The migration of Neustrian relics in the

zyxw
Viking Age: the myth of voluntary
exodus, the reality of coercion and
theft’
F E L I C EL I F S H I T Z
Introduction: reconsidering the voluntary exodus scenario
I confess that the more I examine this question, the more completely I am

zyxwvuts
convinced that the received accounts of our migrations, our subsequent for-
tunes, and ultimate settlement, are devoid of historical truth in every detail.
J.M. Kemble ( I 849)’
In 1989, Richard Hodges demonstrated what J.M. Kemble had sus-
pected: that certain posterior written narratives (such as Bede’s eighth-
century Historia Eccfesiastica and the even later Anglo-Saxon Chronicle)
mask, rather than illuminate, what seems to have transpired in the British
Isles during the fifth through the seventh centuries.’ In this article, I
will address narratives concerning another type of migration, the sup-
posed exodus, out of the ecclesiastical province of Rouen, of relics of
saints of Merovingian Neustria during the ninth- and tenth-century
transition from Carolingian to Viking (or Norman) rule in that region.
Many authors have commented on blatant forms of Frankish anti-
Viking historiography, as represented for instance by the Annals of St
Bertin and the Annals of St Vaast.4 However, it is a more subtle aspect

’
zyxw
zyxwvut
zyxwvutsrq
Earlier drafts of this article were read by Patrick I:. Geary, whom the author wishes to thank

zyx
for advice, admonitions and encouragement, and by Rosamond McKitterick, in her capacity
as editor of Early Medieval Europe. The suggestions of D r McKitterick, and of the journal’s
reviewers, have greatly improved this article. I am particularly grateful to Elizabeth M.C.
Van Houts for making some of her unpublished work available to me.
’ J.M. Kemble, The Saxons in England: A History of the English Commonwealth till the
Period of the Norman Conquest, vol. I (Oxford, 1849). p. 16.
R. Hod es, The Anglo-Saxon Achievement: Archeology and the Beginnings of English
Society (fthaca, 1989); for other recent challenges to the discourses of Bede and the Anglo-
Saxon Chronicle, see N . Howe Migration and Myth-Making in Anglo-Saxon Englnd (New
Haven, 1989) and W. Goffart ‘The Historia Ecclesiastica: Bede’s Agenda and Ours’ Haskins
Society/ourna/ 2 (1990), pp. 29-46,
Annales BertinianilLes Annales de St Bertin F. Grat, J. Vieillard and S. Clkmencet (eds)

zyxwvu
(Paris, 1964); The Annals of St Rertin: Ninth-Century Histories I (Manchester, 1 9 9 1 )J.
Nelson (trans.); Annales VedastinilJahrbucher von St Vaast: Quellen zur Karolingcschen
Reichsgcschichte 11 R. Rau (ed.) (Ausgewahlte Quellen zur Deutschen Geschichte des Mittel-

zyxwvuts
alters 6; Berlin, 1966); H. Zettel, Das Bild der Normannen und der Normrrnneneinfalle im
westjrinkischen, ostfrankischen und angehachsiscben Quellen (Munich, 1977); K. Boyer, Le

Early Medieval Europe 1995 4 zyxwvuts

zyxwvuts
mythe Viking duns les lettres franqaises (Paris, 1980).

( 2 ) 171-192

0Longman Group Limited o y 6 j - y ~ 6 z f ~ ~ f o ~ z o ~ 1 7 ~ f $ o ~ . ~ o

176 zyxwvu Felice Lifshitz

of anti-Viking historiography, namely the thesis that there was a

zy
haemorrhage of relics and clerics out of Neustria in the face of invading
Viking hordes, which has most effectively imposed a discourse of disrup-
tion and rupture on the historiography of Neustria-Normandy, in spite
of a significant amount of evidence for continuity.5 Suspicion concern-
ing the widely-accepted thesis of Viking-induced relic haemorrhage
should be immediately aroused by the following observation: no
transfers of relics out of the ecclesiastical province of Rouen are recorded
by contemporary annalists, such as those of St Bertin and St Vaast,
despite the fact that those authors were sometimes obsessively concerned
with chronicling Viking disruptions, and the fact that relic transfers

zyxwvu
generally were recorded by ninth-century annalists, in that such events
were so well suited to a chronological treatment both concrete and
itemized.6
It is to Orderic Vitalis that we owe the initial synthetic formulation of
the ‘exodus of holy bodies’ scenario, to borrow the elegant and evocative
phrase of Legris.7 That twelfth-century monk of St Evroult’s massive
Historia Ecclesiastics has determined the lines of Norman historiography
during much of the twentieth century. Yet Orderic Vitalis was no neutral
observer of the late Carolingian and Viking eras. His judgmental history
of the pre-‘reform’ era is written from the teleological perspective of the

’ For
zyxwvuts zyx
zyxw
synthesis and references concernin continuity, see F. Lifshitz, ‘Dudo’s Historical

zyxwvuts
Narrative [and the Norman Succession of6996]’,journal of Medieval Histoy 20 (1994), pp.
101- 120 and F. Lifshitz, ‘La Normandie Carolingienne’ (forthcoming, Annales de Norman-
die 1995). T w o of the most important older studies are J. Yver, ‘Les bases du pouvoir ducal
en Normandie,’ plenary address before the z6eme Semaine d’Histoire du Droit Normand,
1950; published in Revue Historique du Droit Frangais et Etranger, 4e sirie, xxviii (1951); L.
Musset, ‘Les domaines de I’ipoque franque et les destinies de la regime domaniale’, Bulletin
de la SoczPtP des Antiquaires de Normandie 49 (1942-45); L. Musset, ‘Monachisme d’ipoque
franque et monachisme d’tpoque ducale en Normandie: le probleme de la continuitt’ in L.
Musset (ed.) Aspects du monachisme en Normandie (ive-xviiie siPcles) (Paris, 1982), pp. 5 5-
74. It would be tedious to catalogue references to the near-ubiquitous belief that there was a
flood of Viking-induced relic transfers in the later Carolingian period; let this quotation from
the standard work o n the subject of relic translations suffice: ‘Eine ganze Reihe . . . Transla-

zyxwv
tionen hatte ihren Anlag in einem der durchgehenden Phanomene des 9. Jahrhunderts, die
die Aufmerksamkeit der Forschung in hohem MaBe beansprucht hat: Die Einfalle der
Normannen, die die Fliichtung der Kostbaren Heiligengebeine verursachten’ (M. Heinzel-
mann, Translationsberichte [und Andere Quellen des Reliquzenkultes] (Typologie des
Sources du Moyen Age Occidental 33; Turnhout, 1979). p. 99.
Heinzelmann, Translationsberichte, pp: 58 and 96.
7 Canon Legris, ‘L’exode des corps saints [au diocese de Rouen]’, Revue Catholique de
Normundze 2 8 (1919), pp. 125-36, 168-74, 209-21; also see L. Musset, ‘L’exode des reliques
[du diocese de SCes au temps des invasions normandes]’, Bulletin de la Societe historique et
archtologique de I’Orne 86 (1970), pp. 3-22. For Orderic’s depiction of late-Carolingian and
Viking-dominated Normandy as a ‘wasteland’, due in part to the exodus of relics, see [The
Ecclesiustical History ofl O[rderic] V[italis] [= OV] M. Chibnall (ed. and trans.), (Oxford,
1968-80), Book 111, vol. 11, pp. 6-7; Book V, vol. 111, pp. 120-23; Book VI, vol. 111, pp.
282-5 and 302-61, especially pp. 302-5.

