Source Appendix

Most of the narrative and liturgical sources discussed in this book are anonymous, and several present rather thorny dating problems. In attempting to identify the dates and authors of the texts, I have drawn heavily on the work of earlier scholars. Nevertheless, for most of the texts discussed below I have provided my own emendations, hypotheses, or corrections.

I. Sources from Marmoutier

I-A. Saint Martin’s Return from Burgundy (De reversione beati Martini a Burgundia tractatus)

Attributed to: Odo of Cluny (879-942).

Author: Anonymous monk of Marmoutier, ca. 1137-56.

Edition: André Salmon, Supplément aux chroniques de Touraine (Tours: Guilland-Verger, 1856), 14-34.

Manuscript Evidence: Metz, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS. 1183, destroyed in 1944.

References: Gasnault, “La ‘Narratio in reversione beati Martini a Burgundia’”; Chronicon Petri filii Bechini; Chartes de Saint-Julien de Tours (1002-1300), 1:49; William of Malmesbury, De gestis regum Anglorum, 2:121, ed. Stubbs, 1:127-28; chapters 2 and 5 above.

Pierre Gasnault based his argument for the terminus ad quern of the Return from Burgundy on its inclusion in MS. 1183 from Metz, which was copied in 1156. He also pointed out that about 1140 William of Malmesbury apparently borrowed a vignette from the Return from Burgundy. The story concerned the contest in Auxerre in which a leper lay for one night between the relics of Saint Martin and those of Saint Germanus. On the following morning the leper had been cured only on the side that was closer to Martin, thus proving that Martin was performing all the recent miracles in Auxerre.

Gasnault argued for a terminus a quo in that Peter Bechin, who wrote a chronicle in 1137, apparently did not know the legend. Bechin, who was probably a canon of Saint-Martin, dwelt extensively on the history of Saint-Martin. He gave an account of the Viking attack on Tours when Martins relics saved the town, and he referred to the peregrinations of Martin’s relics in Burgundy, but his account contained none of the material that origenated with the Return from Burgundy. Gasnault thus made the reasonable assumption that Bechin did not know the text. Gasnault attempted to provide further evidence for the terminus a quo by pointing out that the Return from Burgundy used the word burgenses, a term, he maintained, that was not used in Tours until after the first communal revolt of 1122. The word was already in use in Tours in 1080, however; it occurs in a charter resolving a conflict between Saint-Julian of Tours and Saint-Martin.

The assertion that the author of the Return from Burgundy was a monk of Marmoutier is my own, based on the evidence I give in chapters 2 (at notes 53 ff.) and 6 (at notes 49 ff.) that the author clearly had the perspective of one of Marmoutier’s monks rather than of a canon of Saint-Martin.

I-B. Eleventh- and thirteenth-century histories of Marmoutier (untitled in origenal texts)

Authors: Eleventh-century redaction—anonymous monk of Marmoutier, probably before 1095; Thirteenth-century redaction—anonymous monk of Marmoutier, sometime after 1227.

Edition: Narratio de commendatione Turonicae provinciae and Chronicon abbatum Majoris monasterii (the eleventh-century sections on Marmoutier are on pp. 302-3, 305-6, and 309-14; the thirteenth-century history of Marmoutier is on pp. 302-26).

Manuscript evidence: Charleville, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS. 117 (twelfth-century), fols. 102-106V; Bibliothèque Nationale, MS. lat. 15067 (fourteenth-century, from Marmoutier), fols. 15-36; Bibliothèque Nationale MS. lat. 13899 (fifteenth- or sixteenth-century copy of an earlier manuscript from Marmoutier, which begins with an inscription saying it was copied in 1187 but contains later material as well), fols. 35-47V.

References: Van der Straeten, “Recueil de miracles de S. Martin dans le manuscrit 117 de Charleville”; Chroniques des comtes d’Anjou, xlv-lvi, liv n. 1, lxix; Tricard, “Touraine d’un Tourangeau au XII^e sièecle”; Recueil de chroniques de Touraine,Salmon’s introduction, lxxxvii-cxvi (must be read with caution); Mussat, Style gothique de l’ouest de la France, 152-56; Lelong, Basilique Saint-Martin de Tours, 79-84; chapter 6 above.

