[513] Among the documentary sources for the monastic colonization which play so central a role in the repopulation of primitive Castile in the ninth and tenth centuries, there occur a number of monastic pacta. Argáiz, Yepes and, notably, Berganza edited certain of these texts, but only since 1907, when Herwegen published his excellent monograph on Gallegan monastic pactualism, has there been genuine understanding of their institutional origin and significance ⁽¹⁾ . Herwegen, however, particularly in his treatment of the pacta of the Reconquista, employed a purely juridical approach, useful for illumining certain aspects of pactual evolution, but totally unrelated to the changing historical conditions in which these texts were used ⁽²⁾ . Since Herwegen's day the chief advance beyond his results has been the listing or publication of additional pacta unknown to him, principally by Barrau-Dihigo, Serrano, Pérez de Urbel and [514] Sánchez-Albornoz ⁽³⁾ . Yet to appreciate the great historical, no less than institutional, significance of the monastic pacta of the Reconquista, it is necessary only to classify them topographically. Then it immediately becomes evident that pactualism was unknown in Mozarabic Spania, the Spanish March states, Navarre above the Ebro, León and, virtually so, in central Asturias; while in Galicia, eastern Asturias, Liébana, and, above all, Castile, it was firmly established. This singular distribution pattern, too well documented to be merely accidental ⁽⁴⁾ , demonstrates that in peninsular monasticism prior to the Cluniacs not only the recognized Visigothic tradition, but also a Gallegan pactual movement, must be reckoned with; and it provides a promising new clue to the institutional background and the course of the frontier colonization of the Reconquista. Numerous questions await investigation in this connection, but for early Castillan history two are of paramount importance: first, how did the pactual monasticism of seventh century Visigothic Galicia establish itself in distant Castile as the dominant monastic tradition of the first centuries of the Reconquista; and, secondly, what became of this Gallegan institutionalism as the county expanded southward toward the Duero and Carolingian Benedictinism entered the northern Meseta as a new monastic agency of Castilian repopulation ?

The Gallegan origin of pactual monasticism is certain. By the middle seventh century, as Herwegen has shown, the monasteries of St Fructuosus of Braga (circ. 600-660) and [515] doubtless other houses, all located south of the Miño around Braga and farther to the northeast in Bierzo near Astorga, constituted a veritable monastic federation, the Sancta Communis Regula ⁽⁵⁾ . The abbots (or abbesses) of these Communities met in regular synods presided over by an episcopus sub regula, originally Fructuosus himself in his dual capacity of abbot-bishop of Dumio and metropolitan of Braga; and these assemblies enacted the ordinances incorporated into the Regula monastica communis ⁽⁶⁾ . Among these federated monasteries the normal monarchical abbatiate of cenobitic history was discarded in favor of a quasi-feudal, equalitarian monastic polity, resting upon the pactum or written covenant drawn up between abbot-patronus and monks-dependent. In the model pactum attached to the RMC, which is commonly but dubiously ascribed to Fructuosus himself and which becomes the archetype of so many pacta of the Reconquista, the rights and obligations of the two contracting parties are defined with precision: the monks surrender their persons to the abbot with vows of obedience and stability, but retain the right to protest against unconstitutional abuses of power and can even invoke against their abbot the intervention of other abbots, or of the episcopus sub regula and the local count (comes defensor); the abbot, on the other hand, has full power to punish dissenters or those conspiring with kinsfolk to disrupt the community, and the right to expel recalcitrants and recover deserters (fugitivi) with government aid (saiones), even from bishops, priests or laymen protecting them. Under this system, the bond between abbot and monks being personal, subscription of a new pactum with an abbot-elect was necessary to insure continuance of the monastic society. Use of the pactum, however, contrary to the assumption of Fita, Pérez de Urbel and others, did not impose observance of the Regula monachorum of Fructuosus ⁽⁷⁾ , for Gallegan monasticism was [516] eclectic, each, house developing its custom from a codex regularum, which might contain the Rules of Pachomius, Basil, Augustine, Isidore or Benedict as well as that of Fructuosus or the RMC. Types of pactum differing from the RMC archetype also circulated in Galicia outside the federation, such as the Consensoria monachorum and the sacramentum or iuramenta denounced in the first chapter of the RMC ⁽⁸⁾ .

In the eighth century the closely knit federation of abbeys in the Sancta Communis Regula was destroyed, not (it would seem) by the Muslim invasion and occupation of Galicia, but by Alfonso I's depopulation of pactual monasticism's homeland below the Miño in the territorium of Braga ⁽⁹⁾ . Pactualism itself, however, as an effective instrument of cenobitic organization, did not disappear. In Galicia as well as in eastern Asturias, Liébana, the Rioja and Castile it persisted well into the eleventh century as the constitutional basis of numerous monastic foundations, providing them with a very different internal structure from that of the orthodox Visigothic houses of central Asturias, León and, indeed, all the rest of Christian and Muslim Spain. Yet for Galicia itself only four pacta of the Reconquista have been discovered: 1) the Sabaricus pactum of MS Escorialensis a I 13, from an unknown house, of either eighth or ninth century date ⁽¹⁰⁾ ; 2) the unpublished Absalom pactum (826 or 876), from a monastery of Santa Eulalia, perhaps Santa Eulalia del Bubal, in the province of Orense ⁽¹¹⁾ ; 3) the Fulgaredus pactum (871) from Santa María [517] de Mezonzo, not far from Santiago ⁽¹²⁾ ; and 4) the late Tudeildus pactum (1045) from the Portuguese abbey of São Salvador de Vacariça in the suburbium of Coimbra ⁽¹³⁾ . This scant list of what may be termed the western group of medieval Spanish pacta can be supplemented somewhat by a few references to pactualism in the charters; and unquestionably many pacta have been lost. Nevertheless, given the relative abundance of Gallegan monastic pergaminos surviving from the first centuries of the Reconquista, it is remarkable that more pacta have not come down to us from the ancient reino. It looks very much as if pactual monasticism never effectively reestablished itself in Galicia after the eighth century, partly because the Sancta Communis Regula had collapsed, partly because most monastic colonizers, in the repopulation of the western zone of the Peninsula, propagated the Visigothic tradition, but also because the chief center of pactual monasticism shifted to the eastern marchlands of the Asturo-Leonese state.

Certainly the contrast between Galicia and the East is sharp. Not four, but at least seventeen pacta, widely distributed over this area have been found: one from Asturias de Santillana, four from Liébana, one from the Rioja Alta and eleven from Castile. In addition, a fair number of references to lost pacta, and certain charters containing excerpts from the RMC pactum, attest considerable familiarity with pactual monasticism. The Castilian pacta, historically the most significant, fall into two clearly defined types, one more or less closely based upon the RMC model, the other markedly different in both language and juridical structure. To the RMC type four, probably five, Castilian pacta belong:

1. 855: the Rodanius pactum, from San Pedro de Tejada, north of the [518] Ebro in the Valdivielso valley (prov. Burgos, p. j. Lerma) ⁽¹⁴⁾ . This follows the RMC archetype fairly closely but omits the passages dealing with the traditio of the monks to the abbot, internal conspiracy, the role of saiones and bishops in the recovery of deserters and the appeal to the episcopus sub regula and comes defensor ⁽¹⁵⁾ . 

2. circ. 870: the Guisandus pactum, from San Juan de Orbañanos, near Valpuesta (prov. Burgos, p. j. Villarcayo, ayunt. Valle de Tobalina) ⁽¹⁶⁾ . Along with abridgement of certain RMC passages, this makes much the same omissions as the Rodanius pactum (although it does provide for direct access to the abbot in case of grievance) and is almost certainly connected with it through a common ancestor. 