Early Medieval Europe 1995 4 (2)

 The migration of Neustrian relics in the Viking Age zyx 177

zyx
zy
eventual triumph of the righteous ‘reformers’.8 Compounding the

zyxwvu
Mercian-born Orderic’s distaste for the pre-‘reform’ era in general is a
certain hostility toward the Vikings (Normans) in particuiar.9 Further-
more, he had himself been originally trained in the historiography of the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a piece of anti-Viking propaganda par excel-
lence. l o
The present study will examine the various relic translations adduced
by Orderic Vitalis, or by historians who have followed his lead, to
support their vision of disruption. Orderic and his adherents have not
only exaggerated the number of relic translations which took place in the
ninth and tenth centuries, but have also, and more importantly, misun-
derstood (or misrepresented) the complex nature of those relic transfers
which did occur. I will argue that the movement of Neustrian relics out
of the archdiocese of Rouen in the ninth and tenth centuries was less a
matter of exodus than of theft.”
Relics were stolen from Viking-dominated Neustria or, having
initially been voluntarily removed by their Neustrian keepers, were pre-
vented from returning to the Viking principality by outside forces. We
shall only be able to understand ‘theft’ as a substitute for ‘exodus’ by
appreciating the nature of relic devotions during the period in question.
In the eyes of many observers in the ninth and tenth centuries, that is in
the Age of the Vikings, sacred relics possessed a powerful virtur. Thieves
who stole relics wished to receive concrete benefits from their new

z
acquisitions; they wished to benefit from the patronage of a powerful
saintly intercessor, not fill a crypt with useless dust-collectors. Relic
collectors asked not what they could d o for their saintly patrons, but
what their saintly patrons could do for them.” The relics of the saints of
Ouche, one of the few specific cases mentioned by Orderic to support
his exodus thesis, were not taken off to Brie, itself apparently under

In
entire, especially pp. 6-35 and 80-93.

zyxwv
zy
’ See OV, M. Chibnall (ed.), Book IV, vol. 11, pp. 198-201 and 286-99; Book V, vol. I11
’ See his insulting ortrait of the Norman character in William the Conqueror’s death-bed
speech OV, M. Clibnall (ed.), Book VII, vol. IV, pp. 80-7.
See OV, M. Chibnall (ed.), Book I, vol. 1 passim.
” For a discussion of similar phenomena, but from a different viewpoint, see P.F. Geary Furta

Sacra. Tbefts of Relics in the Central Middle Ages (Princeton, 1978; 2nd edn 1990).
’’ As Widukind of Corbie commented, in reference to the translation of relics of St Vitus from
Paris to Corbie in 836: ‘ex hoc res Francorum coeperunt minimi, Saxonum vere crescere’
(Widukind of Corbie, Res gestae Suxonicae 1.34 (Ausgewahlte Quellen zur deutschen Ges-
chichte des Mittelalters 8; Darmstadt, 1971), p. 66). For the expectation that relics would
provide protective patronage, just as would any other domnus, an expectation particularly
strong during the late ninth-, tenth- and eleventh-century age of weak kingship, see Heinzel-
mann Translationsbericbte, pp. 41-2 and B. Ward, Miracles and the Medieval Mind (Phila-
delphia, 1 9 8 2 ) . Relics which failed to provide protection would not themselves be coddled

27-42).

zy
but rather humiliated ( P I . Geary, ‘L’humiliation des saints’, Annales. ESC 34 (1979), pp.

Early Medieval Europe 1995 4 (2)

178 zyxwvu
zyxw
zyx Felice Lifshitz

attack from Hungarians, to protect the relics; they were stolen (as
Orderic indeed admits that they were!), so that Ebrulfus and his com-
panions might exercise their protective patronage in favour of new, and
needier, devotees. ‘ 3
Neustrian relics from the province of Rouen became something of a
hot commodity in Francia during the tenth century. I am not the first
person to notice the trend. Paradoxically, Orderic Vitalis himself, despite
an overall discourse which enmeshed each relic translation in a context of
Viking-induced rupture, commented at one point that late-Carolingian
Neustria had not, in fact, been destroyed by the Vikings but by the
Franks and Flemings, whose keenness to acquire relics of saints of the
province of Rouen he likewise acknowledged.’4 Neither Orderic nor
any other author, however, has pursued the lines of reasoning clearly
suggested by any recognition of the dimension of theft, evidently
because it could not be made to square with other assumptions about
ninth- and tenth-century history. To account for the thefts of Neustrian
relics requires a rethinking of late Carolingian and early Norman events
in the broadest possible terms.
I would suggest that the desirability of the relics of the ecclesiastical
province of Rouen arose precisely because it was recognized how well
those relics had protected their own homelands from depredation during
the ninth century. The forcible removal of relics from the Viking
principality of Rouen is itself evidence of the felicity of the region and of
its continuous enjoyment of prosperity,’s conditions which rendered
possession of its protective patrons desirable. The myth of exodus has
served to reinforce a discourse of disruption and rupture in Neustrian-
Norman historiography; the context of theft, presented here, is a build-
ing block in a wider argument for prosperity and continuity across the

z
late Carolingian and early Viking period.

The royal touch: coerced translations of Neustrian relics

The relics of the most important saint of Frankish Rouen, namely bishop

’’
zyxwvut
Audoenus, were removed from Rouen sometime after 876 (and not, as

zyx
For the saints of Ouche, see below, p. 10. This is not to claim that no relics were moved to

zyxw
protect the saintly remains, o r to deny that some actors in the relic wars had a less animistic

zyxwvuts
notion of the character of thepignoru sunctorum; certainly, the last thing that I would wish to
argue is that there was ‘a’ uniform ‘medieval mind’ when it came to the subject of relics.
’‘

zyxwvuts
OV, M. Chibnall (ed.), Book V1, vol. 111, pp. 306-61, esp. pp. 314-1 5 and pp. 326-7.
‘I For the economic prosperity of Viking Normandy, see L. Musset, ‘Les invasions scandinaves
et I’ivolution des villes de la France de I’Ouest’ Revue Historique de Droit Frunquis et
Etrunger 43 (1965), pp. 320-2; L. Musset, ‘Les conditions financikres d’une reussite architec-
turale: les grandes eglises romanes de Normandie’, Melanges offerts u Rene Crozet u l’occu-
szon de son 7oe unniversuire (Poitiers, 1966), pp. 307-14; L. Musset, ‘La renaissance urbaine
des Xe et XIe siecles dans l’Ouest de la France: problkmes et hypotheses de travail’, Etudes

Early Medieval Europe 199s 4 (2)

 The migration of Neuetrian relics in the Viking Age

was long believed, as early as 841).16 Dud0 of St Quentin explicitly

zy
zyx
places the removal of Audoenus’ relics in connection with Rollo’s arrival
in 876, although he also implicitly assigns the translation to the late 880s,
179

zyxwvu
the period corresponding to all the other events reported by Dud0 in

zy
connection with Rollo’s settlement.’7 It is, however, the circumstances
surrounding the return of the relics of Audoenus to Rouen that are most
enlightening.
Lauer long ago argued that more than mere coincidence links the
famous 91 8 charter of Charles the Simple concerning the monastery of
La-Croix-St-Ouen in the MCrey, and the claim by the author of the

zyxw
transktio Audoeni Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina ((BHL) 756) that

de civilisation miditvale (IXe-XIIe siecles): Melanges offerts a E.-R. Labande (Poitiers,

‘974)>PP. 563-75.
l6 F. Lifshitz, ‘The “Exodus of Holy Bodies” Reconsidered [: The Date of the Translation of
the Relics of St Gildardus of Rouen to Soissons]’ A[nalecta] B[ollandiana] [= AB] 110
(1992),pp. 329-40. Legris (‘L’exode des corps saints’) apparently misinterpreted the addita-
menturn to the ‘B’ stream of Audoenus’ ninth-century biography, which states that the
saint’s Rouennais relics were disturbed in 841/42 by a Viking attack on near-by Jumikges, not
that they were removed from the city (W. Levison (ed.), Monumenta Germaniae Historica,
Smiptores Rerum Merovingicarum 5 (Hannover, 1910) = BHL 751b). The disturbing of
Audoenus’ relics in 841/42 is also noted in an eleventh-century translatio Audoeni immedi-

