'Testament' of Leodebodus, abbot of the monastery of St Anianus at Orléans (north-west Gaul), granting property to the church of *Anianus (bishop of Orléans, S01206) at Orléans, the church of *Mary (mother of Christ, S00033) at Fleury (near Orléans), and establishing a monastery at Fleury dedicated to *Peter (the Apostle, S00036). Written in Latin at Orléans, 640/650.
E07795
Documentary texts - Donation document
Testament of Leodebodus
The so-called 'testament' of Leodebodus (actually a donation document rather than a will) is dated the 5th day before the Kalends of July in the second year of the reign of King Clovis [II], equivalent to 27 June 640 (on this date and the issues around it, see Source discussion). In the document, Leodebodus makes substantial donations of land and other property to three institutions in or near Orléans, two already existing, one which he wished to establish. Page references are to the edition by Prou and Vidier.
p. 5] Leodebodus states that he is abbot of 'the basilica of Saint Anianus, where the saint himself rests in the body' (basilicae domni Aniani ubi ipse domnus in corpore requiescit). He wishes to donate from his property to that basilica, and also to 'the basilica of the lady Mary, which John formerly constructed from scratch at Fleury, where the venerable man Abbot Fulcaldus is recognised to be in charge as guardian' (basilicae domnae Mariae quam Johannes Floriacus a novo quondam construxit, ubi venerabilis vir Fulcaldus abba custos praeesse dinoscitur).
He then states:
[...] et in agro Floriaco, quem cum glorioso atque praecelso domno Chlodoveo rege et gloriosa domna uxore ejus Baltilde regina visus sum de rebus meis propriis commutasse, ubi pro salute regia vel cuncto populo exorandum monasterium in honore sancti Petri edificare delibero, [possible lacuna] ubi jam dictus vir Dei sanctus videlicet presul Anianus condigne jacet tumulatus, in quo monachi juxta regulam sanctissimi Benedicti et domni Columbani consistere debeant, singulariter de facultate proprietatis meae, Christo presule, conferre delibero.
'[...] and on the land at Fleury which, I have exchanged with the glorious and renowned lord King Clovis, and the glorious lady his wife Queen Balthild for my own property, where I resolve to build a monastery in honour of Saint Peter where there will be prayers for the royal safety and for the whole people, [possible lacuna] where the already mentioned man of God, namely the holy primate Anianus, lies worthily buried, in which monks should live according to the rule of the most holy Benedict and of Saint Columbanus, I resolve to donate, through Christ the Lord, solely from the resources of my property.'
pp. 5-6] Leodebodus goes on to enumerate a series of named estates left to 'the church of Saint Anianus or the monks serving in the same place' (basilicae domni Aniani vel monachis ibidem deservientibus), together with their buildings, slaves or serfs (mancipia), livestock, fields, woods, vines, etc., and then adds:
p. 6] Pari modo, vasa dono argentea, anacleta pensantia libris VIII et uncias duas, sandalis II ad missas et oralia ad mensam una cum cappis et omni apparatu et vela II acu picta.
'In the same way, I donate a silver vase, sculpted with reliefs, weighing 8 pounds and two ounces, and 2 shoes for masses and cloths for the altar together with copes and all the trappings and 2 embroidered veils.'
pp. 6-7] He lists the estates which are to be donated to the monastery of St Peter at Fleury (sancto Petro Floriacensi) and the basilica of Mary at Fleury (antedictae basilicae Mariae).
p. 7] He states that 'the above-mentioned monastery which I have decided, as was mentioned, to build in honour of St Peter on land at Fleury, where monks should live under a rule' (memoratum monasterium quod in honorem domni Petri, sicut predictum est, in agro Floriaco aedificare delibero, ubi monachi regulariter consistere debeant) is to receive the revenues of Fleury (fiscum Floriacum), further lands, a mill, and various properties in the city of Orléans.
