Spanish and Portuguese Monastic History
Charles Julian Bishko
Portuguese Pactual Monasticism in the Eleventh Century:
The Case of Sao Salvador De Vacariça
(Published originally in Estudos de Història
de Portugal: Homenagen a A.H. de Oliveira Margues (Lisbon: Editorial
Estampa, 1982); reprinted with permission)
 Of recent years much interest has arisen in the question whether the pre-Benedictine Portuguese monasticism of the first four centuries of the Reconquista was continuous with the orthodox Mediterranean tradition of the Visigothic kingdom or, on the contrary, represents the survival in the western zone of the Peninsula of the heterodox, institutionally peculiar, «Fructuosan» or «pactual» form perfected between 650 and 711 in the Luso-Galaic northwest. The subject has secular connotations through linkage with, for example, the genesis of landlord-peasant-community associations of incomuniçao and benefactoria type, or the formation of aristocratic domains clustered around familial mosteiros privados; and it illuminates certain lines of institutional-cultural diffusion in the complex convergence, between the Minho and Mondego, of indigenous «Mozarabic» elements and those penetrating the County of Portugal from Galicia or, via Tras-os-Montes and Beira Alta, from the Asturoleonese heartland.
In specifically historico-cenobitic terms, however, the key question is how to characterize the Portuguese monastic movement of the 8th-11th centuries within the remarkable (and hotly debatable) peninsular pattern of archaic but unmistakably orthodox tradition dominant in Asturias, Leon, eastern Spain from Pamplona to Barcelona, and al-Andalus, alongside varying forms of institutionalized pactualism found in comital Castile, the Rioja Alta and parts of the Atlantic West(1) . Distinctive of this second, in a non-theological sense «heterodox», tradition is its abandonment of the normal profession act,  addressed to God and the saints and entailing total personal submission to a virtually absolute monarchical abbot, and replacing it with the collective pactum (or placitum). This is a written covenant between an abbot and the whole corpus of his monks, who in making a traditio of their persons to his quasi-seigneurial authority (2) , become members at the same time of the juridically privileged monastic congregation.
Because this uniquely Iberian cenobitic contractualism, which originally stipulated the rights and duties of both governor and community, including the latter's authorized rebellion against abbatial tyranny, first appears in late Visigothic Gallaecia, and is particularly well represented there by the model pactual formula appended to the so-called Regula Communis , it has traditionally but erroneously been ascribed to the metropolitan bishop of Braga St. Fructuosus (ca. 660-665). After 711 the pactum circulates in various forms and receives mention also in diplomatic and liturgical texts, while it displays with time an ever greater tendency to conform to the conventional unilateral cenobitic constitution.. The collection and study of still extant specimens, first initiated in 1907 by Herwegen, has resulted in a considerable literature regarding their evolution and distribution, yet much of their history remains obscure and controversial (3) .
So far as concerns the Galaico-Portuguese sector of the subject, with its special chronological and geographic problematics, this has been explored by, inter alios, Martins, Pérez de Urbel, Mattoso, Linage Conde and the present writer, but numerous questions remain acute. For Portugal, the argument necessarily gives particular prominence to the one known surviving specimen of a native monastic pactum, that drawn up at the relatively late date of 1045 between the abbot Tudeildus and the monks of the Beiran monastery of São  Salvador de Vacariça. This is often taken to confirm beyond question the widespread existence of pactualism in Portuguese cenobitic circles through the 11th century. Nevertheless, for all the frequent mention of this instrument in the modern literature, its content and the precise circumstances of its promulgation have received little real analysis and stand in need of more serious scrutiny.
The Tudeildus pactum of 21 September 1045, originally published in 1854 from the Livro Preto of the Sé de Coimbra by Vasconcelos, and receiving a more critical redaction in the Diplomata et Chartae volume (1867) of the Portugaliae Monumenta Historica, can now also be consulted in the editio princeps of the recently issued by the University of Coimbra(4) . Overlooked by Herwegen, it was first added to the corpus of Iberian pactual documentation, as then known, by P. Mário Martins, who in 1950 included it among other testimonia to the «evoluçao e sobrevivência do monacato de S. Frutuoso»; the following year I myself listed it as one of the only four discoverable Iberian monastic pacta comprising a «western» (i. e., Galaico-Portuguese) group within the class as a whole; and it has since been widely noticed.(5)
In the pages of Diplomata et Chartae (henceforth DC) the act directed by the monastic community of São Salvador to their abbot Tudeildus stands last in a trio of inter-related texts which the editors have brought together from different parts of the Livro Preto and placed under the single number 342(6) . Each piece carries its own rubric (pacti cartula, carta dimissionis, carta pacti uel placiti), perhaps taken over from a lost cartulary of Vacariça, more likely imposed by the scribes of the Sé de Coimbra in assembling the Livro Preto from a mass of pergaminhos. Our act, the carta pacti uel placiti, since it precedes its two companions both in logic and indicated order  of composition (7) , might well have been printed first of the triad. It is not possible here to reproduce it or attempt close exegesis, but the component elements can readily be summarized.
