• 2 The Northmen first appeared in the region in 841; Nithard, Histoire des fils de Louis de Pieux, éd. (...)
• 3 Charles the Bald granted the Avranchin and Cotentin to Solomon, king of Brittany, following the pea (...)
• 4 In 1061, the monks of Mont-Saint-Michel claimed that they were being repeatedly called to Avranches (...)
• 5 For the reconstruction of the diocese of Coutances following the disruption of the ninth and tenth (...)
• 6 Gallia Christiana in provincias ecclesiasticas distributa, 16 vol., Paris, Victor Palme, 1715-1865, (...)
• 7 Bouet, Pierre et Dosdat, Monique, “Les évêques normands de 985 à 1150”, in Les évêques normands du (...)
• 8 For details of these drawings and plans, see Pigeon, Émile-Auber, Le diocèse d’Avranches, sa topogr (...)
• 9 Levalet, Daniel, “La cathédrale Saint-André et les origines chrétiennes d’Avranches”, Archéologie m (...)
• 10 For details, see “Répertoire des bibliothèques et archives de la Manche”, Revue de la Manche, 4 (19 (...)
• 11 Bibl. mun. Avranches, ms 206.
• 12 When Henri Omont produced his catalogue of manuscripts in French municipal libraries, there was a c (...)

1Any assessment of the history of the episcopal see of Avranches, the smallest and one of the most westerly dioceses in the ecclesiastical province of Rouen, is plagued by an overwhelming paucity of sources. This is a consequence of both medieval and modern circumstances. Like most parts of northern France, the Avranchin suffered heavily following the Northmen incursions of the ninth century2. The region was also ravaged by Breton attacks at this time3, a problem that would continue to plague the area well into the eleventh century4, and, as a result, the bishopric was, like the neighbouring diocese of Coutances, effectively severed from the ecclesiastical chain of command5. The cathedral was abandoned, churches razed to the ground, relics scattered, and the destruction in the region so profound that the seat lay vacant for over a century6. Although the bishopric was reoccupied during the last years of the reign of Richard I (942-996), we know very little of the prelates who came to regenerate the diocese during the first half of the eleventh century7. At the beginning of the nineteenth century the city suffered another blow when the remaining ruins of the cathedral, which had fallen into disuse during the preceding decades, collapsed and were removed. It is possible to substitute this great loss through various drawings and plans of the cathedral8, as well as the findings of excavations carried out in the 1970s, but the architectural history of the cathedral remains woefully incomplete9. Fortunately, the cathedral’s patrimony survived the greatest disaster to befall the region, since it was not conserved at the departmental archives of la Manche (Saint-Lô), which were almost completely destroyed on 6 June 194410. Consequently, we are in possession of a cartulary for the cathedral, whose contents will form the basis of this article11. The consequences of the calamities to befall the diocese means, however, that no original document issued by the bishops of Avranches survives from either the eleventh or twelfth centuries12.

• 13 Fauroux, Marie (éd.), Recueil des actes des ducs de Normandie, 911-1066, Mémoires de la Société des (...)
• 14 Norgod’s final appearance in the diplomatic record dates from this year ; Mabillon, Jean (éd.), Ann (...)
• 15 Desroches, Jean-Jacques, “Annales religieuses de l’Avranchin”, 3 parts, Mémoires de la Société des (...)
• 16 Fauroux, Recueil…, n° 72, 93, 145. These charters are discussed in Bates, David, Normandy before 10 (...)
• 17 Gibson, Margaret (ed.), Vita Lanfranci, in Lanfranco di Pavia e l’Europa del secolo XI nel IX cente (...)
• 18 Lebreton, Charles, “L’école d’Avranches au XI^e siècle sous Lanfranc et saint Anselme”, Mémoires de (...)
• 19 Gibson, Margaret, Lanfranc of Bec, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1978, p. 20-21 ; Cowdrey, Herbert E.J., (...)
• 20 Allen, Richard, “‘A proud and headstrong man’: John of Ivry, bishop of Avranches and archbishop of (...)
• 21 He was the son of Rodulf, count of Ivry, the uterine brother of Richard I. For Rodulf’s career, see (...)
• 22 Spear, David (ed.), The personnel of the Norman cathedrals during the ducal period, 911-1204, Londo (...)
• 23 Keats-Rohan, The cartulary…, Appendix II, n° 5. Of course, this arrangement also sought to limit th (...)
• 24 Spear, The personnel…, p. 25.
• 25 The details of this agreement, which are recorded by Orderic (Chibnall, Marjorie (éd.), The Ecclesi (...)