p. 8] Further donations of land, property, and livestock to the basilica of Mary and the monastery of Peter at Fleury are listed. Leodebodus mentions that in accordance with a legal judgement by Audoenus, a bishop, and Chramnulf, an 'optimate' (a powerful layman, possibly a royal official), half of the landed property listed is to be possessed by the basilica of Mary and half to be held by Leodebodus to be given to the monastery of Peter. After listing further landed property and livestock, Leodebodus then specifies precious items to be given to the monastery at Fleury:
Argentum quod ad ipsum monasterium domni Petri vel monachis ibidem deservientibus dono per hujus texti vigorem inserendum putavi: hoc est bacchoaicha pura sigillata transmarina, pensantis pondo libras X, quorum unus habet in medio crucem aureum; dono et scutellam quae habet in medio effigiem capitis hominem, [p. 9] simili modo auream, idemque et scutells II minores massilienses deauratas quae habent in medio cruces niellatas; quae speties argenti in jure et dominatione memorati monasterii domni Petri perhenniter permaneant volo. De vestimentis vero quae in paupertate mea habere videor, preter id quod superius basilicae domni Aniani delegavi, reliquum quod superfuerit pars domni Petri Floriacensis recipiat ad possidendum.
'I have decided that the silver, which I give to the monastery of St Peter and to the monks serving there, should be made theirs by the power of this document: that is, pure basins from across the sea decorated with figures, 10 pounds in weight, one of which has a golden cross in the middle; I also give a salver which has in the middle the effigy of a man's head, similarly golden, also 2 smaller gilded Massilian salvers which have inlaid crosses in the middle; I want this splendour of silver to remain perennially in the right and power of the aforesaid monastery of St Peter. From the vestments which I appear to have in my poverty, apart from that which I assigned above to the basilica of St Anianus, may the portion of St Peter of Fleury receive as a possession the remainder which is left over.'
p. 9] Leodebodus condemns anyone who tries to frustrate the execution of his testament, calling for them to incur the anger of the Holy Trinity, and to pay double the value of his donations to the monasteries in question, as well as a fine of three pounds of gold and twenty pounds of silver. He states that he has placed a copy of his testament in the municipal records (gestis municipalibus), and has written two letters stating its contents, one which should 'reside in the archive of St Anianus' (in archivo domni resideat Aniani), the other to be kept at the monastery of St Peter.
pp. 9-10] The document is signed by Leodebodus and witnessed by two bishops, Audoenus and Leodegarius (sees not specified), by eight clerics (four abbots, a presbyter, and three deacons), and by seventeen laymen.
Edition: Prou and Vidier 1900, 5-10.
Summary and translations: David Lambert.
Burial site of a saint - tomb/grave
Cult building - monastic
Non Liturgical ActivityBequests, donations, gifts and offerings
Protagonists in Cult and NarrativesEcclesiastics - abbots
Cult Related ObjectsPrecious material objects
Water basins
Precious cloths
Source
While the testament of Leodebodus dates from the mid 7th century, it survives only through a copy made in the 11th century by the monk and hagiographer Helgaud of Fleury (fl. 1030-1050) in a manuscript of his Life of Robert the Pious. The manuscript is now in the Vatican Library: Reg. lat. 566, fol. 3-7 (digitised: https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Reg.lat.566). Helgaud's source was probably an earlier copy of the testament rather than the original (Prou and Vidier 1900, 17; Laporte 1979, 110). Although the document is customarily referred to as the 'testament' of Leodebodus, it is evident from some of its details that it is a donation document, intended to take effect immediately, not a will which would only take effect on Leodebodus' death.The consensus in modern research is that the testament is genuine in its essentials (for detailed discussion see Prou and Vidier 1900, 11-19; endorsed by Laporte 1979, 110). There are a number of discrepancies and anachronisms in the surviving text, but it is generally agreed that these can be explained by the document having possibly been emended after its original composition (Laporte 1979, 112-114), and by its having subsequently passed through the hands of at least two copyists (Helgaud and the scribe who transcribed his source copy).