3. 924-5: the Nonna Bella pactum from San Miguel de Pedroso, south of Belorado (prov. Burgos) ⁽¹⁷⁾ . The pactual text proper has been lost; what remains is simply an abbatial traditio followed by the nuns' signatures, as in the codas of the Argilegus and Eufrasia pacta. Pérez de Urbel stoutly defends the 759 date found in the San Millán cartulary, but the cluster of Pedroso diplomas in the tenth and eleventh centuries corroborates Serrano's allocation of the text in the reign of Fruela II (924-5) ⁽¹⁸⁾ . 

4. 930: the Eufrasia pactum, from San Mamés de Ura, in the Mataviejas valley south of Burgos (prov. Burgos, p. j. Lerma) ⁽¹⁹⁾ . Here the excisions are [519] much greater, the sections on conspiracy, punishment of recalcitrants and recovery of deserters all being omitted completely. 

5. 1044: the Arcisclus or Arciselus pactum, from Santa María de Sotovellanos (prov. Burgos, p. j. Villadiego) ⁽²⁰⁾ . This pactum, as yet unpublished, seems to follow rather closely (if I interpret Pérez de Urbel's précis aright) the Rodanius pactum of 855.

From these five chance survivors of doubtless scores of lost pacta, and from references in other pergaminos, the expansion of Gallegan pactualism in ninth and tenth century Castile can be reconstructed in more detail than might be supposed. The most striking fact is the way in which their geography and chronology attach these documents to successive stages of Castilian frontier repopulation ⁽²¹⁾ . The Guisandus pactum (ca 870) was drawn up at Orbañanos, where the monastery of San Juan is known to have been founded by the same Guisandus in 867 ⁽²²⁾ . This put it well within the colonizing sphere of the monastic see of Valpuesta, so prominent in the ninth century resettlement of the whole Tobalina district above the Ebro ⁽²³⁾ . The monasticism at Valpuesta and in its dependent areas was pactual in character, as can be seen from the Sonna and Munnina grant (865) to Santos Cosme y Damián de Val de Rama ⁽²⁴⁾ , Bishop Diego of Valpuesta's donation of 929 to his church ⁽²⁵⁾ , and the reference to the 'pactum regule' [520] in the tenth century traditio of Gugina to the same bishop and Valpuesta ⁽²⁶⁾ . This means that almost certainly from the erection of the Valpuestan see under Bishop Juan in 804 the monasticism of this important Castilian frontier diocese followed the Gallegan pactual tradition.

No less certainly does the San Pedro de Tejada pactum prove pactual monasticism accompanied the Castilian advance into the Valdivielso triangle of the Trueba, Losa and Ebro rivers ⁽²⁷⁾ . In 855 Rodanius and his monks, indeed, must have been raising their abbey walls almost as early as Count Rodrigo of Castile (850-873) was constructing the nearby castillo of Tetelia as a safeguard for this dangerous frontier salient ⁽²⁸⁾ . It was Rodrigo also who in 860 repopulated Amaya, from the vicinity of which we have the Sotovellanos pactum; but this text is too late to do more than attest that in 1044 Gallegan pactualism still flourished here, without throwing direct light upon its original introduction in the late ninth or early tenth century.

The next great Castilian colonization period, associated with Rodrigo's son, Count Diego Porcelos, who became the poblador of Burgos in 880, has left no pacta extant. But both the Nonna Bella and Eufrasia pacta, from districts lying east and south of Burgos, show pactualism continued to accompany new border expansion. The Nonna Bella pactum links the Gallegan tradition with Ordoño II of Leon's determined drive toward Nájera and the Rioja Alta, a drive followed by monastic settlement, as we know from his foundation in 923 of Santa Coloma on the Alesón, near Nájera ⁽²⁹⁾ . The Eufrasia pactum (930) of San Mamés de Ura in turn demonstrates that pactualism also moved into the plains country south of Burgos, as far as the valleys of the Arlanza and the Ura (modern Mataviejas). This region was first opened to settlers at the end of the ninth century and, in the first quarter of the tenth [521] century, was thickly planted with abbeys as eminent as Cardena, Arlanza, and Silos ⁽³⁰⁾ . Many, if not all, of these new houses must have been pactual. San Mamés stands, however, as the most southern outpost of pactualism of the RMC type in Castile, its further advance to the Duero and beyond doubtless being prevented by the advent of the Benedictine Rule.

While the Mataviejas line, or perhaps better, the Mataviejas-Arlanza line, thus represents the extreme limit reached by Gallegan pactual monasticism in Castile, the question of its original introduction into the county has still to be explored. First, however, it is imperative to examine two other, possibly earlier, eastern areas of pactual monasticism, the history of which is intimately linked with the Castilian problem. One of these is Liébana, the sierra-walled valley of the upper Deva, where a flourishing monasticism can be found as early as the second half of the eighth century. Here was San Martín, later Santo Toribio, de Liébana, then one of the foremost abbeys of the Peninsula, with an active scriptorium associated with the production of Beatus' magnificently illustrated In Apocalipsin libri duodecim , and the anti-Adoptionist tracts of Beatus and Etherius. Besides Santo Toribio there were numerous other houses in this region, which from a relatively early date yields important testimony to the pactual character of its cenobitism. Four Liébana pacta, dating between 790 and 941, have come down to us:

1. 790: the Alvaro pactum, from a monastery at or near Caldas, north of modern Potes (prov. Santander, p. j. Potes) ⁽³¹⁾ . This brief colorless text has no visible connection with the RMC archetype, and its relatively weak concept of the monastic polity recalls the communities based on the sacramentam or juramenta attacked in RMC, c. i. 

2. 818: the Argilegus pactum, from Santos Pedro y Pablo de Naroba, at or near modern Venta de Naroba, a few kms. south of Potes ⁽³²⁾ . This follows [522] the RMC text fairly faithfully but omits the creed, combines the prescriptions on the punishment of rebels and conspirators, and, like the Guisandus pactum, sanctions direct approach to the abbot in cases of grievance.

3. 850-855?: the Osanius pactum, from San Pedro de Viñón, several kms. north of Potes ⁽³³⁾ . A fairly simple pactum, chiefly devoted to the formal traditio of persons and property to the abbot, this draws upon the RMC text for only two passages, the vow of obedience ('quidquid nostrum', etc.) and the abbot's penal rights against rebels. 

4. 941: the Ailo pactum, from Santa María de Piasca, southeast of Potes ⁽³⁴⁾ . This belongs to the RMC type but deletes the sections on conspiracy and scourging; in contrast, the passage on the pursuit of fugitivi, which the Argilegus pactum omits, is retained.

Whether Santo Toribio itself was pactual cannot be securely determined in the absence of any pacta from this house, but since a 959 charter of the monk Flacinus to its abbot Opila employs phraseology borrowed from the RMC archetype ⁽³⁵⁾ , it may fairly be inferred that in the middle tenth century Santo Toribio was pactual, and that in view of its ambiente it may well have been so from its foundation in the eighth century. Certainly the four pacta just reviewed reflected an ancient and widely disseminated tradition, reaching back at least to the end of the eighth century and the first decades of the ninth. This is older evidence than we have found for Castile, and the descent of Castilian pactualism from that of Liébana becomes, therefore, a legitimate hypothesis.

