Law and the peasant: rural society and justice in Carolingian Italy, in \"Early Medieval Europe\", 2010, 18 (4), pp. 417-445

$Page 1: Law and the peasant: rural society and justice in Carolingian Italy, in \"Early Medieval Europe\", 2010, 18 (4), pp. 417-445$
Law and the peasant: rural society andjustice in Carolingian Italyemed_305 417..445

G iuseppe Albertoni

Comparative analysis of the most important Carolingian-period Italianplaciti dealing with the defence of freedom allows us to reconstruct theapproach taken by various large monasteries as they attempted to transformtheir landholding into coercive power over people, by converting dependentfreemen into slaves. Similarly, it reveals the strenuous defence mounted by thefreemen who were thus threatened, who were clearly perfectly aware that adowngrading of their legal status would be far more serious for them than aneconomic downgrading. It also permits an analysis of placiti as sites for therepresentation of public power, in which the ideological model of the king as‘protector of the weak’ was often scuppered by the ability of many potentes touse for their own advantage either the presence of royal officials, or those verylegal processes which were supposed to guarantee protection of the pauperes.

1. Freemen, rural society and justice

Studies of the role of freemen in the social organization of CarolingianItaly have undergone extensive revision since the 1960s, when GiovanniTabacco published a series of studies (in particular I liberi del re nell’Italiacarolingia e postcarolingia) which overturned a historiographical paradigmthat had endured for more than half a century.1 This paradigm had itsroots in the early twentieth century, in the work of Pier Silverio Leichtand Aldo Cecchini, and later, in the 1920s, Fedor Schneider. On the basisof this paradigm, scholars argued that, since the Lombard period, Italyhad been characterized by the communitarian tradition of the arimanni,a term used to indicate royal military settlements installed on fiscal land,especially along the borders, following the example of the settlement of

* This article has been translated by Michael J. Alexander and G.V.B. West, with assistance fromD.B. West.

1 G. Tabacco, I liberi del re nell’Italia carolingia e postcarolingia (Spoleto, 1966).

Early Medieval Europe 2010 18 (4) 417–445

© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350

Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

Romano-Byzantine limitanei.2 It was while reflecting on the actual orpresumed novelty of the age of the communes that Tabacco was lead toquestion the very existence of arimanni settlements in the Carolingianand post-Carolingian era. He was also stimulated by ideas from Germanhistoriography, in particular by historians, like Heinrich Dannenbauer,who suggested the existence among the general category of freemen of‘common freemen’ of low social condition (Gemeinefreie) and freeholders,who were required to serve in the army and to pay to the king tributa etservicia because they were settled on fiscal territory as so-called ‘freemenof the king’ (Königsfreie).3

Tabacco sought to test the historiographical models of the arimanniaeand the ‘freemen of the king’ by using sources from Carolingian andpost-Carolingian Italy. By comparing the theory and the evidence,Tabacco showed how conceptions of the arimanniae were based on anessentially incorrect analysis of tenth- and eleventh-century sources, whichin turn was projected backwards onto earlier centuries. Moreover, Tabaccoargued that the Carolingian ‘freemen of the king’ – arimanni or exercitales– are better defined by their social status rather than their settlement onroyal lands. The Carolingian arimanni would thus have been a class ofmiddling landowners who had managed to retain a link to the structures ofpublic authority. This link was shown by three ‘services’ they had to renderto the kingdom: military service, the maintenance of public structures(such as bridges), and participation in judicial assemblies – servicessummarized by the trinity of terms hostis, pons et placitum.4

The ‘king’s freemen’ therefore were, according to Tabacco, all the freeallod holders who could guarantee ‘service’ to the kingdom. They were anexpression of the survival of the notion of publicum in the tangledpolitical and legal structures of Carolingian power in this period. Con-sequently, the crisis they experienced in the last decades of the ninthcentury would have been in line with the gradual weakening of publicinstitutions. This, for Tabacco, occurred by a contradictory process, inwhich the state itself, though aiming to protect and safeguard thefreemen, was one of the causes of the many oppressiones which bore

2 F. Schneider, Die Entstehung von Burg und Landgemeinde in Italien (Berlin, 1924). For areconstruction of the arimanni debate, see S. Gasparri, ‘La questione degli arimanni’, Bullettinodell’Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo e Archivio Muratoriano 87 (1978), pp. 121–53.

3 Tabacco referred in particular to H. Dannenbauer, Grundlagen der mittelalterlichen Welt (Stut-tgart, 1958), pp. 284 ff. For a historiographical discussion of the theory of the Königsfreie, see F.Staab, ‘A Reconsideration of the Ancestry of Modern Political Liberty: The Problem of theSo-Called “King’s Freemen” (Königsfreie)’, Viator 11 (1980), pp. 51–69; W. Rösener, Agrar-wirtschaft, Agrarverfassung und ländliche Gesellschaft im Mittelalter (Munich, 1992), pp. 68–70.

4 Tabacco, I liberi del re, pp. 206–7. On this subject, see also the observations recorded in idem,‘Il regno italico nei secoli IX–XI’, in Ordinamenti militari in Occidente nell’alto medioevo(Spoleto, 1968), II, pp. 763–90.

418 Giuseppe Albertoni

Early Medieval Europe 2010 18 (4)© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

evermore heavily on the freemen as a consequence of the obligations itimposed, the growing number of immunities it granted to the church,and the creation of new bonds of dependence.

The picture Tabacco outlined for the Carolingian period opened anew epoch of studies which produced evermore refined reflectionsabout the structure of lordly power and contributed to the reawakeningof interest in the organization of social life in pre-communal Italy. Thisarea of research had been enriched in the early 1950s by the suggestionsadvanced in another classic work of twentieth-century Italian medievalhistoriography, Cinzio Violante’s La società milanese nell’età precomu-nale.5 The contributions of Vito Fumagalli were also important in thisfield: during the early 1970s Fumagalli paid particular attention tochanges which occurred in the Carolingian countryside.6 Stimulated bythe rebirth of agrarian history in French works (which drew on MarcBloch) and by a strong moral impulse, he concentrated his analysis onlower-status freemen, who seemed to him to be victims of exploitationby the nobles.7 He was one of the first to try to understand why, asearly as the first half of the ninth century, many small allod holders hadbeen forced to give up their lands and become tenant farmers, settingin motion a particularly dramatic process that broke down the legalbarrier separating freedom from servitude, and reinforcing lordly powerwhich was connected to large property holdings.8 This ‘civil decadence’of the freemen was evidenced in the spread of new forms of agrarianagreements (such as the contract of livellus), in the creation of ties ofdependence such as client/patron relationships, and by the ‘vigorousreaction of small landholders, evidenced by the[ir] frequent disputes inthe Carolingian era’.9

The subjects of peasant ‘revolts’, judicial proceedings and the relation-ship of freemen and justice has been reopened many times by those who,in the last few decades, have sought to verify and develop the groundwork

5 C. Violante, La società milanese nell’età precomunale (Bari, 1953).6 In particular, see V. Fumagalli, Terra e società nell’Italia padana. I secoli IX e X (Turin, 1976);

idem, ‘Le modificazioni politico-istituzionali in Italia sotto la dominazione carolingia’, inNascita dell’Europa ed Europa carolingia: un’equazione da verificare (Spoleto, 1981), I, pp.293–317. One must not forget the pioneering work done during the first half of the twentiethcentury in Italian agrarian history, in particular Gino Luzzatto’s book of essays, Dai servi dellagleba agli albori del capitalismo (Bari, 1966).

7 One thinks in particular of G. Duby, L’Économie rurale et la vie des campagnes dans l’Occidentmédiévale. France, Angleterre, Empire, IXe-XV siècle. Essai de synthèse et perspectives de recherches(Paris, 1962); idem, Guerriers et paysans. VII-XIIIe siècle. Premier essor de lìéconomie européenne(Paris, 1973). On the ‘moral assumptions’ underlying much of Fumagalli’s works, see M.Montanari, ‘Ricordo di un maestro. Vito Fumagalli 1938–1997’, Intersezioni 27.2 (August 1997),pp. 175–98, in particular p. 179. Let us not forget that one of Fumagalli’s last works, Uominicontro la storia (Bologna, 1995), was dedicated to the ‘vanquished’ in history.

8 Fumagalli, Terra e società, p. 140.9 Fumagalli, Le modificazioni politico-istituzionali, p. 317.

Rural society and justice in Carolingian Italy 419


laid by Tabacco, Violante and Fumagalli.10 This has been possible inpart thanks to the revival and deepening of legal studies for early medievalItaly, which has in turn allowed legal and social historians to surmountthe barriers that had long separated their respective disciplines.11 Onethinks, for example, of some of the model studies in this field, such as ChrisWickham’s work carried out on the Valle del Trita (Abruzzo) based onthe rich documentation of the abbey of San Vincenzo al Volturno;12 orthe studies by Bruno Andreolli and Francesco Panero, who devotedparticular attention to the theme of seigneurial justice (iustitia domnica) inthe Po valley;13 or of Ross Balzaretti’s work in the early 1990s analysing thecourt cases involving the monastery of Sant’Ambrogio in Milan and itshomines in the curtis of Limonta.14 Although using different approaches,such studies have helped to illustrate in particular geographical regions

10 For an overview of the these themes, see ‘Protesta e rivolta contadina nell’Italia medievale’,Annali dell’Istituto ‘A. Cervi’ 16 (1994), in particular M. Montanari, ‘Conflitto sociale e protestacontadina nell’Italia altomedievale’, pp. 17–25.

