Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:20:07.834Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How the News was brought from Byzantium to Angoulême;or, The Pursuit of a Hare in an Ox Cart

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Robert Lee Wolff
Robert Lee Wolff*
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Adémar of Chabannes (988–1034) of noble family, a monk in the monastery of St. Cybard (Eparchus) at Angoulême, compiled a Chronicon in three books. The first begins with the origins of the Franks and ends with the death of Pepin the Short in 768; the second deals with the reign of Charlemagne;the third covers the years 814 to 1030. The first two books and the first fifteen chapters of the third (down to the year 877) are wholly derivative from identifiable sources. But from chapter sixteen onward the third book provides valuable information chiefly on the period 877–1030 in Aquitaine, presumably drawn from local written sources and from the memories of Adémar’s associates. These included notably his two uncles, who were attached to the monastery of St. Martial at Limoges, as was Adémar himself in his youth. It was at St. Martial that on a stormy night in 1010 Adémar had a vision in the heavens of a fiery Cross with Christ upon it weeping a great river of tears: an experience that rendered him so thunderstruck (attonitus) that he kept it secret in his heart until many years later when he was nearing the end of his Chronicon. Then he wrote it down. From St. Martial he returned at the age of twenty-two to St. Cybard, took orders, and spent his life in writing. The ‘original’ chapters of his Chronicon only occasionally evince any interest in or knowledge of events in France north of Loire.

Type
Research Article
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 4: Essays Presented to Sir Steven Runciman , 1978 , pp. 139 - 189
Copyright
Copyright ©The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 1978

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. The edition of Book III with an English translation announced as in preparation by B. S. Bachrach in Speculum, L (1975), 172 has not yet appeared. Waitz, G. in MGH, Scriptores, IV (Hannover, 1841), pp. 106–48 Google Scholar published the first edition of the Chronicon in modern times, including the whole of Book III with all of our passages. The serious study of the manuscripts began with Delisle, L., ‘Notice sur les manuscrits originaux d’Adémar de Chabannes’, Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale et autres bibliothèques, publiés par l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, XXXV (1896), 241—358 Google Scholar, who recognized H as in Adémar’s own hand. J. Chavanon, Adémar de Chabannes, Chronique (Paris, 1897), Collection de Textes pour servir à l’étude et àl’ enseignement de l’histoire thereafter Chavanon] produced the only scholarly complete edition of all three books but made no new contribution to the study of the text. J. Lair, Études critiques sur divers textes des Xe et Xle siècles, II, Historia d’Adémar de Chabannes (Paris, 1899) [hereafter Lair] reprinted the ‘original’ portions, Book III, Chapters 16 through 66, with the three redactions H, A, and C in parallel, necessitating a rearrangement of the order of H, but enabling a reader to observe the variants at a glance and to appreciate the high importance of redaction C. In a long critical commentary Lair argued that there must have been a lost redaction, X, between H on the one hand and A and C on the other, and came to the astonishing conclusion that Adémar had not written the Chronicon. This was rejected by Ferdinand Lot, Études sur le règne d’Hugues Capet (Paris, 1903), pp. 350–60. L. Halphen, ‘Une redaction ignorée de la Chronique d’Adémar de Chabannes,’ Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Chartes [=BEC], LXVI (1905), 655–60; ‘Remarques sur la Chronique d’Adémar de Chabannes’, Revue Historique, XCVIII (1908), 294–308; and ‘La Chronique de Saint-Maixent’, BEC, LXIX (1908), 405–11, all three reprinted in Àtravers l’histoire du moyen âge (Paris, 1950), pp. 126–53, dismissed Lair’s denial of authorship to Adémar as ‘habilement déduite et spécieuse’ (p. 137), but emphasized the importance of V and postulated the existence of still another lost redaction, making six redactions in all. J. de La Mattinière, ‘Essai de classement des manuscrits et des redactions de l’Historia d’Adémar de Chabannes’, Le Moyen Age, XLVI, 3e Série, VII (1936), 20–55, published a study he had made some thirty years earlier proposing a stemma of staggering complexity and demonstrating that, in addition to his other known sources, Adémar had drawn heavily upon a local chronicle of Angoulême. J. Boussard, Historia Pontificum et Comitum Engolismensium, Édition Critique (Paris, 1957) has most recently come to grips with Adémar’s Chronicon, whose relationship to HPCE is of great importance to him as its editor. I have accepted Boussard’s conclusions with respect to the three extant redactions of Adémar and quoted his characterization (p. LV) of Adémar as compiler. The 1588 printing of redaction H of Adémar, made before Paris BN MS. lat. 6190 was damaged, is Pithou, P., Annalium et historiae Francorum ab anno Christi DCCVIII ad annum DCCCCXC scriptores coetanei XII, nunc primum in lucem editi (Paris, 1588) II, pp. 416–27 Google Scholar [reprinted at Frankfurt, 1594].