zyxwvuts
ately before the description of the actual transfer of the relics in the 870s; however, that text
merely juxtaposes the two events, which are not connected causally. The eleventh-century
author uses ‘tunc’ (‘then’ as in ‘next’) to move from the 841/42 attack to the translation,
instead of an indicator such as eo tempore (‘at that time’): ‘[Northmannil gentili rabies
furentes uastauerunt rothomagum et seccenderet monsterium ipsius idibus mai anno domi-
nice incarnationis octingentesimo quadragesimo secundo, regnante Karolo rege Francorum.
Tunc a Riculfo rothomagensi archiepiscopo et ab episcopis et abbatibus totius regni sacratis-
simum corpus eleuatur, et totum ex integro sine aliqua sui diminutione cum digno honore in
feretro auro gemmisque precioso collocatur. Inde etiam o b metum infandorum gentilium a
monachis Wadiniacum deportatur, ubi aliquot annis miraculis choruscantibus requieuit’
(Translationes Audoeni (BHL 756 and 757) E. Martine and V. Durand (eds.), Thesaurus
Novus Anecdotorum, vol. 111, cols. 1669-82 (Paris, 1717), and AASS August IV; the narra-
tives are cited here from the only manuscript witnesses, Rouen, Bibliothique Municipale [ =
BM] 1406 (Y.41) fol. Z Z I V (St Ouen of Rouen, s. xi) and Rouen BM 141 I (U.64) fol. 97r (St
Ouen of Rouen, s. xiii)). The author of the translationes used an 872 charter of Riculfus,
archbishop of Rouen and abbot of St Ouen, according to which the prelate made provisions
for the support of Audoenus’ exiled relics at Gasny; those relics were back at Rouen by 876,
according to a charter of Charles the Bald. For the charters, see P. Lauer, ‘Les translations
des reliques [de Saint Ouen et de Saint Leufroy du IXe au Xe s i k l e et les deux abbayes de la
Croix-Saint-Ouen]’, Bulletin Pbilologique et Historique du Comite des Travaux Historiques
et Scientijiyues (1921). pp. 130-1, plus plate between pp. 130 and 1 3 1 , and G . Tessier (ed.)
Recueil des actes de Charles 11 le Chauve (Chartes et DiplBmes Relatifs B I’Histoire d e France
8-10; Paris, 1943-15). no. 407 (pp. 406-11). For discussion of further evidence concerning
the relics of Audoenus, see Lifshitz, “‘Exodus of Holy Bodies” Reconsidered’ and, for the
transfers of the other saints present at Gasny in 872 (Nigasius and his companions), see F.
Lifshitz, ‘The Politics of Historiography: Bishops versus Monks in Eleventh-Century
Rouen’ (submitted, History and Memory), paper presented before the Modern Languages
Association, San Diego, December 1994.
Dud0 [of St Quentin] De moribus let actis primorum Normanniae ducum] J. Lair (ed.),
(Memoires de la SociPtC des Antiquaires de Normandie 23;Caen, 1865), p. I 70. This is one of
only two uses of dominical years in his entire massive narrative. For detailed discussion of
the date of Rollo’s arrival, see Lifshitz, ‘La Normandie Carolingienne’.

zy
Early Medieval Europe 1991 4 (2)
180 zyxwvu Felice Lifshitz

the people of Rouen requested and received the relics of Audoenus back
from the Franks in 918. I would, however, construct the connection
between the two events somewhat differently than does Lauer.I8
According to the 918 charter, King Charles felt it was his duty to look
after the relics of exiled saints which were not receiving the veneration
due to them. Charles was concerned about a minor monastery such as La
Croix being able to render due respect to one of the greatest saints of
Frankish Gaul, namely Audoenus of Rouen, whose principal relics had
apparently been brought to La Croix some time during the previous few
decades to join the lesser remains which had been at the monastery since
the late seventh century, when the house had been founded in Audoenus’
honour.’Y The solution to Charles’ dilemma is recorded in the charter:
on the suggestion of marquis Robert, abbot of St-Germain-des Pres,
Charles placed the house of La Croix and all its properties (at least, those
which had not fallen to Rollo) under the control of St-Germain, a house

zyxw
which was clearly up to the task of assuring the proper veneration for

zyxwv
Audoenus.
The community of St Germain could easily, at that moment, have
taken Audoenus’ relics to Paris and established them there for good. The
royal authority of Charles the Simple had given monks of the Ile-de-
France control over a primary treasure of rouennuzs heritage. The claim
by the eleventh-century author of the trunslutio Audoeni (BHL 756) that

zy
the people of Rouen went to the king of the Franks in 9 I 8 and persuaded
him to cede control of the relics to them is, against such a background,

,n
Lauer, ‘Les translations des reli ues’, pp. I 19-36; for the charter, P. Lauer (ed.), Recuerl des

zyx
actesde Charles I I I [le Simpley (Chartes et DiplBmes Relatifs a 1’Histoire de France 9A;
Paris, 1949), no. 92, pp. 209-12. While Lauer’s scenario is unnecessarily complicated, a more

zyxwvutsrq
recent simplifying attempt to deny completely that the relics of Audoenus returned to Rouen
in 91 8 falters in its failure to provide any alternative hypothesis for the return of the treasure,
at the time the most important relics claimed by the town of Rouen; see 0. Guillot, ‘La
conversion des Normands peu aprPs 91 I . Dcs reflets contemporains a I’historiographie
ultbrieur (Xe-XIe s.)’, Cahiers de Civilization MPdiPvale 24 (1981), pp. 101-16 and 1 8 1 -
219.

zyxwvut
’’ The relics of Leutfredus (founder of La Croix) and of his brother Agofredus had never been
any place other than La Croix, so they could neither be covered by the category of exiled
saints, nor would the level of veneration available to them at La Croix have seemed inappro-
priate in any case. Lauer is again complicating things unnecessarily by conjecturing that
Leutfredus’ relics had been transferred out of (what would later be called) Normandy to an
unnamed spot in 851 (‘Les translations des reliques’, pp. 132-3). BHL 4900, a brief narration,
describes how the bodies of Leutfredus and Agofredus were temporarily hidden for fear of

zyxwvuts
the ‘Marcomanni’ until, on 2 1 Junc 8 5 I , the bishop of Evreux dug up the bodies and placed
them in the church (BHL 4900 W. Lcvison (ed.) in M G H SRM VIII, p. 18). Leutfredus then
appears in Usuard’s 865 Martyrology under 2 1 June with his relics still located in pago
Madriacensi (Usuard, Le martyrologe d’llsuard. Texte et commentaire J. Dubois (ed.),
(Subsidia Hagiographica 40; Brussels, 1965), p. 2 5 1 ) . If BHL 4900 really commemorated an
851 translation out of the future Normandy, why would the author bother to record the
translation in minute detail down to the dominical year, calendar day, regnal year and
indiction, and not say where the bodies had been taken?

Early Medieval Europe 1995 4 ( 2 )

 The migration of Neustrian relics in the Viking Age

entirely plausible. It was the threat of the permanent loss of Audoenus’

relics, occasioned by Charles’ placement of La Croix under the authority
of St-Germain-des-Pris, which would have prompted the inhabitants of
181 zy
Rouen to petition Charles for the relics. Only the vigorous action of the
inhabitants of the Viking-ruled principality could prevent Neustrian
relics from slipping away into acquisitive Frankish treasuries.2oAnother
version of the return of Audoenus’ relics to Rouen emphasizes the role
of Rollo in convincing the king of the Franks to disgorge the relics, even
underlining the need for Rollo to threaten Charles with war if the king
failed to surrender the treasure.”
Had Audoenus’ relics been lost on a permanent basis to the populace
of Viking-ruled Rouen, the responsibility for that loss would not have
fallen on the shoulders of Rollo and his followers: only Carolingian

zy
royal policy, or the policy of the community of monks of St-Germain-

zyxw
des-Pris, could have prevented the return of the relics to Rouen. O n this
occasion, Charles the Simple permitted the Neustrian relics to return to
the territory under Viking control because, according to Robert of
Torigni, he did not wish to offend Rollo.” Such a conciliatory spirit did
not, however, last very long. Indeed, according to the eleventh-century
translatio of Audoenus, during the 950s an unsuccessful attempt to steal
those very relics and remove them once more from Viking control was
made by two Frankish monks.’3 Furthermore, despite the Frankish
failure to retain control of Audoenus’ relics in 918, and the reported

zyx
failure of Frankish monks to repossess those relics in the 9jos, in the late

zyxwvu
twelfth century a Parisian historian suddenly claimed possession of the

zyxwvuts
treasured saintly remains. The Continuator of Aimo’s royalist history of