An opening sequence of credal and scriptural passages of ascetico-spiritual import precedes the formal declaration, addressed to God and the abbot Tudeildus by nos omnes qui subter notati sumus, of the monks' commitment to reside in the monastery obedient to his full authority. The entire remainder of the act defines this as embracing three specific powers: (i) flogging and denial of the sacrament to any monk guilty of actions contra regulam et tuum preceptum; (ii) pursuit and return of monks abandoning the community in order to dwell elsewhere, along with excommunication of any priest, monk, or laic sheltering such fugitive; and (iii) severe flogging of monks detected in secret conspiracy with their kinsmen or other persons. Lastly come the date, 21 September 1045, and the names of two confirmants: Petrus frater, Randulfus presbiter.
Several preliminary observations regarding the character of this unique Portuguese monastic pactum are in order. In language and content it looks very much like an abridged version of the celebrated formula attached almost four centuries previously to the Regula Communis of ca. 675, although we shall find reason below to qualify this conclusion to some degree. The various alterations and silences of the text show however that it departs in certain significant respects from the presumed prototype. It lacks an explicit personal traditio, and it also omits the original guarantees against abusive abbatial governance, and the right of appeal to the intervention of external ecclesiastical or civil authorities. The result is to emphasize the abbot's penal powers over refractory and subversive monks, suggesting current grave problems of indiscipline and instability within the monastery. Finally, the whole thrust is monolateral: profession is still collective but instead of the balanced counterplay between two privileged contracting parties we now have something much closer to the normal western cenobitic polity with its premise of relatively unlimited abbatial monarchialism.
How are we to account for the solitary emergence of the Tudeildus pactum in Beiran cenobitism so late as the mid-11th century? José Mattoso, whose admirable work on the monasteries of the diocese of Porto prior to the advent of Cluniac Benedictinism gave him a particular interest in this abbot as having become also the ruler of São Salvador de Leça above the Douro, answers this question  with assurance. (8) For him the explanation lies in the tenacious retention throughout the ancient Lusitanian region of the legacy of 7th-century «Fructuosanism», attested in the diplomas of the 10th and 11th centuries by the presence of federations of abbeys, double communities of men and women, pluralistic use of codices regularum as against Benedictine monoregularism, extreme conservatism in ascetic practices and terminology, and of course pactualism. Although Vacariça was not founded before the close of the 10th century, Mattoso believes it would naturally have adhered to the Gallaecian traditionalism so strongly rooted among the monasteries of the Portuguese County, and indeed with such devotion that when ca. 1026 Tudeildus removed himself from this house to Leça he made his new seat a flourishing center of pactual and other «Fructuosan» usages long familiar to him in the Coimbran south.
This line of reasoning I find unconvincing. Mattoso's thesis of Portuguese cenobitic continuity with Visigothic Gallaecia down to the advent of the Cluniacs ca. 1085 depends excessively upon giving a «Fructuosan» explication of the admittedly archaistic but apparently conventional language of the diplomas. But, as Linage Conde argues and in my opinion soundly, the linguistic and institucional conservatism of these is more plausibly evaluated as stemming from the dominant orthodox monachism of the Visigothic period. (9) Again, on the historical versus the lexicographical side, no evidence is known to me that the monastic movement centering about St Fructuosus and his successors in the see of Braga ever crossed the Douro to invade the Romano-Visigothic province of Lusitania, or reached as far south as the environs of Coimbra. On the contrary, when the reformist King Wamba (672-680) tried to set up at Aquis (Chaves) in Lusitania a monastic see of the same type as Dume -- Braga, i. e., involving the sort of episcopus sub regula associated with early pactualism, this manoeuvre was successfully blocked by the metropolitan church of Emérita with the full support of the fathers of the XIIth Council of Toledo (681). (10)
There are two alternatives to Mattoso's hypothesis. One is the possible establishment of pactual monasticism in Beira Litoral as a  consequence of the first Christian reconquest and colonization following Afonso III's extension of his kingdom's southwestern frontier to the Mondego in 878, and the consequent initial repovoamento of Coimbra and its countryside in the course of the 10th century(11) , Under these circumstances pactual monks from Além-Minho, Entre Minho e Douro or elsewhere in the Asturoleonese state could have transplanted their distinctive form of monastic organization into the Baixo Mondego where Vacarifa was to appear shortly before the year 1000, and where this and other pactual abbeys are known to have survived the Muslim re-occupation under al-Mansur and the earlier muluk at-tawa'if.
It is a serious objection to this solution and to that of Mattoso as well that although we have a fair number of Vacariçan pergaminhos, commencing in 1002 and running through various abbatiates before and after Tudeildus, none of these displays any recognizably pactual symptoms. This is not necessarily decisive: similar silence in what are essentially deeds of property transfer occurs in the documentation of several (but by no means not all) known pactual houses.