2. Book III, chapter 22, Chavanon p. 143; Lair pp. 136–7; underlined words in redaction C only.

3. Guilland, R., ‘Le Palais du Boukoléon. l’assassinat de Nicéphore II Phokas’, BS, XIII (1952), 101–36.Google Scholar

4. Book III, chapter 32, Chavanon p. 155; Lair, pp. 161–8; underlined words in redaction C only.

5. Book III, chapter 47, Chavanon pp. 169–70; Lair pp. 191–4; underlined words in redaction C only.

6. Glaber, Raoul, Les cinq livres de ses Histoires, ed. Prou, M. (Paris, 1886), Book III, Chapter VII, pp. 71–4 Google Scholar. The abbot of Sinai first appears as a bishop in the Acts of the Photian Council of 869–70: Hofmann, G., ‘Sinai und Rom’, OCA, IX (1927), 225 Google Scholar and notes; ‘Lettere pontificie edite ed inedite intorno ai monasteri del Monte Sinai’, OCP, XVII (1951), 283.

7. Book III, chapter 55, Chavanon, p. 178; Lair, p. 209; redactions A and C are virtually identical.

8. Raoul Glaber, Book III, chapter I, pp. 52–6. For the most detailed modern account of the events: G. Schlumberger, L’épopée byzantine àla fin du dixième siecle, II: Basile II, le tueur des Bulgares (Paris, 1900), pp. 558–70, following AbbéDelarc, Les Normands en Italie (Paris, 1883); Gay, J., L’ Italie méridionale et l’empire byzantin (Paris, 1904), pp. 409—12 Google Scholar, with Adémar cited p. 410, n. 7; Chalandon, F., Histoire de la domination normande en Italie et en Sicile (Paris, 1907), I, pp. 52–7 Google Scholar. No mention of these events or of the Russians, for example, in Benedikz, B. S., ‘The Evolution of the Varangian Regiment in the Byzantine Army’, BZ, LXII (1969), 20–4 Google Scholar, or Davidson, H. R. Ellis, The Viking Road to Byzantium (London, 1976)Google Scholar. evskij, V. G. Vasil’, ‘Varjago-Russkaja i Varjago-Anglijskaja Družina v Konstantinopol’ e XI i XII v’ ekov’, Žumai ministerstva narodnago prosveščenija, CLXXIV (November and December 1874), 130 Google Scholar, quoting the Waitz edition in MGH, Scriptores, IV.

9. Baffled by this proverb, Lair consulted the noted modern Greek scholar, Emile Legrand, who wrote Appendix X, pp. 285–6, for Lair’s work on Adémar. In casual conversation one day with Professor Constantine Trypanis, I quoted the proverb in English, and he instantly replied in Greek, , the precise words of the first variant Greek version recorded by Legrand.