2The first bishop to reoccupy the see after the vacancy of the eighth and ninth centuries was Norgod (c. 990 -c. 1017)13. Although he was responsible for the revival of the diocese, he was clearly overwhelmed by the destruction with which he was confronted, since he removed himself from his duties to become a monk at the nearby abbey of Mont-Saint-Michel in around 101714. His successor, Maugis (c. 1022 -c. 1026), was also gripped by the desire to retreat to the monastery, and was only prevented from doing so by its abbot15. The next bishop, Hugh (c. 1028 -c. 1060), occupied the see for over thirty years, but he seems to have focused his attentions on Upper Normandy, where he was particularly involved with the abbey of Fécamp16. A reliable but late source, the Vita Lanfranci, suggests that Lanfranc visited Avranches during Hugh’s episcopate17, but while early scholars understood this to indicate the presence of a cathedral school in the city18, most modern authorities are more sceptical19. His successor, John (c. 1060-1067)20, came from one of the most influential families in the duchy21, and while his episcopate marked the beginning of the reintegration of the diocese into the Norman ecclesiastical mainstream, two important institutions, the chapter and the cathedral itself, remained only half restored22. Indeed, the degree to which the chapter was starved of personnel is illustrated by the famous conventio drawn up between John and the abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel in 1061, in which the bishop made the abbot his archdeacon23. The situation would improve considerably during the tenure of the next bishop, Michael (1068-1094), a former royal chaplain, for under his rule we can name two archdeacons (Peter and Gilbert), a scholasticus (John), and five canons (Bernard, Ernesy of Verdun, Garner, Gauslin and Serlo). The bishop obviously did not struggle to find men of a high quality, for one of them (the canon Serlo) would later become abbot of St. Peter’s, Gloucester24. The final years of Michael’s episcopate were dominated by the transition of power in Normandy between William II (1035-1087) and his son Robert Curthose (1087-1106). Following the failed rebellion of Odo, bishop of Bayeux (c. 1049-1097) and Robert, count of Mortain (c. 1055-1095), in England in March 1088, the duke, in a desperate bid to raise funds, granted the Cotentin and the Avranchin, including the bishopric of Avranches, to his brother Henry, in return for three thousand livres25. The move had dramatic consequences for the region, which was essentially severed from the rest of the duchy.

• 26 For a very short assessment of Turgis’ episcopate, see Spear, David, “The Norman episcopate under H (...)
• 27 Adigard des Gautries, Jean, Les noms de personnes scandinaves en Normandie de 911 à 1066, Lund, 195 (...)
• 28 L.C., “Turgis, évêque d’Avranches (1094-1134)”, Revue de l’Avranchin et du pays de Granville, 49, 1 (...)
• 29 Davis, Henry W.C. (ed.), Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, 1066-1154: Regesta Willelmi Conquestoris (...)
• 30 Haskins, Charles H., Norman institutions, Cambridge, Mass., 1918, p. 74 n. 29. For the charter text (...)
• 31 OV, iii, p. 20. For discussion, see Spear, “The Norman episcopate…”, p. 35; Spear, The personnel…, (...)