The 918 date for the return of Audoenus’ relics has been accepted by M. Fauroux, Receuil des
acres des ducs de Normandie,

zyxwvutsrqpon
9 1 1-1066 (Memoires de la SociCte des Antiquaires de Norman-
die 36; Caen, 1961), p. 20 and L. Musset, ‘Ce qu’enseigne I’histoire d’un patrimoine monasti-
que: Saint-Oucn de Rouen du XIe au XIe sitcle’, in Aspects de la sociitt et de l‘iconomie duns

zyxwvuts
la Normandie miditvale (Xe-XllIe sitkles) (Cahier des Annales de Normandie 2 2 ; Caen,
1988), pp. I 14-29, at p. 120. The only obstacle to my suggestion is that, according to BHL
756, the relics would have arrived back at Rouen on I February 918. For discussions of the
dated charter embedded in the narrative see M. Chibnall, ‘Charter and Chronicle: the use of
archive sources by Norman historians’, in C.N.L. Brooke et al. (eds), Church and Gouern-
ment in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1976), pp. 1-17 at p. 7, whereas Charles the Simple’s
charter concerning La Croix was given on 14 March 918. Since the charter in the eleventh-
century account is not itself authentic, however, the specific date of I February can probably
be dismissed, along with falsified points such as the immunity clause, as inventions of later
authors.
I ‘ Robert of Torigni, Addrtamenta in The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of W illiam ofjurnikgges,
Orderic Vztalis and Robert of Torigni E.M.C. van Houts (ed. and trans.), (forthcoming;
Oxford, 1995), vol. 11, Books V-VIII, pp. 201-3.
‘‘ See above n. 2 1 .
’j TranslatzoAudoeni(BHL 757), Rouen BM 1406 (Y.41) fol. z i z r and Rouen BM 1411 (U.64)

fol. 97v. Whether or not this attempted theft ‘actually’ took place, it is significant that the
author considered monks coming to Normandy from Francia to steal Neustrian relics during
the 950s a plausible theme.
182 zyxwvut
zyxw Felice Lifshitz

the kings of the Franks, writing at St-Germain-des-Pris around 1165,

claimed that the monks of La-Croix-St-Ouen in the Merey had fled to
St-Germain before a threatening Viking horde, bringing all of their
relics, including those of Audoenus, with them.’4
With Audoenus’ relics we see in microcosm the variegated thematic
which ought to replace the monochromatic scenario of a terror-induced
‘exodus of holy bodies’ out of Viking-occupied Neustria in the histori-
ography of the later Carolingian Empire: royal intervention, outright
theft, and mendacious claims to possession embedded in royalist propa-
gandistic contexts.

zyxwvu
Thefts of relics from the diocese of Rouen had begun as early as the
840s, before the Vikings even became a major presence in the Seine
valley. Consider the translation of the relics of bishops Gildardus,
Romanus and Remigius of Rouen to St Medard of Soissons between 843
and 847.’5 Charles the Bald had commanded monks of St Medard to
bring Gildard’s relics from Rouen to his favoured monastery at Soissons,
for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with Viking disruptions.
However, the citizens of Rouen,

. . . struggling to oppose the will of those seeking the relics (since they were
unable to sustain so great a loss to their whole province without either great
injury or even civil sedition), all came out into the open and almost reached the
point of war. But the oft-mentioned monks, animated more by the love and
election of God, and strengthened by royal power, disregarding the threats of
those trying to frighten them, bravely and ruthlessly pursued the task which had
torn them away from their own place. Indeed, the leaders of that region were
unable to oppose them, for they were terrified lest the royal force be turned
upon them with grave fury and the whole region be thus devastated. Unwillingly
they acquiesced, but not without the greatest melancholy.’6

The inhabitants of Rouen were coerced to disgorge their relics by the

zy
zyxwvuts
zyxwvutsrq
royal authority of Charles the Bald, who wished to reward a favoured
monastic house. This amounts to a theft; however, because nothing

l4

’I

26
4.
zy
Aimoin, Libri quinque de gestis Francorurn J. du Breuil (ed.), (Paris, 1603), p. 348, Book V, c.

See the Trunslutio Gildurdi (= BHL 3450) Albert Poncelet (ed.) Anulectu Bollundiunu 8
(1889), pp. 402-1. For the date of composition and authorship of the translation account, see
Lifshitz, ‘The “Exodus of Holy Bodies” Reconsidered’.
Tandem contraire nitentes uoluntati querentium, quia damnum ingens totius prouincie sue
nequirent sustinere, uel sine grandi iniuria, seu etiarn sine ciuili seditione, ciues loci illius se
ornnimodo fatentes, pene ad bella commorebantur. Sepedicti uero monachi, plus dei amore
& predestinatione animati, & regia potestate roborati, minis terrentium postpositis, accerime
ac inportune insistebant operi, quo de loco suo fuerant auisi. Prirnoribus siquidem regionis
illius contradiceie non ualentibus, nam territi fuerant, ne cum graui irnpetu regia super eos
manus inferretur, ac sic omnis illa regio deuastaretur, non sine maxima mestitia, inuiti
adquieuerunt.

Early Medieval Europe 1991 4 ( 2 )

 The migration of Neustrian relics in the Viking Age zy
zyx 183

zyxwvut
sanctioned by ‘public’ authority can, technically, be illegal, we might call
it instead a ‘coerced translation’.
The fate to which Gildardus, Romanus and Remigius had been forced
to submit, the same fate which Audoenus would so narrowly escape in
91 8 , overtook another major Neustrian figure, St Marculfus of Nanteuil,
in 906. The transfer of the relics of Marculfus to CorbCny was accomp-
lished by a charter of Charles the Simple (the foundation charter for

zyxwvuts
Corbeny), a text now preserved only in the twelfth-century cartulary of
St Rimi, but one which Lauer believed to go back to a lost original of
906.” The 906 charter is, more than anything, a witness to the mildness
of Viking-era disruptions in Neustria. According to Charles’ charter for
CorbCny, the monks of Nanteuil had come to the royal villa at Corbeny
in 906 ob nimiam atque diutinam paganorum infestationem,yet had then
almost immediately begun to return home to the Cotentin. Charles,
however, refused to permit them to depart, desiring to keep Marculfus in
Francia, and so he founded a priory around the ‘refugee’ relics.”
The definitive factor in the preceding examples of the loss of Neustrian
relics by their original possessors was royal coercive power, not fear of the
Vikings. Furthermore, at least in the case of Marculfus, clear ideological
advantages accrued to Frankish royalty as a result of the forced acquisi-
tion. CorbCny, the priory of St RCmi of Reims where Marculfus’ relics
were said to have been brought from the Cotentin, became an integral part
of the Frankish royal coronation ordo. It was the relics of Marculfus which

z
conferred on the French kings, who made a pilgrimage to Corbeny after
their consecration, the ability to cure scrofula by means of the royal
touch.’9

zyxwvutsrq
zyx
If the simplified Viking-induced exodus scenario were correct, transfers
of Neustrian relics out of the ecclesiastical province of Rouen would have
come to a halt as the tenth century progressed, and as the Vikings

‘’ Cartulaire B de St Remy, Archives municipales de Reims, p. 109/fol. 56; Lauer, Recueil des
actes de Charles 111,no. 53, pp. I 14-16. For the flight of the monks of Nanteuil, see W. Vogel,
Die Normannen und das frankiscbe Reich bis zur Griindung der Normandie (799-911)
(Heidelberger Abhandlungen zur mittleren und neueren Geschichte 14; Aalen, 1973), p. 387
and Musset, ‘L’exode des reliques’, p. 4.
1n Charles oes on to recognize that one cannot simply insist upon keepin relics which belong to
another Kocale without proper license; therefore he asserts that the arcibishop of Rouen, the
bishop of Coutances and the other bishops of the ecclesiastical province of Rouen had all
agreed in council that Corbkny might continue to shelter the Cotentin relics, ro which effect
they have sent him written documentation. As a result, the priory of Corbeny can feel secure in

zyxwvu
its possession of Marculfus. If the charter is a later forgery and relics of Marculfus were not

zyxw
brought to Corbkny in 906, we might look for their removal around 940, when Gerard of
Brogne, a major thief of Norman relics, was in control of St Remy of Reims. For Gerard’s
greatest coup, the seizure of the relic treasures of Fontenclle, see below, pp. I 1 - 1 2 ; for his
activity at Corbiny, see Chronique ou Ltwre de fondation du monastire de Mouzon, 11. z M .
Bur (ed. and trans.) (Paris, 1989), pp. 56, 1 3 5 and 161-3.
l9 Dictionnaire d’Histoire et de Geographie Ecclesiastique, vol. I 3, coll. 808-9;

Mittelalters, vol. 3, coll. 222-223.