10. Boussard, p. XXXIX; stemma p. XLIX.

11. Waitz’s conjecture in MGH, Scriptores, IV, p. 108. Adémar’s death recorded in Chronicon Bernardi Iterii Armani Sancti Marcialis, ed. H. Duplès-Agier, Chroniques de Saint-Martial de Limoges (Paris, 1874), p. 47: ‘In the year of grace 1034 there died Ademarus the monk, who ordered that there be made a life of St. Martial in golden letters and many other books and in Jerusalem he went to Christ’. Bernard Itier (1163–1285), the author of this passage, was librarian of St. Martial in the early thirteenth century. The information is confirmed by a manuscript note in one of Adémar’s surviving autograph manuscripts, Ms. Leyden Vossius 8vo 15, fol. 14 verso, which reads, ‘This is the book of our most holy lord Martial of Limoges, from the library (ex libris) of Ademarus the man of letters (grammaticus) of good memory. For after he had spent many years in the service of the Lord and at the same time in the monastic order in the monastery of the aforesaid father, when he was about to set forth for Jerusalem to the sepulchre of the Lord and not to return from thence, he left to this same shepherd [Martial] who brought him up (nutritori) many books over which he had laboured (sudaverat), of which this is one’. Published by Delisle, loc. cit. n. 1 above, p. 243, and cited by later students of this manuscript. See below, text and note 14.

12. Sermons in BN MS. lat. 2469 analysed by Delisle, loc. cit. n. 1 above, pp. 276–96, with some excerpts also from Berlin, Lat. Philipp. 93, also autograph, containing many odiers. Delisle supplies references to the sermons published before his article appeared. See also one recent publication, Gauthier, M. M., ‘Sermon d’Adémar de Chabannes pour la translation de saint Martial le 10 octobre,’ Bulletin de la SociétéArchéologique et Historique du Limousin, LXXXVIII (1961), 72–83 Google Scholar. Adémar’s verse: Delisle, pp. 297–8, for the first poem from Paris: BN MS. lat. 2400, folio 1. In 11. 22–3 all mat can be read is ‘Almi patroni … Ademarusque/Alteruter, donante Deo, scripsere, sed ipsum’, while the final line, 24, is wholly illegible. The collection in honour of St. Cybard is from BN MS. lat. 3784, fols. 99V-102 (Delisle pp. 323–32); it is his judgement I quote from p. 323. The metres of the hymns were identified by Léon Gautier as hypercatalectic dactylic trimeters, sapphics, hendecasyllables called ‘phaleuces’, dactylicotrochaic heptameters (Horace’s metre for ‘Solvitur acris hiems’), and catalectic trochaic tetrameters or trochaic septenarii (the metre of ‘Pange lingua gloriosi praelium certaminis’). Moreover, Adémar’s sixty-four hexameters in honour of St. Cybard appear in a slightly different fifty-three line version in BN MS. lat. 5321, fol. 17V (Delisle pp. 345–6). Adémar’s family in Chronique, Book III, chapter 45, Chavanon, pp: 167–8; Lair pp. 187–8; and in Adémar’s Commemoratio abbatum Lemovicensium basilicae S. Martialis apostoli, ed. H. Duplès-Agier, Chroniques de Saint-Martial de Limoges (Paris, 1874), p. 4. Lair, Appendix VIII, pp. 273–6 discusses Adémar’s genealogy as given by himself in these two sources.

13. Hooreman, P., ‘Saint-Martial de Limoges au temps de l’AbbéOdolric’, Revue belge de musicologie, III, 1 (1949), 5–36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar is the key article on the Venus Sancti Martialis, publishing the music for the first time and identifying Adémar as composer. For BN MS. lat. 1121 see also Delisle, pp. 352–3. J. A. Emerson, ‘Two Newly Identified Offices for Saints Valeria and Austriclinianus by Adémar de Chabannes (MS. Paris Bibl. Nat. Latin 909, fols. 79–85V),’ Speculum, XL (1965), 31–46, quotation from p. 43. Chailley, J., L’École musicale de Saint Martial de Limoges jusqu’à la fin du Xle siècle (Paris, 1960)Google Scholar fits Adémar into the highly significant musical history of the great abbey.