The most obvious anomaly of the testament in its surviving form is that the date given, 27 June in the second regnal year of Clovis II (= 27 June 640), cannot be reconciled with the reference in the testament to Clovis's wife Balthild, since in 640 Clovis was still a child. Scholars have generally tried to get round this by emending the date: Prou and Vidier in their edition suggested correcting it to the twelfth year (assuming XII had been mistakenly copied as II), giving a date of 650 (Prou and Vidier 1900, 11-12, mistakenly given by them as 651), while Laporte argued for the tenth year (assuming that a badly written X had been copied as a II), and thus for 648 (Laporte 1979, 114), while also arguing that the testament had subsequently been amended with some parts dating to the 650s (Laporte 1979, 112-114). In 2004 Josiane Barbier suggested an alternative emendation: keeping the transmitted date (640), but emending the name of Balthild, Clovis's wife, to Nanthild, his mother and the regent at the time of his accession (Barbier 2004, 37-8); she suggests that the words uxore eius in the manuscript are a gloss.
Almost all the twenty-seven individuals who witnessed the document are otherwise unknown, but the bishop Audoenus, who both witnesses the document and is mentioned in the text as having made a legal decision relating to Leodebodus' donations, is presumably the contemporary bishop of Orléans, attested in other sources as Audo (Duchesne 1899, 457-8; Prou and Vidier 1900, 18-19; Barbier 2004, 39).
Discussion
The testament of Leodebodus makes donations to three institutions: the already long-established and well-known shrine of Anianus at Orléans, and two institutions at Fleury (Floriacus, present-day Saint-Benoît-sur-Loire), a rural community on the River Loire, about 40 km upstream from Orléans. One of these, a basilica and monastic community dedicated to Mary, was already in existence but is not documented before the testament; the other, a monastery dedicated to St Peter, was founded by Leodebodus.St Anianus, Orléans
Anianus had been bishop of Orléans in the mid 5th century, particularly renowned for having brought about through his prayers the failure of an attack on the city by the Huns. His basilica, located outside the walls of Orléans, is attested from the early 6th century onwards (see E02336, E05844, E05936, E06714), but the testament of Leodebodus is the earliest reference to the monastic community attached to it (there is a slightly later reference in the Life of Balthild, E07074, dating probably from the 680s). On the basilica of Anianus, see Picard 1992, 91-2.
An oddity of the testament as we have it is that after declaring his intention of founding a monastery at Fleury dedicated to St Peter, Leodebodus says (in the present tense) 'where the already mentioned man of God, namely the holy primate Anianus, lies (jacet) worthily buried' (Prou and Vidier 1900, 5 – text and translation under Evidence). The text here must be corrupt in some way: Prou and Vidier (1900, 14) suggest emending jacet to the subjunctive jaceat, 'where Anianus may lie worthily buried', implying that Leodebodus intended to translate the body of Anianus to his new foundation. However, this presents obvious difficulties: it seems unlikely that the bishop of Orléans or the monks and clerics attached to the basilica of Anianus would have consented to such an act (and there is no evidence that it was ever attempted). Laporte 1979, 112, argues that there must therefore be more substantial damage to the text, probably the omission of (at least) several words, and that everything from 'where the already mentioned ...' (ubi jam dictus ...) to the end of the sentence refers to the basilica of Anianus at Orléans. An implication of this is that Leodebodus' statement that the monks should follow the rules of Benedict and Columbanus (a 'mixed' rule, taking elements from both, common in the 7th century) applies specifically to the monastery of Anianus, perhaps indicating that its monks were not already following such a rule.