At this point, a second pactual center on the margins of Castile demands consideration. From the abbey of Santillana del Mar, in Asturias de Santillana, there has been preserved the pactum of Indulfus (980) ⁽³⁶⁾ . This is a late pactum, not [523] only in its date but in its content. Its linguistic similarities to the RMC model are few; it retains only such elements as a creed, a traditio, a vow of obedience and recognition of abbatial rights of punishment and pursuit. It is a unilateral covenant, containing nothing to limit the abbot's authority or protect the rights of the monks. This document proves Santillana a pactual house in the second half of the tenth century, a conclusion sustained by the charter of circ. 965 from the presbiter Heredus and his gasalianes to the abbot Albarus, which, while not a pactum, contains an excerpt from the RMC archetype ⁽³⁷⁾ . Undoubtedly, the Indulfus pactum descends from a more primitive prototype; but when this first reached eastern Asturias and how far beyond Santillana it once circulated, we have no means of determining. For central Asturias, one other house can perhaps be classified as pactual: San Vicente de Oviedo. For, although the 781 foundation charter of this monastery is interpolated and must be used with caution, yet it does have a pactum-like base authentic enough to go back to the eighth century ⁽³⁸⁾ . It is a very simple type, unrelated to the RMC form, a mere foundation document with a simple traditio of their persons and property by the monks to the abbot, Fromistanus. Whatever the value of this text, it is unique in central Asturias, where monasticism almost invariably followed the Visigothic tradition. This contrasts with eastern Asturias where, limited as the documentation is, pactualism, as at Santillana, appears more firmly rooted. Nevertheless, with evidence so scant, one can hardly estimate the strength of pactualism in eastern Asturias or its contribution to that of Castile, influential as that contribution may have been.

The appearance of pactual monasticism as early as the end of the eighth century in Castile, Liébana and (probably at the same time) in eastern Asturias, and its absence (except for the lone San Vicente de Oviedo trace) in the intervening areas of central Asturias and León, point to the conclusion that the Gallegan tradition was introduced directly from the territory of Braga, where it survived as late as the [524] mid-eighth century. This would logically connect the shift from west to east with the repopulation policies of Alfonso I (739-757) who is known to have evacuated the Christian inhabitants of the trans-Miño area and to have transferred them elsewhere ⁽³⁹⁾ The Chronicle of Alfonso III specifically states that Alfonso I repopulated Liébana, Trasmiera (eastern Asturias beyond Santillana and across the river Miera) and 'Bardulies quae nunc appellatur Castella' ⁽⁴⁰⁾ . Since Alfonso's depopulation between Duero and Miño occurred circ. 750 and the evidences of pactualism in Liébana and Castile first appear at the end of the eighth and beginning of the ninth centuries, it seems reasonable to conclude that soon after the middle of the eighth century the majority of Gallegan monks in the environs of Braga abandoned their old pactual houses and --probably along with numerous other Gallegos-- were colonized in the eastern borderlands of the kingdom. From Bardulia, i. e., the lands along and beyond the Ebro, the fierce Muslim attacks under Alfonso I's immediate successors must soon have driven these hapless settlers ⁽⁴¹⁾ . Hence the pactualism that by 800 appears in the van of Castilian expansion must go back to unknown houses located in the northernmost nucleus of primitive Castile, and doubtless also to the pactual abbeys of eastern Asturias and Liébana.

Finally, it may be noted in passing that recognition of the existence of centers of Gallegan monasticism in the Asturo-Leonese East promises to throw new light upon the Spanish connections of Benedict of Aniane. It has always been a mystery how this Carolingian reformer of the early ninth century secured for his Codex regularum a mass of Gallegan material, including works only incompletely preserved, or not preserved at all in Spain, such as the Regula sanctorum Pauli et Stephani, Valerius' De genere monachorum, and the RMC. It can now be suggested that Benedict acquired these seventh century Gallegan writings from codices regularum and other MSS made available to him through eastern Asturo-Leonese houses of Gallegan origin.

[525] What has been said so far of Castilian pactualism relates entirely, it should be understood, to pactualism of the RMC tradition, the direct Gallegan origin of which is indisputable. But in tenth century Castile there also circulated a second pactual formula, markedly different from the RMC covenant. Not contractual but unilateral, this pactum contains no elements of abbatial limitation; under it the monks, having formally affirmed their election of a named individual as abbot, hand themselves over to him without reservation, promising obedience and accepting his undefined powers of command. Herwegen, classifying this formula in his third category as furthest removed from the RMC model, noted these juridical features but left unexamined the problem of its development and distribution ⁽⁴²⁾ . Five examples of it (six, if the unpublished Riojan pactum in the Conde de Mora Collection belongs to this group) ⁽⁴³⁾ are known:

1. A model pactum, first identified as Spanish by Mabillon, who discovered it prefixed to the Regula monachorum of St Isidore of Seville in a 'codex vetustissimus' of Lérins ⁽⁴⁴⁾ . The date, provenance and present whereabouts of this MS, if it still exists, are all unknown. 

2. 921: the Petrus pactum, from Santos Pedro y Pablo 'in valle qui vocitatur Azadina', otherwise unknown but located in either the Rioja Alta or Castile. 

3. 931: the Stefanus pactum, from San Juan de Tabladillo, south of Burgos on the Mataviejas river, near Santibáñez del Val and Silos (prov. Burgos, p. j. Lerma) ⁽⁴⁶⁾ . 

[4. 950: the unpublished pactum, probably of this type, in the Colección del Conde de Mora (Madrid, A. H. N.), no. 93; from 'San Martín' de Laturce, near Albelda in the Rioja] ⁽⁴⁷⁾ . 

5. 959: the Urraca pactum, from San Julián de Villagonzalo Pedernales, a few kms. southwest of Burgos on the road to Arcos ⁽⁴⁸⁾ . 

6. 975: the Azenarus pactum, from San Martin de Modúbar southeast of Burgos ⁽⁴⁹⁾ .

Four, possibly five, of the preceding pacta, all dating between 921-975, were drawn up in Castilian or Riojan monasteries. This provides the chief clue to the place and date of composition of this type of pactual formula. Three of the list emanate from well known abbeys, San Juan de Tabladillo, San Julián de Villagonzalo Pedernales and San Martín de Modúbar, located in the territory and diocese of Burgos. The Petrus pactum is either directly Castilian, as Pérez de Urbel's Cardeña hypothesis assumes, or indirectly so, since Riojan monasticism is a frontier offshoot, in this period, of the Castilian ⁽⁵⁰⁾ . The Laturce text falls in the same category. Thus a Castilian or rather Burgalese provenance can be posited, and it will be convenient henceforth to cite this formula as the Burgos pactum to distinguish it from the RMC type.

On the chronological side, the Petrus pactum establishes 921 as the year before which the Burgos pactum must have been [527] produced. A terminus post quem can be deduced from two other points. First, the non-appearance of this formula in Benedict of Aniane's Codex regularum , which, as already remarked, contains considerable monastic material from the eastern Asturo-Leonese pactual centers; this throws our text after 815. Secondly, the 931 Stefanus pactum from Tabladillo links it with an area not colonized before circ. 900; and if we assume that the Tabladillo text reached San Juan from the north and derives from lost ancestors of the Urraca (959) and Azenarus (975) pacta, then we must reckon in turn that the settlement dates for Amaya (860) and Burgos (880) establish the second half of the ninth century as the earliest date for that region. There is nothing in Mabillon's description of the lost Lérins codex as 'vetustissimus' to be of assistance here, but also nothing in contradiction to the foregoing data. In broad terms, then, the period 850-921 can be tentatively accepted as the time when this peculiarly Castilian type of pactum first circulated in the territory of Burgos.