14. The only study devoted solely to Ademar as a draftsman is D. Gaborit-Chopin, ‘Les desseins d’Adémar de Chabannes’, Bulletin Archéologique du Comitédes travaux historiques et scientifiques, Nouvelle Série, III (1967, but published 1968) 163–225. On Adémar’s autograph manuscripts, in addition to Delisle, and Hooreman and Emerson, loc. cit. (n. 13 above), see Vézin, M. J., Bulletin de la SociétéNationale des Antiquaires de France (1965), 44–51 Google Scholar for Paris BN MS. lat. 7321; A. Betgé-Grezetz, ‘Identification d’un nouveau ms. d’A. de Chabannes’, Bulletin du Comitédes travaux historiques et philologiques, Philologie (1950), xv-xvi, for Princeton University Library, Robert Garret Collection, No. 115. On the richly illustrated Leiden manuscript (Voss. lat. 8vo 15), for the Prudentius illustrations see Stettiner, R., Die illustrierten Prudentius Handschriften, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1895 and 1905)Google Scholar, of which the second volume alone containing the plates seems to have been available to Miss Gaborit-Chopin. H. Woodruff, The Illustrated Manuscripts of Prudentius (Cambridge, Mass. 1930) differs with Stettiner and has arrived at a stemma of her own, while Miss Gaborit-Chopin disagrees with both Stettiner and Miss Woodruff and produces (p. 176) a third stemma. Stettiner’s plate reproduces the self-portrait but does not discuss it; Miss Woodruff omits it from her illustration, eliminating the portion of the page that includes it. Gaborit-Chopin, figure 4, p. 173 reproduces it and translates its Latin title into French, but fails to discuss it. The only mentions of it known to me are Hervieux, L., Les fabulistes latins depuis le siècle d’Auguste jusqu’ àla fin du moyen âge, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1893), I, p. 254 Google Scholar and P. Hooreman, loc. cit. p. 16. For the illustrations to Romulus see, in addition to Gaborit-Chopin, G. Thiele, Der lateinische Äsop des Romulus und die Prosa-Forschung des Phädrus (Heidelberg, 1910) and Der illustrierte lateinische Aesop in der Handschrift des Adémar (Leiden, 1905); A. Goldschmidt, An Early Manuscript of the Aesop Fables of Avianus and Related Manuscripts (Princeton, 1947). For the Hyginus illustrations, Byvanck, A. W., The Illustrations of the Aratea of Hugo de Groot and a list of Astronomical Manuscripts (Amsterdam, 1949), pp. 169—235 Google Scholar. For the second self-portrait, Gaborit-Chopin, figure 33, p. 209; Delisle pp. 322–3 and plate IV. L’Art roman à Saint-Martial de Limoges, Catalogue de l’Exposition 17 juin-17 septembre 1950 (Limoges, 1950) included (No. 25, p. 64) this manuscript, exhibited open to the portrait with a brief description but no reproduction. The Leiden MS. was also included (No. 26, pp. 64–5) opened to two of the drawings for the fables of Romulus, with no mention of the Prudentius drawings or any reproduction. On pp. 43–7, Jean Porcher provided a brief sketch of ‘Les manuscrits à peintures de Saint Martial’ with (pp. 50–2) a few words on Ademar, most of whose sketches he regards as intended to serve as models for later illuminators. Gaborit-Chopin, D., La décoration des manuscrits à Saint-Martial de Limoges et en Limousin (Paris, Geneva, 1969)Google Scholar omits Adémar, having already treated him in her monograph of the preceding year. She was the first (Cahiers Archéologiques, XIV [1964], 233–5) to call attention to two sketches by Adémar, one of Charlemagne’s tomb at Aachen (Vat. reg. lat. 263, fol. 235V) and the other of Charlemagne himself (Paris BN MS. lat. 5943A, from which the Vatican folio originally came). I have not thought it necessary to include mention of, or reference to, other manuscripts attributed at one time or another to Ademar, when the weight of modern scholarly opinion opposes the attribution. For ‘cufic’ script in western art, see K. Erdmann, ‘Arabische Schriftzeichen ais Ornamente in der abendländischen Kunst des Mittelalters’, Abhandlungen der geistes-und-sozialwissenschaftliche Klasse, Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz (1953), IX, 465–513.