11 Among the many studies of this field, I limit myself to the general overviews in: F. Bougard, Lajustice dans le royaume d’Italie, de la fin du VIIIe siècle au début du XIe siècle (Rome, 1995); idem,‘La justice dans le royaume d’Italie aux IXe–X siècles’, in La giustizia nell’alto medioevo (secoliIX–XI) (Spoleto, 1997), I, pp. 133–76; P. Bonacini, ‘Giustizia pubblica e società nell’Italiacarolingia’, Quaderni medievali 31–2 (1991), pp. 5–35. On more specific topics in early medievalItaly, see: P. Bonacini, ‘Giurisdizione pubblica e amministrazione della giustizia nel territoriopiacentino altomedievale’, Civiltà Padana 5 (1994), pp. 43–98, also available in idem, Terred’Emilia. Distretti pubblici, comunità locali e poteri signorili nell’esperienza di una regione italiana(secoli VIII–XII) (Bologna, 2001), pp. 47–94; P. Delogu, ‘La giustizia nell’Italia meridionalelongobarda’, in La giustizia nell’alto medioevo (secoli IX–XI), pp. 257–308; J.P. Deloumeau,‘L’exercise de la justice dans le comté d’Arezzo (IXe début XIIIe siècle)’, Mélanges de l’Ecolefrançaise de Rome. Moyen âge. Temps modernes 90 (1978), pp. 563–605; H. Keller, ‘Der Gerichts-ort in Oberitalienischen und Toskanischen Städten. Untersuchungen zur Stellung der Stadt imHerrschaftssystem des Regnum Italicum vom 9. bis 11. Jahrhundert’, Quellen und Forschungenaus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 49 (1969), pp. 1–72; H. Krahwinkler, . . . In loco quidicitur Riziano . . . Zbor v Rižani pri kopru leta 804 – Die Versammlung in Rižana/Risano beiKoper/Capodistria im Jahre 804 (Koper, 2004); A Padoa Schioppa, ‘Aspetti della giustiziamilanese nell’età carolingia’, Archivio Storico Lombardo 114 (1988), pp. 9–25; A. Petrucci and C.Romeo, ‘Scrivere in iudicio. Modi, soggetti e funzioni di scrittura nei placiti del «RegnumItaliae» (secc. IX–XI)’, Scrittura e civiltà 13 (1989), pp. 5–63; G. Sergi, ‘L’esercizio del poteregiudiziario dei signori territoriali’, in La giustizia nell’alto medioevo (secoli IX–XI), pp. 313–41;C. Wickham, ‘Land Disputes and Their Social Framework in Lombard–Carolingian Italy,700–900’, in W. Davies and P. Fouracre (eds), The Settlement of Disputes in Early MedievalEurope (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 105–24; idem, Legge, pratiche e conflitti: tribunali e risoluzionedelle dispute nella Toscana del 12. Secolo, ed. A. Sennis (Rome, 2000).

12 C. Wickham, Studi sulla società degli Appennini nell’alto medioevo. Contadini, signori e insedia-mento nel territorio di Valva (Sulmona) (Bologna, 1982), in particular pp. 18–28.

13 B. Andreolli, ‘Coloni dipendenti e giustizia signorile. Una verifica in base alla contrattualisticaagraria dell’Emilia altomedievale’, in F. Cazzola (ed.), I contadini emiliani dal medioevo a oggi.Indagini e problemi storiografici (Bologna, 1986), pp. 33–50, also available in idem, Contadini suterre di signori. Studi sulla contrattualistica agraria dell’Italia medievale (Bologna, 1999), pp.129–44; F. Panero, ‘Servi, coltivatori dipendenti e giustizia signorile nell’Italia padana dell’etàcarolingia’, Nuova rivista storica 72 (1988), also available in idem, Schiavi servi e villani nell’Italiamedievale (Turin, 1999), pp. 127–58.

14 R. Balzaretti, ‘The Monastery of Sant’Ambrogio and Dispute Settlement in Early MedievalMilan’, Early Medieval Europe 3 (1994), pp. 1–18.



the dynamics which in Carolingian Italy often then lead on to conflictsand counter-reactions involving freemen of low social standing. Thesestudies demonstrate the real weight of lordly powers, the overlap betweendifferent levels of power, and the still relatively limited presence of lordlyjustice by comparison with the lingering role of the placiti, the latter asboth a ‘bulwark’ of liberty (at least in theory) and as an expression of‘royal justice’. Linking all these elements together is the relationshipbetween power and property ownership, or rather, the conversion of suchownership into power.15 It is this theme that I would like to develop inthis essay, starting with a case study – the placitum of Trento in 845 – andthen comparing the picture from Trento with the evidence which can beextracted from other placiti in Carolingian Italy concerned with the‘defence of free status’.

2. A special case: the 845 placitum in Trento

On 26 February 845, a placitum was convened at Trento to hear the casebrought by Audibert, abbot of the Veronese monastery of Santa Maria inOrgano, against several men who, he alleged, were, on the basis of theirservile status, obliged to perform labour services for the abbey. The mendenied that they were of servile status.16 Unlike other placiti relating tosimilar questions, the Trento placitum concluded with a sort of negotiatedsettlement, for which there was only one precedent in Carolingian Italy:the consensual resolution of a dispute at Piacenza, in 832.17 In that case,the bishop had conceded to the homines under his control that they

15 For a summary of recent Italian research on these issues, see G. Sergi, ‘Storia agraria e storia delleistituzioni’, in A. Cortonesi and M. Montanari (eds), Medievistica italiana e storia agraria(Bologna, 2001), pp. 155–64. For a comparative perspective, see the essays in W. Davies and P.Fouracre (eds), Property and Power in the Early Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1995). On the centralityof property ownership in the organization and use of power in early medieval Europe, see J.L.Nelson, ‘Kingship and Royal Government’, in R. Mc Kitterick (ed.), The New CambridgeMedieval History, vol. II, c. 700–c.900 (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 383–430, in particular pp. 385–98.

16 C. Manaresi, I placiti del ‘Regnum Italiae’, 3 vols (Rome, 1955), I, p. 160, no. 49 (26 February845). The Trento placitum is held by the Archivio di Stato of Verona, Antichi Archivi Veronesi,Archivio di Santa Maria in Organo, App.* n. 11. It has been edited in C. Cipolla, ‘Antichipossessi del monastero veronese di S. Maria in Organo nel Trentino’, in Archivio storicoper Trieste, l’Istria e il Trentino (1882), vol. I, also available in idem, ‘Scritti’, in AltoMedioevo (Verona, 1978), I, pp. 281–305. Recently this placitum has been carefully analysed inA. Castagnetti, ‘Teutisci’ nella ‘Langobardia’ carolingia (Verona, 1995). Moreover, B. Andreollihas paid particular attention to this placitum, most notably in ‘Contratti agrari e gestione dellaproprietà fondiaria nel Trentino dei secoli VIII–XI’, in La Regione Trentino-Alto Adige nelMedioevo (Rovereto, 1986–7), II, pp. 189–205, also available in Contadini su terre da signori, pp.169–84 and idem, ‘Per una campionatura delle rivolte cittadine e rurali nel Trentino medievale’,in Protesta e rivolta contadina, pp. 27–45.

17 R. Volpini, ‘Placiti del «Regnum Italiae» (sec. IX–XI). Primi contributi per un nuovo cen-simento’, in Contributi dell’Istituto di Storia Medioevale (Milano, 1975), pp. 447–51, no. 1 (1October 832). See also the edition reproduced in Le carte private della cattedrale di Piacenza, I(784–848), transcribed by P. Galetti (Parma, 1978), pp. 75–8, no. 27 (1 October 832).



carried out corvée work on the basis of obligations attached to the landwhich had been granted to them before the placitum, and not on a servilebasis.18 However at Trento, by contrast, a similar outcome was onlyreached after a long legal dispute. The Trento placitum was complex,unfolding in two principal phases after a preliminary hearing – indeed,even Abbot Audibert’s initial accusation against the defendants under-went significant revision. To understand what really happened at Trentoit may be useful to examine briefly the phases of the placitum and toconsider more closely its protagonists and its context, beginning with itspolitical and institutional framework.

2.1 The politico-institutional context: the comitatus of Trento

In the notitia iudicati (‘record of judgement’) of the placitum, it was madeclear right from the start that the men against whom the monastery ofSanta Maria in Organo sought judgement lived in the comitatus Tridenti-nus.19 This is one of the very few references to the comitatus ofTrento before1027, when its jurisdiction was conferred on the bishop of Trento byEmperor Conrad II.20 This paucity of references reflects the very smallnumber of surviving written sources for the region before the beginning ofthe twelfth century.21 We only know for certain that the comitatus ofTrentoencompassed an important Lombard duchy, which had long served tocontain Frankish expansion, as well as playing an important role in thefluctuating relationship between the Lombards and the Bavarians.22 Theduchy was centred on the city of Trento, which was established as abishopric as early as the fourth century, initially as part of the ecclesiasticalprovince of Milan, and later as part of the territory of Aquileia.23 Thediocese of Trento, as often happened in such situations, covered the sameterritory as had the Roman municipium of Trento; the later Lombard

18 See Andreolli, Coloni dipendenti, p. 141.19 I Placiti, no. 49: ‘Homines pertinentes suprascripto monastero seo sinodochio sancte

Marie . . . qui commanent in comitatu Tridentino’.20 Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Diplomata regum et imperatorum Germaniae, T. IV, Conradi

II. Diplomata, ed. H. Bresslau (Hannover-Leipzig 1909), no. 101 (1027 V 31), pp. 143–144.21 Although principally focused on a later period, for the comitatus of Trento, see A. Castagnetti, Il

comitato Trentino: la marca e il governo vescovile dai re italici agli imperatori sassoni (Verona, 1998).22 On the Lombard duchy of Trento, see J. Jarnut, ‘Das Herzogtum Trient in langobardischen

Zeit’, in La Regione Trentino-Alto Adige, I, pp. 167–77, and S. Gasparri, Dalla caduta dell’Imperoromano all’età carolingia, in A. Castagnetti and G.M. Varanini (eds), Storia del Trentino, III,L’età medievale, (Bologna, 2000), pp. 30–54.

23 For an initial outline of the development of the bishopric of Trento, see I. Rogger, ‘I principatiecclesiastici di Trento e di Bressanone dalle origini alla secolarizzazione del 1236’, in C.G. Morand H. Schmidinger (eds), I poteri temporali dei vescovi in Italia e Germania nel Medioevo(Bologna, 1979), pp. 177–223; G. Albertoni, ‘Modelli di affermazione vescovile nell’arco alpinoaltomedievale: il caso dei vescovi di Sabiona e Trento’, in Paolo Diacono e il Friuli altomedievale(secc. VI–X) (Spoleto, 2001), pp. 153–77.



duchy also covered roughly the same area. To the south its limits weremarked by the mountain pass which closes the lower Val Lagarina, while tothe north it opened onto the Bolzano plain, a region of unstable frontierswhich oscillated between Bavarian, Frankish and Lombard control. TheCarolingian comitatus quite probably retained these boundaries.

For the whole Carolingian period the near complete lack of sourcesprevents us from stating anything definite about the political and institu-tional organization of the comitatus of Trento and its social dynamics. Bycomparison, the area of the present-day Trentino contrasts with the regionfurther to the north (and especially the Bolzano plain and the Val d’Isarco)for which we have various surviving diplomata and sale-and-purchasecharters, mostly preserved in the libri traditionum of the bishopric ofFreising, which at that time was gradually expanding its landholdings tothe south of the Brenner Pass.24 In the Carolingian period, Bavarian abbeysand bishoprics aimed at expanding their property holdings in the Bolzanoplain, essentially by acquiring vineyards. This targeted expansion byBavarian ecclesiastical institutions was facilitated by the absence of anurban centre and never gave rise to a real regional domination.25 Bavarianchurchmen were driven mainly by economic interests, which cannot belinked to the formation of areas of segneurial control because of theregion’s fragmented landholding pattern.

