157–61. Although Norman dukes soon succeeded in limiting feuds, Capetian rulers only did so much later: see Yver, Jean, L'Interdiction de la guerre privée dans le très ancien droit normand (Caen 1928) and Lemarignier, , La France médiévale 262.Google Scholar

25 On the difficulty of clearly distinguishing the feuds analyzed here from larger conflicts in the Touraine, see below, pp. 248–49, 259–61. For a dispute between monks and lay people that a monastic scribe characterized as a guerra, see Livre Blanc de Saint-Florent de Saumur, no. 67, Maine-et-Loire, H. 3713, fols 36bis r-37r. On the ira and malevolentia of an adversary of Noyers, see below, n. 191. On conflicts between French monastic communities and their neighbors in this period, see White, Stephen D., “‘Pactum … legem vincit and Amor judicium“: The Settlement of Disputes by Compromise in Eleventh-Century Western France,’ American Journal of Legal History 22 (1978) 281308; Johnson, Penelope D., Prayer, Patronage and Power: The Abbey of la Trinité de Vendôme, 1032–1187 (New York 1981) 91–96; Weinberger, Stephen, ‘Les conflits entre clercs et laïcs dans le Provence du xie siècle,’ Annales du Midi 92 (1980) 269–79 and the literature cited in 269 n. 1. On disputes between Noyers and its neighbors, see below, p. 213 and n. 87.Google Scholar

26 On the composition of feuding groups, see Black-Michaud, , Cohesive Force 3762.Google Scholar

27 Since the word vassal is never used in the charters considered here, it seems better to apply the terms client and tenant to people who were in some way dependent on the lords of the region.Google Scholar

28 According to Beattie, an essential precondition of feuding is ‘a high degree of group solidarity, typically (though not only) found when unilineal kinship forms the basis of territorial organization’: ‘Feud’ 267.Google Scholar

29 Bloch claims that in this period ‘no moral obligation seemed more sacred’ than a man's obligation to avenge the death of his kinsman: Feudal Society 126. On ‘family solidarity’ in this period, see Bloch, , Feudal Society 123–33; Duby, Georges, ‘Lignage, noblesse et chevalerie au xiie siècle dans la région mâconnaise: Une révision,’ in idem, Hommes et structures du moyen âge (Paris 1973) 395–422; Fossier, Robert, La Terre et les hommes en Picardie jusqu'à la fin du XIII e siècle (Paris 1968) I 262–73; Verbruggen, , The Art of Warfare, 65–72. Although Bloch virtually equates ‘friends’ with ‘kin’ (Feudal Society 123–24), the two terms need not always have covered precisely the same field of meaning. The cases analyzed here, especially Case 4, provide some support for Goebel's claim that the victim's lord organized vengeance groups: Felony and Misdemeanor 195.Google Scholar

30 According to Bloch, , the custom of seeking revenge was found ‘at every level of society’: Feudal Society 127. On the combative, vengeful style of the Cluniac liturgy, see Rosenwein, Barbara H., ‘Feudal War and Monastic Peace: Cluniac Liturgy as Ritual Aggression,’ Viator 2 (1971) 129–57; and Duby, Georges, Saint Bernard: L'Art Cistercien (1976; rpt. Paris, 1979), 42–43. On the rituals through which monks sometimes retaliated against their enemies or even against a patron saint who had failed to protect them, see the articles by Little, and Geary, cited below, n. 232. For two vivid stories about vengeance that supernatural powers supposedly took or almost took on the enemies of one French abbey, see de Fleury, André, Vie de Gauzlin, abbé de Fleury, ed. and trans. Bautier, Robert-Henri and Labory, Gillette (Paris 1969) 46–47, 66–71. In the second story, the Virgin appears in a dream to a man who had aroused her anger (iracundia) and that of Peter, Saint and Benedict, Saint when he took away from the monks of Saint-Benoit-sur-Loire some property that had been given to Saint Mary and her sainted ‘friends’ (amici): ibid., 68, 69.Google Scholar

31 On efforts to curb feuding, see Bloch, , Feudal Society 128–29; Poly, and Bournazel, , La Mutation féodale 240, 247; Lemarignier, , La France médiévale 262; and the works cited below in n. 35.Google Scholar

32 By the thirteenth century, according to Bloch, ‘violence’ had become 'a class privilege — at least in theory’: Feudal Society 127. Duby, argues, moreover, that lords actively prevented peasants from seeking vengeance for injuries: ‘The Middle Ages’ 51.Google Scholar

33 See below, pp. 260–63.Google Scholar

34 Fossier regards plunder, not revenge, as the real objective of feuding parties: Enfance de l'Europe I 136–37. On the economic importance of plundering, see Duby, Georges, Guerriers et paysans, VII e XII e siècle: Premier essor de l'économie européenne (Paris 1973) 49; and Duby, , Les Trois Ordres 188, 195. For anthropological discussions of raiding, see above, n. 22.Google Scholar

35 On the peace-movements, see Fossier, , Enfance de l'Europe I 313–18, and Poly, and Bournazel, , La Mutation féodale 234–50, both of which contain extensive references to recent work on this topic.Google Scholar

36 Six of the seven feuds discussed below were triggered by killings. The other one (Case 7) can still be considered a feud, because as Wallace-Hadrill, observes, ‘homicide was but one of many injuries from which vengeance might spring’: ‘Bloodfeud’ 124. See also below, p. 246 and n. 192.Google Scholar

37 Among the anthropological studies of feuding consulted for this article are: Lasswell, , ‘Feud’; Beattie, , ‘Feud’; Gluckman, Max, ‘The Peace in the Feud,’ in idem. Custom and Conflict in Africa (Glencoe 1955) 126; idem, Politics, Law and Ritual in Tribal Society (Chicago 1965) esp. 109–16; idem, ‘African Traditional Law in Historical Perspective,’ Radcliffe-Brown Lecture in Social Anthropology, 1974 (London 1974); Middleton, John and Tait, David, ‘Introduction,’ in Tribes without Rulers: Studies in African Segmentary Systems (edd. Middleton, John and Tait, David; London 1958) 1–31; Colson, Elizabeth, ‘Social Control and Vengeance in Plateau Tonga Society,’ Africa 23(1952) 194–212; Evans-Pritchard, E. E., The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People (Oxford 1940); Peters, E. L., ‘Some Structural Aspects of the Feud among the Camel-herding Bedouin of Cyrenaica,’ Africa 37 (1967) 261–82; Black-Michaud, , Cohesive Force; Peters, E. L., ‘Foreword,’ in Black-Michaud, , Cohesive Force ix–xxvii; Boehm, , Blood Revenge; Bourdieu, Pierre, Outline of a Theory of Practice (trans. Richard Nice 1977; rpt. Cambridge 1982) 1–71; Moore, Sally Falk, ‘Legal Liability and Evolutionary Interpretation: Some Aspects of Strict Liability, Self-Help, and Collective Responsibility,’ in eadem, Law as Process: An Anthropological Approach (London 1978) 92–134; Pospisil, Leopold, Anthropology of Law: A Comparative Theory (New York 1971) esp. 2–9. Black–Michaud, , Cohesive Force and Boehm, , Blood Revenge contain reviews of earlier literature.Google Scholar

38 This methodological strategy underlies many anthropological discussions of so-called dispute-settlement or dispute-processing and is formulated clearly in Llewellyn, K. N. and Adamson Hoebel, E., The Cheyenne Way: Conflict and Case Law in Primitive Jurisprudence (1941; rpt. Norman 1973) 2040. For a critique of work on dispute processing, see Cain, Maureen and Kulcsar, Kalmar, ‘Thinking Disputes: An Essay on the Origins of the Dispute Industry,’ Law and Society Review 16 (1982) 375–402.Google Scholar

39 On ‘process-centered paradigms’ for the study of law, see Comaroff, John L. and Roberts, Simon, Rules and Processes: The Cultural Logic of Dispute in an African Context (Chicago 1981) 1117; Roberts, , Order and Dispute 192–206; and Nader, Laura and Todd, Harry F. Jr., ‘Introduction: The Disputing Process,’ in eidem edd., The Disputing ProcessLaw in Ten Societies (New York 1978) 1–40, esp. 4 and 16.Google Scholar

40 On sagas as evidence about medieval Icelandic feuding, see the works by Miller, and Byock, (n. 1 supra) and Turner, Victor, ‘An Anthropological Approach to the Icelandic Sagas,’ in The Translation of Culture: Essays to E. E. Evans-Pritchard (ed. Beidelman, Thomas O.; London 1971) 349–74.Google Scholar

41 See the literature cited above in n. 37.Google Scholar

42 On the degree to which scribal adherence to charter formulae impedes efforts to use charters for the study of social processes, see Duby, Georges, Le Chevalier, la femme, et le prêtre: Le mariage dans la France féodale (Paris 1981) 101, 104; and Cheyette, , ‘Invention of the State’ 152–56. Because lay donors to abbeys often associated themselves and their dead and living relatives with their monastic donees (see, e.g., Duby, Georges, Saint Bernard 17, 33, 43), the term ‘charter of donation’ really misrepresents the nature of these transactions. This point is developed at length in my forthcoming study, Custom, Kinship and Gifts to Saints: An Analysis of the Laudatio Parentum. On the structure of monastic accounts of feuds, see also below, p. 247.Google Scholar

43 On ‘extended cases,’ see Nader, and Todd, , ‘Introduction’ 8. For discussions of Icelandic feuding, see above, nn. 1 and 40. For accounts of feuds in chansons de geste, see, for example, Raoul de Cambrai: Chanson de geste , edd. Meyer, P. and Longnon, A. (Paris 1882). The value of this text as an historical source is acknowledged by Bloch, ( Feudal Society 64, 94, 102, 127, 196, 229, 238, 305), Verbruggen (Art of Warfare 31, 40, 70, 71), and Lemarignier, (La France médiévale 129–31). For remarks on feuding and peace-making that are partly based on this poem, see below, pp. 256–57 and 262–63.Google Scholar