15. MGH, Scriptores Rerum Merovingicarum I, 1, new ed. (1955), p. 48; I, 2, new ed. (1969), pp. 314–15.

16. Lasteyrie, C. de, L’ Abbaye de Saint-Martial de Limoges (Paris, 1901)Google Scholar needs to be supplemented by Leclercq, H., ‘Limoges’, Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, IX, 1 (Paris, 1930)Google Scholar, cols. 1063–1167, repetitious, ill-organized, and to be used with caution. See also Rousseve, F., The Romanesque Abbey Church of Saint Martial at Limoges, 1017–1167, unpublished Harvard Ph.D. thesis (Cambridge, Mass., 1948)Google Scholar, and occasional articles in the Bulletin de la SociétéArchéologique et Historique du Limousin. M. Duchein, ‘Les textes antérieurs àl’ an mil relatifs aux églises de Limoges’, Recueil des travaux offerts àM. Clovis Brunel I (Paris, 1955), 387–400.

17. For the ‘Antiquior’, Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina [hereafter BHL], 2 vols, and supplement (Brussels, 1898–1911), no. 5551. Text edited from the then newly-discovered Karslruhe manuscript and the two tenth-century manuscripts known previously (Paris BN MS. lat 3851A and Rome, Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emmanuele, Faifa 29) by Bellet, C. F., L’Ancienne Vie de S. Martial et la prose rythmée (Paris, 1897), pp. 32–40 Google Scholar; see also his Saint Martial, Apôtre de Limoges suivi d’une nouvelle étude sur le cursus et la critique (Paris, 1898) and ‘L’ Age de la Vie de Saint Martial’, Revue des questions historiques, Nouvelle Série XXIV [LXVIIIe de la Collection] (1900), 5–40. In pushing for an early date for the ‘Antiquior’, Bellet was joining the chief contemporary defender of St. Martial’s apostolicity, the Abbé F. Arbellot: see notably his Étude historique sur l’ancienne Vie de St. Martial (Paris, 1892). The opposition was led by the Abbé L. Duchesne: see notably, ‘Saint-Martial de Limoges’, Annales du Midi, IV (1892) 289–330, written before the discovery of the Karslruhe manuscript, and Fastes épiscopaux de l’ancienne Gaule, 2nd ed., II (1910) pp. 104–17. Even the most sceptical recent scholar, Abbé L. Saltet, ‘Une discussion sur Saint Martial entre un lombard et un limousin en 1029’, Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique, XXVI (1925), 161–86—referred to with his later articles below—accepted (p. 165) a seventh-century date for the ‘antiquior’. But this cannot be substantiated.

18. Life of St. Alpinian, BHL, 308, AASS, April III (1680), p. 480; areviewer of Lasteyrie in AB, XX (1901), 217 regards it as Merovingian but later than Gregory of Tours, and ‘unfortunately unimportant’. Life of Valeria, BHL, 8475; BN MS. lat. 2786A is of the late tenth century; see ‘Miracula Sanctae Valeriae Martyris Lemovicensis …’, AB, VIII (1889), 278–84 and AB, LXXV (1957), 380. For the fire and plague, works cited in note 16 above; quotation on the plague from Adémar, Chronique, Book III, ch. 35, Chavanon p. 158; Lair pp. 168–70, redactions A and C only, not in H. The ‘prolixior’ or pseudo-Aurelian life of St. Martial is BHL, 5552; the reviewer of Lasteyrie dates it about 955 (AB, XX (1901), 217); text in L. Surius, De Probatis Sanctorum Vitis, VI, Junius (Cologne, 1617) pp. 365–74 and—from a previously unused manuscript, British Museum, Cotton Claudius A 1, fols. 82–95 of the twelfth century, with collations from four other manuscripts—in Birch, W. de Gray, ‘Vita Sanctissimi Martialis Apostoli. The Life of St. Martial by Aurelianus …’, Journal of the British Archaeological Association, XXVIII (1872), 353–90 Google Scholar, later published as a book, The Life of St. Martial (London, 1877), unavailable to me in that form.