Nevertheless, the fact that no positive evidence links São Salvador with the pactual tradition either before or after 1045 forces consideration of a third possibility: that the Tudeildus covenant was a distinct innovation, quite unrepresentative of cenobitic practice in the diocese of Coimbra and introduced from outside for purposes yet to be determined. From this standpoint, what is required is a fresh look at certain facts in the history of the Beiran congregation and the career of the abbot Tudeildus, and the particular conditions under which these two parties entered into contractual agreement.
The tale turns on not one but two abbeys, Vacariça, and Leça. First, São Salvador (later São Vicente) de Vacarica (c. Mealhada), lying in the cerealiferous countryside below the historic Serra do Buçaco (anglice Bussaco), a house which was probably founded ca. 990 but enters into the light of record only in the earliest decades of the 11th century (12) . When in 1018 Tudeildus became its third  known abbot, the monks possessed but a modest temporal which included the small monastery of Rocas at Sever do Vouga halfway to the Douro (DC 191). This situation changed in 1021 when the widowed noblewoman Domna Unisco Mendes (or Menendiz) and her son Osoredo Trutesendes made the abbey a major benefaction above Portucale in the Terra da Maia (Amaia), This consisted of their familial mosteiro privado of São Salvador de Leça (DC 248) to which and its feminine counterpart of São Romáo de Vermoim (c. Maia) these same two donors, as converts to the religious life, had already transferred in 1013 a long list of villas, ereditates and other possessions (DC 222). Unisco, daughter of the Portuensian noble Mendo Forjaz, and her late husband Trutesendo Osoredes (d. 995) (13) can both be closely associated with the Maian district of the county of Portugal and the lower valley of the river Leça where they accumulated the dispersed but in sum quite substantial holdings which, as attached to their abbey at Leça, now passed into the hands of Tudeildus and Vacariça.
The non-spiritual motivations of this inherently puzzling cession of a Minhotan abbey to relatively remote Vacariça remain obscure, as obscure indeed as the familial connections of Tudeildus and his one known relative, a nephew Randulfus the Presbyter (DC 344). Two things may be conjectured: some degree of blood relationship between the abbot and the line of Trutesindo Osoredes, and the possible trans-Douran provenance of Tudeildus himself. If these suspicions could be verified they would help explain the donation of 1021 and clarify why, when Tudeildus left Vacariça ca. 1026 and sought asylum from a Muslim invasion of the Baixo Mondego, he took shelter at São Salvador de Leça and remained there as its abbot during the last twenty years of his life. Of course, since this house had been a Vacariçan dependency for some half-dozen years at time of his flight northward, it was a natural refuge to choose. From 1025 down to 1045. Tudeildus completely disappears from the pergaminhos of Vacariça, two decades when he cannot be seen to have any active link with his old monastery, even though canonically he was still its head. Meanwhile, neither Muslim perils nor loss of  their governor seems to have seriously affected the monks in the shadow of Buçaco. Under a new abbot, Floritus or Floridus, drawn from their own ranks and still in office as late as 1045, they continued as before under Muslim and eventually Christian control of the comarca (14) .
What then of pactualism at our other São Salvador, that of Leça (c. Matosinhos), also founded in the late 10th century and, as a dependency of Vacariça after 1021, well represented in the Livro Preto as a consequence of both monasteries' having passed to the Sé de Coimbra in 1094? Concerning this quondam mosteiro privado of Trutesendo Osoredes, Unisco Mendes and their son Osoredo Trutesendes, Mattoso expresses the firm view that it was a pactual center from its very beginnings, indeed an exceptionally well attested instance of the persistence of the Visigothic past in Portuguese cenobitism; and he asserts that Tudeildus, abbot from 1026, brought with him from Vacariça a strong attachment to this same tradition and maintained his second command-post as a stronghold of «Fructuosanism» (15) . We have already questioned the doctrine of unbroken continuity below the Douro with the Gallaecian past and denied the presence of the pactum at Vacariça before 1045. If we also note that down to that same year the diplomas of Leça reveal no recognizable pactual symptoms and that the notion of this monastery's being «un cas oü la tradition wisigothique est attestée d'une facón exceptionelle», rests almost entirely upon the covenant of 1045, then the question cannot be avoided: is there really a better case to be made for pactualism at Leça than at Vacariça? I believe there is, but only if we achieve a more perceptive comprehension of the setting and objectives of the notable instrument of 1045.