The situation was rather different for the territories which spread southfrom Trento toward Verona. These flat, marshy lands were crossed by theprincipal lines of communication connecting north-eastern Italy toBavaria – the via Claudia Augusta and the River Adige (which could beused along this stretch for the transport of goods). It was in this area thatthe Veronese abbey of Santa Maria in Organo managed to acquire land atthe beginning of the ninth century.26

The near total lack of sources prevents us from reconstructing acomplete list of the office-holders for the comitatus of Trento. The 845placitum states that at that time it was entrusted to a duke (dux) – a titlewhich, in Carolingian Italy, was held almost exclusively by those who haddirectly assumed the functions of a Lombard duke, especially in frontierregions.27 The duke in 845 was called Liutfrid; thanks to Eduard

24 On the relationship between the bishopric of Freising and the first early medieval writtendocumentation about the area to the south of the Brenner Pass, see G. Albertoni, ‘Historiamrenovare. Schrift und Erinnerung am Beispiel der Traditionen und der frühen Siegelurkundender Bischöfe von Säben-Brixen’, in R. Härtel, G. Hödl, C. Scalon and P. Štih (eds), Schrifkulturzwischen Donau und Adria bis zum 13. Jahrhundert (Klagenfurt, 2008), pp. 527–46.

25 The toponym Bauzanum in the early Middle Ages indicated a sparsely settled area, seeH. Obermair, ‘Chiesa e nascita della città: la parrocchiale di Bolzano dell’alto Medioevo (secc.XI–XIII)’, Studi Trentini di Scienze Storiche 1/2, no. 75 (1996), pp. 143–70, also available in DerSchlern 69 (1995), pp. 449–74.

26 See the next paragraph for a description of how this acquisition occurred.27 See Castagnetti, ‘Teutisci’, p. 38.



Hlawitschka’s extremely valuable prosopographical research, Liutfrid canbe identified as a son of Hugh of Tours, an eminent figure in the Rhinevalley and a member of the powerful Etichonen family.28 Hugh was one ofthe fidelissimi of Emperor Lothar I and, along with other magnates, Hughfollowed Lothar into Italian exile in 834 after the struggle with Louis thePious. The very close ties which bound Hugh to Lothar are also shown bythe fact that Lothar married one of Hugh’s daughters, Irmingard. Themarriage produced the future emperor and ruler of Italy, Louis II.

Liutfrid was thus an uncle of Louis II, and probably also a brother-in-law of Unruoch, one of the sons of Eberhard, the powerful duke ofFriuli.29As was often the case with eminent figures of Carolingian Italy inthe period of Lothar and Louis II, Liutfrid was, therefore, a member of an‘international’ aristocracy which was closely associated with the imperialdynasty, held lands scattered across different locations and, consequently,was often little interested in embedding itself in the regions where itsmembers temporarily held public office. Indeed, in later years Liutfridceased to be referred to as the ‘duke’ of Trento, even in two charters issuedby Louis the German, in 855 and 857, in connection with a disputebetween Anno, bishop of Freising, and Odeschalc, bishop of Trento,about some vineyards near Bolzano.30 This dispute came before the eastFrankish king twice, first at Aiblingen and then in Trento itself, whereLouis the German was flanked by Louis II. Liutfrid does not appear ineither of these cases. In fact, when Odeschalc of Trento appeared atAiblingen, he was joined by Notting and Bernard who were, respectively,the bishop and count of Verona and both missi regis Langobardorum;whereas when he sought to defend his position before the two monarchsin Trento, Odeschalc was not accompanied by any public officials.

We do not know the reasons for Liutfrid’s nomination as duke ofTrento. The explanation probably lies in the reorganization of publicpower in north-east Italy after the return of Lothar I and the men whosupported him in his rebellion against Louis the Pious. This reorganiza-tion affected Verona where, for example, bishop Ratold was replaced bythe very same Notting mentioned above as missus alongside Odeschalc.This was all part of a broader reorganization of the Carolingian kingdomsafter the treaty of Verdun. In any event, as regards the placitum of Trento,we must remember that it was convened at an extremely delicate momentwhen public power needed to demonstrate its presence.

28 E. Hlawitschka, Franken, Alemannen, Bayern und Burgunder in Oberitalien (774–962). ZumVerständnis der fränkischen Königsherrschaft in Italien (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1960), pp. 221–3.

29 Hlawitschka, Franken, p. 223.30 Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Diplomata regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum, T.I,

Ludowici Germanici, Karlomanni, Ludowici iunioris Diplomata, ed. P. Kehr (Berlin 1934), no. 72(855 III 17), pp. 101–102 and no. 85 (857 VII[?]), pp. 122–123.



Similarly we have no exact information about the role played by thebishop of Trento in our period; he does not appear in the 845 placitum.Perhaps this is not surprising: the bishops of Trento have left only scantytraces of their activities in the years preceding this. The only survivinginformation of any significance about them refers to the dispatch of anepiscopal representative to the Synod of Mantua in 827. For the followingperiod we have only the aforementioned royal charters concerningOdeschalc and a doubtful donation charter which probably dates to alater period.31 By contrast Lantfrid, bishop of Sabiona, the diocese whichbordered Trento north of Bolzano, managed to obtain an immunity fromLouis the German for all his bishopric’s properties, including an explicitlimit on interventions by any iudex publicus.32 This concession was prob-ably obtained in 845, the same year as the Trento placitum, or at mostthree years later. Unlike in later periods, therefore, the bishop of Trentoseems to have been politically weak in the mid-ninth century.

2.2 The landholdings of the monastery of Santa Maria in Organo in theVallis Tridentina

We can reconstruct in detail the property holdings of Bavarian ecclesias-tical institutions in the Bolzano area thanks to the records in their libritraditionum; however, for the southern areas of the diocese of Trento, wecan reconstruct only in fragmentary fashion property holdings by northItalian ecclesiastical institutions. This is also true for the abbey of SantaMaria in Organo whose properties in the Val Lagarina (between Trentoand Verona) are documented only in very general terms before 845;thereafter they do not appear again until the eleventh century.33 Theseproperties belonged specifically to the monastery’s xenodochium, which

31 This charter is usually known among historians of the medieval Tyrol as the ‘Vigilius Brief ’. SeeTiroler Urkundenbuch, I section, Die Urkunden zur Geschichte des deutschen Etschlandes und desVintschgaues, ed. F. Huter (Innsbruck, 1937), I, no. 13 (855–864; 1022–1055). For a recentre-examination, see H. Obermair and M. Bitschnau, ‘Die Traditionen des Augustinerchorher-renstiftes St. Michael a. d. Etsch (San Michele all’Adige). Vorarbeiten zum “Tiroler Urkunden-buch” ’, in Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 105 (1997), pp. 3–4,289. For an assessment of the attestations of the bishops of Trento in the Middle Ages, see I.Rogger, ‘Cronotassi dei vescovi di Trento sino al 1336’, in F. Dell’Oro and I. Rogger (eds),Monumenta liturgica ecclesiae Tridentinae saeculo XIII antiquiora (Trento, 1983), pp. 33–99.

32 Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Diplomata regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum, T.I,Ludowici Germanici, Karlomanni, Ludowici iunioris Diplomata, ed. P. Kehr (Berlin 1934), no. 50(848[?] IX 4), pp. 66–67, which reads: ‘et nullus iudex pulicus vel quislibet ex iudiciariapotestate in ecclesias aut loca vel agros seu reliquas possessiones memoratae sedis, quas modernotempus in quibuslibet pagis et territoriis infra ditionem imperii nostri iuste et rationabiliterpossidet vel quae deinceps in ius ipsius ecclesiae voluerit divina pietas augeri, ad causasaudiendas vel freda exigenda aut mansiones vel paratas faciendas aut fideiussores tollendos authomines ipsius ecclesiae iniuste distringendos . . . audeat . . .’

33 For a reconstruction, see Cipolla, Antichi possessi, and Castagnetti, ‘Teutisci’, pp. 20–2. For thefirst outline of the history of the abbey of Santa Maria in Organo see A. Castagnetti and G.M.



had been founded by Lupus, the duke of Spoleto (and perhaps Verona)during the reign of Ratchis, king of the Lombards (743–9).34 According toAndrea Castagnetti, who has studied in detail the 845 placitum, the heartof the abbey’s possessions were some properties near a place called Ala,which had once been a ducal curtis.35

The data at our disposal do not permit us even to speculate about theway in which the abbey’s possessions in Val Lagarina were managed. The845 placitum does, however, enable us to understand how the abbeysought to reinforce its control over the coloni who belonged to it. If weuse the models of lordship (signoria) proposed by Violante, we can saythat the monastery was trying to move from what he called a signoriafondiaria to a signoria fondiaria padronale.36 What does this mean?

For current purposes, it is convenient to refer to those who worked theland as peasants (although they are described by a wide variety of termsin the original documents). The signoria fondiaria for Violante refersessentially to the mere ownership of land. This essentially implies that thelink between the owner and the peasants who work the owner’s land ismerely economic – the peasants are tenants who pay rent but can, intheory, sever the relationship by surrendering the land they have leased.The signoria fondiaria padronale, on the other hand, extends the owner’sdominance to direct control over the peasants on the land (i.e. thehomines). In this model, the relationship between the owner and thepeasants is no longer merely economic, but now extends into the socialsphere. The peasants who work the owner’s land are not just tenants butare bound (to some extent) to obey the owner’s orders, in particular byperforming specific tasks for the owner’s benefit, such as working parts ofthe owner’s land which they have not leased. In other words, under thesignoria fondiaria padronale the peasants were socially subject. Thedegrees of obligation imposed on the peasants varied depending onthe nature of the legal relationship between the owner and the peasantand, importantly, in some cases, on the peasant’s social status. Peasantswho were obliged to perform certain tasks because of their social positioncould never escape these obligations because they were an intrinsic

Varanini (eds), Il Veneto nel medioevo, II: Dalla ‘Venetia’ alla Marca Veronese (Verona, 1989),p. 59.

34 See S. Gasparri, I duchi longobardi (Rome, 1978), pp. 80–1.35 On Lupus, see Castagnetti, ‘Teutisci’, p. 20. On the role played by the publicum in the formation

of landed monastic patrimonies (patrimoni fondiari monastici), see F. Marazzi, ‘San Vincenzo alVolturno tra VIII e IX secolo: il percorso della grande crescita. Una indagine comparativa conle altre grandi fondazioni benedettine italiane’, in F. Marazzi (ed.), San Vincenzo al Volturno.Cultura, istituzioni, economia (Abbey of Montecassino, 1996), pp. 58–60.

36 See C. Violante, ‘La signoria rurale nel secolo X. Proposte tipologiche’, in Il secolo di ferro: mitoe realtà del secolo X (Spoleto, 1999), pp. 329–85.



element of the peasant’s status, which could not be changed. This con-trasts with genuinely free peasants whose labour obligations derived fromtheir lease only. As in the signoria fondiaria, at least in theory suchpeasants could avoid labour obligations by surrendering their lease,although in practice moving to another owner might not much changetheir position. Both of these models are distinct from the signoria terri-toriale where, in addition to economic and social dominance, the owneralso had political dominance.