These chronological and geographic limits could be defined more narrowly if it were possible to determine whether the text was written first in the older monasteries around Burgos itself, the group with which the Villagonzalo and Modúbar pacta associate it; or had been composed earlier to the south in the Arlanza-Mataviejas zone, as the early date of the Tabladillo pactum suggests. The assumption of older prototypes of the Urraca and Azenarus examples favors the first hypothesis, while the second finds support not only in the Tabladillo pactum's early date but in the probability that the earliest of all, the Petrus pactum, reached the Rioja from the south. For the Albelda documents indicate that Riojan monastic connections with Castile tended to run through Silos and the south, rather than directly across the Bureba from the northern Burgos area ⁽⁵¹⁾ . The Laturce text probably reached the Rioja through the same channel; and the fact that the Eufrasia pactum of San Mamés de Ura, which is of RMC type, survives only in the privilegios of Santa Maria la Real de Nájera ⁽⁵²⁾ , further attests that early Riojan connections with [528] Castilian pactualism followed the southern route. In short, the earliest center of Burgos type pactualism may well have been the Arlanza-Mataviejas group of early tenth century frontier abbeys. This is a subject upon which some further light may be thrown by considering the circumstances under which the Burgos pactum evolved and the purpose for which it was designed.

The essential feature of the Burgos type of pactum, as Herwegen realized, is its abandonment of Gallegan contractualism for the orthodox monarchical abbatiate of Western monastic history. Such a radical Castilian shift from RMC pactual practice as this represents could have been motivated by recognition of advantages inherent in orthodox constitutionalism; or by adoption of Visigothic concepts from Asturo-Leonese houses to the west and north; or as a reaction to the spread of Benedictinism in Castile. There is every indication that the last motive was the decisive one. From the later decades of the ninth century, as the three earliest Castilian MSS of Smaragdus' Expositio in regulam beati Benedicti testify ⁽⁵³⁾ , the powerful reformed Benedictinism of Benedict of Aniane and the Carolingians was crossing the Pyrenees into the plains and valleys of Castile and the Rioja, as well as farther west all the way to Galicia ⁽⁵⁴⁾ . Count Fernán González of Castile (931-970), Alfonso III of León (866-910) and Sancho Garcés I of Navarre (905-925) officially championed this foreign monastic invasion, with which the rise of such famous Spanish Benedictine centers as San Pedro de Cardeña, San Pedro de Arlanza, Santo Domingo de Silos and San Martin de Albelda, to name no others, is connected. Indeed, at the very time Gallegan pactualism was advancing south beyond Valpuesta and Tejada, Carolingian Benedictinism, leaping over the older northern foundations above the Ebro ⁽⁵⁵⁾ , was directing itself straight to the new frontier foundations below the river, and engaging pactualism in an intensive struggle for Castilian monastic supremacy.

It is from this clash between Gallegan pactualism and Carolingian Benedictinism on the Castilian frontier in the [529] early tenth century that the Burgos type of pactum must have emerged. San Juan de Tabladillo under its abbot Stefanus, was in fact a Benedictine abbey, apparently by 924 ⁽⁵⁶⁾ . San Martín de Modúbar had been under the Monte Cassino observance at least three decades before, in 975, its monks subscribed to the Azenarus pactum ⁽⁵⁷⁾ . There is no good reason for identifying the Burgos pactum with the Isidorian Rule simply because of their juxtaposition in Mabillon's Lérins MS ⁽⁵⁸⁾ . Early medieval manuscripts of St Isidore's Rule alone are so extremely rare in Spain ⁽⁵⁹⁾ , that it seems very likely the Lérins MS was originally the initial section of a codex regularum which contained other rules as well as the Isidorian, and commenced with a pactual formula, just as the codex regularum of MS Escorialensis a I 13 opens with the Sabaricus pactum ⁽⁶⁰⁾ . In just such codices or libri regularum many Spanish Benedictine abbeys found their text of the Rule of St Benedict ⁽⁶¹⁾ . It is not necessary to insist that only Benedictine monasteries used the Burgos pactum; the relatively numerous Villagonzalo Pedernales charters do not mention the Rule of Monte Cassino at all ⁽⁶²⁾ . But the juridical content of the Burgos pactum approaches the Benedictine standard very closely, and its adoption in tenth century Castilian Benedictine houses is unquestionable. If we could determine whether Castilian Benedictinism first established itself on a large scale in the vicinity of Burgos, or in the Arlanza-Mataviejas zone, it would be possible to reach a conclusion as to whether the Burgos pactum originated near the town of Burgos or farther south. But this must wait upon closer critical study of Benedictine penetration into Spain.

While the appearance of the Burgos pactum can only be [530] understood with reference to the rise of Castilian Benedictinism, it is no less vital to appreciate that the very invention of such an instrument, so alien to normal Benedictine practice, signifies that its purpose was to effect a compromise between the two rival monastic traditions -- a compromise retaining traditional Castilian pactual elements in combination with Benedictine ascetic spirituality and ordinary regime. This Castilian effort at synthesis of peninsular and Carolingian Benedictine monastic institutions has already been discovered in other connections ⁽⁶³⁾ . The recently identified Libellus a regula sancti Benedicti subtractus, written at San Martín de Albelda cir. 951/3-962 by the Benedictine abbot Salvus, reflects precisely the same effort at amalgamation in its mixture of pactual and Smaragdan-Benedictine materials. Albelda was itself, like Tabladillo and Modúbar, and probably also San Millán de la Cogolla, Silos, Arlanza, and others, both Benedictine and pactual. The unpublished Laturce pactum will doubtless provide another Riojan example of the same synthesis. A further by-product of the movement is the addition of two Spanish texts, Item ex regula cuiusdam and Quid debent fratres uel sorores in monasterio serbare, to Castilian Smaragdan MSS, from which they pass into Salvus' Libellus ⁽⁶⁴⁾ . The Benedictinized pactual sections of the Liber ordinum , published by Férotin from the San Prudencio de Laturce MS, are also of prime significance in this connection, although the question whether they incorporate, as Herwegen thought ⁽⁶⁵⁾ , the juridical ideology of the RMC type pactum, or (as now seems possible) that of the Burgos type, remains unanswered. Thus the Burgos pactum fits perfectly into the framework of a Castilian-Carolingian monastic synthesis which persisted in Castile until the advent of the Cluniacs in 1033 under Sancho el Mayor.

Much still remains to be done before the role of Castilian monasticism in the first centuries of the Reconquista is fully understood. It will be enough for the present if we have [531] succeeded here in clarifying to some extent the significance of Gallegan pactualism in the whole process of Castilian repopulation. This is important not merely for medieval Spanish monastic history. If, as the pactual evidence would indicate, there occurred an extensive eighth century Gallegan colonization of the eastern districts of the Asturo-Leonese realm, the Gallegan element in the formation of Castile must henceforth be taken into serious consideration. It has often been noticed that, in comparison with those of Asturias and León, Castilian law, institutions, vocabulary and nomenclature are decidedly more Germanic ⁽⁶⁶⁾ . Perhaps this puzzling phenomenon can now be at least partially explained by the settlement in early Castile of Gallegan colonists, both secular and ecclesistical, whose more Germanized juridical traditions, reaching back to the Suevic kingdom of Galicia, are attested by pactual monasticism itself.
 
University of Virginia.

[532A] In view of the extended discussion in Study I of this volume of the Galaico-Portuguese genesis and subsequent Castello-Riojan diffusion of Hispanic pactual monasticism, the present Note will address itself primarily to questions affecting certain of the pacta enumerated in the preceding catalogue. The completeness of this roundup of extant specimens has not been questioned by such leading authorities as Pérez de Urbel and Linage Conde. ⁽⁶⁷⁾ Nevertheless, at several points revision is called for. No new pactual texts have been discovered since 1951 but some further traces of this distinctively peninsular cenobitism have been noted. In particular, one pactum, that associated with the abbot Sabaricus and long thought to be of Gallegan provenance, can now be ascribed to an eastern house; it therefore merits fresh consideration as an important adjunct to the Castilian group.