What must be realized is that Tudeildus' apparent effort in 1045 suddenly to re-affirm a long quiescent abbatial power at Vacariça is far more explicable as stemming not from ambitious desire to resume active control of Vacariça after twenty years of absence, but from a deep concern for the future of São Salvador de Leça in the light of his own advanced age and approaching demise. This becomes very clear once we acknowledge that the pactum of 1045 cannot be separated from the two other Tudeildan texts of precisely the same  day, month and year, the pacti cartula and the carta dimissionis, which the editors of DC rightly place alongside it.
a. the pacti cartula (DC 342, p. 209). Tudeildus addresses himself in effect to two parties: one, Floritus (significantly given the reduced rank of praepositus) and his fratres of Vacariça; the other, Petrus and Randulfus the Presbyter, both (as we shall see) monks of Leça. With reference to São Salvador de Leça, its earlier patrimonies, and those additions made by Tudeildus himself -- foundation of São Martinho de Anta, the salinas at Foz de Leça, one-half of the monastery of São Romao de Vermoim -- the abbot swears not to alienate these during his lifetime; after his death they are to become possessions of the two previously named groups, which are also bound to abstain from their alienation.
b. the carta dimissionis (DC 342, pp. 209-211). Also of post obitum intent and now placed second in the triad of texts, this commences with an allusion to the two monasteries of São Salvador involved, meaning Vacariça, and Leça: «quorumue dispares et locis diuersis cimiteriis aule sunt nuncupate». Then Tudeildus, acting with the assent of the fratres of Vacariça, and in atonement for the sins of himself and his unnamed parentes, directs his act to the monk Petrus, the presbyters Electus, Tudeildus and Arias, to Lucidus and Randulfus the Presbyter, and to all subscribants to his pactum. Since the individuals named can all be identified as monks of Leça (16) , while the anticipated subscribants to the pactum can only be monks of Vacariça, once again two abbeys are conjoined. As a first provision Tudeildus names Randulfus the Presbyter, i. e., his nephew, to serve after his death as patronus, meaning unmistakably of Leça, so long as he enjoys the approval of the abbot and fratres of Vacariça. Tudeildus goes on to place once again in the hands of both communities a slightly different list of his northern holdings: the monastery of Leça with all its possessions as granted by Unisco and her son Osoredo (DC 222: 1013), and his own subsequent acquisitions: São Martinho de Anta, the vila of Pousada, 1/2 + 1/10 of the vila of Custoias, the salinas of Foz de Leça. Finally, for reasons that escape us, it is ordered that monks coming to Leça from Lorvao be received into the congregation. An exceptionally long list of witnesses follows, headed by Gonçalo Raupariz «maiorinus regis domni fernandi qui pro iussione abba asignaui», so lengthy indeed as to suggest that this  piece originally closed the triad and carried the attestations validating all three acts.
c. the carta pacti uel placiti (DC 342, pp. 211-212). Sufficient has been said above on the content and nature of this text; what must now be noted is its relation to the two preceding pieces, since together these can be taken as the indispensable other half of the covenant between Tudeildus and the Vacariçan congregation. While it has always been recognized that pactual cenobitism implied reciprocal obligations and duties, the documentation confirming this on the abbatial side has been neglected since Herwegen because of concentration on the pactum monachorum. Such a document however an abbot could not subscribe. He required his own pactum abbatis , which seems to have taken the form of a normal donation act addressed to his monks at the same time they submitted to him; in bestowing property upon the community he thus by implication accepted the office and obligations of their ruler.
Of the limited number of such complete double pacta, the earliest discoverable is one of 818 uniting the monks of SS. Pedro y Pablo de Naroba, in the Liébana district of southeastern Asturias, with their abbot Argilegus (17) . This embraces, within the bounds of a single pergaminho, the pactum monachorum, then what calls itself a confirmatio uel compromissio in which the abbot bestows properties upon the house, a second benefaction (this time by a kinsman of Argilegus), and only then the subscriptions of the religious of this double community. Another example is the Eufrasia pactum of 930 from the Castilian monastery of San Mamés de Ura (south of Burgos near Lerma), which puts together as of one date the pactum of the nuns, the corresponding donation act of the abbess, and a comparable gift by the famous Castilian count Fernán González (18) .
In this context the Tudeildus triad of 1045 is of prime interest because it not only preserves our one known Portuguese pactum monachorum but is also one of the very few extant specimens from all medieval Iberia of a complete double monastic contract, containing the property transfers which constitute the pactum abbatiale. Since the instruments were drawn up, it must be emphasized, not at the beginning but towards the close of Tudeildus' long abbatial career, the monks' part of the covenant in no sense conforms to Herwegen's classification of such a text as Professformel and Abtwahlinstrument, for the triad represents no agreement at the commencement of an abbatiate, but a negotiated settlement to take full effect  post obitum. By the pactum monachorum the Vacariçan community in effect acknowledged that Tudeildus was still its canonical governor, although clearly his term of office would have been envisaged as of only brief duration; and this acknowledgement was given in return for an acceptance of the juridical truth that in canon and secular law Leça was still subordinate to the suzerainty of the mother abbey despite the fact that it retained the right to its own patronus and the inalienability of its temporal. Vacariça thus regained sub modo long unexercised authority over her Minhotan dependency; Tudeildus secured for Leça, so long his principal base, guarantees of its relative independence and patrimonial security.