44 On the possible connections between some of the cases, see below, p. 260.Google Scholar

45 On use of the term ‘outcomes,’ as opposed to ‘settlements,’ see Felstiner, William L. F., ‘Influences of Social Organization on Dispute Processing,’ Law and Society Review 9 (1976) 6394 at 69 n. 4.Google Scholar

46 Since the agreements must have been made in several different stages (see, for example, Case 7) and since most of our charters include only one witness list, it is sometimes hard to tell which stage was seen and heard by the recorded witnesses. How soon after the event these charters were drawn up is also unclear.Google Scholar

47 On the use of charters as evidence in disputes, see Bongert, , Recherches sur les cours laïques 277–89.Google Scholar

48 On oral tradition, see Vansina, Jan, Oral Tradition: A Study in Historical Methodology (trans. Wright, H. M.; Chicago 1965).Google Scholar

49 Cartulaire de l'abbaye de Noyers, ed. Chevalier, C. (Mémoires de la Société archéologique de Touraine 22; Tours 1872) [abbreviated henceforth as N, followed by the number(s) of the charter(s) cited]. The cartulary survives only in an eighteenth-century copy (Bibliothèque de la ville de Poitiers, Coll. Dom Fontenau, vols, lxxi–lxxii); see Stein, Henri, Bibliographie générale des cartulaires français ou relatifs à l'histoire de France (1907; rpt. Liechtenstein 1967) no. 2774 (p. 381). This collection — which contains over 300 charters for our period — constitutes a major source for the history of the lower Touraine and parts of Poitou during the eleventh and twelfth centuries and is frequently cited in such works as Louis Halphen, Le Comté d'Anjou au XI e siècle (Paris 1906); Garaud, Marcel, Les Chatelains de Poitou et l'avènement du regime féodal, XI e et XII e siècles (Mémoires de la Société des antiquaires de l'Ouest, 4th ser. 8; Poitiers 1964); Guillot, Olivier, Le Comte d'Anjou et son entourage au XI e siècle (Paris 1972).Google Scholar

50 On the ‘narrations très libre, prolixes’ found in eleventh-century charters from Northern France and elsewhere, see Duby, , Le Chevalier, la femme, et le prêtre 101.Google Scholar

51 On network analysis, see, for example, Social Networks in Urban Situations: Analyses of Personal Relationships in Central African Towns (ed. Clyde Mitchell, J.; Manchester 1969); Barnes, J. A., Social Networks (Addison-Wesley Module in Anthropology Reading 26; 1972); Boissevain, Jeremy, Friends of Friends: Networks, Manipulators and Coalitions (1974; rpt. Oxford 1978).Google Scholar

52 Only a few of these connections are discussed below in the text; others are treated in footnotes.Google Scholar

53 Because Noyers charters can rarely be dated precisely, it is often uncertain whether a person's connections with the abbey pre- or post-dated a given feud. But even evidence of a later connection may suggest that the monks and the person in question had previously belonged to the same network.Google Scholar

54 On intrafamilial conflict, for example, see Bloch, , Feudal Society 134–35; and Duby, , Le Chevalier, la femme, et le prêtre 100–103. On the prevalence of disputes between English lords and their tenants and tenants' heirs during the Anglo-Norman and Angevin periods, see Milsom, S. F. C., The Legal Framework of English Feudalism (Cambridge 1977).Google Scholar

55 For examples of disputes between Noyers and some of the monks‘ patrons or patrons’ kin, see N 73, 85, 96, 100, 106, 108, 114, 115, 130, 132, 133, 145, 151.Google Scholar

56 This theme of medieval literature is sounded with remarkable clarity in Raoul de Cambrai, which focuses closely on the predicament of Bernier, whose lord, Raoul, waged a war against Bernier's kin. See below, pp. 256–57 and n. 248.Google Scholar

57 This view of politics is developed by Bourdieu (Outline 3–9 and passim) and, in a somewhat different way, by Boissevain, , Friends of Friends. Google Scholar

58 See below, Cases 6 and 7.Google Scholar

59 See below, pp. 254–55 and nn. 238–41.Google Scholar

60 See below, pp. 256–57 and n. 248.Google Scholar

61 On the role of monks in performing penitential acts for their patrons and thus mediating for the latter with God and God's saints, see Southern, R. W., Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages (1970; rpt. Baltimore 1973) 225–28; and Lawrence, C. H., Medieval Monasticism: Forms of Religious Life in Western Europe in the Middle Ages (New York 1984) 61–63. On mediation by monks between patrons and patrons' dead relatives, see Geary, Patrick, ‘Exchange and Interaction between the Living and the Dead in Early Medieval Society’ (unpublished MS); Oexle, Otto Gerhard, ‘Memoria und Memorialtiberlieferung im früheren Mittelalter,’ Frühmittelalterliche Studien 10 (1976) 70–95.Google Scholar

62 See esp. pp. 258–63.Google Scholar

63 See Chevalier, C., Histoire de l'abbaye de Noyers au XI e et au XII e siècle d'après les chartes (Mémoires de la Société archéologique de Touraine 23; Tours 1873) iiiciii.Google Scholar

64 On the early history of the abbey, see N 1, 3; Chevalier, , Noyers ivvii. On the final stages of the conquest of the Touraine by the Count of Anjou, see Halphen, , Anjou 48–50; Guillot, , Le Comte d'Anjou I 282–83, 312.Google Scholar

65 On the site of Noyers, see Chevalier, , Noyers ix. On the road that passed a little to the east of the abbey on its way from Tours to Port-de-Piles and then on to Poitiers, see Mauny, Raymond, ‘La voie romaine de Tours à Poitiers (section Tours–Ports-de-Piles),’ Bulletin trimestriel de la Société archéologique de Touraine 33 (1963) 297310.Google Scholar

66 On Rainerius, , see Chevalier, , Noyers xxxiiixl; on Stephanus, , see xl–civ.Google Scholar

67 Chevalier, , Noyers x.Google Scholar

68 On Nouâtre (or Le Nouâtre), see Halphen, , Anjou 42; Garaud, , Poitou 100; and Guillot, , Le Comte d' Anjou I 21 n. 107, 23 and n. 112 and esp. 460. For brief notes on Nouâtre and other castles in the Touraine, see Lelong, Charles, ‘Chateaux-forts de Touraine aux xe et xie siècles,’ Bulletin trimestriel de la Société archéologique de Touraine 37 (1972) 107–16. On Urias, lord of Nouâtre, see below, Case 1.Google Scholar

69 On L'Isle-Bouchard, see Halphen, , Anjou 19, 48, 50, 165, 203, 204; Garaud, , Poitou 73 n. 14; Guillot, , Le Comte d'Anjou I 313, 330–31, 464; and Chroniques descomtes d'Anjou et des seigneurs d'Amboise (edd. Halphen, Louis and Poupardin, Rene, Collection de textes pour servir à l'étude et à l'enseignement d'histoire 48; Paris 1913) 45, 48, 159, 205. On Bartholomaeus, lord of L'Isle-Bouchard, see below, Case 4. On Peloquinus, lord of L'Isle-Bouchard, see below, Case 1.Google Scholar

70 On Châtellerault, see the numerous well-indexed references in Garaud, Poitou. On Boso, lord of Châtellerault, see below, Cases 1 and 4.Google Scholar

71 On Sainte-Maure, see Halphen, , Anjou 74, 154, 162; Garaud, , Poitou 101, 178 n. 80, 225; Guillot, , Le Comte d'Anjou I 73–75, 95, 461; and Chroniques des comtes d'Anjou 106, 108, 157, 158, 234. On Hugo, lord of Sainte-Maure, see below, Cases 1, 4, and 7.Google Scholar

72 On Marmande, see Halphen, , Anjou 203; Garaud, , Poitou 101, 225. On Acharias, lord of Marmande, see below, Case 1.Google Scholar

73 On Faye-la-Vineuse, see Halphen, , Anjou 154, 154 n. 3, 161–62, 203; Garaud, , Poitou 45 n. 41, 88, 100, 102, 106, 219; Guillot, , Le Comte d'Anjou I 366, 458; Bachrach, Bernard S., ‘Enforcement of the Forma Fidelitatis: The Techniques Used by Fulk Nerra, Count of the Angevins (987–1040),’ Speculum 59 (1984) 796819 at 804 and n. 44. On Aimericus, lord of Faye-la-Vineuse, see below, Cases 2, 3, and 4. Three other castles figure in our cases: Montbazon (see Halphen, , Anjou 32, 42–43, 153, 204; Guillot, , Le comte d'Anjou I 462); Loudun, (see Halphen, , Anjou 246, 282, 292, 317; Guillot, , Le comte d'Anjou I 5–6, 7, 39, 105 n. 468, 191, 284, 401; Garaud, , Poitou 39, 69 n. 202, 96, 137; Bachrach, , ‘Enforcement of the Forma Fidelitatis’ 799 and n. 21, 803–804 and nn. 38–44, 807, 808); Champigny-sur-Veude, (see Halphen, , Anjou 173; Guillot, , Le Comte d'Anjou I 300 n. 118).Google Scholar