Antonio Floriano, in his Colección diplomática , rubrics as "pactos monásticos" seven documents of the Asturian epoch. ⁽⁶⁸⁾ Of these, two are the Gallegan pacta of Absalon and Fulgaredus; another is the charter of San Vicente de Oviedo, allegedly of 781, which in addition to being heavily interpolated, as Floriano emphasizes, does not appear to me a true monastic pact at all; but the remaining three, those of Argilegus, Nonna Bella and Guisandus, are properly Castilian and were included in my catalogue above. Floriano however keeps in 900 the Guisandus pactum which I, following Argáiz and the evidence favoring an earlier date found also in Llórente (Noticias hist. prov. vascongad ., III, 102-3) and García Villada, fixed in "circ. 870" as against Barrau-Dihigo (900) and Pérez de Urbel (900?). ⁽⁶⁹⁾ Floriano's reasoning in favor of the later chronology, as well as his incomplete coverage of the exegetical literature on the dating of this text, which indeed calls for an extended re-consideration impossible here, leave me of my original opinion. On the other hand, he omits altogether the pacts of Rodanius (855) and Osanius (850-855?) which I listed among the Castilian specimens. On the whole, Floriano's edition of the seven texts with its archival, bibliographical and toponymic exegesis is useful; but since he fails to draw upon either Herwegen's Das Pactum des hl. Fruktuosus von Braga or the section of Pérez de Urbel's Monjes españoles which summarizes the work of the German Benedictine, ⁽⁷⁰⁾ this part of his [533A] commentary is of severely limited value. To his credit, however, Floriano recognizes more adequately than either of the two monastic historians the interest of the abbatial component in what I have called in Study I, section 4, the binary pactum.

The Sabaricus pact found at the start of Escorialensis a.I.13 has now acquired much fresh import as a result of the illuminating study of this codex by Prof. Díaz y Díaz, ⁽⁷¹⁾ which demonstrates that this long hotly debated MS belongs not in the "eighth or ninth century" (p. 516, above), but in the tenth; and is furthermore to be assigned to the eastern, Castilian zone as against Galicia. The chronological problem had already been decided in favor of this later date by, inter alios, the authoritative Millares Carlo, for whom the famous colophon written in monasterio Bobatele by the nun-scribe Leodegundia, with its impossible coupling of era DCCCCL (912) and the reign of a King Alfonso, which various scholars corrected to 812 under Alfonso II, was at least in conformity with the manifestly tenth-century characteristics of the Visigothic hands used in the codex. ⁽⁷²⁾ But on the basis of close paleographic analysis and a persuasive resolution of the colophonic chronological enigma Díaz y Díaz has now been able to fix the reign of Alfonso IV (925-931) as the authentic period not only of Leodegundia's portion of the MS (fols. 41-187) but -- of more direct relevance to the present inquiry -- also of the anterior section (now fols.1-40). ⁽⁷³⁾ This section contains the Sabaricus pact and also the Rules of St Benedict and St Fructuosus, extracts from the Regula s. Isidori , and various short prayers, all of which must have originally circulated as a separate "códice abacial", i.e., a codex regularum. At the commencement of these texts the abbot must have caused to be placed for safekeeping the juridical act of submission that still bears the subscriptions of the male and female members of his unknown community. ⁽⁷⁴⁾ In the prominence given by Regula s. Benedicti in this primitive codex, and in the fact that the Isidorian materials clearly derive from the extra-Hispanic tradition of the code of the Andalusian metropolitan, Díaz y Díaz rightly finds that admixture of peninsular and trans-Pyrenean observances typical of 10th-century Castilian cenobitism. ⁽⁷⁵⁾ Thus the monastic content confirms the chronology and geography posited by the paleographical data.

Codicological and other clues also induce Díaz y Díaz to ascribe the Leodegundia codex, and consequently the unknown monastery of Sabaricus, to a milieu of Leonese and Castilian cultural interchange; but if by this he intends to denote the Tierra de Campos, it may be objected that as yet we have no proof whatever of the presence of pactualism in the strongly Leonese cenobitism of this region where, as at Sahagún, Abellar, etc., only Visigothic, Mozarabic and Benedictine traditions are encountered [534A] in the 10th century. Even the great abbey of San Isidro de Dueñas (so close to and eventually incorporated into, the County of Castile) discloses no pactual symptoms in its relatively good documentation of the epoch, while its Benedictinism, and above all its dedication to and propagation of the cult of the Byzantine soldier-martyr Isidore of Chios, connects this house not with Galaico-Burgalese pactualism but with trans-Pyrenean France (Study VI). In short, the institutional signs point to an ambience well beyond Palencia to the south and west of Burgos for the Sabaricus pactum.

Certain other internal questions relating to this pactum also remain difficult to resolve. First there is the extraordinary business of the insertion of this text at the head of a codex regularum. All other Hispanic monastic pacts so far discovered that bear the name of a specific abbot or monastery exist in the form of single pergaminos or copies based upon these; none can be found in extant codices regularum or in the indices of contents of lost MSS of this type. To be sure, the formulaic pacta intended to serve as models do occur in close association with a Rule or Rules: the pactum of the Regula communis follows the final chapter of that work; of the four known occurrences of the Consensoria monachorum, two are appended to the Regula s. Basilii, and two appear as cap. 25 of the Regula s. Isidori. ⁽⁷⁶⁾ In all these instances the position is terminal; but in the case of the lost MS of Lérins containing the model version of the Burgalese or Lérins formula, the pact apparently was intended to stand at the head of the index of capitular rubrics immediately preceding the Regula s. Isidori, although, since it followed in this codex the Regula s. Benedicti and the so-called Capitulum de octo uitiis, we cannot be sure that it ever actually formed the commencement of a separate MS of the Isidorian Rule. ⁽⁷⁷⁾ In short, there is no exact parallel to the codicological position of the Sabaricus pact, or any firm basis for positing an ancient practice in which the implicitly ephemeral abbatial pacta were inserted in the permanent codex regularum of a house.

Nor is the mystery dispelled by the ordines of the Hispanic Rite where separation of pact and liber regularum seems plainly indicated, as we might expect. The rubric for the rite in ordinatione abbatis directs the abbot-elect to present to the bishop his placitum tam pro se quam pro subditis de honestate uite regularis, i.e., what we called above the binary pact; and after this ceremony and a prayer the bishop bestows the abbatial baculum and the liber regularum. ⁽⁷⁸⁾ In the case of a newly consecrated abbess, no reference at all is made to the placitum; but once again we encounter episcopal presentation of baculum and liber regule (a significant shift to the singular). ⁽⁷⁹⁾ Again, in connection with the reception of converts, it is ordered that the new monk's name be inscribed in the pactionis libellus or testamenti libellus which he himself, escorted by the priest and deacon celebrating the mass, places upon the altar. ⁽⁸⁰⁾ This may be compared also with the practice followed, in the same century as the Sabaricus pact, at the Riojan nunnery of SS Nunilo and Alodia near Nájera: this proceeds without celebration of the sacrament: the conuersa receives the carta pacti from the hands of the abbess; places, or, if illiterate, has her name placed in this; and subsequently prostrates herself before the altar. While it may be unclear whether before this prostration she has deposited the pact upon the altar herself, or has merely returned it to the abbess, what is plain is the complete separation of pact from liber regule, especially plain since [535A] we have the actual MS (Aemilianensis 62) of the Libellus a regula sancti Benedicti subtractus that served as the Rule of this convent. Nowhere in any of these ordines does there appear the suggestion of a codex combining pact and regulae.

