[151] There are several problems in dating records of the first years of the twelfth century. In addition to the normal inexactitude of Catalan documents of this period, based as they are on the regnal years of the Capetian kings of France, two parchments in particular call into question the chronology of the bishops of Vic by describing years in various ways that do not agree. Gerbert Hug's donation of castles to his relative, the bishop-elect Guillem (ACV, c. 9, Ep. II, 68), is dated "kalendas ianuaril, anno xli Philipi regis," which is 1101. The era number, however, is 1138, and the indiction number is eight, both of which work out to 1100. Bishop Guillem was never confirmed in office. After a voyage to Rome he ceased to be the bishop of Vic and became eventually the abbot of Amer. Arnau de Malla was elected in his place. Confusion over dating the abortive pontificate of Guillem is increased by the uncertain date of the document reporting Arnau's election to the pope.⁽¹⁾ The incarnation year, given as 1102, is equivalent to 1103 if one assumes that the medieval year began on March 25, the Feast of the Annunciation (thus 13 kalends of March 1102 would be reckoned as 1103 according to modern dating). Yet the indiction number is nine, which makes the date 1101.

[152] Paul Kehr believes that Arnau's election should probably be dated 1101 rather than 1102, as most older authorities reckoned.⁽²⁾ In the same place, however, he agrees with the date for the Council of Girona (1101) posited by the eminent Spanish historian Fidel Fita. In the record of the council there appears a contradiction among dates similar to that of the Vic examples. In this case, four versions of the date are given, three of which agree on 1101 (regnal year, incarnation year, and the era), whereas the indiction is the equivalent of 1100.⁽³⁾ Kehr, in effect, favors the indiction number for the election of Arnau while ignoring it for the Council of Girona.

Few documents from the brief tenure of Bishop Guillem survive. He first appears in ACV, c. 6, Ep. I, 14, dated "xv kalendas iunii, anno xl. Philipi regis" (that is, 1100). Another document in which he appears is the now lost oath by the castellans of the fortresses donated in a companion document, ACV, c. 9, Ep. II, 68. According to Moncada, it had the date "xii kalendas februarii," the forty-first year of Philip's reign, which would be 1101.⁽⁴⁾ A third record copied into the Liber Antiquitatum of the chapter of Barcelona documents an act of Guillem made shortly before setting out for Rome.⁽⁵⁾ It is dated "v idus marcii," again in the forty-first year of Philip. It is probable that Guillem was elected in 1100, that he left for Rome early in 1101, and that Arnau was elected in 1102. Accepting this chronology would mean ignoring the indiction year for both the donation of the castles and the election of Arnau, which is exactly what Fita proposed in his article on Bishop Guillem.⁽⁶⁾

What, then, is to be made of ACV, c. 6, 1607? Here Arnau appears as bishop (not merely bishop-elect) in a document that antedates the document in which Guillem is considered bishop-elect. ACV, c. 6, 1607, is dated "vii kalendas marcii," in Philip's forty-first year, thus 1101. Fita does not consider likely the possibility of a disputed election, with two men calling themselves bishop, although it might explain why Guillem was never confirmed. On the other hand, Bishop Arnau may simply have signed later, after his election and confirmation, to validate an earlier document.⁽⁷⁾

[153] The evidence suggests that bishop-elect Guillem was active from May 1100 to February 1101. Arnau's election probably took place in early 1102. This surmise depends more on a series of educated guesses than on a consistent rule for dating ambiguous records. All that can be stated with assurance is that particular confusion pertains to the first years of the twelfth century, and it affects accurate dating of the removal of Guillem and the election of Arnau.

1. ACV, c. 6, Ep. I, 16; ES, 28:ap. 21.

2. Kehr, "Das Papsttum," p. 55.

3. Fidel Fita, "El concilio nacional de Palencia en el año 1100 y el de Gerona en 1101," Boletín de la Real Academia de la Historia 24 (1894), 226-235.

4. Moncada, p. 391.

5. VL, 6:ap. 40; F. Fita, "Guillén Berenguer, ex-obisbo de Vich," Boletín de la Real Academia de la Historia 17 (1890), 193-194.

6. Fita, "Guillén Berenguer," pp. 190-199. It also means, of course, thatone must ignore the possibility of 1103, based on the start of the year at March 25. The incarnation year as expressed in the document (namely, 1102) may then be accurate.

7. As may be the case for a document of 1097 that Arnau signed as bishop (see Chapter 1, note 82).