74 On Evrardus, , Andreas, , and Gaudrifus, , see Chevalier, , Noyers ivxxxii.Google Scholar

75 Because the property given to Noyers by its founder Hubertus was held as a benefice from Fulk Nerra, the gift was approved by Fulk and Fulk's son Geoffrey Martel: N 1. A little later, Geoffrey and his wife Agnes made a gift of their own to the abbey: N 3. Subsequently, however, counts of Anjou appear only rarely in Noyers charters: see, e.g., N 40, 50, 54. Properties given to Noyers in Cases 1 to 7 below are typical of gifts made to the abbey during our period and are similar to gifts made to other Benedictine monastic communities at this time. See Johnson, , Prayer, Patronage and Power 5661; Gantier, Odile, ‘Recherches sur les possessions et les prieurés de l'abbaye de Marmoutier du xe au xiiie siècle,’ Revue Mabillon 53 (1963) 93–110, 161–67; 54 (1964) 15–24, 56–67, 125–35; 55 (1965) 32–44, 65–79; Chédeville, A., ‘Notice Historique …,’ in Liber Controversiarum Sancti Vincentii Cenomannensis … (ed. Chédeville, A.; Paris 1968) 33–70, esp. 50–70. See also Little, Lester, Religious Poverty and the Profit Economy (1978; rpt. Ithaca 1983) 64 and the works cited at 283 n. 20.Google Scholar

76 Examples of grants of beneficium: N 43, 44, 48, 56, 61, 65, 77, 120, 123, 129. Grants of burial rights: N 44, 56, 61, 63, 65, 77, 93, 100, 109, 110, 115, 130. Grants of places as monks: N 55, 56, 75, 77, 81, 82, 93, 115. Prayers for donor's kin: N 95, 96, 98, 102, 108, 127, 129. Names to be written in martyrology: N 63, 78, 98, 115, 116.Google Scholar

77 For examples of material counter-gifts, see N 43, 78, 89, 93, 123.Google Scholar

78 Case 1.Google Scholar

79 Cases 4 and 5. Power over such people in the form of ‘customs’ (consuetudines) was granted in Cases 2 and 3. For a note on one Noyers serf, see Souty, Pierre, ‘Arnulf, serf de Noyers,’ Bulletin trimestriel de la Société archéologique de Touraine 33 (1963) 315–17.Google Scholar

80 On the counts of Anjou in this period, see Halphen, , Anjou 133201; Boussard, J., ‘La vie en Anjou au xie et xiie siècles,’ Le Moyen Age 4th ser. 56 (1950) 29–68 esp. 32–33; Guillot, , Le comte d'Anjou I 102–26 and passim. On Poitou during the same era, see Garaud, , Poitou. Google Scholar

81 On the conflict between Bartholomaeus and Fulk Rechin, see below, Case 7 (N 199). Because of the anger (ira) of count Fulk, Urias left Nouâtre and took refuge at Preuilly with Geoffrey of Preuilly: N 196.Google Scholar

82 See Cases 1, 4, 5, 6. See also Halphen, , Anjou 203.Google Scholar

83 N 24. On Hugo, lord of Sainte-Maure, see below, n. 84 and Cases 1, 4 and 7.Google Scholar

84 N 159. This occurred in a conflict (termed a guerra) between Hugo of Sainte-Maure and the Count of Vendôme. Two of Hugo's sons were killed by stealth (N 307), while a third died in battle in Aquitaine: N 139. For other similar conflicts, see N 65 and 71; Chevalier, , Noyers xxxivxxxv.Google Scholar

85 Halphen, , Anjou 49 n. 2.Google Scholar

86 See Case 1.Google Scholar

87 For examples of these conflicts, see N 65, 68, 73, 79, 81, 89, 97, 108, 115, 133, 159, 194, 212, 254, 269, 289. See also the cases cited above in n. 55.Google Scholar

88 In the translations of Cases 3, 5, 6, and 7, some very brief introductory phrases have been cut. Case 2, as presented here, consists of the second part of a charter.Google Scholar

89 This study is based on documents in the cartulary of Noyers. Charters of other religious houses in the Touraine, , Poitou, , the Vendômois, , and Anjou, might reveal additional information about the people involved in the disputes discussed here. For a reference in a charter of Saint-Aubin of Angers to one of the main parties in Case 7, see below, n. 187.Google Scholar

90 Often, the distinction between slayer and victim is artificial, because the killings occurred in conflicts that were already in progress. In Cases 1 through 6, however, the person identified here as the aggressor was the person who made amends to the other party. Although the situation in Case 7 was more ambiguous, the party identified here as the aggressor made a gift to Noyers in order to obtain the other party's love. In the translations and in other passages, the names of participants have been left in the Latin forms used by Noyers scribes. Well-known names, such as Geoffrey Martel or Fulk Nerra, have been put into modern English forms. When a toponym has been clearly identified with an existing location, it has been put into the modern French form and the conjunction de has been translated as ‘of.’ Google Scholar

91 N 67 (ca. 1074). On this case, see Chevalier, , Noyers xxxvxxxviii; Halphen, , Anjou 203; and Garaud, , Poitou 99–100. Garaud accepts the date given by Chevalier.Google Scholar

92 On Acharias of Marmande, see below, pp. 216–21 and nn. 108, 110. On several of his relatives, see n. 107.Google Scholar

93 On Boso (II) of Châtellerault (1069–1101), see Garaud, , Poitou 23 n. 52, 45 n. 41, 99, 124 n. 56, 129, 159 n. 284.Google Scholar

94 Aimericus lord of Faye-la-Vineuse, known as Aimericus II, plays an important part in Cases 2,3, and 4 and was closely linked to Noyers and to many other people mentioned in our cases. Married to a woman called Eustacia, Aimericus was a posthumous child of Aimericus I (the Young), who was lord of Faye-la-Vineuse and who was probably the son of Aimericus of Loudun: see below, n. 128. Following the death of Aimericus I in 1061, the lordship of Faye-la-Vineuse passed to Aimericus II only after it had been held first by Guy of Nevers and then by Ganelon of Châtillon. After Ganelon's death, Aimericus II took control of Faye-la-Vineuse: Halphen, , Anjou 161 n. 6; Bachrach, , ‘Enforcement of the Forma Fidelitatis’ 804 and nn. 41 and 44; N 20 and 45.Google Scholar

95 On Fodialis, Gaufridus, see above, p. 213 and n. 85.Google Scholar

96 This passage implies that Acharias was at least briefly allied with his nephew Urias, lord of Nouâtre, who later became his enemy.Google Scholar

97 Peloquinus, sometimes known as Andreas Peloquinus, was the son of Archembaldus Borrellus, lord of L'Isle-Bouchard, whose brother Burchardus had been lord of the same place. Eventually, Andreas Peloquinus was succeeded as lord by his son Peloquinus. But for a while, the latter was under the wardship of Rotbertus of Blois, who had married the mother of the young Peloquinus: see N 51, 53, 55, 67, 77, 120, 131, 133; and Garaud, , Poitou 197. On Rotbertus of Blois, see below, Case 7.Google Scholar

98 It was at this point, if not before, that Acharias and his nephew Urias became enemies.Google Scholar

99 Grisay was a hamlet near Pussigny — a burg on the Vienne above the juncture with the Creuse. The place where Acharias made his raid was thus relatively close to Marmande, Nouâtre, and Noyers. But because various lords may have had interests in this region, it is hard to identify conclusively the identity of the lord or lords in whose lands Acharias made his raid. Noyers gradually acquired numerous properties in the region of Grisay: N 19, 20,127,167, 267, 286, 311, 406, 436, 479, 601.Google Scholar

100 The nepos who captured Acharias was undoubtedly Urias of Nouâtre, who was the son of Acharias' brother Bernardus Cauda Vaccae and of Sophia. Urias' full brothers were Adelelmus Cauda Vaccae, who became a monk of Noyers; Amalvinus Cauda Vaccae; Eleazar; and Salatiel. Urias' half-siblings — by the marriage of Sophia to Adraldus — were Simon of Nouâtre; Adelardus Bardonus; and Jacobina: see, generally, N 114, 115, 139, 159. Urias made at least one gift to Noyers (N 115, 156), as did his brother Adelelmus (N 114), his sister's husband Garinus (N 159), his mother Sophia (N 138), and his half-brother Simon (N 158, 203). When Bernardus son of Amalvinus Cauda Vaccae was killed in a conflict between the milites of Sainte-Maure and those of Marmande, he was buried at Noyers by the monks, who were later given property in return by Amalvinus: N 265. Other transactions involving the monks of Noyers were approved or witnessed by Urias (N 108, 123, 154), Salatiel (N 114, 115, 138, 196, 234, 313, 400), Adelelmus (N 115, 138, 206, 313, 375), and Simon: see, e.g., N 115, 138, 156, 159, 173, 176, 197, 233, 251, 296.Google Scholar

101 perhaps these men were seized during a dispute over fishing rights or other water rights between the monks and Acharias.Google Scholar

102 For a charter to which Stephanus was a signatory, see N 20.Google Scholar

103 On Ports, , see N 4, 67, 78, 174, 244, 404, 449, 512, 634, 652. Ports should not be confused with the nearby burg and landing-place of Port-de-Piles (Portus Pillarum), located on the Creuse near the junction of that river with the Vienne.Google Scholar

104 On Lisiardus, who was the elemosinarius of Noyers, see N 68, 70, 118, 207.Google Scholar

105 On the medieval practice of treating killing by burning as an especially serious form of homicide, see Viollet, Paul, ‘Introduction,’ in Les Etablissements de Saint Louis (Paris 1881–86) I 239–40.Google Scholar

106 On acts of humiliation by slayers, see below, p. 240 and n. 174 and p. 257 and n. 249.Google Scholar

107 N 434. A Noyers scribe characterized Burchardus, a second brother of Acharias of Marmande, as ‘proximus noster quidam nobilis’ and as ‘valde noster familiaris’: N 375. After being mortally wounded, Burchardus made a gift to the abbey and was buried there: N 375, 377. Along with her husband Galterius Tinnosus, Audierdis Cana, a sister of Acharias and Burchardus, approved Burchardus' gift. Later, after challenging the same gift along with her husband, her sons, and her daughter, Audierdis approved this transaction: N 17, 71, 354, 375. Acharias' wife Elizabeth was also buried at Noyers: N 378. As we have already seen (n. 100), Adelelmus, son of Acharias' brother Burchardus and brother of Urias of Nouâtre, was a monk of Noyers: N 115, 375.Google Scholar