The Sabaricus pactum, as Herwegen noted, lacks the invocatio and arenga of the Regula communis archetype and commences abruptly in the middle of the dispositio with the words "et secundum editum apostolorum, etc." Now since the present arrangement of the initial pliego of a I.13 reveals that the folio now numbered 1 was almost certainly once preceded by two others, ⁽⁸²⁾ and since this pact also adheres very closely to the order and content of the Regula communis model, with minor exceptions, ⁽⁸³⁾ the chances are strong that the missing folia included a relatively extensive creed prefixed to the Gallegan archetype. But -- a much more interesting possibility -- did this credal passage itself follow a juridical act in which Sabaricus submitted himself to the constitutional authority of his congregation and made formal donation of his property to them or to the titular of the abbey? Space for such an abbatial pact would seem to have been available; but all we can safely believe is that a binary combination of abbatial and monacal pacts, of the sort occurring in other Castilian cases of this era, ⁽⁸⁴⁾ cannot be entirely ruled out of consideration in any study of the Sabaricus text.

It should be noted that the Absalon pactum of 876 from Santa Eulalia de Búbal in Galicia, which in 1951 I termed unpublished (p. 516), had in fact been already twice edited, first by Sáez in 1947, again by Floriano in 1949 (Study I, note 95).

As for the distinctive Burgalese or Lérins pactual type, here again no new specimens have been discovered; but my classification of this formula as the product of a Carolingian-Hispanic synthesis of the ninth and tenth centuries in Castile and the Rioja has been directly challenged by Mundó, Pérez de Urbel and Díaz y Díaz, all of whom believe that this pact is of ancient and widespread Visigothic usage, and owes nothing to Galicia for its origin or later survival in Castile. Since I have tried at some length to refute this thesis in Study I, I shall not repeat here my reasons for maintaining the same position I adopted in 1951.

In two cases listed, however, brief comment is needed. Among the six pacts of Burgalese or Lérins type which are enumerated in this study, I included, although on a strictly tentative basis since I had not seen it, a supposedly Riojan example of 950 from San Martín (i.e., San Prudencio) de Laturce. ⁽⁸⁵⁾ After some difficulty in tracking down this document, I have been able to determine that it is not a true pact at all, but simply a conventional traditio by which various monks surrender their persons to the authority of the abbot Dulquitus of San Martín de Albelda. ⁽⁸⁶⁾ This item, bracketed above as no. 4 of the Burgalese type, and to be found in print in Ubieto Arteta's Cartulario de [536A] Albelda, ⁽⁸⁷⁾ should therefore be eliminated entirely, thus reducing the known examples of this formula to five.

Finally, there is the Petrus pactum of 921 from a monastery of SS Pedro y Pablo in ualle de Azadina, which Pérez de Urbel on the basis of his own unjustified correction of this toponym to read Caradigna persists in identifying with San Pedro de Cardeña and using as the basis for claiming the foundation and continuing administration of Albelda on the part of the renowned Castilian abbey. ⁽⁸⁸⁾ This arbitrary hypothesis, although it receives support from Ubieto Arteta's edition of the Albeldan diplomas, where once again without philological or documentary exegesis Azadina is revised to read Karadina, ⁽⁸⁹⁾ finds no confirmation in the terminological usage of Cardeña's pergaminos, as I pointed out in 1951. The Petrus pactum is unquestionably of Riojan provenance, very possibly from a house that eventually passed into the hands of Albelda; but I have yet to see any good reason whatever for taking this community to be Albelda itself, or, on the grounds of an arbitrary alteration of the text, for linking Albelda and Cardeña.

1. Ildefons Herwegen, Das Pactum des heiligen Frufctuosus von Braga (Stuttgart, 1907; Kirchenrechtliche Abhandlungen, ed. U. Stutz, Bd. 40); hereafter cited as Herwegen. [For aid in the preparation of this paper, the author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of the Institute for Research in the Social Sciences, University of Virginia.]

2. Cf. Stutz's introductory remarks on the work's origin and aim, Herwegen, pp. viii-ix.

3. For lists of pacta, and treatments of pactualism after Herwegen, see L. Barrau-Dihigo, 'Chartes de l'église de Valpuesta du ix ^e au xi^e siècle', Revue Hispaniqae, VII (1900), pp. 304-7; L. Serrano, Cartulario de San Pedro de Arlanza (Madrid, 1925), pp. 26-30; Z. García Villada, Historia Eclesiástica de España (Madrid, 1929-1936), II, l, 291-8; III, 307-8; J. Pérez de Urbel, Los monjes españoles en la Edad Media (Madrid, 1933-4), I, 438-450; II, 372-5; idem, Historia del Condado de Castilla (Madrid, 1945), III, nos. 1, 3, 12, 26, 53, 115, 120, 310, 432, 459, 665, and Apéndice II, nos. iii, xxxix, and Apéndice III, no. viii; Cl. Sánchez-Albornoz, 'Serie de documentos inéditos del reino de Asturias', Cuadernos de Historia de España, I-II (1944), pp. 316-7.

4. In view of the expert examination of the archives by Sánchez-Albornoz and Pérez de Urbel, and my own search of the Madrid collections and the provincial and cathedral archives of northern Spain, it seems to me unlikely that future discoveries of pacta will be numerous enough to affect materially the generalizations here put forth.

5. Herwegen, pp. 1-4, 24-60; Pérez de Urbel, Monjes españoles . I, 438-50.

6. L. Holstenius, Codex Regularam Monasticaram (3rd ed. by M. Brockie, Vienna, 1759), I, 208-219; Migne, Patrología Latina, LXXXVII , 1109-1130. The chronology and nature of these enactments will be discussed in my study now in preparation of the Regula monástica communis (henceforth cited as RMC).

7. F. Fita, 'El monasterio dúplice de Piasca y la regla de San Fructuosoen el siglo x', Bol.Acad. Hist., XXXIV (1899), 448-462; Pérez de Urbel, Monjes españoles, I, 449-450; II, 374-5.

8. C. J. Bishko, 'The date and nature of the Spanish Consensoria Monachorum,' American Journal of Philology, LXIX (1948), pp. 377-395.

9. Chron. Adefonsi III, c. xiii (ed. Z. García Villada, Crónica de Alfonso III [Madrid, 1918], p. 69); L. Barrau-Dihigo, 'Recherches sur l'histoire politique du royaume asturien', Rev. Hisp., LII (1921), p. 144. I hope to consider this and related problems in a forthcoming paper on the pactualism of Galicia between the eighth and eleventh centuries.

10. Herwegen, pp. 6-8. On the troublesome and controversial dating of this MS, see most recently, A. Millares Carlo, Nuevos Estudios de Paleografía española (México City, 1941), pp. 106-7; Ángel Custodio Vega, 'Una adaptación de la «informatio regularis» de s. Agustín anterior al siglo ix para unas vírgenes españolas', Miscellanea Giovanni Mercaíi (Vatican City, 1946), II, 34-5.

11. Tumbo de Celanova (Madrid, Archivo Histórico Nacional, Códices, 986 B), fols. 151 v., col. 2-152 r., col. 2. This text will be edited in my study mentioned, supra, note 2, p. 516.

12. A. López Ferreiro, Historia de la Santa A. M. Iglesia de Compostela (Santiago, 1898-1901), II, Apéndices, no. ix.

13. Porfugaliae Monumenta Historica (Lisbon, 1856-91), Diplomata, I, no. cccxlii, third part; also in Miguel Ribeiro de Vasconcellos, Notícia Histórica do Mosteriro da Vacariça (Lisbon, 1854).