To better understand the evolution of Santa Maria’s control over itscoloni – the abbey’s attempt to move from a situation of signoria fondiariato one of signoria fondiaria padronale – let us reconstruct in greater detailwhat happened in Trento, in February 845.

2.3 Before the placitum: the abbot petitions the king

Before describing how the legal ‘debate’ proper played out, there was abrief prologue to the notitia iudicati of the Trento placitum. This reportsthat the abbot of Santa Maria in Organo, Audibert, unable to ‘obtainjustice’ in the comitatus of Trento, went personally to Louis II to lamentthe fact that men belonging to the monastery refused to provide ‘labourand other services by consequence of their social status’ (‘hoperas et aliudservitium per conditionem’).37 Hearing this complaint, the king chosefrom among those present a royal judge, the missus Garibald,38 and senthim to Trento ‘to look into the aforementioned complaint and to providejustice to this abbot’ (‘ad ipsam suprascriptam causam inquirendum eteidem abbati iustitiam fatiendum’). At Trento, Garibald teamed up witha certain Paulicius, missus and locopositus of Duke Liutfrid, and convenedthe placitum.39

Abbot Audibert’s request set in motion a procedure that, irrespectiveof whether the verdict was favourable to him or not, would have defini-tively concluded the question. The enquiry (inquisitio) conducted by the

37 I Placiti, no. 49. These are the abbot’s complaints: ‘Homines pertinentes suprascripto mona-sterio seo sinodochio sancte Marie . . . deberent facere hoperas et aliud servitium per condi-tionem a partem suprascripti monasterii; modo se inde suptraunt de ipsas hoperas vel servitium,nescio pro qua rem; unde in ipso comitatu iustitia minime habere potuimus.’

38 This Garibald may be the same Garibald who appeared in another placitum as an advocatus forthe church of San Zeno, in Verona. See Bougard, La justice, p. 376.

39 The locopositus was, in general, a local-level ‘substitute’ or a representative of the comes and hadan important function in the operation of the justice system; see I capitolari italici. Storia ediritto della dominazione carolingia in Italia, ed. C. Azzara and P. Moro (Rome, 1998), no. 5 (9)(c.782), c. 7, which states: ‘De universali quideme populo quis, ubique iustitias quaesierit,suscipiat tam a comitibus suis quam etiam a castaldehis seu ab sculdaissihis vel loci positi . . .’;and no. 10 (98), (801), c. 7, which says that anyone who captures a brigand must bring him intothe presence of the duke, the comes, or the locus servator qui missus comitis est. On the functionsof Paulicius as locopositus and missus, see Castagnetti, ‘Teutisci’, pp. 51–5. On the role of missi inthe administration of justice, see Bougard, La justice, pp. 177–90.



royal missi did not, in fact, anticipate an appeal and essentially was basedon oral evidence reinforced by an oath from the witnesses.40 It involvedan abbreviated procedure which was, in theory, to ‘protect the weak’, butusually concluded in favour of the potentes, who could intimidate oppo-sition witnesses and prevent them giving evidence. But, as we will seeshortly, Audibert had overestimated his position.

The presence of the ducal missus as head of the tribunal is important;it can be interpreted as confirmation that the duke was unable to convenea placitum himself, possibly because he was absent from Trento. Liutfridhad an important role in the kingdom’s military hierarchy and is prob-ably the same Liufridus cited alongside the duke of Friuli, Eberhard,amongst those ‘who hold office and land in Italy’ (‘qui in Italia beneficiahabent’) and who led the first military contingent referred to in thecapitulary issued by Emperor Lothar I, in 846 or 847, for a campaignagainst the Saracens.41

2.4 The first phase of the placitum: the court seized

Once the placitum had been convened, Garibald and Paulicius werejoined by a fairly large tribunal, composed of seven scabini, four sculdahi,two archdeacons and various ‘other vassals of the lord both Teutisci andLombards’ (‘aliis vassi dominicis tam Teutisci quam Langobardi’). (Onthe term Teutisci see below.)

The scabini played a central role in our placitum. In effect they con-ducted the various stages of the legal arguments. According to ourrecords, the two missi never intervened directly.42 There were sevenscabini, as stipulated in an early ninth-century provision of Charle-magne,43 who were local men – even if uncertainty about their exact placeof origin (which was given alongside their name in the placitum) hasgiven rise to some fantastical hypotheses.44 Their presence proves theexistence of local ‘legal experts’ and this in turn also demonstrates a moredeeply rooted state presence in the valleys of the comitatus of Trento than

40 On the inquisitio in placiti directed by missi, see Bougard, La justice, pp. 194–203.41 See I capitolari italici, no. 33 (203), c. 13.42 On the role of the scabini in this placitum, see Castagnetti, ‘Teutisci’, pp. 55–74 and Bougard, La

justice, p. 142, no. 11, who notes that the Trento case is one of the clearest examples of a placitumconducted directly by the scabini.

43 Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Capitularia regum Francorum, T.I, ed. A. Boretius (Hannover1883), no. 40 (803), c. 20, p. 116.

44 For identification of the place of origin of the scabini (Marcha, Clause, Prissianum, Miliano,Feltres, Baovarius, Appiano), see Castagnetti, ‘Teutisci’, pp. 61–70. In the past, there has been muchdiscussion of the origin of Launulfus de Baovarius. Some have wanted to see in him a Bavarianscabinus, but this conflicts with Carolingian provisions about the recruitment of scabini, withBavarian juridical traditions, and with the use of the term Baovarius which never otherwiseappears in the documentation in this form, as has been definitively demonstrated by Castagnetti.



the silence of our sources would otherwise have allowed us to assume. Asimilar argument can be advanced with regard to the sculdahi, althoughonly their names are recorded in the notitia iudicati.45 The presence of arelatively socially coherent group of freemen is also interesting in that itshows the survival in the comitatus of Trento of freemen of middling orhigher status who were obliged to participate in the placitum. Finally, thetwo archdeacons represented the two episcopal sees of Trento and Verona,within whose boundaries lay the properties belonging to Santa Maria inOrgano and indeed the abbey itself.46

In the past there has been much discussion about the presence of ‘vassidominici tam Teutisci quam Langobardi’ and in particular about the termTeutisci, which is otherwise known only from a single private documentfrom Bergamo (dated 816).47 Recently, Castagnetti and Wolfram havereturned to the topic, the former in a broad study of ethnogenesis in theeastern Alps and the Danube area, and the latter in a book entirelydedicated to the Trento placitum.48 Wolfram, whose work in part rests onthat of Brühl, shows how the word Teutisci in Italy gradually assumed ameaning equivalent to Francus. This latter term referred not only toFranks, but to the whole ruling class from north of the Alps who arrivedafter Charlemagne’s conquest: Franks, Bavarians and Alemans. Hence, inthe specific case of the Trento placitum, the Teutisci were ‘transalpine’individuals, probably Bavarians, who had to be distinguished fromLombards because they were governed by a different law code.

Castagnetti maintains that in the placitum of Trento and the documentfrom Bergamo, the term teutiscus refers to ‘transalpine’ individuals whobelonged to the ruling class and came from areas bordering the regnumitaliae, in particular Alemans and Bavarians: ‘the appellation [teutiscus]appears rarely, since it is not used in either public or private documen-tation, [and] does not in itself have a technical or legal meaning, muchless an ethno-political one’.49

The analysis of the term teutiscus in our placitum has often obscuredthe fact that it applies only to the vassi dominici who in this period almostcertainly included men like Hugh of Tours, who had only recently

45 See Castagnetti, ‘Teutisci’, pp. 74–6.46 See Castagnetti, ‘Teutisci’, pp. 77–80, who shows the close ties between Audone and the abbey

of Santa Maria in Organo.47 For a detailed reconstruction of this debate, see Castagnetti, ‘Teutisci’, pp. 97–103 and 127–33;

the document from Bergamo is edited in M. Cortesi, Le pergamene degli archivi di Bergamo (a.740–1000) (Bergamo, 1988), no. 9 (19 July 816). For a recent study of the concept of ‘german’ inthe early Middle Ages, see J. Fried, Der Weg in die Geschichte. Die Ursprünge Deutschlands bis1024 (Berlin, 1998), pp. 11–34 and 75–111.

48 See H. Wolfram, ‘Ethnogenesen im frühmittelalterlichen Donau- und Ostalpenraum (6. bis 10.Jahrhundert)’, in Salzburg Bayern Österreich. Die Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum unddie Quellen ihrer Zeit (Vienna and Munich, 1995), pp. 62–3; Castagnetti, ‘Teutisci’, pp. 164–75.

49 Castagnetti, ‘Teutisci’, p. 175.



immigrated to Italy following Louis the Pious’s purge of those potenteswho were hostile to him.50 The placitum involved men subject to a legaltradition other than the Lombard one and who day-to-day probablyspoke a vernacular language, theutisc, a point that could have beenof distinct importance in a procedure such as the placitum, in whichthe application of different law codes and the use of oral procedureshad particular importance.51 Whether they were Bavarians, Franks orAlemans, it was their collective presence as vassi dominici which wasimportant since it showed the particular character of the placitum as anevent intended to showcase royal justice.

2.5 The first phase of the placitum: protagonists and ‘tactics’

When presenting his complaints to Louis II, Abbot Audibert had levelleda general accusation against unspecified men (homines) belonging to hismonastery. He maintained that these men had refused to perform theirwork as required by their servile status. When he appeared before theducal court, however, accompanied by his advocatus (a scabinus calledAnscausus), Audibert changed tactic. Instead of repeating his chargesagainst a generic group of homines, he accused the men separately and byname, beginning with a certain Lupus, then two brothers called Martinand Gundald, and finally a group of five men – Vitalis of Murrius,Maurontonis de Castellionem, Brunarius, Bonald and Honoratus (two ofwhom were also brothers). The accusation was the same in every case: theunjustified refusal by the men to perform labour service as required bytheir servile status (operae per conditionem), even though their parents andancestors had performed this service and the men themselves had done sofor thirty years, which was the legal point at which someone was deemedto have lost their freedom.52 The men also all adopted the same defence:they admitted that they had had to perform certain tasks, but statedthat they were not required to do this because of their social status

50 In this I follow the ‘narrow’ interpretation proposed by Hlawitschka, Franken, p. 223, whichemphasizes the Frankish origins of Duke Liutfrid, which would thus explain the presence inTrento of vassi dominici teutisci, that is, of Frankish royal vassals. Hlawitschka reminds us thatdocuments issued by Liutfrid’s son, Liutfrid II, were witnessed by vassals ex genere francorum.

51 See the reflections of J.L. Nelson on the relationship between Latin and vernacular languages inCarolingian government in ‘Literacy in Carolingian Government’, in R. McKitterick (ed.), TheUses of Literacy in Early Mediaeval Europe (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 258–96.