108 For properties held by Acharias and/or his tenants in the vicinity of the abbey or its properties, see N 88bis, 103, 105, 157, 173, 263, 362, 375, 378, 379. For gifts to Noyers by the lord of Marmande, see N 362, 375, 377, 378, 379. In return for one of these gifts, the monks agreed to celebrate Acharias' anniversary ‘sicut pro monacho professo’: N 379. On Acharias' disputes with these monks, see N 308, 434 and 447. For gifts to Noyers that Acharias approved, see 88bis, 103, 105, 115, 157, 263, 375. For charters witnessed by Acharias, , see N 100, 173, 270, 329. Two sons of Acharias' are mentioned in Noyers charters: Burchardus (N 377, 378, 439); and Goffridus Media: N 263, 377, 447. In Noyers charters, Acharias sometimes appears with other men who figure in our cases — e.g., Aimericus of Faye-la-Vineuse (N 100, 434), Boso de Chillo (N 157), and Hugo of Sainte-Maure (N 308, 434). Evidently, Acharias held land both from Hugo (N 308) and from Aimericus (N 434).Google Scholar

109 A large literature deals with this practice, sometimes known as the laudatio parentum. See, e.g., Ourliac, P. and de Malafosse, J., Histoire du droit privé (2nd ed.; Paris 1971) II 423–24; Partsch, Gottfried, Das Mitwirkungsrecht der Familiengemeinschaft im älteren Walliser Recht (Geneva 1955) 1–18; Bloch, , Feudal Society 130–33; Duby, , La Société aux XI e et XII e siècles dans la région mâconnaise (Paris 1971) 221–24 and 366–68; Duby, , ‘Lignage’; Fossier, , La Terre et les hommes en Picardie I 263–65; White, Stephen D., ‘The Laudatio Parentum in Northern France in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries: Some Unanswered Questions,’ American Historical Association Proceedings, 1977 (Ann Arbor 1978) Session 32; and Ourliac, Paul and Gazzaniga, Jean-Louis, Histoire du droit privé de l'an mil au code civil (Paris 1985) 211, 245, 336. On the laudatio as practiced in the Touraine, see Dupont, Michel, Monographe du cartulaire du Bourgeuil (des origines à la fin du moyen âge) (Mémoires de la Société archéologique de Touraine 56; Tours 1962) 126–30.Google Scholar

110 Acharias witnessed a death-bed gift to Noyers by Urias, (N 115) and appeared with him in another charter (N 130).Google Scholar

111 Bernardus of La Fresne witnessed one gift to Noyers by Acharias, (N 378), and Bernardus' son Paganus made a gift to Noyers with the approval of Acharias (N 263). Paganus' brother Guillelmus Goruns approved Paganus' gift and also figures in other charters of Noyers: see, e.g., N 514. Girardus the provost witnessed Acharias' confirmation of a gift to Noyers from this lord's fief (N 88bis), a gift to Noyers by Acharias' brother Burchardus (N 375), and another gift to Noyers (N 118).Google Scholar

112 On the composition of vengeance groups see below, p. 251.Google Scholar

113 N 157 (ca. 1088). The translation given here omits the first half of the charter, which records a gift to Noyers by Boso de Chillo, on which see below, p. 222 and n. 117.Google Scholar

114 For another reference to a bakehouse at Faye-la-Vineuse, see below, Case 3 and n. 127.Google Scholar

115 On the approval of gifts by the wives of donors, see the literature cited above in n. 109 and Gold, Penny Schine, The Lady and the Virgin: Image, Attitude and Experience in Twelfth-Century France (Chicago 1985) 116144.Google Scholar

116 This practice is illustrated earlier in the same charter (N 157), which records a gift that was first made at Marmande, then confirmed at Faye-la-Vineuse, and then made once more at Noyers on a feast day.Google Scholar

117 Boso the elder made his gift to Noyers at Marmande, but his wife and sons approved it at Faye-la-Vineuse. Boso's gift was also approved by his son, Marricus, who probably died young, and by Acharias of Marmande: N 157. de Chillo, Boso the elder was presumably associated with Marmande and/or with the kin group of Acharias: N 114, 159. For transactions witnessed by Boso the elder, see N 114, 159, 268, 386. In these charters, he appears with other men mentioned in our cases: Urias of Nouâtre (N 159), Bordet, Stephanus (N 258, 386), de Furnols, Boso (N 258, 386), Amalvinus, [Robelini?] (N 258, 386), [Boso?] Eleazar, (N 258, 386), Adraldus son of Lina (N 258, 386), Fulcherius of Messemé (N 258, 386). Boso the elder can easily be confused with his son, Boso the younger, who appears in N 409. Brictius de Chillo witnessed a gift to Noyers by Aimericus of Faye-la-Vineuse (N 64) and appears twice in witness lists with this same lord (N 96, 452) and once with Adraldus son of Lina (N 96); he also appears in several other Noyers charters: N 292, 409, 528. Brictius' brother Adelelmus de Chillo also witnessed two transactions between Noyers and lord Aimericus of Faye-la-Vineuse: N 175, 382. In the first of them, Adelelmus was a witness along with Cadilo de Furnols, Amalvinus Robelini, Ainardus de Luens, Tetbaldus of Messemé, and Adraldus son of Lina — all of whom appear in at least one of our seven cases. Earlier charters of Noyers also include references to de Chillo, Rainaldus (N 14), de Chillo, Arnulfus (N12, 14), and de Chillo, Stephanus (N 12, 14).Google Scholar

118 N 252. This gift was witnessed by two men who figure in other cases: Bartholomaeus, lord of L'Isle-Bouchard, and Gaufridus Vacchio. It would appear that Hugo and Aimericus were connected with L'Isle-Bouchard. For charters witnessed by Aimericus of Saint-Savigny, see N 364, 395, 467, in which Aimericus appears with several people who figure in our cases: Aimericus of Faye-la-Vineuse (N 364) and Effredus canonicus (N 395). Later, Hugo's brother Aimericus witnessed a gift to Noyers by his nephew Gaufridus Plica Villanum: N 467.Google Scholar

119 On the various ways in which lay patrons could be associated with abbeys located not too far from Noyers, see Johnson, , Prayer, Patronage and Power 69102; and Gantier, , ‘Recherches … Marmoutier,’ 54 (1964) 15–23.Google Scholar

120 See above, nn. 117 and 118.Google Scholar

121 For references to this method of seeking peace, see Cases 4, 6, and 7.Google Scholar

122 See above, n. 112.Google Scholar

123 Robelini, Amalvinus, who was once identified as a man of Faye-la-Vineuse (N 395), witnessed eight other transactions involving Noyers: N 98, 106, 175, 224, 342, 395, 412, 413. He often appears with other men who were associated with Faye-la-Vineuse and who appear in at least one of our cases: Aimericus of Faye-la-Vineuse (N 175, 224, 228, 413), de Furnols, Cadilo (N 98,175, 228, 342, 412), de Furnols, Radulfus (N 342), Boso de Furnols the elder (N 342), Adraldus son of Lina (N 175, 412), and Goscelinus, Hugo (N 412). When Amalvinus Robelini made a gift of his own to Noyers, one of the witnesses was de Furnols, Cadilo: N 228. de Valle Rotru, Aldebertus, along with his brother Paganus, approved a gift that a third brother of theirs, Michael the miles, made to Noyers. The gift presumably came from a fief held from Aimericus of Faye-la-Vineuse, who approved the transaction: N 364. The same gift was witnessed by Aimericus of Saint-Savigny, who also approved another transaction witnessed by Aldebertus de Valle Rotru: N 467. Adraldus son of Lina witnessed numerous transactions involving Noyers, including Case 4 (N 310), as well as Case 3. See, for example, N 175, 278, 283, 383. In all four of these charters, Aimericus of Faye-la-Vineuse appears as well. Also mentioned in one of these documents (N 383) are the following people who appear in our cases: Cadilo de Furnols, Ainardus de Luens, and Tetbaldus of Messemé. Adraldus son of Lina also bought some land from Aimericus of Faye-la-Vineuse and later gave it to Noyers: N 229.Google Scholar

124 See below, n. 134.Google Scholar

125 N 355 (ca. 1107).Google Scholar

126 The key words here are inimicitia and exosus. Google Scholar

127 A bakehouse at Faye-la-Vineuse is also mentioned in Case 2. See above, n. 114.Google Scholar

128 Aimericus (II) of Faye-la-Vineuse may have been the son of a son of one Aimericus of Loudun, who was castellan of Loudun in around 1020. See above, n. 94.Google Scholar

129 N 276. This gift to Noyers probably antedates Case 3 by several years. On Boso de Furnols, see below, p. 231 and n. 142. On Paganus de Ponte, see below, p. 229 and n. 137.Google Scholar

130 See below, p. 229 and nn. 136 and 137.Google Scholar

131 See below, p. 250.Google Scholar

132 See N 312, which records a gift that Savaricus Dindellus made to Noyers after killing a miles called Hermannus. On Savaricus Dindellus, his kin, and his affines, see below, Case 5 and n. 149.Google Scholar

133 On the ambiguity of acts of humiliation, see below, p. 257 and n. 249.Google Scholar

134 On Aimericus II of Faye-la-Vineuse, see above, n. 94. In several dozen charters, he is usually recorded as confirming the gifts of his tenants to Noyers: e.g., N 64, 92, 96, 108, 148, 175, 229, 235, 260, 277. The following people mentioned in our cases were at one time or another considered members of what one charter calls Aimericus' ‘frequentia’ (N 82): [Boso] Eleazar, (N 82), Savaricus, Gaufridus (N 82), Acharias of Marmande (N 82), Dindellus, Hugo (N 82), Adraldus, [son of Lina?] (N 82, 175), Aldebertus [de Valle Rotru, ?] (N 82), Urias of Nouâtre (N 82), Amalvinus Robelinus (N 175), de Luens, Ainardus (N 175), Thebaudus of Messemé (N 175). For a dispute involving Noyers that was settled in the curia of Aimericus, see N 100.Google Scholar