14. Gregorio de Argáiz, La Soledad Laureada por San Benito y sus Hijos (Madrid, 1675), VI, 423-6 (with the impossible date 773, which is accepted by A. de Yépes, Corónica General de la Orden de San Benito [Irache, 1609-21], V, 331); Pérez de Urbel, Historia del Condado de Castilla [hereafter cited as HCC ], III, 1058-60. Pérez de Urbel, HCC, I, 193, dates this text 'alrededor de 860'. Francisco de Berganza, who saw the lost original in the Oña archive, dates it 845 in his Antigüedades de España (Madrid, 1719-21), I, 241; this is also unacceptable, since Ordoño I's reign does not begin before 850, but permits restoration of 855 as the true reading.

15. From the reference in this pactum to the Sancta Communis Regula, it should not be deduced that the Gallegan monastic federation reappeared in Castilian pactualism, but only that the Rodanius text descends from a period when the federal organization was still in existence.

16. Barrau-Dihigo, 'Chartes de l'église de Valpuesta', no. viii; Argáiz, VI, 409-11. Cf. HCC, III, 1072-3; Z. García Villada, 'Valpuesta: una diócesis desaparecida', Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kulturgeschichte Spaniens = Spanische Forschungen der Görresgesellschaft , erste Reihe, V (Münster i. W., 1935), 215-6. On the date, HCC , III, 1072-3.

17. L. Serrano, Cartulario de San Millán de la Cogolla (Madrid, 1930), p. 1. See HCC, I, 94-5; III, 1035-6; L. Serrano, El Obispado de Burgos y Castilla Primitiva (Madrid, 1935), I, 76-7. The 778 or 858 document cited by L. Barrau-Dihigo, 'Recherches sur l'histoire politique du royaume asturien (718-910)', Rev. Hisp., LII (1921), p. 340, and HCC, I, 231, n. 11, cannot be ascribed to Pedroso, which was a nunnery.

18. Serrano, San Millán, nos. 35, 36, 37, 57, 58, 61.

19. Herwegen, pp. 11-14; L. Serrano, Cartulario de San Pedro de Arlanza (Madrid, 1925), pp. 26-9.

20. Edited only in abridged form from Archivo de Silos, MS 29, fol. 1, by Pérez de Urbel, HCC, III, 1325; cf. Yepes, V, 333v.-334; Berganza, I, 371. Publication of the complete text would be welcome.

21. On Castilian repopulation in this period, see in general R. Menéndez Pidal, Documentos Lingüísticos de España. I. Reino de Castilla (Madrid, 1919), pp. 1-12; ídem, Orígenes del Español (Madrid, 1929), I, 497-502; HCC, I, 107-140; 165-284; Cl. Sánchez-Albornoz, 'La repoblación del reino astur-leonés', Humanidades, XXV (Buenos Aires, 1936), 1.^a parte, pp. 37-55; ídem, 'Orígenes de Castilla. Cómo nace un pueblo', Revista de la Universidad de Buenos Aires, 3.^a época, I (1943), pp. 275-296; L. Serrano, El Becerro Gótico de Cardeña (Silos-Valladolid, (1910), pp. xv-xl; S. Ruiz, 'Burgos (Diocèse)',Dictionnaire d'Histoire et de Géographie Ecclésiastique , X (1938), cois. 1312-1319.

22. A. de Llórente, Noticias históricas de las Tres Provincias Vascongadas (Madrid, 1807), III, pp. 102-3; Serrano, Cart, de San Millán, no. 10; HCC, III, no. 35.

23. Barrau-Dihigo, 'Chartes de l'église de Valpuesta', 282-387; Garcia Villada, 'Valpuesta: una diócesis desaparecida', p. 215; HCC, I, 117-124.

24. Barrau-Dihigo, no. v; HCC, III, no. 33.

25. Barrau-Dihigo, no. xiii; HCC, III, no. 109.

26. Barrau-Dihigo, no. ix.

27. HCC, I, 187-190.

28. Ibid., pp. 197-9. Note that San Salvador de Oña, which was located across the Ebro south of Tejada, and which eventually acquired San Pedro, was pactual from at least 922, as we learn from the 944 charter of restoration (HCC, III, no. 185).

29. Yepes, IV, 443 v. (esc. xx); Risco, Esp. Sagr., xxxiii, 469-470.

30. Serrano, Obispado de Burgos, I, 161-6; A. Cotarelo Valledor, Historia Crítica y Documentada de la Vida y Acciones de Alfonso III el Magno (Madrid, 1933), pp. 411-6.

31. E. Jusué, 'El libro cartulario del monasterio de Santo Toribio de Liébana', Bol. Acad. Hist., XLV (1904), pp. 411-2; HCC , III, 1335-6.

32. Sánchez-Albornoz, 'Serie de documentos inéditos del reino de Asturias', Cuad. Hist. Esp., I-II, (1944), pp. 334-7; HCC, III, 1044-7. A photostat of this pergamino (A. H. N., Clero, San Julián de Sanios, Leg. 794) in my possession confirms the reading 'Naruoba' as against 'Nazaoba' (HCC, III, 1045). On Venta de Naroba, cf. Mapa Militar Itinerario de España (publ. by the Depósito de la Guerra), Hoja 14. Two modern copies of this diploma exist in the Tumbo Nuevo of Lugo (A. H. N., Códices, no. 363), fols. 336-8.

33. HCC, III, 1348-9. Pérez de Urbel reads 'ad baselica sancti Petri adiutum', but the illegible phrase after 'sancti Petri' in the Liébana Cartulario, fol. 25 v., col. 1, is clearly topographic; and a 942 charter of this same house (Cartulario, fols. 33 V.-34 r.) proves the reading should be 'sancti Petri ad uinionem', i. e., San Pedro de Viñón.

34. F. Fita, 'El monasterio dúplice de Piasca', Bol. Acad. Hist., XXXIV (1899), pp. 449-450; HCC, III, 1372-3.

35. HCC, III, Apénd. II, no. lxi: 'contumax aut inobediens', etc.

36. E. Jusué, Libro de Regla o Cartulario de la Antigua Abadía de Santillana del Mar (Madrid, 1912), no. xxix.

37. Ibid., no. Iv.

38. L. Serrano, Cartulario de San Vicente de Oviedo (Madrid, 1929), no. 1.

39. A. Ballesteros y Beretta, Historia de España, (2nd. ed., Barcelona, 1943-4), II, 245-6; Barrau-Dihigo, 'Royaume asturien', pp. 143-4.

40. Ed. García Villada, p. 69.

41. HCC, I, 87-105.

42. Herwegen, pp. 23-4, 35, 37-9.

43. Discovered by Sánchez-Albornoz, 'Serie de documentos inéditos del reino de Asturias', Cuad. Hist. Esp., I-II (1944), p. 317.