Lexikon des

Early Medieval Europe 1995 4 ( 2 )

184 zyxwv
zyxw
Felice Lifshitz

themselves became pacified. Yet that is not the case. We have already seen
that an attempt may have been made by some Franks to steal the relics of
Audoenus from Rouen in the 950s. This eleventh-century assertion is not
implausible given the temper of the times. Various Frankish armies spent
much of the middle of the tenth century attempting to despoil Richard I,
grandson of the Viking Rollo, of his inheritance, and to reclaim Neustria
for Francia. When Rollo’s son, William Longsword, was assassinated by
henchmen of Count Arnulf of Flanders in 942, every single northern
Frankish prince, including the various royal ones, began to descend in
regular waves upon the orphaned Richard’s territories; he himself was
even kidnapped at one point by King Louis IV. It was not until 965 that
the borders of the Viking principality were closed to Frankish and Flemish
adventurers.3’ Normandy was a war zone during the decades when the
following transfers took place.
Several saints of SCes, namely Ebrulfus, Ansbertus and Evremunudus,
were the victims of a kidnapping from the abbey of Ouche, such that they
eventually ended up in the possession of the abbey of Rebais, in Brie. Two
different versions of the theft narrative are known, one composed in the
eleventh century at Rebais,3’ the other composed in the twelfth century in
Normandy, by Orderic Vitalis.3’ The two versions disagree o n the date of
the theft; the Rebais tradition puts it under a King Robert (either 922-3 o r
996-1006) while Orderic dates it to 944, in the aftermath of William
Longsword’s assassination. What matters for us is that both narratives are
in accordance in placing the ‘blame’ squarely on a rich inhabitant of the
Soissonais who took advantage of his presence in Normandy as part of an
invading, aggressive Frankish army (whether of King Robert or of Hugh
the Great) to steal the relics and donate them to Rebais.
Yet another of the mid-tenth-century thefts was perpetrated by a prince
not technically possessed of royal status, but rather (in this case) by a scion
of the Carolingian house who seems to have been aspiring to such status.
Arnulf of Flanders was the grandson of Judith, daughter of Charles the
Bald, and the son of Aelfthryth, daughter of Alfred of Wessex. H e
combined the ambitiousness of the Carolingian and Wessex dynasties
with the acute sense of historiographic manipulation common to the two
royal houses. Aelfthryth already must have had big plans for her son when

zyxw
zyxwv
zyxwvu
zyxwvutzy
zyxwvu
30 Lifshitz, ‘Dudo’sHistorical Narrative’; E. Searle, Predatory Kmship and the Creation of
Norman Power (Berkeley, 1988), c. 6, ‘Attack and Stabilization: Richard the Fearless, 942-
9 5 6 , pp. 79-90; Dudo, De moribus, p. 2 2 1 ff; P. Lauer, Le regne de Louis IV d’outremer
(Paris, rgoo),pp. 187-243.
’’ ASOSB saec. V, p. 226-7 J. Mabillon (ed.) (= BHL 1379).
’‘ OV, M. Chibnall (ed.), vol. 111, pp. 314-31, Book VI, c. 10 (= BHL 2375).

Early Medieval Europe 1995 4 ( 2 )

 The migration of Neustrian relics in the Viking Age

she named him Arnulf, recalling the founder of the dynasty usually called
zyx 185

zyxw
‘Carolingian’. Arnulf of Flanders used Carolingian models in innumer-
able ways in his battles for prominence in the tenth century.33 One thing
he needed to pursue his ambitions was to get Duke William of Normandy,
Rollo’s son, out of the way; this he accomplished in 942/943 when he had
William assassinated. The other thing he needed was a relic base, which
could serve both as a source of miraculous virtus and as a symbol of
identity for a political community.34
In 944, Arnulf acquired a major relic base: the remains of saints

zyxw
Wandregiselus and Ansbertus from St Wandrille de Fontenelle. The
monks of FontenelIe seem, without a doubt, to have fled from their
monastery in the diocese of Rouen, bearing their relics with them, as a
result of perceived threats from ‘pagan’ Vikings. After a remarkable
series of peregrinations, the relic-bearing refugee community of Fonte-
nelle settled at Boulogne in approximately 8 8 5 . 3 ’ Yet these relics, like
those of Audoenus, might well have returned to Normandy had it not
been for the anti-Norman aggression of Arnulf and the Flemings, en-
gaged in a war against Normandy, for in 944 the Fontenelle relics were
wrested by Arnulf and his collaborator Gerard of Brogne from the
people of Thirouanne and forcibly brought to Flanders.j6 Arnulf must

zyx
have been drawn to Wandregiselus as to a magnet: the saint was some-

33
34

zyxw
zyxwvu
J. Dunbabin, France in the Making, 843-”80 Oxford, 1985), pp. 71-3.
The classic statements of the dynamics of the manipulation of relic collections as a method of
achieving political power remain H e i n z e h a n n , Translationsberichte (passim and especially
pp. 24-37) and P. Brown The Cult of the Saints. Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity
(Chicago, 1981).
3 j The group travelled, beginning in 858, to Amiens, Etaples, Outreau and Boulogne-sur-Mer,

before returning to Fontenelle in 861; then, in 865, they made another round-trip through
Austrasia, stopping at St-Riquier, Outreau and Etaples, returning to Fontenelle in 869; in 875
they went to stay for awhile at Blagny-sur-Ternoise, but returned again to Fontenelle in 882;
in 885, o n the point of giving up on Austrasia, they instead turned south to Chartres, before
their final move to Boulogne. The itinerary described here follows the findings of the most
recent work o n the subject: J. Fournee, ‘Quelques facteurs de fixation [et de diffusion du

zy
culte populaire des saints: exemples Normands]’, Bulletin Philologique et Historique du
Comith des Trawaux Hastoriques et Scientifrques 1982/1984 (Paris, 1986), pp. 123-4. Earlier
important studies include H. Van Werveke, ‘Saint-Wandrille et Saint-Pierre [de Gand (IXe et
Xe sikcles)]’ Miscellanea Mediaewalia in memoriam Jan Frederick Niermeyer D.P. Blok, A.
Bruckner, et al. (eds) (Groningen, r967), pp. 79-92 and F. Lot, Etudes critiques sur l’abbaye
de Saint-Wandrille (Bibliothkque de I’Ecole des Hautes Etudes 204; Paris, 1913).
j6 The Flemish account of the 944 seizure of the relics as we now possess it was written around
I I 17, but reproduces in part an account of the translation composed soon after the events by
a monk of Gent who had taken part in the triumphal procession of the relics from Boulogne;
see Une Translation de reliques a Gand en 944: Sermo de adventu sanctorum Wandregiseli,
Ansberti et Uirlframni in Elandiniirm N.-N. Huyghebaert (ed.) (Brussels, 1978) [= BHL
88101, pp. xxxvi-xliii, Ixxxii-lxxxviii and cvii. The nucleus of the sermo asserts that the
Fontenelle relics were taken from Boulogne through agressive action and against the will of
the bishop and people of Therouanne (paragraphs 24-7). Also see Van Werveke, ‘Saint-
Wandrille et Saint-Pierre’, p. 81.