Whether all three members of the triad were originally inscribed in the same pergaminho, with the pactum monachorum at its head, there is no way to be sure; given their dispersion in the later Livro Preto , it is perhaps unlikely. In any event, since Tudeildus appears primarily as abbot of Leça and in behalf of this abbey, and since the names found within the bounds of these texts (aside from Floritus of Vacarçia and those of the many unknowable confirmants and attestants declared present at the close of the carta dimissionis) are identifiable as belonging to Leçan monks, it would seem that the composition of the triad took place on the banks of the river Leça. It is improbable (although not impossible) that the old abbot travelled south to negotiate the agreement at distant Vacariça; the pacti cartula carries the name of the scribe, Ansemundus, well known from other Leçan documents of the period; and the territorial associations of the maiorino Gonçalo Raupariz all lie above the Douro(19) . All this would explain the absence of the usual list of adnotationes of Vacariçan monks to the extant pactum monachorum, if what we have is a draft prepared at Leça, and not the actual instrument to which the names would have been attached.
After 1045 we hear nothing further of Tudeildus' ties with Vacariça; in 1046, presumably the year he died, the diplomas still designate him abbot of Leça (DC 344, 347). Floritus never re-appears after the pacti cartula of 21 September 1045, being replaced at Vacariça in December of that year by the abbot Alvitus (DC 348). At Leça, in the 1050's, after a gap in the documents, Randulfus the Presbyter turns up as abbot, no doubt as his uncle intended; although he is remembered more particularly for having attended Fernando I's major council at Coyanza in 1055, very likely as a peritus in canon law, and for bringing back to Portugal the so-called «Portuguese redaction» of the conciliar decretos(20) . As for the old ties between the Minhotan dependency and the Beiran mother abbey, these seem to have continued unbroken throughout the 11th century but did not affect the de facto independence of São Salvador de Leça, precisely as Tudeildus had planned.
Can we then believe that the immediate prototype of the pactum monachorum of 1045 was a formula of similar content long in use at Leça and familiar to Tudeildus as the medium of his installation there as abbot ca. 1026? This now seems likely enough; but before declaring a positive conclusion on this point we are obligated to consider when and from what quarter pactual monacism could first have reached the Maian abbey. Several clues point towards a satisfactory resolution of these questions.
To be noted at the start is the striking, hitherto unnoticed correspondences
between our Portuguese pactum monachorum and two earlier specimens
of this genre from Castile. One of these was drawn up in 855 between an
abbot Rodanius and the monks of San Pedro de Tejada, a house located south
of Burgos in a zone of documented pactual-cenobitic colonization
. The other, preserved in the noted Leodegundian codex Escorlalensis
a. I. 13 of the first third of the 10th century, which was
formerly attributed to a Gallegan scriptorum but is now shown by Díaz
y Díaz to have been copied in Castile, unites an abbot Sabaricus
with an unidentifiable congregation(22)
. Both instruments, like that of Tudeildus, sedulously follow the
Regula Communis model pactum in various respects, yet they agree
with one another in certain omissions from and modifications of this pattern,
while at other times they differ from one another, e. g., in topical order
and occasional phraseology. But what stands out with particular force is
that all three texts preserve common elements which do not come from the
Gallaecian formula at all. This can be readily established here by juxtaposing
the section in all four pacta which deals with that ever-present danger of
this period, confronting perhaps above all familial mosteiros privados
, from monks conspiring with kinsmen against an abbey's integrity and patrimonial
inviolability. The italics denote what is not found in the 7th-century text
but occurs in the Castillian and Portuguese adaptations of the Reconquista.
Pactum of the Regula Communis: Si quis sane ex nobis contra regulara occulte cum parentibus, germanis, filiis, cognatis, uel propinquis aut certe cum fratre secum habitante, consilium te absente supradicto patre nostro inierit, habeas potestatem in unumquemque qui hoc facinus temptauerit, ut per sex menses indutus tegmine raso aut cilicio, discinctus et discalceatus in solo pane et aqua in celia obscura exerceat quodlibet opus excommunicatus (23) .
Pactum of Rodanlus: Si quis sane ex nobis quod ualde execratur regula uel omnes scripturam, aut aliquis oculte consilium cum parentibus, germanis, filiis, cognatis uel propinquis adprehenderit, sine consilio abbatis uel sancta communis regula, habeas potestatem in nos unoquaque , qui hoc tentauerit, per sex menses indutum tegimen rasum, etc. (24) .