52 The following accusations were made against, respectively, Lupus, Martin, Gundoald and theother five men: I Placiti, no. 49: ‘Iste Lupo Suplainpunio nominatus, bisavius et avius et patertuus tempore Langobardorum et Francorum et tu ipse moderno tempore infra tregintam annosfecistis hoperas per conditionem ad partem sancte Marie; nescio pro qua causa, modo tesuptrais, et ipsas hoperas minime facis; interpellavit Anscausus . . . quod ipsi et parentes eorumsimiliter ad partem monasterii sancte Marie hoperas per conditionem facere deberent; Et vossimiliter et parentes vestri operas per conditionem fecistis, facere debetis ad partem sancteMarie; nescio pro qua causa modo facere distullistis.’



(per conditionem) but because they were in a client/patron relationshipwith the monastery, thus showing that they were well aware of their legalstatus.53 Given the perhaps unexpected defence mounted by the men, thescabini presiding at the placitum conceded the wadia54 to them, supportedby oath-helpers (fideiussores), and adjourned the placitum to anothersession. Thus the first phase of the debate did not immediately bringabout a recognition that the accusation was fair, despite the attempt toweaken the defendants by splitting them up into smaller groups and byreferring to the services performed by their ancestors.

2.6 The second phase of the placitum: an unexpected judgement

The second session of the placitum again took place under the ‘presi-dency’ of Garibald and Paulicius, but this time the proceedings weredirected by the scabini who questioned the first defendant, LupusSuplainpunio, asking him if he had been able to find witnesses to supporthis case. Given what we know of other cases of this type, rather surpris-ingly Lupus replied that he had indeed found witnesses. They were threemen who were each immediately and separately questioned by the‘judges’ as required by law ‘carefully and in detail’ (‘minutius atquediligenter’). The first witness, Launulf,55 confirmed that Lupus had per-formed the services in question, but also stated that Lupus and his familyhad not done this per conditionem (because of their social status), butrather ‘de ipsas res ubi residebant’ (‘because of the property where theylived’).56 The other two witnesses, John de Baovarius57 and Gisempert,gave the same evidence.

53 Lupus, the two brothers and the other five men denied the charges with these words: ‘Non estita veritas, quod ego aut parentes mei ad partem sancte Marie hoperas per conditionemfecissemus, nisi quod comendavimus nos Ariperto abbati; Non est ita quod dicitis, quod nos autparentes nostri operas per conditionem, neque per personas, neque per res ad partem sancteMarie operas fecissemus nisi per commendationem per liberos homines; Non est veritas quodnos aut parentes nostri aliquando operas fecissemus neque per conditionem neque per aliaaliqua causa, sed semper nos et parentes nostri in liberam potestatem fuimus et esse debemus.’

54 The wadia in this context is to be understood as a pledge to reappear before the court. SeeCastagnetti, ‘Teutisci’, p. 15; on the stereotypical use of formulae like wadiam dare, ponere, etc.,see Bougard, La justice, p. 135.

55 This is perhaps the same person who, in the first phase of the placitum, is listed amongst thescabini as scabinus Launulfus de Baovarius, and is later described as fideiussor for the group of fivedefendants.

56 I Placiti, no. 49: ‘Scio de ista contentione que abet iste Anscausus advocatus de sinodochiosancte Marie cum isto Lupone Suplainpunio fatientem operas ad partem sancte Marie de ipsasres ubi resedebant per conditionem tam isto Lupone Suplainpunio quam et parentes eius, absitquod de personas suas, nisi de ipsas res ubi resedebant.’

57 This John, like Launulfus de Baovarius, has been identified in the past as a ‘bavarian’, but thishas been disproved by Castagnetti. See Tiroler Urkundenbuch, p. 5; Castagnetti, ‘Teutisci’, pp.65–70.



The witnesses gathered by Lupus dictated a change of tactics by theadvocatus, Anscausus. Realizing that it would probably not be possible toobtain the enslavement (asservimento) of the defendants, he tried insteadto achieve a different objective: the reimposition of the duties formerlyperformed by Lupus. To this end, Anscausus declared that the witnessesLupus had produced were supporting the monastery’s case rather thanthat of the defendant, and hence he himself declined to call witnesses togive evidence for the monastery.58 After obtaining an oath on the Gospelsfrom Lupus and his witnesses, the scabini issued a judgement which atfirst glance seems to be a non sequitur: they limited themselves to affirm-ing that the monastery had good legal possession of its properties in ValLagarina, while making no judgement about the labour services (operae)supposedly in dispute.59

The case against Lupus being thus closed, the advocatus Anscaususnow turned to the other seven defendants, who had to admit that theyhad no witnesses.60 In other circumstances this might have sealed theirfate, but the scabini in this placitum questioned them about the basis onwhich they performed their labour services. Since their answers matchedthe testimony of Lupus’s witnesses, the judges issued the same decision,dealing exclusively with the legitimacy of the abbey’s ownership of itsproperties.61

2.7 A model placitum

The Trento placitum concluded with a ‘mediation’ judgement, whichsimultaneously protected both sides in the dispute and restored the statusante quo disrupted by the ‘rebellion’ of Lupus and the other sevendefendants. Abbot Audibert, who had begun with the aim of reducingthe eight defendants to servile status, had to content himself with a morelimited result – recognition of the abbey’s property – which in this casemeant the restoration of the services which had been suspended; the eightdefendants saw their status as free clients of the monastery recognized,but they also had to accept the burden of the labour services linked to theproperties where they resided. In other words, the court blocked what we

58 I Placiti, no. 49, the words of Ascanus: ‘Sic habemus, tamen non est nobis necessum, quia istitestes magis testificant de ipsas res ad partem monasterii de sinodochio sante Marie quam adpartem istius Luponi Suplainpunio.’

59 I Placiti, no. 49: ‘iudicavimus, ut pars suprascripti monasterii sancte Marie aberet ipsas resqualiter testes eius testimonium dixerunt, ut lex est, et finitum est’.

60 I Placiti, no. 49: ‘Voluimus abere, sed non possumus; Pro ideo non possimus, quia fatiebamusoperas ad radem et portabamus pastas ad Veronam et alias ambassias, quas nobis mandabant,da partem sancte Marie.’

61 I Placiti, no. 49: ‘Nos quidem suprascriptis scavinis vel auditores, dum taliter eos manifestantesaudissemus, sic iudicavimus, ut pars sancte Marie ipsas res aberet.’



might describe as the transition from signoria domestica to signoria fon-diaria, while also protecting low-ranking freemen from being reduced toservile status. This was a decision consistent with the contemporary idealof public power as the protector of the weak and a bulwark against thepretensions of the powerful, a concept strongly supported by Louis II.

2.8 Interpretations

The placitum of Trento has usually been interpreted as one of the mostimportant examples of peasant resistance to the expansion of the greatseigneurial landholdings in Carolingian Italy – an exception to thegeneral rule postulated by Vito Fumagalli that freedoms were being lost.62

This view of the placitum as an exceptional case has been justified aboveall by either reference to the particular

social and economic structure of the Trentino, which seems [to havebeen] more conservative and hence resistant to the introduction of thecurtis system of large landholdings, [which required] reorganizationand dissemination [which] was easier [to achieve] in the open lands inthe plains than in long-settled areas, such as upland valleys, in whichthe social and territorial organization of the vicus put up greaterresistance to the power of great curtis landholdings63

or by reference to the difficulties encountered by seigneurial systems ofproduction in alpine areas which were ‘perceived to be damaging to localautonomies and liberties’.64 From this perspective, our placitum, there-fore, would record an unusual victory (albeit only a partial one) for atypical alpine ‘community’ over a great landholder who did not adapt tothe region’s social structures. It is no coincidence that the Trento placitumcan only be compared to a handful of other cases which also involved‘mountain environments’. This interpretation rests in large part on two‘axioms’ that require verification.

The first ‘axiom’ is rather general and concerns the theory that the ‘lossof freedoms’ characterized the social dynamics of the ninth century. Thisidea has been called into question by comparing the sources used byFumagalli and his students (in particular agrarian contracts and placiti)with other sources to which they gave less consideration, such as

62 See B. Andreolli and M. Montanari, L’azienda curtense in Italia. Proprietà della terra e lavorocontadino nei secoli VIII–XI (Bologna, 1983), pp. 106–13; Andreolli, Contratti agrari, pp. 175–7;idem, Per una campionatura, pp. 32–4.

63 Castagnetti, ‘Teutisci’, p. 29.64 Andreolli, Contratti agrari, p. 177.



polyptychs.65 From this comparison, a picture emerges which, althoughon the one hand it clearly shows a diminution of predominantly eco-nomic freedoms, on the other hand does not allow us to particularly stressor generalize about the ‘decline’ of freemen. This suggests, then, that weshould be somewhat cautious about interpreting the Trento placitum.Although it highlights an attempt to convert dependent coloni into servi,it also shows the extent to which those at risk of losing their freedomappreciated that their position was weak because they lacked a keycharacteristic of freemen: property. It is no accident that in their defencethey immediately played what proved to be a decisive card – that they hada client/patron relationship with the abbey. Only freemen could be insuch a social relationship, albeit a dependent one. In other words, theyrecognized their loss of economic freedom but strenuously defended theirlegal freedom and were only willing to provide labour services insofar astheir obligation to do so derived, not from their alleged servile status, butfrom their dependent but free status. In any event, the type of corvéework demanded from Lupus and the seven other homines was not per seof the type to denote servile status. For example, it included the transportof goods and letters by river, the kind of operae that probably recalledsome type of public service in the remote past. At least as regards thetransport of messages, in the Lombard period such work was typical ofsemi-free aldii, that is, of men whose social status lay between that ofslaves and freemen.66 Although the case of Lupus and his companionsshows an ‘attack’ against freemen, it also shows the importance of thelegal concept of liberty as a safeguard for those in a client/patron rela-tionship in the middle of the ninth century. In other words the deterio-ration of economic and legal liberties in this period were not necessarilylinked.

The second ‘axiom’ we must deal with concerns the idea that thereexisted a particular tradition of peasant freedom and autonomy in moun-tainous areas. This theory has distant roots – and enjoyed great success –in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, thanks above all toGerman scholars inspired by Christian socialism who created the ‘myth’of the free peasant in what was quite clearly an anti-industrial and

65 See G. Pasquali, La condizione degli uomini, in Uomini e campagne nell’Italia medievale (Romeand Bari, 2002), pp. 73–122, in particular pp. 96–7. More generally, on the problem of theintroduction of the curtis organization in Italy and on the implications that this had for thecontrol of homines, see P. Toubert, L’Italia rurale nei secoli VIII–IX. Saggio di tipologia deldominio; idem, ‘Il sistema curtense: la produzione e lo scambio interno in Italia nei secoli VIII,IX e X’, in idem, Dalla terra ai castelli. Paesaggio, agricoltura e poteri nell’Italia medievale (Turin,1995), pp. 156–82 and 183–250.