135 The Amalvinus who witnessed Case 3 may be Amalvinus Robelini, who witnessed Case 2: see above, n. 123. If the Eleazar in Case 3 was Boso Eleazar, then we have another man who witnessed both Case 3 and Case 2: see above, p. 225. Radulfus of Faye-la-Vineuse witnessed another act of Aimericus of Faye-la-Vineuse and did so in the company of Radulfus de Furnols, who witnessed Case 2: N 108. Boso Blaneth witnessed three other transactions involving Noyers (N 100, 321, 335) and was once joined by two prominent men of Faye-la-Vineuse, lord Aimericus and Goscelinus, Hugo (N 100). Goscelinus, Hugo witnessed at least five other transactions involving the monks of Saint Mary: N 100, 224, 344, 346, 383. He was present in the curia of Aimericus of Faye-la-Vineuse: N 224. He also witnessed grants to Noyers by two other men who appear in our cases: Amalvinus [Robelini?] (N 344) and de Tuscha, Johannes (N 346). In the charters that Hugo Goscelinus witnessed, he appears with the following people who also appear in our cases: lord Aimericus of Faye-la-Vineuse (N 100, 224, 344), Giroii, Galterius (N 101 and perhaps 383), Urias of Nouâtre (N 100, 383), Fulcherius of Messemé (N 100, 344, and perhaps 383), Blaneth, Boso (N 100 and perhaps 383); de Luens, Ainardus (N 100, 344, and perhaps 383), Robelini, Amalvinus (N 224), de Tuscha, Johannes (N 224). Hugo Goscelinus also made at least one gift to Noyers for the soul of his wife Fresendis (N 153, 412) and made another agreement with the same monks (N 261). Among the witnesses to one of Hugo's gifts or to its later confirmation (N 412) were several familiar figures: de Tuscha, Johannes, Effredus canonicus ; de Furnols, Cadilo, Thebaudus of Messemé, Amalvinus Robelini, and Adraldus son of Lina. Charters of Noyers also refer to several sons of Hugo Goscelinus: Effredus Goscelinus (N 249, 255, 382, 420, 436, 473), Goscelinus, Petrus (see, e.g., N 96,173, 245, 246, 319), and Goscelinus, Aimericus (N 255,614). Moreover, several relatives of Hugo's were linked to other men who figure in our cases. Hugo's wife Fresendis was, by a previous marriage, the mother of de Tuscha, Johannes (N 253), on whom see below, n. 144. Petrus Goscelinus married a daughter of Urias of Nouâtre (N 420), on whom see above, nn. 81 and 100. One of the wives of Effredus Goscelinus was a sister of Petrus de Rajacia (N 175), on whom see below, n. 169. Stephanus Bordet witnessed three Noyers charters and in each case did so with other men mentioned in our cases — e.g., Goscelinus, Hugo and de Furnols, Radulfus (N 269); Robelini, Amalvinus, Eleazar, , de Furnols, Boso and Fulcherius of Messemé (N 268); Aimericus of Faye-la-Vineuse (N 281). After the death of Stephanus Borde, his widow — who was described as a ‘nobilis femina’ of Châtellerault — made a gift to Noyers that was witnessed by Acharias of Marmande: N 270 and 351. Araldus Bonet witnessed one other Noyers charter: N 277.Google Scholar

136 On de Furnols, Boso and his son Radulfus, , see below, n. 137 and Case 4, in which the latter was the victim. Radulfus' brother Cadilo was a witness in Cases 2 and 4.Google Scholar

137 Adraldus de Ponte made two gifts to Noyers. In one case (N 190), he and his wife gave the monks various properties, some of which came from his father-in-law, Odo Centum Solidos, who was linked by marriage to one of the main parties in Case 5: see below, n. 149. When a second gift made by Adraldus to Noyers was contested by his son Paganus, the dispute was settled in the curia of Aimericus of Faye-la-Vineuse: N 431. Adraldus de Ponte also witnessed a gift to Noyers: N 80. On de Ponte, Paganus, see N 276, 324, and 431.Google Scholar

138 N 320 (ca. 1102). See Garaud, , Poitou 103.Google Scholar

139 Although Case 1, like Case 4, refers to an attack on Marmande, the leaders of that war against Acharias were Boso of Châtellerault, Aimericus of Faye-la-Vineuse, and Gaufridus Fodialis of L'Isle-Bouchard. Since Bartholomaeus of L'Isle-Bouchard, who appears in Case 4 but not Case 1, took control of his castle from his uncle, Gaufridus Fodialis (see above, p. 213 and n. 85), Case 4 probably postdates Case 1.Google Scholar

140 This conjectural interpolation is designed to clarify a confusing passage.Google Scholar

141 See below, n. 142.Google Scholar

142 Boso de Furnols the elder was a man of the honor of Aimericus of Faye-la-Vineuseand was probably characterized as ‘noble’: N 45. As we have seen (above, n. 129), Aimericus Potet held land from Boso at Faye-la-Vineuse. Boso also witnessed numerous charters of Noyers, usually with men also associated with Faye-la-Vineuse: see N 20, 45, 110, 157, 167, 268, 276, 281, 653. Here, Boso appears with various people mentioned in other cases: Fulcherius of Messemé (N 157, 268), Goscelinus, Hugo (N 167, 281), Effredus canonicus (N 167), Amalvinus, [Robelini?] (N 167, 268), de Chillo, Arnulfus (N 167), Bordet, Stephanus (N 268), de Chillo, Boso (N 268), Adraldus son of Lina (N 268), and Aimericus of Faye-la-Vineuse (N 281). Boso the elder had least four sons: Boso the younger (who is sometimes hard to distinguish from his father), Cadilo, , Radulfus, , and Petrus, the monk. Boso, the elder also had at least two daughters, whose names are unknown but whose husbands witnessed Case 4: see below, n. 143. de Furnols, Radulfus witnessed Case 3 and several other Noyers charters: N 100, 108, 167, 260, 281, 383. In three of these documents, Radulfus appears with Aimericus of Faye-la-Vineuse (N 108, 167, 383) and with several others who figure in our cases: Urias of Nouâtre (N 108, 383), Radulfus of Faye-la-Vineuse (N 108), Hugo son of Goscelinus, (N 167, 383 and perhaps 100), Effredus, canonicus (N 167), Vaccae, Amalvinus Cauda (N 167, 383), de Chillo, Arnulfus (N 167), Giroii, Galterius (N 383), Acharias of Marmande (N 383), Fulcherius of Messemé (N 383), Adraldus son of Lina (N 383). Radulfus also gave Noyers some land that he had received from Amalvinus Robelini, and this gift was later confirmed and augmented by Radulfus' brothers Cadilo and Boso: N 342. de Furnols, Cadilo, who also witnessed Case 2, survived his father Radulfus, his mother, and his brothers Boso, and Radulfus, : N 98. After they were all dead and his brother Petrus had become a monk at Noyers, Cadilo gave the abbey some land with the approval of several men who appear in our cases: the husbands of Cadilo's two sisters, Fulcherius of Messemé (see below, n. 143) and de Luens, Ainardus (see below, n. 143); and Maingodus, Guarnerius: N 98 and Case 7, below. With his wife Niva, Cadilo added to gifts that his brothers Boso and Radulfus had previously made to Noyers: N 342. He also witnessed several transactions involving the monastery: N 175, 212, 225, 228, 283, 395, 412. Associated with him in several of these acts were Aimericus of Faye-la-Vineuse (N 175, 212, 283), Robelini, Amalvinus (N 228), de Luens, Ainardus (N 175), and Tetbaldus of Messemé (N 175). Petrus, the fourth son of Boso the elder of Furnols, witnessed a gift to Noyers from the casamentum of Aimericus of Faye-la-Vineuse: N 188.Google Scholar

143 Fulcherius witnessed at least 11 other transactions involving Noyers: N 96, 98, 100, 157, 212, 286, 303, 342, 344, 383, 396. He often appears with other men mentioned in our cases: Ainardus de Luens (N 96, 100, 303, 342), de Furnols, Cadilo (N 98, 212, 342), de Furnols, Radulfus (N 100, 342, 383), Boso the elder de Furnols (N 157, 268, 286), Boso the younger de Furnols (N 342, 386), Aimericus lord of Faye-la-Vineuse (N100, 212, 344, 383). For transactions witnessed by Stephanus of Messemé, see N 96, 212, 260, 286. Many other men of Messemé — at least some of whom were probably related to Fulcherius and Stephanus — also appear in documents of Noyers. For charters witnessed by Tetbaldus son of Fulcherius, see N 145 (with Aimericus of Faye-la-Vineuse), 412 (with Cadilo de Furnols, Adraldus son of Lina, and Effredus canonicus), 413 (with Aimericus of Faye-la-Vineuse and Amalvinus Robelini), and 283 (with Aimericus of Faye-la-Vineuse and Cadilo de Furnols).Google Scholar

144 On Adraldus son of Lina, see above, Case 2. Effredus the canon of Saint-Georges of Faye-la-Vineuse witnessed seven transactions with Noyers. Along with Amalvinus Robelini, he witnessed a gift that was made by Cadilo de Furnols and approved by Guarnerius Maingodus: N 98. When witnessing a gift by Aimericus of Faye-la-Vineuse, he was joined by Goscelinus, Hugo, de Furnols, Boso, de Furnols, Radulfus, and Amalvinus, [Robelini?]: N 143. For the other transactions, see N 212, 395, 398, 412, 413. In addition, at L'Isle-Bouchard, Effre; dus the canon of Saint-Georges of Faye-la-Vineuse made a gift that was approved by Bartholomaeus of L'Isle-Bouchard: N 143. de Tuscha, Johannes, whose mother married Hugo Goscelinus (see above, n. 135), witnessed three transactions in which men of Faye-la-Vineuse were involved as principals or witnesses: N 224, 405, 412. In addition, de Tuscha, Johannes, with his brother Aimericus, gave a collibertus to Noyers for the soul of his own father Adraldus: N 275. After a dispute, Johannes also surrendered some land to Noyers before a group of witnesses that included his step-father, Hugo Goscelinus: N 346.Google Scholar