Pactum of Sabaricus: Si quis sane ex nobis, quod ualde execratur regula uel omnis scriptura, aliquis occulte consilium cum parentibus, iermanis, filiis, cognatis uel propinquis adprehenderit sine consilio abbati uel sancte communi regule, habeas potestatem in nos, in unumquemque, qui hoc temtaberit, [ut] per sex menses indutum tecmen rasum, etc. (25)
Pactum of Tudeilus: Siquis sane ex nobis quod ualde exequatur regula aliquis occulte consilium cum parentibus iermanis filiis cognatis uel propinquis uel cum quolibet extraneis adprehenderit sine benedictione abbatis uel sancta commune regule habeas potestatem super nos unumquemque qui hoc temptauerit, pro regulari disciplina corripere et accerrime flagellare. (26)
Exegetical commentary on the foregoing passages, especially as regards the interesting alusion by the last three to the sancta communis regula , cannot detain us here; what is presently more noteworthy is the disclosure (i) that these Castilian and Portuguese pacta must have had a common ancestor in a somewhat different, slightly more extended, version of the Regula Communis archetype; (ii) that this was in circulation before the mid-9th century; and (iii) that descendants of this lost exemplar were being adopted at much the same time in both the Castilian East and the Portuguese or Galaico-Portuguese West. All this should warn us against attributing an exaggerated antiquity and ultra-tenacious conservatism to the cenobitism  of the Portuguese 9th-11th centuries which Mattoso ascribes to unbroken concatenation with the late Visigothic period. It should not be forgotten that a pactum of presumably this very same tenor surfaces in allegedly «progressive» Castile as late as 1044, at Santa Maria de Sotovellanos(27) . After all, the formula available at Leça to Tudeildus in 1045 can have been instituted there at the earliest from ca. 990 when the house came into existence, i. e., only half a century previously. Admittedly, such a pactum must have already been in vogue at the time; but the impression is that the pactualism of Leça was part and parcel of the general monastic repovoamento of Entre Minho e Douro during the 9th-10th centuries and therefore in a broad sense innovative.
Fortunately, we have another unimpeachable witness to the spread of pactual monasticism in the diocese of Braga -- the foundation charter of the major abbey of São Salvador de Guimarães (28) . This double community which, according to Mattoso's authoritative judgment, had become the foremost abbey of the entire diocese by ca. 1000, was established in 959 by that eminent figure in the Portuguese high aristocracy, the countess Mumadona Bias, who richly endowed the new center with numerous vilas, lands and other goods. Since she dedicated all these patrimonies to the use of those who «in hunc locum sub manu abbatis et census regule fuerint Domino seruientes et in pactum roborati», the constitutional basis of the new community is placed beyond cavil, even if we cannot tell precisely what form its fundamental charter took. Furthermore, the strong affiliations of Mumadona's parents and kinsmen with the Gallegan nobility (29) , and the inclusion of lands in Galicia among the properties conferred, give her donation a more than merely Minhotan significance. This is further supported by the appearance, in first place among the six confirmant bishops, of the celebrated San Rosendo of Mondoñedo, for many years abbot of the major Gallegan pactual house of San Salvador de Celanova (30) , while the subscribants also include the current governor of that house: «Aloitus cellanouensis praepositus». Even if we are not justified in deducing that Celanova directly inspired the adoption of the pactum at Guimarães, the episode  serves to document what can be glimpsed from other sources as well --the bond of friendship and cultural-institutional exchange that united Minhotan cenobitism with the powerful revival of pac-tualism visible in many new monastic foundations of the 9th and 10th centuries in the peninsular northwest.
That such a movement existed in the Galicia and Portugal of the Alta Reconquista has yet to be perceived by monastic historians, but it is undeniable. In 1951, in the course of my study of the geographical distribution of the then known Iberian pacta, I expressed the view that since only four examples could be adduced for the entire Galaico-Portuguese zone, it would be valid to infer an extremely limited diffusion of this instrument in the region of its birth; and this judgment has been followed by, among others, Pérez de Urbel and Linage Conde(31) . It is nevertheless erroneous, as I have now come to see, for although no new texts of pacta have come to light from this area in the last thirty years (so far as I am aware), it has grown increasingly manifest to me that the diplomas of the monastic houses of Galicia in the 9th and 10th centuries contain not a few references to pacta now lost or still awaiting rescue from the archives. These testimonies prove extensive use of the covenant in such major abbeys of Galicia as San Salvador de Celanova, San Salvador de Sobrado, San Julián de Samos, San Esteban de Ribas de Sil and, in Portugal, São Salvador de Guimarães and São Salvador de Leça(32) . Thus the thesis wich I sponsored in 1951 is to be rejected -- the pactual tradition was as firmly rooted in Galicia and northern Portugal above the Douro as it was in primitive Castile.
In the light (however flickering) of the antecedent pages, we may
now assemble the principal results of this inquiry into 11th-century Portuguese
pactual monachism and the particular case of São Salvador de Vacariça.