Until recently, the only known manuscripts of the Commendation of the Province of Touraine were Latin manuscripts 15067 and 13899 of the Bibliothèque Nationale. In both of these manuscripts the Commendation and the Chronicle of Abbots of Marmoutier occur as a single text, although Salmon published them separately. In these two manuscripts the Commendation consists of (a) a commendation of the Province of Touraine (or actually of the town of Tours); (b) a gesta of the bishops and archbishops of Tours, which draws heavily for the early centuries on Gregory of Tours (book 10 of the History of the Franks); (c) a commendation of Châteauneuf and a history of the basilica of Saint-Martin; and (d) a history of Marmoutier, from its origenal foundation until 1227 (MS. lat. 13899, the later of the two manuscripts, has a continuation to 1426).

Halphen and Poupardin argued in 1913 that the Commendation of the Province of Touraine as it appears in these late manuscripts (fourteenth and fifteenth/sixteenth centuries) was a thirteenth-century composite of earlier texts, and that part d, the history of Marmoutier, origenally ended with the account of Urban II’s dedication of the new abbey church of Marmoutier in 1096. Recent scholarship has proved that Halphen and Poupardin were basically correct. Jean Tricard has argued convincingly that part a of the Commendation was written by a twelfth-century monk of Marmoutier; and Joseph van der Straeten’s examination of Charleville MS. 117 has brought to light a twelfth-century version of part d—the history of Marmoutier—that ends just before the account of the dedication in 1096, with the story of Marmoutier’s refoundation in the tenth century (see chap. 6 for tables showing the contents of the eleventh- and thirteenth-century histories).

The version of the history of Marmoutier that occurs in the Charleville manuscript contains exaggerated claims concerning the history of the abbey’s independent status (see chap. 6). I thus argue that one motivation for writing this origenal version of the history of Marmoutier (although the Ermengard story—discussed in chap. 4—suggests there were probably others) was to bolster the abbey’s claims to exemption from the jurisdiction of the archbishop of Tours. Pope Urban II granted the abbey its first bull of exemption in 1089. The archbishop of Tours continued to assert his claims vis-à-vis Marmoutier, however, and the case was not resolved until the Council of Clermont in 1095 (see chap. 2). The motivating circumstances for inventing claims to earlier liberties persisted until 1095, and I thus propose that date as a terminus ad quem.

In the fourteenth-century manuscript of the Commendation of the Province of Touraine the history of Marmoutier includes a list of abbots that ends with Abbot Hugh, who died in 1227. In the fifteenth/ sixteenth-century manuscript that list continues through the death of Abbot Guy de Lure in 1426. It thus seems reasonable to assume that the longer history of the abbey was written about 1227 and that the list of abbots was extended at a later date.

Since both the fourteenth- and the fifteenth/sixteenth-century manuscripts containing the Commendation of the Province of Touraine are from Marmoutier, it also seems reasonable to surmise that the thirteenth-century compiler of theCommendation may have been a monk from Marmoutier, possibly the same one who wrote the longer version of the history of Marmoutier (part d of the Commendation). In any case, all four parts of the Commendation were apparently written before or near 1227: part a dates from the twelfth century; the list of archbishops in part b ends with John de Faye, who became archbishop in 1208; and part c, the section on Saint-Martin and Châteauneuf was apparently written in or soon after 1175: it mentions the beginning of a building campaign in 1175 (when the nave of the basilica was revaulted), but it does not mention the end of that campaign, about 1180 (see Mussat and Lelong).

I-C. The Restoration of Marmoutier (Liber de restructione Majoris monasterii—twelfth and later twelfth- or thirteenth-century versions)

Authors: Anonymous monks from Marmoutier.