66 Pasquali, La condizione, p. 106. On the operae required of the homines in the Val Lagarina, seen. 60 above.



anti-liberal polemic.67 The anti-modern aspects of this theory fostered itsacceptance by historians from other cultural backgrounds, findingperhaps its most prominent home in one of the masterpieces oftwentieth-century historiography, Braudel’s Mediteranée, which dedi-cated a chapter to ‘mountain liberty’.68 However, the picture painted bythe sources is often quite different. For example, if we analyse the Bavar-ian libri traditiones from the Carolingian period – such as those redactedfor the bishopric of Freising by the monk Cozroh – the political andsocial environment which emerges shows widespread slavery.69 Whatdistinguishes the early medieval Alps therefore is not the freedom of thepeasantry, but rather a different pattern of landholding: the classic curtiswas uncommon, while large property holdings, instead of being largecontinuous blocks of property, were made up of many widely scatteredparcels of land whose exploitation could be entrusted to free coloniflanked and assisted by slaves (if not indeed, just to the slaves themselves).These widely distributed parcels of land which together formed largelandholdings were scattered amongst the properties of many small allodholders, who often themselves exploited servile labour.

This fragmentation of landholding in the Trentino-Adige region isevidenced in the 825 donation by a free property-owner named Quartinusand his mother Clauza, to the abbey of Innichen in the Val Pusteria.70

Whilst retaining the right of usufruct, they gave scattered parcels of land,from the highlands of the Val d’Isarco to the plains of Bolzano. Otherdocuments in Cozroh’s liber traditionum attest the presence of servi in thewhole region between the Adige River and Bavaria; this state of affairs isconfirmed for the following century by the libri traditionum of thebishopric of Sabiona-Bressanone, which extended from the Val d’Isarcoto the Inn valley, but which also included extensive landholdings in theneighbouring diocese of Trento.71

Is it possible that around Trento and along the Val Lagarina, whereLupus and the other unfortunates involved in our placitum worked, there

67 For orientation on these issues, see Rösener, Agrarwirtschaft, pp. 68–72; Albertoni, Le terre delvescovo. Potere e società nel Tirolo medievale (secoli IX–XI) (Turin, 1996), pp. 37–40.

68 See F. Braudel, Civiltà e imperi del Mediterraneo nell’Età di Filippo II (Turin, 1982), I, pp. 22–5.69 See Die Traditionen des Hochstifts Freising, ed. T. Bitterauf, 2 vols (Munich, 1905–9). On rural

Bavaria the principal reference work remains P. Dollinger, L’évolution des classes rurales enBavière depuis la fin de l’époque carolingienne jusa’au milieu du XIIIe siècle (Paris, 1949). Thougha work of great importance, it only briefly treats the Carolingian period, while for the followingperiod it argues that the condition of serfs and low-status freemen was often similar, so theyformed a single social group. About justice in early medieval Bavaria see W. Brown, UnjustSeizure. Conflict, Interest and Authority in an Early Medieval Society (Ithaca and London, 2001).

70 Die Traditionen des Hochstifts Freising, pp. 471–4, no. 550. On these aspects, see Albertoni, Leterre del vescovo, pp. 105–8.

71 See Die Traditionsbücher des Hochstifts Brixen vom 10. Bis in das 14. Jahrhundert, ed. O. Redlich(Innsbruck, 1886); for the picture which can be reconstructed from this source, see Albertoni,Le terre del vescovo.



existed a tradition of autonomy and freedom entirely absent a few kilo-metres further north? I am inclined to exclude this possibility. Instead,rather than consider the 845 placitum as evidence of a rural communityjealously guarding its autonomy (which is to project into the Carolingianperiod a situation documented only from the late Middle Ages), I aminclined to see the placitum actually documenting a sudden halt to theexpansion of seigneurial powers, partly as a result of a momentarystrengthening of public authority, and partly because of the weakness ofthe Veronese abbey within the comitatus of Trento, where its properties,although substantial, were nevertheless those of an ‘outsider’.

If we accept that we must treat with caution notions about the ‘loss ofliberties’ and of ‘free and autonomous mountain peasants’, and we canreinforce the view with which we began, that although the Trento placi-tum does represent a dramatic episode in the expansion of seigneurialpower, it also shows that this expansion could suffer sudden and unex-pected reverses when the interests of ‘lords’ and public power diverged. Itdemonstrates the awareness which freemen had that their legal freedomwas a safeguard for their social status, yet it is also a ‘model’ placitum inthat it shows royal protection of low status freemen, which was madepossible by the relative weakness, in comparison with the state, of theseigneurial and property-holding position of the monastery of SantaMaria in Organo in the comitatus of Trento.72 This ‘weakness’ is furthershown by the fact that in later centuries the abbey never managed toconsolidate its position in the Val Lagarina.

Although interpreting the Trento placitum exclusively as a battlebetween a ‘rural community’ and seigneurial power is to over simplify thereality of the situation, it is not to deny the drama of the defence of freedstatus mounted by Lupus and his seven co-defendants. Indeed, it is onlyfair to note that the Trento placitum allows us to understand one of thekey moments in the strengthening of seigneurial landholding (signoriafondiaria). This strengthening could take a short cut by declaring that thefreemen were servi, which tended to break their link to the state. Thisprocess was facilitated by the fact that the establishment of client/patronrelations caused the coloni to lose direct ownership of land, and suchownership was a fundamental characteristic of free status. The onlyobstacle to this process was the resistance mounted by freemen who,when thus threatened, might compel their lord to resort to a placitum,which, as at Trento, could split the tacit alliance between potentes if theinterests of the state and ‘lords’ diverged. In addition to the attack by

72 On low-status freemen’s knowledge of the justice system, see the case of the homines of Limontadocumented in Balzaretti, ‘The Monastery of Sant’Ambrogio’; J.-C. Maire Vigueur, ‘Per unaperiodizzazione delle lotte contadine nell’Italia medievale’, in Protesta e rivolta contadina, pp.261–8, esp. p. 265.



lords against freemen of lower social status, the placitum also revealstherefore a conflict between public power, which was seeking to affirmthe role of royal power in maintaining the bonds between justice andfreedom, and an ‘ecclesiastical lord’ – the abbot of Santa Maria in Organo– who was struggling to convert private property into power.

3. Justice and peasants: a comparison with other cases

There are several examples of peasant disputes which are, to an extent,comparable to the case in Trento and which are recorded in three placiticoncerning the Val Trita, in the modern region of Abruzzo. These placitiare transmitted in the Chronicon Vulturnense, have been edited by CesareManaresi and well studied by Chris Wickham.73 These episodes provideevidence about three different points in San Vincenzo al Volturno’sassertion of power in a territory in which it possessed a unified landhold-ing. But let us proceed in order.

The first placitum documents the difficulty the monastery encounteredin trying to control some of its ‘men’ and their performance of labourduties. It dates from 779, a few years after the Frankish conquest of theregnum Langobardorum. It took place, therefore, in a transitional periodwhen power was fluid, especially in an area like the Val Trita, which layat the edge of the Lombard kingdom and had only recently becomeassociated with the duchy of Spoleto. At this time the duchy was gov-erned by Hildeprand, who, during the early years of Carolingian domi-nation adopted a self-interested policy, initially lining up with the rebelsled by Duke Rotgaud of Friuli who longed for a ‘Lombard restoration’,and then gradually moving closer to Charlemagne.74 In fact, in the springof 779, almost simultaneously with the placitum that we are examining,according to the Annales regni Francorum Hildeprand went to Verzenay,near Reims, where he symbolically submitted to Charlemagne.75 This wasthe background when he sent the notary, Dagari, who was one of hisfaithful men,76 to ‘investigate and judge’ (‘ad inquirendum et iudicium

73 In particular, see the placiti edited in I Placiti, no. 4 (March 779); no. 58 (February 854) and no.72 (January 872); for an analysis of the context of the Chronicon Vulturnense, which wascomposed at the beginning of the twelfth century, see Wickham, Studi Appennini, pp. 18–28.On the problems connected with the use of a source like the Chronicon Vulturnense, see theobservations in Marazzi, ‘San Vincenzo al Volturno’, p. 42. More generally, for Abruzzo in theMiddle Ages, see L. Feller, Les Abruzzes médiévales. Territoire, économie et société en Italie centraledu IXe au XIIe siècle (Rome, 1998).

74 See P. Cammarosano, Nobili e re. L’Italia politica dell’alto medioevo (Rome, 1998), pp. 102–3.75 Annales regni Francorum inde ab a. 741. usque ad a. 829 qui dicuntur Annales Laurissenses maiores

et Einhardi, ed. G.H. Pertz (Hanover, 1895), p. 52.76 Dagari was a notary and gastald of the duke of Spoleto who appears in various placiti and ducal

charters. See Bougard, La justice, p. 122, no. 19.



ponendi’) in the territory of Val Trita, which was one of the lynchpins ofSan Vincenzo al Volturno’s property holdings in the Abruzzo. There themen of Carapelle were involved in various acts of insubordination.77

Some of these men, whose names are not recorded, had broken into aplot of public land now ultimately owned by the abbey (the waldo quidicitur Robore78) and into a castellum belonging to the church of SanPietro di Trita, which in its turn was owned by the monastery of SanVincenzo al Volturno. Other men, whose names by contrast are recorded,had taken possession of some revenues (acquaricum, terraticum79) and hadencroached on a wood. Still others, described as magistri, hoc est villani,had refused to perform labour duties (which they usually did ‘with theiraxes’, so presumably this means cutting or clearing timber) in the curtis ofTrita (magisterium), and further individuals had not paid the terraticumand a fee (pensio) for a mill.80 The refusal of some of the homines ofCarapelle to provide labour or pay certain dues permits us to examine, onthe one hand, a well-organized demesne and, on the other, a conflict overthe use of ‘public land’, whether forested or cultivated.

The situation which Dagari faced was, from the point of view of thebreaches involved, rather more complex than that in the Trento placitum.He resolved it by conducting an inquisitio with the help of BishopSinuald and Anscausus, a gastald. The evidence of three waldatores proveddecisive. They confirmed that the properties which had been encroachedupon had always belonged to the waldo, that is, these properties hadalways been part of public land which now belonged to the monastery ofSan Vincenzo al Volturno. The homines of Carapelle were unable toprovide any evidence to counter these statements. Consequently thisevidence, reinforced by the witnesses’ oaths, closed the case and obligedthe defendants to undertake to the praepositus Gaidoald (who was themonastery’s legal representative) to restore the properties and to resumeperformance of the labour services and payment of the dues which hadbeen interrupted.81

77 On the ‘lordship’ (signoria) of San Vincenzo al Volturno in the Valle Trita, in addition to thework by Wickham, see also Marazzi, ‘San Vincenzo al Volturno’, pp. 42–6, 60–1, and A. Sennis,‘I caratteri della signoria vulturnense: una discussione da (ri)aprire’, in Marazzi (ed.), SanVincenzo al Volturno, pp. 93–102.