Early Medieval Europe 199‘ 4 ( 2 )

186 Felice Lifshitz zyxw
times asserted, almost certainly falsely, to have been himself a member of
the Carolingian family,37 and by 9j2/954 Arnulf was claiming Wandre-
giselus among his own ancest0rs.3~Arnulf not only acquired new saintly
weapons for himself and his cause, he forestalled any possibility that the
patronage of Wandregiselus and Ansbertus might be pressed into Nor-
man service.39 To strip Normandy of its saintly friends in the midst of a
war must be understood as a military strategy, designed to increase the
Viking principality’s vulnerability.

The migration of Neustrian relics in the Viking Age: evolution of

a royalist ‘topos’
The cessation of Frankish and Flemish aggression against Normandy, or
rather the effective closing of the borders of the duchy to potential
Frankish and Flemish aggressors in the latter part of the tenth century,
seems to have put an end to the phase of translations in which the ruling
elites, up to the level of Carolingian kings, played a decisive role in the
quasi-public, quasi-official transfer of saintly treasures. There is some
indication, however, that the theft of desireable Neustrian relics from the

zy
Viking principality continued on a less formal level up to the end of the
tenth century. If we can believe Hariulf of St Riquier, writing just before

z
1088, a cleric of Bayeux who was distressed by the lack of appreciation
displayed locally for the valuable Neustrian heritage of the Bessin, surrep-
titiously removed the relics of St Vigor of Bayeux to Ponthieu, where they
were genuinely valued, in approximately 98 I . But there is the rub: can we

zyxwvuts
zy
believe Hariulf!4”
We have already seen that a late-twelfth-century Capetian royalist

j7 zyxwvutsr
Gesta sanctorum patrum Fontenellensis cenobii (Gesta abbatum Fontenellensium) F. Lohier
and J. Laporte (eds) Rouen and Paris, 1936) 1.2 and the Vatu Wandregiseli (BHL 8805) 1.1
(AASS 5 July, pp. 272-81). For the most recent discussion of the dates of composition (or
compilation) and authorial purposes of these two ninth-century narratives, see I. Wood, ‘St
Wandrille and its Hagiography’, Church and Chronicle in the Middle Ages. Essays Presented to
john Taylor I. Wood and G.A. Loud (eds) (London, 1991), pp. 1-14.
38 Witger of St Bertin, Genealogiae cornztum Flandrensium L. Bethmann, (ed.), M G H SS 9.

zyxwvut
j9 For a thorough discussion of the later controversy concerning whether the body of St

zy
Uulframnus had also been removed from Fontenelle along with those of Wandregiselus and
Ansbertus, or had remained continuously in Normany, see E.M.C. Van Houts, ‘Histori-
ography and Hagiography at St-Wandrille: The “lnventio et Miracula Sancti Uulfranni” ’,
Anglo-Norman Studies XI1 M. Chibnall (ed.) (Proceedings of the Battle Conference 1989;
Woodbridge, 1990),pp. 233-51.
4o Hariulf, ‘Adventus beatissimi Vigoris episcopi a Neustria in Pontivum’ and ‘Assertio de sancto
Vigore’, in Cbronique de f‘ubbaye de St Riquier, F. Lot (ed.) (Collection des textes pour servir
a l’ttude et H l’enseignement de I’histoire; Paris, 1894), III.xxviii, pp. 162-6 and pp. 186-8.
The composition of Vigor’s own biography (De Smedt (ed.), AASS Nov. I , pp. 297-305,
cols. I and z = BHL 8608-13) has been dated over the past few centuries to anywhere be-
tween the seventh and the eleventh centuries, with the two most recent contributions
to the debate advocating the late eleventh century and the late eighth or ninth centuries
respectively (J. Howe, ‘The Date of the “Life” of St Vigor of Bayeux’, AB 102

Early Medieval .&rope 1995 4 ( 2 )

 The migration of Neustrian relics in the Viking Age

historian of St-Germain-des-PrCs falsely claimed possession of relics of

Audoenus. Aimo’s Continuator and Hariulf are not the only late-
zyx 187

eleventh- and twelfth-century historians to claim possession of the Neus-

trian relics of Normandy. In some cases, such as that of Hariulf, no earlier
evidence either supports or disproves the claim, which comes out of
nowhere in the late eleventh century; more importantly, the church

zyxw
of Bayeux never riposted in any way. In other cases, such as that of
Audoenus, the claims of extra-Norman institutions to possession of
Neustrian relics were disputed by intra-Norman institutions. It may well
be that, by the later eleventh century, the idea of the removal of Neustrian
relics from the ecclesiastical province of Rouen during the ninth and tenth
centuries had become such a plausible topos, that this plausibility per-
mitted false claims to possession of similar treasures to be made even by
those who had not been lucky enough to acquire relics either through
royal favour o r through pillaging opportunities before the dukes of an
independent Normandy put a stop to such activities. The utilization of
this topos would then have contributed substantially to twelfth-century
and later mythologized visions, such as that of Orderic Vitalis, of an
‘exodus of holy bodies’ out of the province of Rouen.4’ Two cases are
particularly relevant here: the relics of the houses of Jumikges and of
FCcamp.4’
There is already a fairly extensive literature on the enigma of the
principal Jumi2ges relics which were claimed, from the middle of the
eleventh century, both by Jumikges itself and by the priory of St Vaast of

zyxwvutsrq
(1984), pp. 303- I z and N . Gauthier, ‘Quelques hypotheses sur la redaction des vies des saints

zyxwv
Cv@quesde Normandie’, Memoriam Sunctorum Veneruntes (Miscellanea in onore di Mons. V.
Saxer, Studi di Antichitu Christiuna XLVIII; Vatican City, rggr), pp. 449-68, at p. 455).
Howe’s arguments seem well founded in principle; however, it is equally plausible that the
biography was composed at St Riquier (or elsewhere) as at Cerisy-le-For&. In any case, neither
the various versions of the vita Vigoris nor the scholarship on the question offers any help in
resolving the main question at issue here, namely how and when and indeed whether relics of
Vigor were taken o u t of province of Rouen.
4‘ The~sychological, dynamic has here already been made explicit by M. Chibnall, who singled

zyxw
out rdertck’s visit to Haspres, where he was told the (possibly completely false) story of the
Viking-induced flight of the relics of Jumikges, as among the most formative experiences of
that historian’s entire life (OV, M. Chibnall (ed.), vol. I, pp. 13-20).
42 It is not possible here to detail the complex and extensive evidence for continuity across the late
Carolingian and early Viking periods at Jumieges and Fecamp, evidence which renders much
more plausible the gemmetic and ficumpois sides of the disputes discussed below. For
references concerning the issue of continuity, see above n. 5 , to which should be added here a
study particularly relevant to Jumieges, showing that the properties held by the abbey
remained absolutely intact throughout the ninth and tenth centuries: L. Musset, ‘Les destines
dc la proprieti monastique durant les invasions normandes (IXe-XIe s.). L’exemple de
Jumieges’, in Jumieges. [Congres scientifique du X I I I e centenaire] (Rouen, 1 9 ~ 4 ) .vol. I
(Rouen, ‘Y55)>pp. 49-11.

Early Medieval Europe 1995 4 (2)

188 Felice Lifshitz zyxw
Arras at Haspres in the Cambrisis.43 The only full-scale discussions
devoted to the issue of the supposed relic translations to Haspres are
highly equivocal: neither Van der Straeten nor Laporte considered the late
Picard claims to be fully cogent, yet both concluded (albeit reluctantly)
that some sort of exodus of clerics and relics out of Jumieges must have
taken place, in order for instance to explain the presence of a cult to the
saints of Jumieges (Aichardus and Hugo) in Picardy.44 Yet the presence of

zy
relics and cults of gemmetic saints at Haspres or elsewhere in the Cambri-
sis is easily explicable through the constant connections which had existed
between Jumieges and that region from the beginning of the eighth
century.45
It is certainly not impossible that gemmetic relics were in the control
of the abbey of St Vaast of Arras in the eleventh century. Yet any

zy
explanation for the Picard possession of Neustrian relics originally per-
taining to the ecclesiastical province of Rouen can be no more than the
result of more or less informed, more or less prejudiced conjectures on
the part of eleventh-century and later historians. There is no direct
ninth- or tenth-century evidence concerning the relics of Aichardus and
Hug0.4~The mid-eleventh-century author of the CanL3raigesta attri-
buted St Vaast of Arras’ purported possession of relics of Aichardus and

z
Hugo to a Viking-induced exodus of clerics from Jumieges almost two
centuries earlier. Would it not be equally plausible to suggest that, if St
Vaast of Arras controlled gemmetic relics, the acquisition might have
been made in 954 when, in his capacity as lay abbot of St Vaast, Count
Arnulf of Flanders (still at war with the Norman Prince Richard) and
Gerard of Brogne were engaged in the project to reform St Vaast and