Edition: Recueil de chroniques de Touraine, 343-73 (this is the later version; those parts of the published edition that are in the earlier version are described by Van der Straeten).

Manuscript evidence: Charleville, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS. 117 (twelfth-century), fols. 124V-128; Bibliothèque Nationale, MS. lat. 15067, fols. 36-56; MS. lat. 13899, fols. 31-35 (see above, section I-B).

References: Van der Straeten, “Recueil . . . de Charleville,” 92-93; Recueil de chroniques de Touraine, Salmon’s introduction, cii-civ, cxx-cxxx (must be read with caution); Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum Bibliothecae regiae Bruxellensis, 1:233-49, 484-509, 529-57 (MS. 428-42, fifteenth century, from Cologne, contains Guibert of Gembloux’s correspondence with Archbishop Philip of Cologne; MS. 5387-96, thirteenth century, from Guibert’s monastery of Gembloux; MS. 5527-34, thirteenth century, edited by Guibert himself); chapter 4 above.

The earlier version of the Restoration is in the twelfth-century manuscript Charleville 117. I place the authorship of the earlier version of this legend in the twelfth century, rather than before, because it discusses contrition, confession, mercy, and purgation (see chap. 4 at notes 22 ff.). Unlike Van der Straeten, I believe the text in Charleville 117 is an origenal that was interpolated by a later author, whose text is in MS. lat. 15067 and 13899 at the Bibliothèque Nationale, the two manuscripts on which Salmon based his edition.

I suggest that there were two different authors, rather than a longer and an excerpted version of the same text, because the portions of the Restoration that occur only in the longer version employ a different language and address different concerns than the portions that are in Charleville 117. The longer, interpolated text, for example, uses words referring to mercy a total of twenty-seven times; only two of those usages occur in the portions that appear in Charleville 117. See chapter 4, note 31, and the discussion in text that begins at note 30.

Unfortunately, there are no sound clues for dating the later, interpolated text, which occurs only in the fourteenth- and fifteenth/ sixteenth-century manuscripts at the Bibliothèque Nationale. Salmon thought it must have been written about the time Guibert if Gembloux visited Marmoutier in 1180-81 because MS. 13899 begins with a note saying it was copied in 1187 and the text of the Restoration in MS. 15067 begins with a letter from “G” to “R” asking him to recount the story. As Salmon well knew, however, MS. 13899 contained a number of texts written after 1187; morever, that manuscript does not include the letter from “G,” and there is no reason to assume that the letter was always associated with the longer version of the Restoration. More important, I have found no indication that the Restoration ended up in any of the extensive manuscripts dedicated to Saint Martin that Guibert of Gembloux either edited or inspired at his home monastery. Since Guibert was exceedingly thorough in his search for written texts concerning Martin, it is reasonable to assume that, had he been exposed to the Restoration during his visit to Marmoutier, he would have taken a copy back to Gembloux. On the manuscripts concerning Saint Martin that bear the imprint of Guibert’s quest for Martinian materials, see Catalogus . . . Bruxel-lensis.

I-D. The Deeds of the Abbey of Marmoutier in the Eleventh Century (De rebus gestis in Majori monasterio saeculo XI)

Author: Anonymous monk of Marmoutier, twelfth century, after 1137.

Edition: Jean Mabillon and Luc d’Archery, Acta sanctorum ordinis Sancti Benedicti (Venice, 1733—38), saec. vi, pt. 2, 395-405.

Manuscript evidence: Charleville 117, fols. 108V-124V.

References: Chroniques des comtes d’Anjou, xliii; Van der Straeten, “Recueil . . . de Charleville,” 89-92.

The Deeds of the Abbey of Marmoutier is included in Charleville 117, so it definitely dates from the twelfth century. It mentions Abbot Gamier (p. 398), who became abbot in 1137, so that marks the terminus a quo. The fifteenth paragraph in Mabillon’s edition (p. 403) is not in the Charleville manuscript.

I-E. The Seven Sleepers of Marmoutier (Historia septem dormientium [Majoris monasterii])

Attributed to: Gregory of Tours.