78 On the significance in this context of waldo as ‘public land’ and not necessarily a forest, see C.Wickham, Studi Appennini, p. 21. The principal work for the terms gualdo and silva remainsG. Tabacco, ‘ “Gualdus exercitalis” e “silva arimannorum” ’, in idem, I liberi del re, pp. 113–38.

79 On these dues, see C. Wickham, Studi Appennini, pp. 20–1, which defines terraticum as a ‘taxon the ground’ while not assigning a specific meaning to the term acquaricum.

80 This deals with a census surprising for the period, and which could indicate interpolation after779.

81 I Placiti, no. 4: ‘Et nos qui supra iudices hec omnia veritatem agnoscentes iudicavimus, utqualem ab antiquo tempore terraticum vel pensionem atque magisterium in ipsa curte Tritana



The dispute between the men of Carapelle and the praepositusGaidoald was entirely ‘within’ the signoria fondiaria (lordship of thedemesne) of Trita and was conducted via a procedure that provided littleor no protection to the defendants. In this respect, the position of thehomines of Carapelle was quite different from that not only of Lupus andof the other ‘freemen’ tried at Trento, but also from that of two other setsof homines of San Vincenzo al Volturno, involved in placiti in 854 and872.

Between 779 and 854 many things, in fact, changed. In 787, the abbeyof San Vincenzo al Volturno had obtained a grant of judicial immunityfrom Charlemagne.82 This concession, however, did not signify an abdi-cation of public power to the advantage of lords and therefore a weak-ening of public justice in the area of the immunity and a gain to lordlyjustice (the iustitia domnica).83 In fact, the grant created an ambiguity, forthe iustitia domnica, the coercive force of the abbey, was restricted essen-tially to people of servile status, which could be dangerous for freemen oflow social standing. As we saw in Trento, the quickest way to reinforceseigneurial power was to attempt to declare that freemen who did notown land were of servile status, causing them to lose their protectionunder Carolingian law as liberi homines. In pursuing this approach, incomparison with the abbey of Santa Maria in Organo, San Vincenzo alVolturno had two advantages: the powers it enjoyed under its immunityand its continuing presence as a large-scale property owner in Val Trita.This is demonstrated by the placitum of 854 mentioned above and which,from a formal point of view, has many points in common with the Trentoplacitum.84

According to the notitia iudicati, the placitum was convened in thecurtis of Trita on the orders of Louis II and Guy, duke of Spoleto, and wasconducted by the gastald Framsid, who was joined by Arnulf, bishop ofValva, some scabini, sculdasci, clerics, and other freemen. The first personto appear before this court was the praepositus of San Vincenzo al Vol-turno, Gunipert, who immediately attacked the defendants, in this casea small group of homines de villa Ofene, by using the standard accusationin placiti concerned with the question of free status (and which had alsobeen made initially in Trento by Abbot Audibert). This was to declare atthe outset that he did not know why the defendants (whom he

fecerunt, facerent et in antea, absque aliqua superimposita, et ex ea pensione vel terratica eidemGaidualdo preposito vuadia dare fecimus suprascriptis hominibus ei dandi.’

82 Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Diplomata Karolinorum, T.I, Pippini, Carlomanni, KaroliMagni Diplomata, ed. E. Mühlbacher (Hannover 1906), no. 157 (787 III 24), pp. 212–213.

83 Sennis, ‘I caratteri’, pp. 96–7.84 I Placiti, no. 58.



immediately labelled as servi) refused to do their labour services (operae).85

The defence also resembled that mounted by Lupus and the otherhomines of the Val Lagarina: at Val Trita too, the defendants declared thatthey were freemen who had had to enter into a client/patron relationshippro defensionis causa.86 Above all, and by contrast with events in Trento,the plaintiff, the praepositus Gunipert, was easily able to exploit theabbey’s strong position, derived from its large landholding (and seigneu-rial presence) in Val Trita. Indeed, Gunipert had a good hand to play, forhe was able to refer to a grant issued by Emperor Louis the Pious, whichhad later been confirmed by Louis II. In light of this, Gunipert asked forthe inquisitio procedure to be applied, getting the ‘judges’ to assembleand examine some bonos et veraces homines all of whom were resident inthe territory of Trita and Carapelle.87 These boni homines, after swearingan oath on the Gospels, declared separately but in the same terms that thedefendants were all servi, to the extent that in the past the praepositi hadbeen able to ‘distrain them and bind them in chains’ (‘distringere emettere in vinculis’).88 On the basis of this and other evidence, Framsidand the judges, after consulting Duke Guy, closed the placitum iuxtainquisitionem and declared that the homines de villa Ofene were indeedservi.89

This second Volturno placitum reveals a situation rather different fromthat of 779. It is characterized instead by an affirmation of seigneurialpower that took for granted the application of iustitia domnica on theunfree and which assumed that anyone treated in this way must be aservus. This enables us to understand how powerful landowners could usethe royal justice system (and in particular the inquisitio) to their ownadvantage.

The situation evidenced by the third Volturno placitum is differentagain. It was held in the Val Trita at the initiative of Abbot Maio of San

85 I Placiti, no. 58: ‘Homines fuerunt semper servi sancti Vincentii de cella Trite, pro quia omneseorum parentes sic fuerunt servi sancti Vincentii; nunc autem se subtraunt de ipso servitio, proqua causa nescimus.’

86 I Placiti, no. 58: ‘Non est veritas quod nos aut parentes nostri semper liberi fuimus, nam nos prodefensionis causa fuimus pro liberi homines commendati in ipso monasterio, non pro servi.’

87 Where Gunipert says to the judges: I Placiti, no. 58: ‘Propterea, si vobis placet, inquisicionemexinde faciatis, sicut dominus imperator precepit et auctoritatem tribuit, si isti homines liberifuerunt in ipso monasterio, an pro servitio.’

88 I Placiti, no. 58: ‘Scimus nos a tempore quo memorare possumus, quomodo iste Ursepertus inprimis fuit scario pro servo super alios servos sancti Vincentii de Ofene, simul et omnes parentessuos in ipsa angaria minabant pro servos, et illos prepositos, qui in ipsa cella fuerunt, semper eospro servos vidimus distringere usque nunc, et si aliquam culpam committebant ipsi suprascriptivel parentes eorum, in vinculis eos mittebant et distringebant pro servos, et de illorum libertatenulla vidimus usque modo.’

89 I Placiti, no. 58: ‘causam ipsam finirem inter ipsos monachos et ipsos homines de villa Ofene,et recolligerent ipsi monachi ipsos homines superius nominatos et parentes eorum in suoservitio pro servos’.



Vincenzo al Volturno, in January 872, again on the occasion of a visit byEmperor Louis II.90 The era of Abbot Maio (872–901) was particularlydramatic because of Saracen attacks and the internecine struggles engulf-ing southern Italy.91 The abbey was destroyed during one of these attacksand the community temporarily transferred to Capua. The 872 placitumprovides evidence of this unstable context in which the monastery nowoperated. Just as in Trento in 845, here again the notitia iudicati openedby recalling a request for help which Abbot Maio had presented to LouisII against some ‘wicked and unjust men’ (‘pravos et iniquos homines’)who by trickery and cunning had cheated the abbey of some of its serviand servae.92 This first part of the placitum shows, therefore, the difficultywhich the abbey had at this time in controlling its own men, who wereperhaps attracted by better living and working conditions offered by laylords.93 Having secured the hearing of the placitum at Trita, the abbotexpected, cotidie reclamante, that he would obtain justice, but Adrald, theofficial sent by the emperor, was unable to compel the servi in question toappear ‘either by force or by request’ (‘nec per districtum, nec per deman-datum’).94 Not knowing what else to do, he returned to the emperor, whoordered Adrald and a gastald, Samson, to ensure the return to the abbotand his monks of everything that they had lost to this trickery. These twoofficials were also authorized to use force to compel the servi to attend thenext sitting of the placitum, which took place in villa Cerquetu, wherefifty-eight men did indeed appear. The notitita iudicati specified the nameof each man’s father, which was extremely important in a case about freeor servile status. Indeed, they were accused by Abbot Maio of being servijust like their relatives and of having escaped from their servile obligations(servitium) for reasons unknown.95 Naturally, the defendants deniedthese claims, while the alleged subterfuge of the ‘wicked men’ (‘pravi

90 I Placiti, no. 72.91 Marazzi, ‘San Vincenzo al Volturno’, pp. 74–6.92 I Placiti, no. 72: ‘Dum in Christi omnipotentis nomine venisset domnus Hludovicus serenis-

simus augustus in castaldatum Balvensem, loco qui vocatur valle Tritana . . . tunc veniens Maio,venerabilis abbas eiusdem monasterii, eius misericordiam reclamans, quod de ipsa cella Trita velde aliis locis, per pravos et iniquos homines, subdole et ingeniose servos et ancillas, vel obligatos,vel alias res subractas esse de ipso monasterio, et minime exinde iustitiam usque actenus invenirepotuisset . . .’ In my interpretation of this passage, I follow Bougard, La justice, p. 149 ratherthan Wickham, who in Studi Appennini, p. 23, attributes the reference to pravos et iniquoshomines to mean the freemen who had escaped servile obligations.

93 See Bougard, La justice, 149 and no. 26.94 I Placiti, no. 72: ‘dum nos Adraldus ipsos servos, nec per districtum, nec per demandatum, ad

nostrum plaitum habere potuissemus, sic perreximus a domnum imperatorem et renuntiavimusei omnia hec superscripta’.