145 ‘… quamvis esses nobilis natu et virorum fortium parentela fultus.’ Google Scholar

146 For the gift of Aimericus Aver, de to Noyers, , see N 96. For his confirmation of gifts made from his fief, see N 244 and 287. The second text indicates that Aimericus acted for his own soul and the souls of his kin.Google Scholar

147 On Petrus, , brother of de Furnols, Radulfus, see above, n. 142.Google Scholar

148 N 168 (ca. 1088).Google Scholar

149 When Aimericus of Faye-la-Vineuse confirmed a gift to Noyers from his benefice, his approval was witnessed by Dindellus, Hugo and several others who were probably involved in at least one of our cases: [Boso?] Eleazar, , Savaricus [de Boscia], Gaufridus Savaricus, Acharias [of Marmande], Adraldus [son of Lina?], Aldebertus [de Valle Rotru, ?], and Urias, [of Nouâtre]: N 82. In addition, a miles of Hugo Dindellus called Amioth [sic] witnessed a gift to Noyers by Adraldus de Ponte: see N 190 and above, n. 137. The natal family of Hugo Dindellus' wife included several people linked to Noyers and to others involved in our feuds. Hugo's wife's father, Gaufridus Savaricus, was described as a ‘nobilis vir’ of L'Isle-Bouchard: N 315. Like his brother, Savaricus de Boscia, he was said to be a man of Peloquinus, lord of L'Isle-Bouchard: N 262. At one time, Gaufridus held property not only from Bartholomaeus, lord of the same castle (N 232), but also from Hugo of Sainte-Maure: N 315, The same Gaufridus had previously witnessed a gift to Noyers by Burchardus, lord of L'Isle-Bouchard: N 51. He also approved a gift that his brother Savaricus made from property that the latter held as a fief from Aimericus of Faye-la-Vineuse: N 120,148.Google Scholar

Savaricus de Boscia, too, was a man of L' Isle-Bouchard (N 262) but is also found in the curia of Hugo of Sainte-Maure: N 334. He made another gift to Noyers, in addition to the one mentioned above, with the approval of his wife (N 322) and witnessed several other charters: N 133, 151, 165. On Philippus Savaricus son of Gaufridus Savaricus and on Philippus' matrilateral kin, see below, Case 6. A sister of Gaufridus Savaricus and Savaricus de Boscia married Rufus, Gislibertus. Their sons — who were thus cousins of Hugo Dindellus' wife — appear in several charters: N 93, 94, 95, 99, 221. Belutha — who was the daughter of Hugo Dindellus, the granddaughter of Gaufridus Savaricus, and the sister of Philippus Savaricus — married Effredus Centum Solidos, son of Odo Centum Solidos. For the burial of his wife, Odo made a gift to Noyers (N 110) that was eventually confirmed, after a dispute by Effredus and Belutha: N 73. A daughter of Odo's married Adraldus de Ponte, on whom see above, n. 137. On the killing of Hermannus by Dindellus, Savaricus, see above, n. 132. Dindellus, Savaricus witnessed the confirmation of a gift made to Noyers by Gosmerus of Avon (N 313), who witnessed the settlement of Case 5.Google Scholar

150 N 314, 80, 320 (Case 6). When Thomas, Petrus witnessed another gift to Noyers, he was joined by another man involved in one of our cases, Folium, Johannes: N 318. For a transaction approved by Thomas, Petrus, see N 392.Google Scholar

151 See N 86, 92, 115, 139, 168, 189, 199, 228, 290, 304, 342.Google Scholar

152 N 320 (ca. 1104). See Garaud, , Poitou 102.Google Scholar

153 On Montbazon, , see above, n. 73. On Loches, , see Guillot, , Le Comte d'Anjou I 283–84.Google Scholar

154 The land at Antogny-le-Tillac that Gaufridus received from Natalis, Hugo was much closer to Noyers and to other estates of the abbey than the lands in which Gaufridus had the customs that he gave to Hugo. As a man of Montbazon, Gaufridus lived on the northeastern margins of the abbey's sphere of influence.Google Scholar

155 On Savaricus, Gaufridus, see above, Case 5 and n. 149.Google Scholar

156 See below, pp. 259–60Google Scholar

157 On gifts to Noyers by relatives of Savaricus, Philippus, see above, n. 149.Google Scholar

158 See above, p. 235 and n. 149. Philippus himself had approved the transaction through which Case 5 was settled: see above, p. 234. At Loudun, moreover, in the presence of Aimericus of Faye-la-Vineuse, he had approved a gift that his father had made to Noyers (N 315).Google Scholar

159 N 396.Google Scholar

160 N 381, 396.Google Scholar

161 N 169.Google Scholar

162 N 169.Google Scholar

163 N 414.Google Scholar

164 N 315.Google Scholar

165 On the connection between Hugo of Sainte-Maure, and Savaricus, Gaufridus, see above, n. 149. On Hugo of Sainte-Maure, see above, pp. 212–13 and nn. 83 and 84. A Noyers scribe called him ‘one of the noblest princes of the Touraine’ (N 139), and he appears in more than two dozen Noyers charters. In return for a gift by Hugo, his son Guillelmus was buried at Noyers with much ceremony (N 139), as were two other sons of Hugo's: N 307. Hugo's wife was also buried at Noyers: N 139. For Hugo's gifts to the abbey, see N 139, 307, 308, 407, 415, 416. For gifts or other transactions that Hugo approved, see N 81, 151, 176, 254, 269, 296, 312, 353, 356. With his entire curia, Hugo judged at least one dispute involving Noyers: N 334. For transactions that involved Noyers and were witnessed by Hugo of Sainte-Maure, see N 86, 88bis, 92, 155, 187, 307, 333, 394. On two of these occasions, Hugo served as a witness while visiting the abbey with a large following: N 155, 307. On another visit of Hugo's to Noyers, a collibertus of his, whom he gave to the monks, placed precious blue stones on the tombs of Hugo's two younger sons: N 308. In the abbey's charters, Hugo of Sainte-Maure appears with others who figure in our cases: Bartholomaeus of L'Isle-Bouchard (N 139), Savaricus, Gaufridus (N 139), Urias of Nouâtre (N 187), Johannes Folium (N 187), Acharias of Marmande (N 308), Savaricus de Boscia (N 334). A daughter of Hugo's married a son of Ervisus Cabruns (see N 241), who appears in scores of Noyers charters, usually as a witness.Google Scholar

166 N 73, 308, 397.Google Scholar

167 N 73, 139, 307. For a fourth charter witnessed by Ingelgerius, see N 397.Google Scholar

168 N 51 and 199 (Case 7). For other transactions witnessed by Folium, Johannes, see N 115, 154, 166, 176, 184, 186, 187, 249, 318, 354. Property held from Johannes Folium and ultimately, it would seem, from Aimericus of Faye-la-Vineuse was given to Noyers by a son of Stephanus the Seneschal (N 260), on whom see above, n. 102.Google Scholar

169 For another charter witnessed by Aimericus Salco and his brother Hugo, see N 251. The wife of Aimericus Salco was the sister of de Rajacia, Petrus, whose gift to Noyers was approved by Aimericus: N 175. For a gift to Noyers by Petrus de Rajacia — which was approved by Aimericus of Faye-la-Vineuse as well as by Aimericus Salco — see N 175. For charters witnessed by Hugo son of Ulricus, see N 232, 254. With his brothers Symon, and Odo, , Hugo approved a transaction that involved Noyers and that was also approved by Aimericus of Faye-la-Vineuse: N 382. For charters witnessed by Gaufridus Rufus, see N 97, 143, 238, 254. This same man also approved a gift made to Noyers: N 299.Google Scholar

170 N 252.Google Scholar

171 N 315. Vachio, Gaufridus witnessed three charters of Noyers: N 252, 254, 315.Google Scholar

172 On this method of making a gift in a preliminary way, see N 431.Google Scholar

173 On the kiss as an integral part of ceremonies of reconciliation, see below, p. 256. On the significance of kissing, see Le Goff, Jacques, ‘Le rituel symbolique de la vassalité,’ in Le Goff, Jacques, Pour un autre moyen âge: Temps, travail et culture en Occident: 18 essais (Paris 1977) 349420.Google Scholar

174 On acts of submission or humiliation, see above, p. 218 and n. 106 and below p. 257 and n. 249.Google Scholar

175 This case is recorded in two different charters: N 199 (ca. 1090), which presents a very full account, and N 341, which is mainly concerned with a later dispute, dated ca. 1106, between the monks and Paganus. The translation in the text above follows the first account, but includes between brackets virtually all material from the second, in translation or paraphrase.Google Scholar

176 On Rotbertus of Blois, see above, n. 97 and below, n. 189.Google Scholar

177 ‘In tantum eumdem Paganum exosum habuit.’ Google Scholar

178 On this example, see below, n. 183.Google Scholar

179 Raoul, I, Archbishop of Tours (1073–1090) or, perhaps, Raoul, II, Archbishop of Tours (1090–1119).Google Scholar

180 Because the charter later states that this gift was approved by a fourth son of Gaufridus but only refers at this point to two sons, it is possible that the name of Gaufridus' third son should be inserted here.Google Scholar

181 On this conflict, see Halphen, , Anjou 173.Google Scholar

182 See Cases 4 and 6.Google Scholar

183 In the story that was probably told to Guarnerius, , David, refrained from killing Saul, even though the latter had planned to kill him: 1 Sam. 26.Google Scholar