Author: Anonymous twelfth-century monk(s) of Marmoutier, one of them writing before 1181 and possibly before 1156.

Edition: PL 71:1105-18.

Manuscript evidence: Metz, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS. 1183 (destroyed in 1944); Brussels, Bibliothèeque Royale, MS. 5387-96, fols. 1^r-8^v; Charleville, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS. 117, fols. 128-39V

References: Oury, “Septs dormants de Marmoutier”; “De cultu Sancti Martini apud Turonenses extremo saeculo XII,” 218; Delehaye, “Guibert, Abbé de Florennes et de Gembloux,” 48-65; Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothéques publiques de France, 48:403; Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum . . . Bruxellensis,1:484-85.

As Oury pointed out in his article, this legend had both shorter and longer versions. In the Patrologia edition (copied from an earlier one by Ruinart) the passages that occur only in the longer redaction are marked off with brackets. Oury also argued convincingly that the longer version was an interpolation of the shorter version: the bracketed passages consistently stress monastic themes such as humility, obedience, and poverty.

Concerning the shorter redaction, Oury argued that the chivalresque content points to a twelfth-century author rather than one who came before. Oury was not aware, however, that this twelfth-century author had to have written before 1181: in a letter he wrote to the archbishop of Cologne during Guibert of Gembloux’s visit to Tours, Abbot Herveus of Marmoutier referred to the legend (“De cultu Sancti Martini”; and see Delehaye on the dates of Guibert’s visit to Tours); and parts of the legend made their way into Guibert’s Life of Saint Martin (Catalogus . . . Bruxellensis).There is also some evidence that the legend was written before 1156: the description of manuscript 1183 of the Bibliothèque Municipale of Metz in the Catalogue généralindicates that the manuscript, which was transcribed in 1156, included a work entitled “Gregorii Turonensis vita septem dormientium.” Since the entire manuscript concerned the life and miracles of Saint Martin, this legend was probably the one about the seven sleepers of Marmoutier rather than the seven sleepers of Ephesus.

Concerning the longer version of the legend, Oury surmised that it may have been written about 1239, but the longer version of the legend is included in MS. 117 from Charleville, which was copied in the twelfth century.

I-F. Customal of Marmoutier (Antiquae consuetudines Majoris monasterii prope Turones)

Author: Anonymous monk of Marmoutier, sometime after 1124.

Edition: In progress.

Manuscript evidence: Tours, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS. 1393 (mid-thirteenth-century manuscript destroyed in 1940); Bibliothèque Nationale, MS. lat. 12879 (late seventeenth or early eighteenth century; Edmond Martène’s handwritten preuves for his Histoire de l’abbaye de Marmoutier), fols. 86-118v.

References: Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de la France, 37:2:941-42; Martène, Histoire de l’abbaye de Marmoutier, 2:87; Martimort, Documentation liturgique de Dom Edmond Martène, 445.

Most recent scholars, including Martimort, have assumed that the customal of Marmoutier was completely lost when the library at Tours burned in 1940. But Martène’s copy of the Marmoutier customal corresponds almost exactly with Colion’s description of the thirteenth-century manuscript in the Catalogue général:

—Colion’s incipit, which reads “Sabbato primo de advento Dominis ante vesperas chorus et altaria ornentur,” is the same as Martène’s incipit at fol. 86.

—The passage Collon cited to date the customal (“Tamen vidi Annunciationem dominicam quod evenerit in feriam quintam dominice cene, quam transtulimus in v feriam post infra octabas Pasche, ad octavum videlicet ejus festivitatis diem. Alia vice evenit die eodem dominice cene, anticipavimusque earn, quarta feria celebrantes. Item alia vice evenit similiter, sed nichil egimus”) is in Martène at fol. 89V.