95 I Placiti, no. 72: ‘Isti omnes prenominati, qui hic presentes stare videntur, patres eorum etmatres eorum, servi et ancille fuerunt de predicto monasterio de eius cella Trite, modo sesubtraxerunt de ipso servitio, pro qua causa nescimus.’



hominess’) was not mentioned again.96 Moreover, the fifty-eight defen-dants stated they could produce witnesses to support their claim and,consequently, they obtained the wadia. When they reappeared before thecourt, however, they had to admit that they did not have any witnessesand they declared that they were indeed servi.97

The three placiti in Val Trita show us how the defence of the free statusof homines of San Vincenzo al Volturno followed a tortuous, non-linearpath, just as, in that same valley, did the monastery’s assertion of seigneu-rial power.98 In all these episodes, obtaining control over men (the centralpoint of the transformation of property ownership into power) remainedone of the key aims of the abbey. This objective, however, was neverentirely achieved, and, it is no coincidence, was resumed only when themonks returned to the original site of San Vincenzo al Volturno after its‘Capuan exile’.99 To this must be added the fact that, as revealed byBougard, the placiti of 854 and of 872 should not be seen as proof of anunexpected explosion of social tensions, but rather probably arose as aresult of the presence in the Val Trita of Louis II which caused endemicconflict to emerge.100

The effort to reinforce seigneurial powers through enslavement of lowstatus freemen and the guarantee offered, at least in theory, by publicplaciti to freemen thus threatened and forced to defend their freedom areevidenced in other placiti. Two examples involve the abbey of Novalesa’sdispute with men who lived in the area of Oulx, in Val di Susa, in theAlps. These two placiti were held, firstly, in May 827 (this first placitumhad two hearings, one in Turin and one in an unidentified place called‘Contenasco’); and, secondly, in November 880 in the presence ofEmperor Charles the Fat, at Pavia.101 Both placiti refer to prior judicialsessions, which shows the persistence of a ‘system of guarantees’ thatmight have enabled freemen to determine their own fate. But this was asystem which could only with difficulty be maintained against lordly‘extra-judicial’ intimidation, particularly given the difficulties for homines

96 I Placiti, no. 72: ‘Nec faciat Deus, nec est veritas quod patres nostri et matres nostre servi velancille fuissent de predicto monasterio. Tantum iudicate quod lex est.’

97 I Placiti, no. 72: ‘Vere de nostra libertate minime probare possumus, quia patres nostri et matresnostre servi et ancille fuerunt de predicto monasterio de cella eius Trite, et nos cum lege serviesse debemus ipso monasterio.’

98 See Sennis, ‘I caratteri’.99 See Sennis, ‘I caratteri’, p. 98, who shows that the concession made in 962 by Otto I to the abbot

of San Vincenzo al Volturno of the right to judge the homines of the monastery, merelyrecognized a fait accompli and is supported by a clause in a lease contract (livellus) from 950.

100 Bougard, La justice, pp. 147–8.101 I Placiti, no. 37 (May 827) and no. 89 (November 880). For the abbey of Novalesa’s politico-

institutional context in the Valle di Susa, see G. Sergi, ‘Nelle Alpi e fra due regni. Novalesa,monastero di confine’, in idem, L’aristocrazia della preghiera. Politica e scelte religiose nel medioevoitaliano (Rome, 1994), pp. 55–72. Still important are the reflections on the homines of Oulx inLuzzatto, Dai servi della gleba, pp. 116–17.



in finding witnesses or producing written proof of their status. In the firstplacitum, a group of previously emancipated men had to admit that theyhad not given effect to their cartola libertatis for more than thirty years (soits effect had now lapsed).102 In the second court case, a man and his son,accused of being servi, had no defence to the claim save to obsessivelyrepeat that they had been declared servi in the past ‘by force’ (‘per forcia’)and ‘not by judgement’ (‘non per iuditium’).103

Three brothers (Rotprandulus, Anspertulus and Perticausulus) dem-onstrated a similar inability to prove their free status before a tribunal ina Pisan placitum of 796. They were accused of having escaped fromservitium in the bishop’s household, and were unable to prove their freestatus by either producing documents or witnesses (per cartulam or pertestimonia).104 Something similar is true for the only woman who soughtto defend her free status in our documentation, Luba, in a Milaneseplacitum on 20 May 822.105 She – or rather, her husband who representedher at the placitum – was unable to demonstrate in any way her free statusagainst the claims of the Milanese monastery of Sant’Ambrogio, whetherby producing witnesses or documents. But sometimes even the presen-tation of a document was insufficient. This is the case for a Luccheseplacitum from 18 December 871 in which an infantulus called Conrad wasinitially accused of having broken into a curtis belonging to the bishopand of having taken some of the goods belonging to it.106 This accusation,as in other similar cases, masked a bigger problem: the bishop’s real aimwas to deprive the youngster of properties which had been assigned to hisfather in a lease, which he had now inherited.107 In other words, the heartof the question was the fact that the young man was not able to ensure an

102 I Placiti, no. 37, where reference is made to a previous placitum in which a group of fourteenhomines presented a cartola libertatis, but the plaintiffs, three monks of Novalesa, succeeded indemonstrating that this cartola had not been enforced for more than thirty years and was nowtherefore invalid: ‘et ibidem ostenderunt ipsis pernominatis homines cartola libertatis, quamdominus eorum Dionisius, qui fuit genitor Unnoni, in eos emisiset, et ipso Hunno cum ipsosmonachos ipsa cartola per testimonia de triginta annorum tacita fecisset’.

103 I Placiti, no. 89: ‘Histi Maurinus et Ansepertus filio suo dederunt nobis responsum, notitiamipsam nichil eorum impediret, eo quod omnia quicquid inde factum esset, per forcia factumfuisset, iam non per iuditium . . . Notitia ipsa ab ordine relecta interrogati sunt ipsi Maurinuset Ansepertus filio suo, quid adversus notitiam ipsam dicere volerent. Qui dixerunt et professisunt, quod sicut primitus dixerant, ita et nunc dicebant quia: “Omnia per forcia nobis factumfuit . . . Qui dixerunt et professi sunt, quod iudices nec notitiam exinde non haberent necinvenire poterent, qualiter clarescere poteret, quod ei forcia facta fuisset.” ’

104 I Placiti, no. 9 (June 796).105 I Placiti, no. 34 (20 May 822).106 I Placiti, no. 71 (18 December 871). The bishop of Lucca’s advocatus stated: ‘ “Volo iustitiam

accipere ab isto Chunerado infantulo . . . qui hic ante vos presens stans, et ab isto Fraipertoprochuratore eius, qui causam eius peragere videtur, eo quot iam ante presentia Ioanni gastaldioet schabino istius civitatis mallavit isto infantulo quot intrisset in corte et res illa in loco Vaccule,ubi dicitur ad Colle, pertinens ipsius Ecclesie sancte Martini et tulisset exinde fruge.” ’

107 On livelli (lease contracts) and their role in ‘downgrading’ freemen, see Andreolli and Mon-tanari, L’azienda curtense, pp. 85–98 and Andreolli, Contadini su terre di signori.



adequate income to the bishop from the properties in question, andindeed the parties argued about this very issue in the first part of thehearing. Through his advocatus, Conrad presented his libellum in whichthe properties in question had been granted to his father, Cunimond, ascabinus and the son of a scabinus. As in every livellus (lease contract), thelease with Cunimund provided that the properties assigned to himshould be improved (ita ut melioretur et non pegioretur). This clausebecame the principal issue for the episcopal advocatus, who abandonedthe initial accusation and relied entirely on an argument based on thedeterioration of the properties.108 After further clashes, he changed histactics in order to achieve his objective. The defendant, who had reliedupon the document that supported his position, was caught unawares.The episcopal advocatus asked the bishop of Pistoia, Hoschisus, who waspresiding over the court, to apply the procedure of inquisitio in hiscapacity as imperial missus.109 The prochurator, who acted in the case onbehalf of young Conrad, vigorously fought this proposal and in protestwalked out of the placitum, probably aware that inquisitio would void allprevious documents, including the lease.110 And, in fact, this happened.Six ‘suitable and reliable men’ (‘credentes et idoneos homines’), afterhaving sworn an oath on the Gospels to tell the truth, declared in unisonthat the properties in question had deteriorated. As a result, the proper-ties were stripped from Conrad.

Conclusion

I hope that this brief treatment of some placiti from the Carolingianperiod about the defence of free status or, in the Lucchese case, of the‘rights’ of freemen of low social status, has set out sufficiently clearly thevariety of situations that these represent, which cannot just be interpretedas examples of a single movement towards the enslavement or enserfmentof freemen of low social status. The situation described in the placiti isboth complex and contradictory. They show us the approach adopted bysome of the great monasteries in their attempt to transform their

108 I Placiti, no. 71. The bishop’s advocatus addressed Conrad: ‘Per libellum isto quas hic in iudicioostendis, casa et res ipsa abere non debis, pro eo quot iusta ipsum libellum non adimpletumabetis ad pars ipsius Ecclesie sancti Martini et res ipsas pegiorate sunt.’

109 I Placiti, no. 71: ‘Volo ut istus Hoschisus episcopus, qui est missus, de causa istius episcupatuiiuxta easdem iusso domni imperatoris facias exinde inquisitionem.’

110 I Placiti, no. 71. The prochurator used these words: ‘Non volo ut de hac causa super istuminfantulum nulla inquisitione facta sit, nisi si per testes adprobatio ipsa facere potetis, itafaciatis. Sin autem non per inquisitionem nullam exinde precipere volo, nec stare nolo, nec isteinfantulo hic non stat’. Et tunc ipso infantulo de ipso iudicio ante non ambulare fecit, et iterumse exinde de ipso iudicio foris abiit.’ On this ‘abusive’ use of the inquisitio, see Bougard, Lajustice, pp. 202–3.



landholdings into coercive power over men. This often involved theconversion into servi of freemen in a client/patron relationship. But theseepisodes also attest the strenuous defence mounted by such threatenedfreemen, who were fully aware of how a legal ‘downgrading’ could havemore serious implications for them than an equivalent economic ‘down-grading’. They also show the function of placiti as places for the ‘repre-sentation’ of public power – this was an ‘ideological’ function that,nevertheless, often ran aground when confronted by the reality andability of many potentes to use to their advantage procedures (such as theinquisitio on oath) which should have guaranteed the protection of thepauperes.

Resort to the inquisitio itself (which was guaranteed by the operationof royal missi) shows that questions of free status discussed in placitipresided over by royal representatives cannot be explained solely by theking’s desire to emphasize his role as defender of the weak. On thecontrary, resort to the inquisitio often acted as a guarantee for ‘ecclesias-tical lords’ who requested the intervention of royal missi and use of theinquisitio in order to obtain witness statements that the defendant couldnot challenge. Our placiti, therefore, are nearly always resolved by theevidence of witnesses reinforced by oaths; they had the ‘last word’, afterwhich there was no possibility of any further appeal.

Rightly, in recent years, the role of the written word in Carolingiangovernment has been emphasized, along too with the understanding ofits importance by the illiterate.111 The carta was often perceived as aninstrument of guarantee, like a certificate of rights, whether by thepowerful or by people of low social status. The lack of written documents,of instrumenta and cartae, opened an area of ambiguity which favouredarbitration. Perhaps it is not coincidence that the placiti concerned withthe ‘defence’ of free status are characterized by an emphasis on ‘oralproofs’ that were ‘true’ in as much as they were supported by an oath. Butthis ‘true voice’ could only be produced with difficulty by those whofound themselves in conditions of subalternity.

Università degli Studi di Trento

111 Among the many studies of this topic, see as examples two titles cited above: Nelson, ‘Literacy’and Balzaretti, ‘Monastery of Sant’Ambrogio’.



Documents

Law and the peasant: rural society and justice in Carolingian Italy, in \"Early Medieval Europe\", 2010, 18 (4), pp. 417-445