19. MPL, CXLI, 89–112; on the MS., see Delisle, pp. 342–3. By far the best discussion is that of L. Saltet, ‘Une discussion sur Saint Martial entre un lombard et un limousin en 1029’, Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique, XXVI (1925), 161–86; 279–302. What follows here is a mere précis of the text, intended to illuminate Adémar’s frenzied efforts at self-defence.

20. Emerson, loc. cit. (n. 13 above), pp. 33–5 and note 17; the new apostolic mass for Martial on fols, 70V-72:6.

21. Jaffé4092;Mansi, XIX, 417; MPL, CXLI, 1149–50.

22. Saltet, L., ‘Une prétendue lettre de Jean XIX sur Saint Martial fabriquée par Adémar de Chabannes’, Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique, XXVII (1926), 117–39 Google Scholar. For a comment on the dangers of neglecting Saltet see Coens, M., ‘La “Scriptura de Sancto Fronto Nova”attribuée au Chorévêque Gauzbert’, AB, LXXV (1957), 343–4 Google Scholar and p. 343, notes 2 and 3, in which he properly takes to task Dom Henri Leclercq. L. Duchesne, ‘Saint Martial de Limoges’, Annales du Midi, IV (1899), 321–2 and 321, n. 1, still believed the letter of John XIX genuine, despite his deep suspicions of Ademar. The papal letter appears in the Bible of St. Martial (Paris BN MS. lat. 5, II, fol. 130) and in a hagiographie manuscript (BN MS. lat. 5240) also from St. Martial.

23. This is the manuscript also containing forty-six of Adémar’s sermons. The Acts of the Council of Limoges are the forty-seventh and last item of its contents running from fol. 97 to the end, but incomplete at the end, as the manuscript was even when first noticed in the seventeenth century; Delisle, pp. 276–96. Text in MPL, CXLII, 1354–1400.

24. Saltet, L., ‘Les faux d’Adémar de Chabannes. Prétendues décisions sur Saint Martial au Concile de Bourges du 1er Novembre 1031’, Bulletin de littérature Ecclésiastique, XXVII (1926), 145–60 Google Scholar and ‘Un cas de mythomanie historique bien documenté: Adémar de Chabannes (988–1034)’, ibid., XXXII (1931), 149–62. This was in fact Saltet’s final contribution to the subject, although he closed the article with the words ‘Àsuivre’. He died in 1952 without completing his planned work (cf. AB, LXXV [1957], 343, n. 3). On the Peace of God in Aquitaine and the work of these councils, see Bonnaud-Delamare, R., ‘Les institutions de paix en Aquitaine au Xle siècle’, Recueils de la Soàétéjean Bodin, XIV, La Paix, Première Partie (Brussels, 1962), pp. 415–88 Google Scholar, who is unaware of Saltet’s work on Adémar and accepts as genuine Adémar’s account of the Council of Limoges. The discrediting of the portions of the record dealing with St. Martial, however, do not materially affect Bonnaud-Delamare’s efforts to trace the development of the Peace of Hefele, God. C.J., Histoire des Conciles, tr. and ed. Leclercq, H., IV, 2 (Paris, 1911), pp. 936–9, 950–9, 1411–19 Google Scholar reflects the most advanced state of scholarship prior to Saltet and is now wholly inadequate. On Aymo’s edict, Saitet, ‘Faux’, pp. 156–60; in the Saint Martial Bible (BN MS. lat. 5, II), fol. 130V. Leclercq’s article ‘Limoges’ (above, n. 16), cols. 1149–53 still holds to the authenticity of the whole of Adémar’s account of the Council of Limoges and believes (1142, n. 6) in the historicity of Adémar’s invented Councils of Paris and Poitiers.