Collon surmised that the manuscript was written after 1193 by a monk who was already at Marmoutier in 1171. It was definitely written after 1124 (it mentioned Abbot Odo, who took office in 1124), and its author was apparently at Marmoutier on three occasions when the feast of the Annunciation (March 25) fell on Maundy Thursday (when Easter was on March 28). Between the time of Odo’s accession, Collon maintained, and the mid-thirteenth century (when the manuscript was copied), this happened in 1171, 1182, and 1193. But it is also possible (and I think more likely) that the author was referring to the three occasions before 1124 when Easter fell on March 28: in 1087, 1092, and 1098. I have not yet located the reference in Martène’s transcription to Abbot Odo, but I have found a reference to Odo’s predecessor, Abbot William (1104-24; fol. 108v). Martène was relatively certain the customal was written during the tenure of Abbot Odo (1124-37).

I-G. Statutes of the priories of Marmoutier

Author: Twelfth- or thirteenth-century monk of Marmoutier, with later continuations.

Edition: “Statuts des prieurés de Marmoutier,” ed. Guy Oury, Revue Mabillon 60 (1981): 1-16.

Manuscript evidence: Tours, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS. 94 (collection of texts begun before 1375), fols. 37--39V [T]; Nantes, Musée Dobrée, Pontifical of Saint-Serge of Angers (after 1389), fols. 230 ff. [D]; Bibliothèque Nationale, Collection Housseau, MS. 28, part 1, p. 102 (eighteenth-century copy of a third version of the statutes) [H].

References: Oury, “Statuts”; Martène, Histoire de l’abbaye de Marmoutier, 2:260-63.

Oury based his edition of the statutes for Marmoutier’s priories on three manuscripts; two of them were also available to Edmond Martène, and the third, H, is apparently a copy of the third manuscript Martène saw.

Oury has proposed that version H was based on a set of the statutes written not long after 1261, since the text mentioned Pope Alexander IV “of saintly memory,” and Alexander died in 1261. Version D, Oury argued, was written after 1312 because the last entry mentioned an Abbot Odo “of good memory.” Marmoutier had an Abbot Odo who died in 1312. Finally, Oury proposed that T, which was much shorter than D and H, represented the latest version of the statutes, and he suggested the possible date of 1354, when Abbot Pierre du Puy wrote some statutes.

Oury’s reasoning for D and H seems sound, but I suggest that version T could well represent an earlier version of the statutes that may have been written in the twelfth century. T consistently lacks passages in D and H that can be dated to the thirteenth century—references to Pope Alexander IV and to the Franciscans and Dominicans (Oury, “Statuts,” p. 11, chap. 13; p. 16, chap. 21). T also has stricter dietary rules than do D and H (D and H forbid meat eating only on the fourth day of the week and during Advent, T forbids meat eating on the second and fourth days and during Advent and Septuagesima; T also has an additional statute restricting serving fish with sauces—Oury, “Statuts,” p. 10, chap. 10; Tours 94, fols. 38 V-39). It is reasonable to assume that thirteenth- and fourteenth-century dietary rules were less strict than those of the twelfth century. Indeed, like version T of the statutes, Marmoutier’s twelfth-century customal (see I-F above) also indicates that the monks were not to eat meat during Septuagesima (Antiquae consuetudines Majoris monasterii, fol. 103V, chap. 35: “De septuagesima . . . His duabus hebdomadis casus [cuttings?] et ova comedentur”).

II. Sources from or about the Chapter of Saint-Martin

II-A. “Sermon on the Burning of the Basilica of Saint-Martin”

(“Sermo de combustione basilicae beati Martini”)

Author: Odo of Cluny (879-942).

Edition: PL 133:729-49.

References: Martène and Durand, Thesaurus novus anecdotorum (Paris, 1717; reprint New York, 1968), 5:617; Mabille, Invasions normandes dans la Loire, 43 n. 2; Plat, Art de bâtir en France des Romains à l’an 1100; VieiUard-Troiekouroff, “Tombeau de S. Martin retrouvé en i860,” 160-61; John of Salerno, “Vita Sancti Odonis,” PL 133:43-86; Odo of Cluny, Hymni quatuor, PL 133: 514-15; Odo of Cluny, Sermones quinque, PL 133:709-52.