St Mary, Fleury
Nothing is known about the history of this institution beyond what is stated in the testament: that it had been founded by an otherwise unknown Johannes and at the time of the testament's composition was headed by an abbot named Fulcaldus, also otherwise undocumented. Both the basilica of Mary and the attached monastic community were quickly taken over by the new monastery founded by Leodebodus at Fleury: the testament is the only evidence that they had originally been independent of it (Barbier 2004, 33). The testament mentions a legal decision, in which a bishop Audoenus (probably the bishop of Orléans at the time) and a lay judge named Chramnulf determined that certain estates listed in it should be divided equally between the basilica of Mary and the new foundation dedicated to St Peter (Prou and Vidier 1900, 8 – text and translation under Evidence). This implies that there had been some kind of dispute relating to the division of Leodebodus' donations, but the reference is too laconic for any certainty as to its details and precisely what role the existing institutions at Fleury played in it.
St Peter, Fleury
The key historical significance of the testament of Leodebodus is that it documents the foundation of the monastery of St Peter at Fleury, which would rapidly grow into one of the most important monastic communities in the Frankish kingdoms and medieval France. Leodebodus states that the monastery was to be founded on land at Fleury that he had obtained from the king in return for a piece of his own property, before listing the numerous pieces of landed property to be donated to it (and also precious liturgical vessels and vestments – Prou and Vidier, p. 8).
The testament was evidently regarded by the monks of Fleury as their founding document: a number of works composed there either mention the testament or details about Leodebodus and his donations which must ultimately have come from it (though it has been pointed out – Barbier 2004, 33 – that these details are often quite inaccurate). The Historia translationis sancti Benedicti et sanctae Scholasticae (mid 9th c.), states explicitly that the testament 'is preserved to the present day in the public archives of our monastery' (usque hodie in archivis publicis nostri reseruatur monasterii – Historia translationis 2, Davril et al. 2019, 82).
It is worth noting that while, as the testament shows, the monastery at Fleury was originally dedicated to St Peter, by the 9th century at the latest this dedication was completely eclipsed by the monastery's association with *Benedict of Nursia (S01727). By then, a tradition had become established that Benedict's body had been removed from its original burial place at Monte Cassino and translated to Fleury. By the 9th century the shrine of Benedict at Fleury was a major cult centre (see Davril et al. 2019). However, while later tradition held that the translation of Benedict's body took place within a generation or so of Fleury's foundation, there is no actual documentation relating to it until after 700.
Bibliography
Edition:Prou, M., and Vidier, A., Recueil des chartes de l'abbaye de Saint-Benoît-sur-Loire, tome 1, fasc. 1 (Paris and Orléans, 1900), 5-10.
Further reading:
Barbier, J., "La reine fait le roi: une révision de la datation du 'testament de Leodebodus'," in: S. Gouguenheim et al. (eds.), Retour aux sources. Textes, études et documents d'histoire médiévale offerts à Michel Parisse (Paris, 2004), 31-42.
Davril, A., Dufour, A., and Labory, G. (ed. and trans.), Les miracles de saint Benoît. Miracula sancti Benedicti (Paris, 2019).
Duchesne, L., Fastes épiscopaux de l'ancienne Gaule. Tome deuxième: l'Aquitaine et les Lyonnaises (Paris, 1899).
Laporte, J., "Vues sur l'histoire de l'abbaye de Fleury aux VIIe et VIIIe siècles," Studia Monastica 21 (1979), 109-142.
Picard, J.-C., "Orléans," in: N. Gauthier and J.-C. Picard (eds.), Topographie chrétienne des cités de la Gaule des origines au milieu du VIIIe siècle, vol. 8: Province ecclésiastique de Sens (Lugdunensis Senonia) (Paris, 1992), 81-96.
David Lambert
07/04/2022
| ID | Name | Name in Source | Identity | S00033 | Mary, Mother of Christ | Maria | Certain | S00036 | Peter, the Apostle | Petrus | Certain | S01206 | Anianus/Annianus, bishop of Orléans, ob. 454 | Anianus | Certain |
|---|
Please quote this record referring to its author, database name, number, and, if possible, stable URL:
David Lambert, Cult of Saints, E07795 - http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E07795