It should be patent that, contrary to current belief, the Tudeildus pactum
monachorum cannot be taken to establish this Beiran abbey as a late
center of monastic traditionalism; on the contrary, its witness relates
entirely to São Salvador de Leça in Minho, where it indicates
that a formula of this type was in use from the 10th century. The deceptive
connection with Vacariça is merely incidental to the authentic objective
of this historically most interesting text, and its two companion pieces
constituting the pactum abbatiale. The basic aim of the aged abbot
Tudeildus was to insure the safe transfer to his nephew Randulfus of his
own long-standing padroado  over Leça and,
a fortiori , safeguard for the future the virtual independence
enjoyed by his cherished house for the last twenty years despite juridical
subordination to Vacariça. The pactum of 1045, in consequence, lends
no support to claims that pactual cenobitism prevailed everywhere below
the Douro down to 1100; this problem, either because of our painfully limited
and recalcitrant Beiran sources, or because in fact the heterodox contractualism
never did cross that river, remains unresolved. It should however assist
investigators to perceive that at Leça (as surely also at Guimarães)
what we encounter in the pactum of 1045 is no anemic end-product of three
centuries of ascetico-institutional stasis, but the expression of a vigorous
tradition contributing positively to the new monastic foundations of the
Luso-Gallegan West during the 9th-11th centuries.
13 January 1982.
Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
University of Virginia.
Supplementary Note. The new Coimbra edition of the Livro
Preto (cf. Note 4, supra), which I have been able to consult during
final proofreading of this paper, presents the Tudeildan pactual dossier
of 1045 in Vol. I, as nos. 150, 138 (pacti cartula), 148, 137 (
carta dimissionis ), 153 (pactum monachorum). For other principal
acts, as cited above at pp. 138-140, DC 311, 191, 248, 222, 344,
290, 248, 290, 342 correspond, respectively, to LP, I, nos. 115 (also
140), 126, 142, 147; III, 520; I, 93, 142, 93, 150 (also 138). Textual variations
1. See in general Antonio Linage Conde, Los orígenes del monacato benedictino en la Península Ibérica, 3 t. (Léon, 1973), I, 289-342; C. J. Bishko, «Hispanic Monastic Pactualism: the Controversy Continues», Classical Folia, XXVII (1973), 173-185, and literature there cited; J. G. Freiré and G. Rocca, «Patto», in Dizionario degli istituti di perfezione, VI, cols. 1292-1294 (in press).
2. Cf. José Orlandis, «"Traditio corporis et animae": laicos y monasterios en la Alta Edad Media española», An. hist, derecho esp., XXIV (1954), 95-279; also in his Estudios sobre instituciones monásticas medievales (Pamplona, 1971), pp. 217-378.
3. Ildefons Herwegen, Das Pactum des hl. Fruktuosus von Braga: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des suevisch-westgotischen Mönchtums una seines Rechtes (Stuttgart, 1907; reprinted Amsterdam, 1965); Mario Martins, «O monacato de S. Frutuoso de Braga». Biblos, XXVI (1950), 315-342; J. Pérez de Urbel, «Vida y caminos del Pacto de San Fructuoso,» Rev. Portuguesa de Historia, VII (1963), 377-397; idem, «Carácter y supervivencia del Pacto de San Fructuoso», Bracara Augusta , XXII (1968), 226-242; J. Mattoso, «Sobrevivencia do monaquismo em Portugal durante a Reconquista», ibid., XXII (1968), 42-54: Linage Conde. Orígenes, I, 308-311. II. 741-746; C. J. Bishko, «Galtegan Pactual Monasticism in the Repopulation of Castile», in Estudios dedicados a Menendez Pidal, II (Madrid, 1951), pp. 516-517.
4. Miguel Ribeiro de Vasconcel(l)os, Noticia Histórica do Mosteiro da Vacariça... (Lisbon, 1854), pp. 26-27 (prova no. 6) (also Memorias da Academia Real das Sciencias de Lisboa, classe sci: mor., n. s. 1, pt. 1, 1854); PMH, DC, I (Lisbon, 1867), pp. 211-212; Livro Preto da Sé de Coimbra, 3 t. (Coimbra, 1977-1979. Publicações do Arquivo da Universidade de Coimbra). Since the last named work has not been available to me, documents will be cited here as in DC.
5. Martins, Monacato, pp. 405-411: Bishko, Gallegan Pactualism , p. 517; Mattoso, Sobrevivência, p. 45; Linage Conde, I, 310.
6. In fact, the dossier of 1045 contains five texts, since the Livro Preto preserves a second version of the cartula dimissionis, of which DC, pp. 209-211, records the variant readings; DC 390, printed as of 1053 because it bears the date «XI kalendas octobris era LXXXXaIa superada millesima» (a palpable scribal error for LXXXaIIIa), is a doublet of the pacti cartula to Floritus, with minor textual differences and slightly fuller list of attestations.
7. Note references in the pacti cartula to «qui hunc nostrum pactum roborare uoluerint (p. 209:2) ... sicut in testamento et in pacto resonat» (p. 209:7-8); and in the carta dimissionis to «et quantus-cumque in nostrum pactum roborauerint» (p. 210:1-2).
8. José Mattoso, Le monachisme ibérique et Cluny: les monastéres du diocese de Porto de l'an mille a 1200 (Louvain, 1968), pp. 329-332; also his Sobrevivência, loc. cit.; and «O monaquismo ibérico e Cluny», Do Tempo e da Historia , II (1968), 79-95.