44. J. Mabillon, Annales Ordinis Sancíi Benedicti (Lucca, 1739), I, 332; Herwegen, p. 23.

45. A. Tomás González, Colección de Cédalas, Cartas-Patentes, Provisiones, Reales Órdenes y Otros Documentos Concernientes á las Provincias Vascongadas (Madrid, 1829-33; vols. V-VI bear the title Colección de Privilegios, Franquezas, Exenciones y Fueros Concedidos á Varios Pueblos y Corporaciones de la Corona de Castilla), VI, 7-9; HCC, III, no. 89 bis. González found this pactum in a registro at Simancas of privilegios from San Martín de Albelda, in the Rioja. For Pérez de Urbel, the citation of Ordoño II rather than a Navarrese ruler in the regnal formula proves the abbey Castilian. This is probably correct, although circ. 921 Ordoño II was making repeated efforts to annex the Rioja Alta and founding monasteries in that territory; cf. his 923 charter to Santa Coloma near Nájera (n. 4, p. 520, supra). The fact that the Becerro Gótico documents never locate Cardeña 'in valle' but simply 'in locum qui dicitur Cardenia', 'in  locum nominatum Caradigna', etc., militates against acceptance of Pérez de Urbel's conjecture that 'Azadina' (for reasons unknown to me Sánchez-Albornoz,'Serie de documentos', p, 317, reads 'Azadiba') is a corruption of 'Karadigna', i. e., Cardeña. Cf. also these Estudios, I, pp. 515-518.

46. M. Férotin, Recueil des Chartes de l'Abbaye de Silos (Paris, 1897), no. 2; Herwegen, pp. 19-20; Serrano, Cart, de Arlanza , pp. 29-30, and references there cited; HCC, III, no. 120. In his Anti-Ferreras (Madrid, 1724), p. 105, Diego Martínez de Cisneros lists three San Juan de Tabladillo pacta then in the San Pedro de Arlanza archive, but describes only two. One, of 931, is the Stefanus pactum; the other, dated 954 and now apparently lost, was probably the pactum of Stefanus' unknown successor and doubtless of similar type.

47. N. 2, p. 13, supra.

48. Berganza, I, 240-1; Herwegen, p. 22; Serrano, Becerro Gótico de Cardeña, no. cxv.

49. Yepes, I, 93; Berganza, II, 411-12; Herwegen, p. 21; Serrano, op. cit., no. xlviii. Cf. Yepes, V, 66 v.-67 v.; Berganza, I, 339-40; HCC, III, no. 432.

50. C. J. Bishko, 'Salvus of Albelda and frontier monasticism in tenth-century Navarre', Speculum, XXIII (1948), pp. 559-590, especially pp. 583-589.

51. Ibid., p. 589.

52. Herwegen, p. 14, n. 1.

53. Bishko, pp. 586, 588.

54. Pérez de Urbel, Monjes españoles, II, 384-9.

55. Bishko, p. 585.

56. Serrano, Cart, de Arlanza, no. iv.

57. Serrano, Becerro Gótico de Cardeña, no. xlvi.

58. Pérez de Urbel, Monjes españoles, II, 372-5.

59. C. H. Beeson, Isidor-Studien (Munich, 1913; Quellen and Untersuchungen zur lateinischen Philologie des Miftelaliers, Bd. IV, Heft 2), pp. 58-9.

60. G. Antolín, 'Historia y descripción de un «Codex Regularum» del siglo ix', Ciudad de Dios, LXXV (1908), p. 305.

61. Pérez de Urbel, Monjes españoles, II, 376 ff.

62. Serrano, Becerro Gótico de Cardeña, nos. xcviii-cxxiii.

63. Bishko, 'Salvus of Albelda', pp. 583-9.

64. Pérez de Urbel, Monjes, II, 609-11; Bishko, pp. 581-2.

65. Pp. 39-50.

66. E. de Hinojosa, El Elemento Germánico en el Derecho Español (Madrid, 1915). For example, a Suevic origin may be suggested for the Germanic gasalianes, a term applied in primitive Castile to monks of a pactual community; cf. Pérez de Urbel, HCC, I, 175, n. 21, and Paulo Merêa in Biblos, XVI (1940), p. 55.

67. J. Pérez de Urbel,"Vida y caminos del Pacto de San Fructuoso," Rev. portuguesa de história, VII (1963), 378; idem, "Carácter y supervivencia del Pacto de San Fructuoso," Brocara Augusta, XXII (1968), 233; A. Linage Conde, Orígenes del monacato benedictino en la Península Ibérica (León, 1973), I, 291-342.

68. A.C. Floriano, Diplomática española del período astur (Oviedo, 1949-1951), I, nos. 7,11,14, 27, 62; II, nos. 102, 162. An eighth monastic pact, the Adaulfus fragment, is calendared, II, 396 (no. VIII), but not textually reproduced, from López Ferreiro (Hist. Iglesia compost., II, Apéndices, 42-43, no. XXIII).

69. Supra, p. 518, note 3.

70. Pérez de Urbel, Monjes, I, 438-448; II, 372-375.

71. M. Díaz y Díaz, "El códice monástico de Leodegundia (Escorial a. I. 13)," Ciudad de Dios, CLXXXI (1968), 567-587.

72. A. Millares Cario, "Manuscritos visigóticos," Hispania Sacra, XIV (1961), 352 (no. 17); also separately, Madrid-Barcelona, 1963.

73. J Díaz y Díaz, 572-577, 586-7.

74. Ibid., 575, 586. On the 93 subscriptions, with discussion of erasures and additions, the groupings of names added at the same time by particular scribes, and the evidence that, after some years of operating under the pact as an exclusively masculine community, Sabaricus' abbey accepted the admission of women and became a double house, see D. DeBruyne, "Les signataires du pacte de Sabaricus," Rev. bénédictine, XXVIII (1911), 80-86; Herwegen, "Die Unterschriften der Sabarikusurkunde," ibid., XXIX (1912), 97-98. All these subscribants are unlikely to have affixed their signatures during the abbatiate of Sabaricus; probably the foundational pactum of the codex continued in use under his successors without change in the name of the abbot. Díaz y Uiaz (582 and note 44) properly calls for onomastic study of these subscriptions in the context of the contemporary diplomas; this would throw light upon the chronology of use and doubtless narrow the geographical range as well.

75. Pp. 576, 586.

76. "Consensoria Monachorum" (Study II in this volume, 385-388).

77. See M. Díaz y Díaz, "Aspectos de la tradición de la Regula Isidori," Studia monastica, V (1963), 27-57; and especially his "El manuscrito de Lérins de la Regula Isidori ," ibid., VII (1965), 365-382.

78. Liber ordinum, ed. M. Férotin, Ordo XVIII (cols. 57-60).

79. Ibid., Ordo XXIII (cols. 67-68).

80. Ibid., Ordo XXVIIII (cols. 82-86).

82. Cap. XXVI. Text in C. J. Bishko, "Salvus of Albelda and Frontier Monasticism in Tenth-Century Navarre," Speculum, XXIII (1948), 559-590, at 571-2), reprinted in my Studies in Medieval Spanish Frontier History (London, 1980), Study I; A. Linage Conde,Una regla monástica riojana femenina del siglo X: el "Libellus a regula sanctiBenedicti subtractus " (Salamanca, 1973), 64-5.

83. Díaz y Díaz, "Códice de Leodegundia," 573.

84. The passages on conspiracy, pursuit of fugitives, excommunications, right of appeal; cf. Herwegen, Pactum, 11.

85. Supra, 526, no. [4].

86. Profs. Cl. Sánchez Albornoz and H. B. Johnson, and Sra. Consuelo Gutiérrez del. Arroyo of the A. H. N., Madrid, have been of appreciated assistance in making it possible to identify this elusive diploma.

87. Ant. Ubieto Arteta, Cart, de Albelda (Valencia, 1960), 53-56 (no. 19).

88. J. Pérez de Urbel, "La conquista de la Rioja y su colonización espiritual en el siglo X," in Estudios dedicados a Menéndez Pidal , I (Madrid), 495-534, at 516-17; the same dubious hypothesis reappears in his multi-volume works on the County of Castile.

89. Cart. de Albelda, 9-10 (no. 1).