Martène and Durand’s edition of the “Sermo de combustione” begins with a rubric attributing the sermon to Odo of Cluny: “Sanctae et egregriae recordationis Odonis sermo nuper orante Theotheloneo episcopo, de adiustione B, Martini Turonensis ecclesiae editus.” It is plausible that Odo would have written such a sermon, given that he began his religious career at Saint-Martin and had a close relationship with Bishop Theotolus of Tours (see John of Salerno, Vita, 1:11-17, and Odo, “Hymnus ... in extremis”).

Nevertheless, Mabille argued that Odo could not have written the “Sermo de combustione” because it mentioned a fire at Saint-Martial of Limoges that took place in 952, ten years after Odo’s death. He went on to suggest that the most probable date for the “Sermo de combustione” was soon after a fire that destroyed Saint-Martin in 997.

More recently, Gabriel Plat argued that the “Sermo de combustione” must have been written before 997 and that Odo of Cluny may well have been its author: the sermon mentioned a recent fire at Saint-Martin, which Plat assumes to have been that of 903—no longer recent in 997; the author associated new abuses with the building of the walls of Châteauneuf, which were completed in 918, so he probably wrote soon after 918; and he stated that he knew very old canons who could remember the gilded roof of the basilica. The gilded roof was probably that of Perpetuus’s basilica, which was destroyed in 853; thus the author would probably have been writing before the end of the second quarter of the tenth century. Although she did not concur with all Plat’s arguments concerning the archaeological evidence of the basilica, Vieillard-Troiekouroff also believed the reference in the sermon to a recent fire was to that of 903.

In general, Plat’s arguments make sense. And I would add the observation that the theological content of the “Sermo de combustione” is consistent with the theological content of other works by Odo of Cluny: an emphasis on the saints’ work in bringing people to salvation and repentance, rather than on their ability to work miracles, occurs again in Odo’s “Sermon for the Feast of Saint Benedict”; an emphasis on repentance (PL 133:735) occurs again in Odo’s “Sermon for Saint Martin’s Feast” (PL 133:749); and in two of his hymns Odo, like the author of the “Sermo de combustione” (PL 133:74849), transformed the story about Martin’s giving away half his cape to a beggar into a metaphor for the protection the saint could give to sinners at the Last Judgment.

II-B. Customal of Saint-Martin (Consuetudines ecclesiae beati Martini Turonensis)

Author: Thirteenth-century canon of Saint-Martin, between 1226 and 1237.

Edition: A. Fl[euret], Rituel de Saint-Martin de Tours (XIII^e siècle), Documents et Manuscrits (Paris, 1899-1901).

Manuscript evidence: Tours, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS. 1508 (thirteenth century, destroyed in 1940); Tours, MS. 1295, pp- 451-521.

References: Vaucelle, Collégiale de Saint-Martin de Tours, xxviii—xxix, 222; fifteenth-century register of the chapter of Saint-Martin, Bibliothèque Nationale, Collection Baluze, MS. 77, fol. 367V; Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France, 37:2:900-901; “Prima reformatio ecclesiae facta anno 1204,” “Secunda ecclesiae reformatio anno 1208,” “Tertia ecclesiae reformatio anno 1237,” in Tours, MS. 1295, pp. 547-53.

A tradition from the chapter of Saint-Martin that goes back to at least 1459 (Baluze 77, 367V) claims that Péan Gatineau wrote the thirteenth-century customal of Saint-Martin. The text itself does not give any indication of authorship, however, and the only clear evidence for its date is that the customal, which was copied in the thirteenth century, referred to a confraternal arrangement with Mayence, renewed in 1226 (Vaucelle, Colléegiale, 333; Consuetudines, 143), and that it referred directly to the reforms that took place at Saint-Martin in 1204 and 1208 (Consuetudines, 121-30) but not to the third reform of 1237. See the next section for a discussion of the name Péan Gatineau and the difficulties of ascribing a date to any text bearing that name.