9. Cf. the criticism by Linage Conde, II, 741-745, of Mattoso's methodology; and the latter's counter-thrust: «L'introduction de la Règle de S. Benoit dans la Péninsule ibérique», Rev. d'hist. eccles., LXX, nos 3-4 (July-Dec. 1975), 731-742.
10. Concilios visigóticos e hispano-romanos, ed. José Vives (Barcelona-Madrid, 1963), pp. 389-392 (canon 4).
11. See the introductory section to vol. I of A. H. de Oliveira Marques, História de Portugal (Lisboa, 1972); L. Gonzaga de Azevedo, História de Portugal, 6 v. (Lisbon, 1935-1944; 2d ed., 5 v., Porto, 1954), II, chaps. 11-14; Pierre David, «Le sanctoral hispanique et les patrons d'églises entre le Minho et le Mondego du IXe au XIe siècle» in his Études historiques sur la Gallee et le Portugal du VIe au XIIe siècle (Lisbon-Paris, 1947), pp. 185-256.
12. On the medieval agrarian ambiente of Beira Litoral, cf. A. H. de Oliveira Marques, Introdução á História de Agricultura em Portugal (Lisboa, 1968), pp. 71-72. For the adventures of Tudeildus the biographical primary source is DC 311 (1040); equally indispensable on his chronology and that of Vacariça are the meticulously compiled notices scattered through Mattoso's Monachisme ibérique , for which see the indices. Cf. also the valuable unsigned article «Vacariça» in Grande Enciclopédia Portuguesa e Brasileira (Lisboa--Rio de Janeiro, n. d.), XXXIII, 652-657.
13. See the authoritative prosopographic reconstruction of the local aristocracy by José Mattoso, «A nobreza rural portuense nos séculos XI e XII», Anuario de estudios medievales, VI (1969), 465-520, at pp. 471 (I A 2), 474-475 (II B).
14. Floritus as monk of Vacariça: DC 248 (1021): «et de fratribus de illo abbate (teodegildo) Prater Floride»; as abbot: DC 290 (1036); DC 342 (1045): «praepositus».
15. Mattoso, Monachisme ibérique, pp. 114-116; see also the excellent assemblage of data regarding Leça, pp. 12-14 (documents and history), pp. 398-400 (patrimonies); and the toponymic index s. v. Cf. pp. 175-176 (with domanial map).
16. See in DC the charters of Leça as follows: Petrus, 277, 298, 341; Randulfus presbyter, 273, 277, 283, 307 325, 341, 395, 434-435; Electus, 295, 307, 313, 341; Tudeildus presbyter, 341; Arias, 274, 277; Lucidus, 277. All these must have been seniores of the community and in Tudeildus' intimate confidence.
17. Antonio C. Floriano, Diplomática española del período astur, 2 t. (Oviedo, 1949-1951), I, 146-150 (no.27).
18. Herwegen, pp. 11-14.
19. On Ansemundus, cf. DC, 296, 298-299, 307, 313; on Gonçalo Raupariz, Mattoso, Nobreza, 511-512 (X C).
20. Alfonso Gallo, «El Concilio de Coyanza», An. hist, derecho esp., XX (1950), 275-633, at. pp. 303-320.
21. J. Pérez de Urbel, Historia del Condado de Castilla, 3 v. (Madrid, 1945), III, 1058-1060 (n.° 26).
22. M. C. Díaz y Díaz, «El códice monástico de Leodegundia (Escorial a. I. 13)», Ciudad de Dios, CLXXXI (1968), 567-587.
23. «Reglas monásticas de la España visigoda», ed. Julio Campos Ruiz in Santos Padres Españoles (Madrid, 1971. Bibl. de Autores Cristianos), II, 210.
24. Pérez de Urbel, Condado, III, 1059.
25. Herwegen, pp. 6-7.
26. DC, p. 212.
27. Unpublished, but cf. Pérez de Urbel, III, 1325 (n.° 665); Bishko, Gallegan Pactualism, p. 519.
28. DC 76 (p. 47, following note no. 136).
29. On Mumadona and her relatives cf. J. Mattoso, As familias condais portucalenses dos séculos X e XI (Porto, 1970), pp. 46-49; Avelino de J. da Costa, «Mumadona Dias», in Dicionário de Historia de Portugal, ed. Joel Serráo, III (Lisbon, 1968), pp. 121-122.
30. DC 76 (p. 48); cf. J. Mattoso, «S. Rosendo e as correntes monásticas da sua época», Do Tempo e da História , V (1972), 5-27.
31. Bishko, Gallegan Pactualism, pp. 516-517; Pérez de Urbel, Vida y caminos, pp. 392-393; Linage Conde, Orígenes , I, 308-311.
32. The appropriate references are given in my study, «The Pactual Tradition in Hispanic Monasticism», awaiting publication in Spain.