43 The mid-eleventh-century Gesta episcoporum Cameracensium claims that the gemmetic

relics of Sts Aichardus and Hugo had been brought to Haspres by refugee monks in the time

zyxwvuts
of the extremely-destructive Rollo. Haspres was, at the time, a priory of Jumieges, but

zy
authority over the priory is said to have been transferred to the nearby house of St Vaast in an

zyxwvuts
attempt to curb the obscene behaviours of the wild monks resident in the priory; the house
of Jumieges was compensated for the loss by the acquisition of Angicourt. The exchange of
the properties is commemorated both by the Cambrai gesta and by contemporary charter
evidence, though only the gesta mentions the relics (Gesta episcoporum Cameracensium,
11.29, in Patrologia Latina 139, pp. 134-5; J.J. Vernier, Chartes de l’abbaye de Jumieges
(824-1204) conserves aux archives de Seine-Infirceur (Kouen, 1916), pp. 24-6). The claim
that the gemmetic relics were in fact moved to Haspres has been most recently endorsed by
E.M.C. Van Houts in Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumieges, Orderic Vitalas
and Robert of Torigni, vol. I: Introduction and Books I-IV (Oxford, 199z), p. xxiii.
44 J. Van Der Straeten, ‘La vie inedite de S. Hughes, ivOque de Rouen’, A B 87 (1969), pp. 2 3 2 -
60; J. Laporte, ‘La date de I’exode de Jumieges’ injumieges, vol. I, pp. 47-48.
4’ C. Vion and P. Hassein, ‘Les t h o i n s liturgiques du culte de saint Aychadre’,Jumitges, I, pp.

zyxwvuts
365-70; P. LogiP, ‘Jumieges et St. Riquier’, jurnteges, I, pp. 199-207; J. Laporte, ‘Etude
chronologique sur les listes abbatiales de St Riquier’, Revue Mabillon, XLIX (1959). p. 107;
Hariulf Chronique de Saint Riquier, 1.26, p. 43.
46 The only relevant evidence is the remark by the author of the late-ninth-century vita
Aichardi that the relics of Aichardus and Hugo were still buried and causing miracles at
Jumikges (Vita Aichardi, c. 65 (= BHL 1 8 1 ) W. Levison (ed.), M G H SRM V).

Early Medieval Europe 1995 4 (2)

 The migration of Neustrian relics in the Viking Age

Jumikges? And what of the explanation of a fourteenth-century histor-

ian, who emphasized the ways in which relic translations were some-
zyx 189

times hostile takeovers tantamount to theft, when he explained that relics

of Aichardus and Hugo were present in the CambrCsis because the prior
of Haspres and the bishop of Cambrai had successfully persuaded the

zyxwv
emperor to forbid the return of the relics to the Viking principality when
the Normans tried to take the relics back to J ~ m i e g e s ? ~ ’
The case of the relics of Ficamp, unlike those of Jumitges, is one
which has not yet attracted much scholarly attention. In the twelfth
century, a monk of the Burgundian monastery of Gigny began claiming
possession of the relics of three Cvregin saints, Aquilinus, Taurinus and
Florentia, asserting that those relics had been saved from the Norman
‘dogs’ and ‘pigs’ during the attacks of Rollo and brought to Lezoux
(Puy-de-DBme) then to Gigny.4’ Meanwhile, the Norman monastery of
Ficamp also claimed to have the relics of Aquilinus and Taurinus.49 Yet
the claims of Gigny have been accepted by scholars, against the claims of
FCcamp, precisely on the basis that a massive exodus of relics is known to
have taken place out of late-Carolingian Neustria and early-Viking Nor-
mandy due to fear of the Vikings.5”
Not only is there no good reason to accept the claims of the twelfth-

z
century monk of Gigny, there is very good reason to be suspicious of
those claims. The state of war between the Norman dukes and the
Frankish kings (as well as other continental princes) may have temporar-
ily subsided in the late tenth century, but the state of hostility did not

47
48
zyxwvutsrq
disappear. Furthermore, that hostility had been, by the middle of the

zyxw
eleventh century, transmuted into a more lasting and virulent strain of

J. de Guise, Annales Hannoniae, XVI, c. 6.

zyx
Paris, B N nouvelle acquisition latine (nal) 2261 (Cluny, s. xii) contains an inter olated
version of Taurinus’ tenth-century inventb, adding a short notice o n the necessity oPbring-
ing the saint’s relics to Leznux, as well as a full account of the translation to Lezoux and on to
Gigny (BHL 7992 and 7995 respectively, P. Boschius (ed.) AASS, 2 August, pp. 643-50). In
a variation on the coercion theme, this author has the relics themselves refuse to return home
to Evreux when their previous owners come, only a short time after the translation, to get
them back again.
4y Ficamp may have been endowed with control of the princi al relics of St Taurin of Evreux,
as a reward from its consistent benefactors, the Norman du&es, as early as the tenth century
(OV, Book V, c. 7 M. Chibnall (ed.), vol. 111, p. 47;sermo de sancto Tawrino, Paris, B N lat.

zyxwv
1805 (Fecamp, s. x) fols. 46rv). In any case, Fecamp was a major centre of diffusion of the
cults of both Aquilinus and Taurinus. The story of Aquilinus that was read aloud at table in
the monastery of Fecamp during the twelfth century has been preserved in the parvum
passionarium of Fecamp (Paris, B N lat. 5296, fols. rozr-103r; BHL vacat), and is identical to
the story in the twelfth-century Burgundian manuscript, less a series of moralizing diatribes
(Paris B N nal 2261 (Cluny, s. xii) fols. 149r-50~(= BHL 655) B. Bossue (ed.), AASS, 8
October, pp. 505-10).It is unlikely that the monks of Ficarnp had left their evreciin relics in
obscurity for well over a century then heard of a biography of Aquilinus being circulated in
Burgundian circles and rushed to insert excerpts from that biography into their most import-
ant volume of readings.
lo B. Bossue, AASS, 8 October, pp. 504-5; P. Boschius, AASS, 2 August, p. 636.

Early Medzeval Europe 1991 4 ( 2 )

190 zyxwvu Felice Lifshitz

belligerence: the one which pitted Norman dukes and Anglo-Norman

kings against the Capetian kings of ‘France’. Was it not, after all, one of
the foremost Capetian royalist historians who falsely claimed relics of
Audoenus in the twelfth century?
The portrait of the Norman Conquest of Neustria drawn by the
anonymous twelfth-century monk of Gigny is one of unmitigated cruelty
and savagery. Meanwhile, the putative relics of Aquilinus, Taurinus and
Florentia in Burgundy, like those of Marculfus at Corbeny (which we
have already encountered),’’ were regularly paraded around their new
homes during the twelfth century.>’From the Capetian royalist point of

zyxwvuts
view, any negative publicity surrounding the Norman predecessors of
Angevin rulers of England would have had undoubted ideological merit
and appeal. And the ‘exodus of holy bodies’ scenario is charged with
negative implications for the rulers of the Viking principality.
Through the pilgrimage to CorbCny connected with the royal corona-
tion ordo, Marculfus was used in Francia-France to keep alive a vision of

zyxwvu
the Normans as a menace, and of Francia-France as a safe haven.33 Relics
of Serenicus of St-Ceniri-le-Gkrei in Normandy were claimed in the
twelfth century by ChPteau-Thierry, another Capetian stronghold, wheie
those relics were, from the twelfth century, asserted to have been brmght
due to the destructions of the Vikings during the reign of Charles the
Simple. 54 The Capetian Philip I, likewise, claimed quite suddenly in I 09 I
that the royal fortress at Pontoise was the proud owner of the relics of
Mallonus, first bishop of the see of Rouen according to most episcopal
lists.53 The royal domain at Moussy-le-Neuf in the diocese of Meaux was
also the centre from which the cults of saints Opportuna of Montreuil-la-

zyxwvu
Cambe and Chrodegang of Sees were diffused in the Parisian region.$6
Relics whose presence in France and absence from Normandy was
attributed to Viking depredations were being publicized by the twelfth
century from four separate Capetian strongholds: CorbCny, Chateau-
Thierry, Pontoise and Moussy-le-Neuf. The Ile-de-France was effect-

zyxwvuts
ively ringed with a cordon sunituire of powerful Neustrian relic-shrines-

zyxwvu
zy
See above, p, 9.
BHL 7996 describes the czrcumvectzo of the Gigny relics through Burgundy in 1 1 5 8 (P.
-
. , AASS, z Aucust, pp. 650-6).
Boschius (ed.), L . I I