184 For an example of a gift that was made in at least three different stages, see above, n. 117.Google Scholar

185 Our source indicates that while at least one member of Gaufridus' group was present at each of these ceremonies, the leader of the opposing party, namely Guarnerius, only attended the second occasion and the last one.Google Scholar

186 N 95. Gislibertus Rufus was married to a son of Gaufridus Savaricus: see above, n. 149. This same gift by Philippus was also witnessed by Rotbertus of Blois, on whom see below, n. 189.Google Scholar

187 N 98. On de Furnols, Cadilo, see above, n. 142. At L'Isle-Bouchard, Guarnerius' act of approval was witnessed by Boso of Chatellerault and Gaufridus, Savaricus, among others. When the brothers of Guarnerius approved the same transaction at Chinon, their approval was witnessed by a group including Rotbertus of Blois, Fulcherius of Messemé, and Bernerius of Champigny-sur-Veude. For a reference to Guarnerius Maingodus and his father and brothers in another collection of charters, see Cartulaire de Saint-Aubin d'Angers (ed. de Broussillon, Bertrand; Angers 1903) I no. 374.Google Scholar

188 N 125, 230, 317, 249, 264.Google Scholar

189 For gifts to Noyers by de Blois, Robertus, see N 249 and 264. For other references to him, see N 93, 95, 98, 132, 133, 140, 255, 439, 441, 450. In these texts, Rotbertus is associated not only with Guarnerius Maingodus (N 98, 249, 264), but also with others mentioned in our cases: de Furnols, Cadilo (N 98), Fulcherius of Messemé (N 98), Peloquinus (N 132). For a gift to Noyers by Rotbertus, of Blois, see N 249 and 264. For a dispute between Rotbertus and Noyers, see N 133.Google Scholar

190 N 108.Google Scholar

191 N 284. Later, after challenging this gift, the sons of Gaufridus again confirmed it at L'Isle-Bouchard. When Paganus also challenged the very gift by which his feud with Maingodus, Guarnerius had been settled, the monks made an agreement with him because they feared his ira et malevolentia: N 341. See above, n. 25.Google Scholar

192 Although the following comments should be slightly modified to cover Case 7, which did not involve a killing, that case can still be considered a feud, at least under the definition employed here. See above, p. 203 and n. 36, and below, pp. 246–47 and n. 200.Google Scholar

193 Even though the participants in our cases were not all necessarily ‘noble,’ the preceding notes demonstrate that many if not most of these people held privileged social status.Google Scholar

194 See, especially, Cases 2,3,4,6, and 7. It is not always clear whether the person designated as the ‘slayer’ had actually committed the killing in question.Google Scholar

195 See Case 1.Google Scholar

196 How quickly the slayer sought peace is unclear. In Case 7, the slayer's close kin may have sought peace.Google Scholar

197 See Case 1.Google Scholar

198 See Cases 4, 6, and, perhaps, Case 2.Google Scholar

199 On penance, see Case 1.Google Scholar

200 Lasswell, , ‘Feud,’ 220. For modern definitions of ‘feud,’ see above, pp. 198–99 and nn. 16–19 and the literature cited in n. 37. In Lasswell's definition the term ‘violence’ should probably be replaced by the word ‘force.’ Google Scholar

201 Within limits, the game metaphor can be useful. See Bourdieu, , Outline 1213; Bailey, F. G., Strategems and Spoils: A Social Anthropology of Politics (New York 1979) 1–2 and 17 n. 1; and Boehm, , Blood Revenge 103.Google Scholar

202 See Peters, , ‘Some Structural Aspects of the Feud’ and Black-Michaud, , Cohesive Force 24. While it can be illuminating to treat the feud (along with virtually everything else) as an exchange of signs or even to claim that feuding is ‘primarily a form of communicative behavior’ (Black-Michaud, , Cohesive Force 208 [emphasis added]), the limitations of this metaphor are clearly set forth by Bourdieu, , Outline 10–11.Google Scholar

203 In Raoul de Cambrai arguments about whether Bernier killed his lord Raoul treacherously turn partly on the question of when their quarrel began.Google Scholar

204 In Cases 4, 6, and 7, the slayer and his victim were on opposite sides of a larger conflict in which the killing occurred and to which the term guerre could have been applied. In Case 2 and, perhaps, in Case 3, the slayer and his victim were parties to a smaller dispute that led to a killing. In Case 1, one party to a larger conflict killed people who were not necessarily associated with his original enemies. Although the scribe did not dwell on the feud between Acharias and the men of Les Puys, he clearly treated the killings in the hills of Grisay — and not the larger conflict involving Acharias — as the central episode in his story.Google Scholar

205 On the ideology of guerre and some of the contradictions inherent in this ideology, see Duby, , Le Dimanche de Bouvines 76–84 and passim. For an indication of how retaliatory raids that an uninformed observer might have considered to be part of a feud could be interpreted and rationalized in accordance with a royalist ideology, see Suger, , Vie de Louis VI le Gros (ed. and trans. Waquet, Henri, Les classiques de l'histoire de France au moyen âge 11; Paris 1964) 26–27, 134–35. On the gap between ideological representations of feuding and actual feuding practices, see Peters, , ‘Some Structural Aspects of the Feud’ and Moore,' Legal Liability' 127. Use of the concept of guerre to represent, misrepresent, and rationalize certain conflicts can be considered an ‘officializing strategy,’ as defined by Bourdieu, , Outline 38–43.Google Scholar

206 For killings that do not seem to have led to feuds, see N 312 and 137. The latter text records the death of two sons of Hugo of Sainte–Maure.Google Scholar

207 See Nader, and Todd, , ‘Introduction’ 910 and Miller, , ‘Avoiding Legal Judgment’ 100 n. 18.Google Scholar

208 Even if it is not always correct to treat feuding as a form of ‘competition for preferential access to natural resources’ (Peters, , ‘Foreword’ to Black-Michaud, , Cohesive Force xxii), a vengeance killing need not be regarded as the sole objective of feuding parties.Google Scholar

209 On the importance of timing in feuds, see Bourdieu, , Outline 67; Black-Michaud, , Cohesive Force 25; Nader, and Todd, , ‘Introduction’ 24–25.Google Scholar

210 Case 4.Google Scholar

211 Cases 3 and 6.Google Scholar

212 Cases 1, 3, 6.Google Scholar

213 Case 1.Google Scholar

214 See Bloch, , Feudal Society 126 and Duby, , ‘The Middle Ages’ 51.Google Scholar

215 Case 7.Google Scholar

216 Case 4.Google Scholar

217 Case 4.Google Scholar

218 On the role of gifts to abbeys in diminishing the resources of noble kin groups, see Duby, , La Société aux XI e et XII e siècles 221–24. For a more recent discussion of the same process, see Weinberger, , ‘Les conflits’ 273–79.Google Scholar

219 On feuds that involved prolonged exchanges of hostilities, see Bloch, , Feudal Society 127.Google Scholar

220 Cases 6 and 7 and, perhaps, 3. In Case 3, the avengers were represented as fearful. In Case 7, the victim cannot be clearly distinguished from the aggressor: see above, n. 99.Google Scholar

221 Cases 1, 2, 3, 6.Google Scholar

222 The notes to Cases 1 to 7 contain numerous references to gifts made to Noyers in return for prayers and sometimes for burial rights. For an unusually vivid example of a gift that a father made to Noyers so that his son would be buried and prayed for there, see N 139.Google Scholar

223 On the distinction often made (with numerous variations) by legal anthropologists between bilateral negotiation, on the one hand, and mediation or adjudication by third parties, on the other, see, for example, Roberts, , Order and Dispute 162–67; Nader, and Todd, , ‘Introduction’ 10–11. This distinction is not always easy to make when considering medieval European disputes between groups, rather than between individuals. For when a man linked to both sides in one of these quarrels helped to make peace, it is sometimes hard to decide whether to treat him as a party to bilateral negotiation, or as a third party.Google Scholar

224 See Cases 6 and 7.Google Scholar

225 On mediation generally, see the works cited above in n. 223. On mediation in medieval France, see Duby, , ‘History’ 51; White, , “‘Pactum“’; Cheyette, Fredric L., ‘Suum cuique tribuere,’ French Historical Studies 6 (1970) 287–99.Google Scholar

226 Bourdieu, , Outline 38.Google Scholar

227 Of Duby's many discussions of noble lignages, see, for example, ‘Lignage’; and ‘Structures de parenté et noblesse dans la France du Nord aux xie et xiie siècles,’ in Duby, , Hommes et structures 267–86. On lineages and lignages , see also Goody, Jack, The Development of Family and Marriage in Europe (Cambridge 1983) 222–39.Google Scholar

228 Cases 6 and 7.Google Scholar

229 Case 3.Google Scholar

230 Case 1.Google Scholar

231 Cases 6 and 7.Google Scholar

232 On spiritual sanctions wielded by monks, see, for example, Geary, Patrick, ‘L'humiliation des saints,’ Annales E. S. C. 34 (1979) 2742, and Little, Lester K., ‘La morphologie des malédictions monastiques,’ ibid., 43–60.Google Scholar

233 In some ways, therefore, medieval European monastic mediators resembled those mediators with special religious standing in societies analyzed by anthropologists. See Roberts, , Order and Dispute 163–64, and Black-Michaud, , Cohesive Force 91–103.Google Scholar

234 See Case 3, for example.Google Scholar

235 See above, p. 209 and n. 61.Google Scholar

236 Case 1.Google Scholar

237 Case 6.Google Scholar

238 In 1065 Hugo son of Salomon asked two monks of Marmoutier to reconcile him with Herbertus Extensus, who had become Hugo's enemy as a result of a dispute between the two men over Herbertus' inheritance. In return for Hugo's promise to give Saint Martin some of the disputed properties, two monks of Marmoutier arranged and attended a meeting where a complicated concord concerning the contested inheritance was worked out and where Herbertus was persuaded to put away his ‘malevolentia’ against Hugo: Cartulaire manceau de Marmoutier (ed. Laurain, E.; Laval 1911–45) I 5758.Google Scholar