25. Adémar’s sermon, BN MS. lat. 2469, fol. 89r. See Saltet, ‘Un cas …’, pp. 154–5. Azenarius’ speech, MPL, CXLII, 1356;Duchesne, in Annales du Midi (above, n. 22), pp. 323–4. Odolricus, MPL, CXLII, 1356–8. The clerk of Périgueux and his discomfiture, 1360–1. On this, see Coens, M., ‘La Vie Ancienne de S. Front de Périgueux’, AB, XL VIII (1930), 324–60 Google Scholar and ‘La “Scriptura de Sancto Fronto Nova”attribuée au chorévêque Gauzbert’, AB, LXXV (1957), 340–75. Cf. also A. Vaccari, ‘La leggenda di S. Frontonio’, AB, LXVII (1949), 309–26. The earlier life (ninth-century) is crudely cobbled together, but Front’s miraculous revival of a dead disciple may in fact have preceded the earliest such tale about Martial. The second life, which Adémar charges was bought from Gauzbert, was discovered by Coens himself. It removes the inconvenience of having Périgueux a Christian town before Front was born and his parents Christian, and has him baptized by St. Peter on a trip to Rome. The two surviving manuscripts of St. Front’s new life belonged—ironically enough—to the Abbey of St. Martial, and Adémar himself managed to perform upon them his usual ‘gratinages’ in honour of Martial the apostle. Gauzbert served under Bishop Hildegarius of Limoges, who died in 992. It was not until the end of the eleventh century that St. Front obtained a third life and received his final transformation into an oriental and a disciple of Christ himself, finally catching up to Martial. It was not only the men of Limoges who had mighty imaginations.

26. The ‘evidence’ from England, MPL, CXLII, 1368–9; on this, see Wormald, F., ‘The English Saints in the Litany in Arundel MS. 60’, AB, LXIV (1946), 72–86 Google Scholar. In this mid-eleventh-century MS., Martial is mentioned as an apostle, which prompted Wormald to write an Appendix (pp. 84–6) on the subject. Taking Saltet’s articles into account, Wormald nonetheless points out that ‘me Limoges claim must have reached England very soon after the promulgation of the apostolate of St. Martial, since there are five English manuscripts which are probably datable to the second quarter of the eleventh century whose litanies place St. Martial among the apostles.’ The speed of the transmission Wormald attributes to the close relations between Canute and William of Aquitaine; our knowledge of these comes from Adémar’s Chronicon. If Canute did send the illuminated manuscript to William he may well have had the text written in conformity with the new usage; for its appearance in Adémar’s sermons (BN MS. lat. 2469, fol. 67V), Delisle, p. 290. Wormald also suggests that Odolric may have sent monks of St. Martial to England to raise funds for the rebuilding of the ‘basilica’ of St. Saviour, attached to the church of St. Martial. For Benedict of Cluse as a believer in Martial’s apostolicity, MPL, CXLII, 1372; conclusion of discussion of Martial, 1376–83.

27. Intervention of the ‘learned man among the clerics of Angoulême’, ibid., 1362–8, the Greek monks of Sinai, 1363–4. Duchesne, loc. cit. (n. 22 above), p. 323. A. Arbellot, ‘Observations Critques àM. l’Abbe Duchesne sur les origines de la Gaule et sur l’apostolat de Saint Martial’, Bulletin de la SociétéArchéologique et historique du Limousin, XLIII (1895), 125–82, pp. 152, 166–7. Neither Duchesne nor Arbellot recognized that the entire Martial episode in the ‘record’ of the Council was Adémar’s invention.

28. BHL, 7963, text in AASS, Iun. I (1695), pp. 87–107, with the seventeenth-century commentaries of Henschenius and Papebroch. Portions only (no new MSS.) in MGH, Scriptores, VIII, pp. 209–11. On this text—based on eight manuscripts—see Thomsen, M. P., ‘Der heilige Symeon von Trier’, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, LXXII (1939), 144–61 Google Scholar with partial German translation (hereafter Thomsen); M. Coens, in AB, LXVI (1948), 105; the same, ‘Un document inédit sur le culte de S. Symeon moine d’orient et reclus àTreves’, AB, LXVIII [Mélanges Paul Peeters, II, 1950), 181–96 (hereafter Coens, ‘Un document’). For other MSS. of the text—notably Trier 118 and 1384, see AB, XLIX (1931), 275 and LII (1934), 284, 158, 265–6.