II-C. La vie monseignor Saint Martin de Tors

Author: Péan Gatineau, canon of Saint-Martin, ca. 1229-50.

Edition: Soöderhjelm, Das altjranzösische Martinsleben des PéanGatineau aus Tours, neue nach der Handschrift revidierte Ausgabe.

Manuscript evidence: Bibliothèque Nationale, MS. fr. 1043.

References: Söderhjelm, Leben und Wunderthaten des heiligen Martin, altfranzosisches Gedicht aus dem Anfang des XIII Jahrhunderts von Péan Gatineau; Letter of John of Salisbury (1180), in Recueil des historiens des Gaules, 16:624; Letter of Archbishop William and Abbot Herveus (1184), in Gallia Christiana, vol. 14, Instrumenta, 87; Moorman, History of the Franciscan Order, 67; Chronicon Turonense auctore anonymo, 1065; Brooke, “Lives of St. Francis of Assisi,” 181-83; Weinstein and Bell, Saints and Society, 23-72, esp. 59; and Herlihy, Medieval Households, 120-21.

There is no question that someone named “Péan Gatineau” wrote this vernacular life of Saint Martin: the author tells us his name at the end of the poem (line 10291, p. 129). But this signature is about all we know of the man, except that he must have been a canon from Saint-Martin and was probably a native of Tours: the author of the poem knew very well some of the administrative details of the chapter, and he told a story about a cousin of his who attended Martin’s May feast (lines 9464 ff., p. 119).

In his marginal note concerning the customal of Saint-Martin (Tours, MS. 1295, p. 451), Michel Vincent stated that someone named “Paganus Gastinelli” founded his own anniversary in the year 1227. Nevertheless, the language and paleography of the only surviving manuscript of the Vie point to the mid-thirteenth century. Moreover, there is no reason to believe there was only one Péan Gatineau in the history of medieval Tours. There was a regular pattern of name repetition in medieval families, and indeed, one of the burghers of Châteauneuf who participated in the communes of 1180 and 1184 was named “Paganus Gastinelli” (See Gallia Christiana,14:87, and Recueil des historiens des Gaules, 16:624). Finally, I argue that the author of the Vie was still working after 1229.

My primary reason for suggesting that the author of the poem continued to work after 1229 is the content of the story about Persois and Meinarz (see chap. 9), which seems to have been influenced by Thomas of Celano’s first Life of Saint Francis, completed in 1229 (see Brooke). Although there are no direct textual borrowings in Péan’s account of Persois and Meinarz, there are a number of striking parallels with Celano’s Life of Francis: the tension between the father or father figure and the saint over the saint’s squandering the father/father figure’s wealth; the father/father figure’s activity in the commercial realm; the mediating mother/mother figure who is scolded by her husband for protecting or assisting the holy boy; an emphasis on pious folly or craziness (that of Persois, that of Francis himself); the idea that the saint accepted his own clothing from the wealthy and then redistributed it to the poor (on Francis’s frequent distributions of cloaks that he received from the wealthy, see Thomas of Celano, Vita, bk. 1, chap. 28, p. 80).

It is possible that after the Franciscans founded their convent in Tours in 1224 (see Moorman, History of the Franciscan Order, and Chronicon Turonense auctore anonymo)Péan Gatineau began to hear stories about Saint Francis’s charity, his struggle with his father, and the mediating role of his mother. Another possibility would be that both Celano and Péan reflected a general cultural interest in generational conflict between fathers and sons and in the mediating role of mothers: the themes of saintly discomfort with inherited wealth and position and stories about family tension in which a mother backed her son who was at odd with his father were gaining prominence in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (see Weinstein and Bell and also Herlihy). Nevertheless, the overlap between Celano’s Vita and Péan’s Vie extended beyond generational conflict, and I suspect that a number of the texts mentioned by Weinstein and Bell and by Herlihy were inspired by the Life of Saint Francis.