239 During the 1080s, on the eve of All Saints, after killing a boy called Gaufridus son of Gaufridus of Brulon, Patricius of Sourches made peace with the boy's father by giving him some property that the two men then joined together in donating to the abbey of Saint Pierre de la Couture in Maine. In return for this gift, the monks promised, at the request of both men, to sing a thousand masses for the soul of the younger Gaufridus and to write the boy's name into their ‘rule.’ Here, a slayer's gift for his victim's soul was mediated not only by monks but also by a kinsman of the victim, so that the compensation given resembled a wergeld payment. In addition, to make this agreement firmer, the monks promised the slayer that they would make his victim's kin participants in the community's prayers. The abbot and monks of Saint-Pierre then took steps to reconcile the slayer, Patricius, with his victim's maternal uncle Odo of Montfaucon: Cartulaires des abbayes de Saint-Pierre-de-la-Couture et de Saint-Pierre-de-Solesmes (edd. les Bénédictins de Solesmes; Le Mans 1881) 3031 (no. 18). Not surprisingly, Patricius, the elder Gaufridus, and Odo were all associated in other ways with the monks of Saint-Pierre: ibid. 21–42 (nos. 14–21). The paternal grandfather of Patricius of Sourches, also called Patricius of Sourches, became a monk of Saint-Pierre when he gave some property to the abbey: ibid. 21 (no. 14).Google Scholar

240 In the late eleventh century, Hugo of Malicorne asked the abbot of Saint Vincent and the bishop of Le Mans to help him in settling his long-standing conflict with Sangalus de Tilo, whose brother Radulfus Hugo had killed. To bring about a settlement, Hugo gave rights in a church to the monks of Saint Vincent du Mans, in return for a thousand masses to be sung for the soul of Radulfus. By means of this transaction, Sangalus became Hugo's ‘amicus: Cartulaire de Saint-Vincent-du-Mans (ed. d'Elbenne, Menjot; Mamers 1886) no. 350. On the connections between Hugo's kin and the monks of Vincent, Saint, see ibid. nos. 352, 361, 386, 391, 392.Google Scholar

241 In 1039 the monks of La Trinité of Vendôme helped to reconcile Count Geoffrey Martel with Gualterius, son of Hamelinus of Langeais. Gualterius, who had been honorably enfeoffed by Count Geoffrey in the pagus of Vendôme, had killed the Count's cousin Mauricius and had thereby incurred the count's anger. Although the count's barons judged the entire fief that Gualterius held from Geoffrey to be forfeit, Gualterius succeeded, with the help of his amici, in obtaining the count's mercy. Allowed to keep the bulk of his fief in the Vendômois, Gualterius gave to the count as a fine for his offense two mills on the Loire at Vendôme, which Count Geoffrey then gave to the monks of La Trinité, not only for the remission of Mauricius' sins, but also for the remission of the sins of Mauricius' slayer, Gualterius: Cartulaire de Vabbaye cardinale de la Trinité de Venddme (ed. Metais, Charles; Paris 1893–1904) I no. 16; cf. no. 17. Here, as in Case 2, the settlement may have been arranged primarily by a lay lord and his enemy's friends; but as in all the Noyers cases, the settlement process must have been facilitated by the pre-existing ties linking both parties to the abbey where monks would pray for the soul of the homicide victim. For connections between the monks of La Trinité, and Geoffrey, Count, see Johnson, , Prayer, Patronage and Power 8, 9, 12–14,17, and numerous other references; on the monks' ties to Hamelinus of Langeais, the father of Gualterius, see 112–13.Google Scholar

242 Case 6.Google Scholar

243 Case 7.Google Scholar

244 Case 6.Google Scholar

245 Bloch, , Feudal Society 129–30.Google Scholar

246 Case 6.Google Scholar

247 Case 6. As outlined here, the ceremony of reconciliation that followed a feud bears some resemblance to the ceremony of homage, as analyzed by Le Goff: see above, n. 173. On ceremonies of reconciliation in other societies, see Black-Michaud, , Cohesive Force 9293.Google Scholar

248 Raoul de Cambrai verses 239–41, lines 5291–5362.Google Scholar

249 In certain Icelandic sagas, uncertainty about whether a feud would end or not was almost a permanent state of mind, except when it was certain that the feud would continue. On the ambiguity of ritual, see Leach, Edmund R., Political Systems of Highland Burma: A Study in Kachin Social Structure (1964; rpt. Boston 1965) 266–67 and 14–16. This way of looking at rituals allows for the possibility that acts that now appear to have been humiliating were not necessarily interpreted in this way by all contemporaries in all cases and that the same act could have been assigned different meanings by the same person at different times.Google Scholar

250 On social networks and so-called network analysis, see above, n. 51.Google Scholar

251 The claim that the social order in stateless societies is constituted by ties that have to be continually reaffirmed or re-created has been developed, in different ways, by various anthropologists: see, e.g., Sahlins, Marshall D., Tribesmen (Englewood Cliffs 1968) 413.Google Scholar

252 This view of feuding was advanced three decades ago by Max Gluckman in his influential essay on ‘The Peace in the Feud’ and was restated in his 1974 lecture on ‘African Traditional Law.’ Although Gluckman was concerned primarily with African feuding, he claimed that his theory was applicable to medieval Europe: see ‘Peace in the Feud’ 2122; Politics, Law and Ritual 113–14; ‘African Traditional Law’ 29–31. Four main elements in Gluckman's argument are relevant to the issues treated in this paper: (1) If the feud was regularly waged against a wrongdoer's friends, then it could have served as a mechanism of social control, not only by deterring him from committing homicide or other offenses, but also by giving his friends an incentive to prevent him from committing acts for which they themselves would suffer in a feud: ‘Peace’ 3, 23. (2) Since feuds were destructive and made powerful demands on the resources of participants, even people obliged to join these quarrels would have been susceptible to pressures to avoid these conflicts: ibid. 5–6, 15. (3) If members of a feuding group normally resided in different communities, together with members of other kin groups, then potential members of a vengeance group would face the troubling prospect of fighting neighbors belonging to the opposing feuding band. Men placed in this difficult position would normally exert political pressure for peace: ibid. 9, 11–14. (4) If kin groups were linked to one another by numerous marriages, then there must have been many people who were linked by kinship both to the slayer and to the slayer's victim and who therefore had an interest in ensuring that feuds would be stopped as soon as possible: ibid. 9, 22; ‘African Traditional Law’ 30–31. For references to Gluckman's views in works on European feuding, see Davies, , ‘Blood-feud’ 341 and n. 15; Wallace-Hadrill, , ‘Bloodfeud’ 123 n. 1, 125–26; Wormald, , ‘Bloodfeud’ 55–57; Campbell, et al., Anglo-Saxons 98–99 and the note on 251.Google Scholar

253 Case 6, in which a matrilateral uncle led a vengeance party, raises doubts about this hypothesis.Google Scholar

254 On this development in the history of medieval kinship, see the writings of Duby cited above in n. 227.Google Scholar

255 See, for example, the discussion of the case of Sichar and Austregisil in Wallace-Hadrill, , ‘Bloodfeud’ 139–42.Google Scholar

256 On the terrorizing of peasants by lords, see Duby, , Les Trois Ordres 191. The argument sketched out in the text complements Hilton's, R. H. contention that warfare between lords constituted a dynamic force in the feudal mode of production. While Hilton argues that lords could carry on these wars only by taking more and more feudal rent from peasants, the hypothesis advanced here is that the effects of warfare on peasants were such as to make them more and more vulnerable to pressure exerted by lords. Warfare therefore facilitated the process of seigneurial exploitation to which Hilton, along with others, has drawn attention: Hilton, R. H., ‘A Comment,’ in The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism (ed. Hilton, R. H.; London 1976) 109–17.Google Scholar

257 At earlier stages in the process of state-building the selective promotion and control of feuding, rather than the systematic extirpation of this practice, may have enhanced the power of rulers.Google Scholar

258 Cartulaire de … la Trinité de Vendome I no. 122.Google Scholar

269 Congté demande R. de Cambresis;.Google Scholar

Part de sa mere A. au cler vis,Google Scholar

Passe Aroaise, ce est li siens païs,Google Scholar

Ensamble o lui s'en va li sors G.:Google Scholar

Bien sont armé sor les chevals de pris.Google Scholar

En Vermendois d'autre part ce sont mis:Google Scholar

Prennent les proies; mains hom en fu chatis.Google Scholar

Ardent la terre, li maisnil sont espris:Google Scholar

Raoul de Cambrai verse 59, lines 1216–23. I am grateful to Rider, Jeffrey for assistance in translating this passage and the passage quoted below, n. 260. For more detailed poetic representations of pillaging, see Garin le Loherains (ed. and trans. Paulin Paris, A.; Paris 1862) 62 and 260. For a late eleventh-century text indicating that guerres were expected to bring ruin to the poor, see de Chartres, Yves, Correspondance (ed. and trans. Leclercq, Jean; Paris 1949) I (1090–1098) 87 no. 20.Google Scholar

260 Monte Gautiers et li vasaus G.Google Scholar

Tant ont mandé et parens et amis,Google Scholar

Des chevalier[s] environ le païs,Google Scholar

Q'il furent. M. as blans haubers vestis.Google Scholar

Isnelement issent de Cambrisis;.Google Scholar

De l'autre part en Vermandois sont mis.Google Scholar

En .j. bruellet ont lor agait tremis:Google Scholar

.C. chevalier en ont les escus pris;.Google Scholar

La proie acoille[n]t, mains hom en fu chaitis,Google Scholar

Et bues et vaiches et chevaus et roncis:Google Scholar

Raoul de Cambrai verse 187, lines 3846–55.Google Scholar