29. Poppo’s letter to Benedict IX and the papal letter and Bull in AASS, Iun. I, pp. 96–7; papal letter and bull Jaffé, 4113 and 4112, with double dagger indicating spuriousness; texts also in Beyer, H., Urkundenbuch tur Geschichte der mittelrheinischen Territorien, I (Hildesheim, 1860), pp. 370–2 Google Scholar, nos. 316 and 317. For the original manuscript of Poppo’s letter, Ramackers, J., ‘Anàlekten zur Geschichte des Papsttums im 11 Jahrhundert: I. Der älteste Papstbrief auf Pergament’, Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, XXV (1934), 49–56 Google Scholar. On the chronology of the canonization, and on the newly-discovered Office, Coens, ‘Un document’. On the church of St. Symeon, most recently E. Gose, ed., Die Porta Nigra in Trier, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1969), with fine plates in Vol. II and (rather selective) bibliography of earlier works. For Symeon’s seal, N. Irsch, ‘Das Bildnis des hl. Simeon von Trier’, Trier, Ein Zentrum abendländischer Kultur, Rheinischer Verein für Denkmalpflege und Heimatschutz (1952), pp. 175–9; for the cap and the codex, Irsch, N., Der Dom zu Trier (Dusseldorf, 1931)Google Scholar, Die Kunstdenkmäler der Rheinprovinz, im Aufträge der Provinzialverbandes, ed. P. Clemen, XIII, 1, Die Kunstdenkmäler der Stadt Trier … I, 1, Der Dom, p. 323.

30. Radulfus Glaber, I, V, 21, ed. Prou, p. 20. Hugh of Flavigny, MGH, Scriptores, VIII, pp. 393–9. In addition to Symeon’s life by Eberwin, Hugh (a great grand-nephew of Otto III and grand-nephew of Conrad II) was using a book he had found in a cupboard in Rouen. This is Rouen MS. U. 22, published and discussed by Poncelet, A., ‘Sanctae Catherinae Virginis et Martyris Translatio et Miracula Rotomagensia Saec. XI’, AB, XXII (1903), 423–38 Google Scholar; see also Fawtier, R., ‘Les réliques rouennaises de Ste. Catherine d’Alexandrie’, AB, XLI (1923), 357–68 Google Scholar. See Dauphin, Dom Hubert, Le bienheureux Richard, Abbéde Saint-Vanne de Verdun (Louvain and Paris, 1946), pp. 306–8 Google Scholar, and compare Thomsen, p. 153, n. 1; Coens,’ Un document’, p. 183.

31. Chronicon, III, 65–6, ed. Chabanon, pp. 189–92;ed. Lair, pp. 233–5; Historia Pontificum et Comitum Engolismensium, ed. Boussard, pp. 18, 21. G. Hofmann, loe. cit., n. 6 above, p. 225, dates the latter part of Symeon’s activities too late. Thomsen and Coens are to be preferred.

32. Ebersolt, J., Orient et Occident, Recherches sur les influences byzantines en France avant les croisades (Paris and Brussels, 1928), pp. 81–2 Google Scholar summarizes Symeon’s Vita and, within a few lines, refers to the mention of monks of Sinai at Angoulême in the record of the Council of Limoges. But he never mentions Adémar or makes the connection between the two. H. Dauphin, op. cit., n. 30 above, pp. 306–8 and P. M. McNulty and B. Hamilton, ‘Orientale Lumen et Magistra Latinitas: Greek Influences on Western Monasticism (900–1100)’, Le Millénaire du Mont Athos, 963–1963, Études et Mélanges, I (Chevetogne, 1963), pp. 195, 197–9, 207, 216 discuss Symeon, mentioning the ‘clerk of Angoulême’ who spoke of Symeon and Cosmas at Limoges, but without realizing mat the clerk was Adémar or that Adémar had invented this part of the proceedings of the Council, still less that Symeon might have made a contribution to Adémar’s Chronicon. McNulty and Hamilton also mistakenly substitute Count William IV of Poitiers for William IV of Angoulême, and have not consulted Saltet, Coens, Thomsen and other recent authorities. It is odd that none of these scholars found wormy of comment Symeon’s and Cosmas’ alleged ‘testimony’ that the Greeks regarded Martial as an apostle!