’ I Heinzelmann’s discussion of narrative accounts of relic transfers emphasizes primarily the

fact that such accounts seem genuinely intended to convey the specific realities of the
concrete historical moment in which the events are set (Trunslutionsberichte, pp. 56-61).
’’ L. Musset, ‘L’exode des reliques’, p. 1 2 ; J.-B.-N. Blin Vies des saints du diocese de Seez et
htstoire de leur culte (Laigle, 1873), vol. I, pp. 418-33.
” B. Bossue, AASS, 10 October, 564. In the twelfth century, Orderic explained the presence
of Mallonus’ relics in the roya?‘fortress at Pontoise as a result of flight before the Viking
invaders at the end of the ninth century ( O V , Book V, vol. 111 M. Chibnall (ed.), pp. 50-1).

121-6.

zyxwvuts
’6 L. Musset, ‘L’exode des reliques’, p. 10-1 I ; Fournee, ‘Quelques facteurs de fixation’, pp.

Early Medreval Europe 199’ 4 (2)

 zyx
zyxwvut
The migration of Neustrian relics in the Viking Age

in-exile. O n e has to wonder why Capetian kings would be interested in

celebrating the memory of the saints of the ecclesiastical province of
191

Rouen, if not for the purpose of underlining their own current posses-
sion of the relics in question.
Consider the case of St Ebrulfus, one of the Neustrian saints whose
relics had been stolen during the mid-tenth-century wars between the
Franks and the Normans.” Ebrulfus in his own setting had a long and
venerable history; his first biography had been composed within years of
his death in 706 by an author who may have known him personally.’*
The forest of Ouche where Ebrulfus is said to have spent his active career
was presented by the saint’s early biographer as such a pious place in the
late seventh century that most of the inhabitants of the region (even
ruffians and brigands) had deep religious convictions, at the minimum
devoting themselves to supporting Ebrulfus and his ever-growing group
of followers, at a maximum becoming most perfect monks themselves. In
the HiCmois, Ebrulfus would have stood for the historical piety of the
region. Instead, he stood for something entirely different outside Nor-
mandy: that the present-day inhabitants of the region were no longer
pious enough to deserve him.

zy
It may be that the imagery of the ‘exodus of holy bodies’ was, from its
very first articulation, bound up with a royalist cause. The specific case
of the ecclesiastical province of Rouen should not be isolated from late-
Carolingian Francia as a whole. Marc Bloch’s catastrophic scenario of
massive ninth- and tenth-century Francia-wide, Viking-induced relic
translations depended, as far as we can judge from his own citations,
entirely on the assertions of Ermentarius.” The refugcc reliquary that
Ermentarius made famous was that of St Filibertus of Jumikges, who had
died and been buried at Noirmoutier in the Vendee. Apparently, the
monks of Noirmoutier had been forced by Viking raids to abandon their
coastal monastery, and to set up on the mainland, at Deas, in 836.
Ermentarius, a monk of Deas (St-Philibert-de-Grandlieu), appears to
have wanted as quickly as possible to escape the Atlantic backwater in
which he was living and travel in the glamorous circles of the most
powerful men of the Carolingian world. Ermentarius sent to archchap-
lain Hilduin an old biography of Filibertus (BHL 6805) and an account

zyxwvutsrqp
zyxw
(composed by himself) of the many anti-Viking miracles Filibertus had

zyxwvuts
i7
”

‘‘
zyxw
See above, p. 10.
Vita Ebrulfi (= BHL 2374 similis) M. Chibnall (cd.), OV, vol. I, p 204 1 I Laporte, ‘Les
origines d u monachisme dans la province de Rouen’, Revue Mubzdn, XxXI;/i94r). pt. 11, p.
36; M. Chibnall, ‘The Merovingian Monastery of St Evroult in the Light of Conflicting
Traditions’, in Curning and Baker (eds) Studies in Church History X (1972). pp. 33-7.
M. Bloch Feudal Soaety I: The Growth of Ties of Dependence L.A. Manyon (trans.);
Chicago, 1961), pp. 54-5.

Eilrly Medieval Europe 1995 4 (2)

192 zyxwvut
zyxw Felice Lifshitz

been working in the Vendee (BHL 6808); in the accompanying letter

(BHL 6807), Ermentarius begged Hilduin to bring Filibertus to the
attention of the king and promised that, if Hilduin did what Ermentarius
wanted, the latter would dedicate to the archchaplain more books about
the saint’s anti-Viking activities.6o

zyxwv
It was, however, Charles the Bald who fully appreciated the publicity
value of taking in saintly refugees. Charles founded a monastery in

zyxwvu
Burgundy which would stand as a lasting symbol of the need for protec-
tion, protection which he would provide if everyone would stand behind
him, against the Vikings. The foundation of Tournus as a new home for
Filibertus took place in 875 at St Denis, the site of so many of the most
ideologically-charged moments in Carolingian dynastic history. Like
CorbCny after it (in 906), Tournus was founded specifically as a refuge for
relics fleeing before Vikings, and was endowed lavishly. Charles treated
the foundation as a major event: to the foundation charter was attached a
gold seal inscribed Karolus res FrancorumlRenovatio regni Francorum,
and two Byzantine crosses mounted on globes were drawn so as to appear
to ‘support’, like twin pillars, the dating line. The narratio of the charter
describes how it is the task of the Christian emperor to provide for servi
Dei, especially those paganorum truculentos impetus fugientes.61
The cult of Filibertus, victim of Viking ravages, was publicized ener-
getically from Tournus. A late-ninth-century Jumikges historian, author
of the first biography of Filibertus’ successor Aichardus, opined that
Filibertus was the most famous of all the saints of Neustria.62Echoes of
Ermentarius’ letter and miracle-collections could still be heard in the
twelfth century, when they were explicitly cited by the Burgundian
monk of Gigny to support his claims to the relics of E ~ r e u x , ~and
3 in the
twentieth, when they served as the sole witness to massive Viking des-
tructiveness for Marc Bloch. Like Ebrulfus in his new home at Rebais,
Filibertus could no longer stand historically for the piety of the commu-
nities he had ruled in Neustria; Filibertus at Tournus, in his new context,
was transformed into a monument of the depredations of the Viking
Normans. Neither Ebrulfus nor Filibertus has been ‘translated’ since.

zyxw
Department of History
Florida International University

zyxwvutsrqponml
60

61
bert (Paris, 1905), p. 19 ff.

zy
Ermentarius, letter to Hilduin W. Levison (ed.), M G H SRM V, pp. 604-5; Ermentarius,

zyxwvuts
Miracula Filiberti R. Poupardin (cd.), Monidments dr /’Histoire dcs Abbayes de Saint-Pbili-

L on, Bibliotheque de la Ville 5403; C. Tessier, ‘ D i p l h e de Charles le Chauve pour St-

d i l i b e r t deTournus ( I 9e mars 875)’, Bibliorheque del’Ecole des Cbartes 93 ( I 932), pp. I 97-207.
“ Vita Aicbardz, 11.1 (= BHL 181) W. Levison (ed.) ( M G H SRM V).

zyxwvutsr
” BHL. 7992, c. 5 ; see above, n. 48.

Early Medieval Europe i y ) ~4 ( 2 )