3Unfortunately, the origins of Michael’s successor, Turgis (1094-1134), are as obscure as those of his predecessors26. His name, which derives from the Scandinavian Þorgisl, was common in Normandy, and endured in the region until the fifteenth century27. An anonymous contributor to the Revue de l’Avranchin speculated that the bishop was from the Avranchin, and that he was perhaps a relative of the counts of Avranches, although there is no evidence to justify this28. Whether Turgis had any previous ecclesiastical experience before ascending to the see is also unclear. H.W.C. Davis identified a Turgis capellanus who appears in a royal charter issued by William Rufus at Dover on 27 January 1091 as the future bishop of Avranches29, while Charles Haskins dated a charter issued by Ivo Taillebois to 1094, because he believed that the Turgis capellanus regis who witnessed this act was the same man30. Although the prevalence of the name noted above means such conclusions are slender, the fact that Turgis was both preceded and succeeded in his see by royal chaplains certainly tempts such a connection. Elsewhere, Orderic Vitalis mentions a Turgis who was chanter of Lisieux in 1077, but it seems unlikely that this is our bishop. Not only does the monk of Saint-Évroult fail to identify him as a future bishop, but also Turgis the chanter seems to have died sometime before 111331.

• 32 The best survey of Curthose’s reign remains, David, Charles Wendell, Robert Curthose..., op. cit. n (...)
• 33 The fullest account is that of Orderic Vitalis; OV, iv, p. 112, 146-148, 226-228; v, p. 26, 300-302 (...)
• 34 For a list of charters issued by Robert between 1087 and 1104, see Haskins, Norman institutions, p. (...)
• 35 For a list of charters issued by William Rufus in Normandy, see Haskins, Norman institutions, p. 80 (...)
• 36 Barlow, William Rufus, p. 372.
• 37 BnF, ms lat. 5441 (ii), p. 161-162 ; Rouet, Cartulaire de Saint-Pierre-de-Préaux, n° A 122.
• 38 Johnson, Charles and Cronne, Henry A. (ed.), Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, 1066-1154: Regesta He (...)
• 39 BnF, ms nouv. acq. lat. 2500, p. 18 (n° viii), p. 24 (n° xiv) ; BnF, ms nouv. acq. lat. 1022, p. 7 (...)
• 40 Jaffé, Philipp (ed.), Regesta pontificum romanorum, 2 vol., (Leipzig, 1885-1888), I, n° 6738 and 67 (...)
• 41 Ivo of Chartres, Ep. cclxx, Migne, Jacques-Paul (éd.), Patrologia latina cursus completus, 221, vol (...)
• 42 Spear, David, “Geoffrey Brito, archbishop of Rouen (1111-1128)”, Haskins Society Journal, 2, 1990, (...)
• 43 Baylé, Maylis, “Les évêques et l’architecture normande au XI^e siècle”, in Les évêques…, p. 151-172, (...)
• 44 Gallia Christiana, xi, col. 467.

4The first decade of Turgis’ episcopate was dominated by the troubles of the reign of Robert Curthose32. His predecessor’s acquiescence to Henry’s requisition of the Avranchin had effectively severed the bishopric from the rest of the duchy. Elsewhere, the disruption to ecclesiastical affairs throughout Normandy was profound, and contemporary narratives speak of private war, pillage, rapine and the wanton destruction of ecclesiastical property33. The diplomatic record verifies the dreary picture painted here. Duke Robert issued no ducal charter for the cathedral of Avranches throughout his entire reign (his name appears alongside that of the bishop in only one transaction)34, and even under the more organised governorship of William Rufus, the cathedral and bishop (with one exception) are conspicuous by their absence from the corpus of extant royal charters35. Frank Barlow included Turgis among a group of “courtiers” who accompanied Rufus back to England in 1097 after his successful acquisition of Normandy the year before, yet any such intimacy was apparently short lived, since the bishop is never again found in the presence of the king36. While Turgis appears in two charters broadly dated during the opening years of his episcopate37, there is no surviving document dated to a single year until after Henry’s victory at Tinchebray38. Of course, the situation under Henry I improved considerably. While Turgis seems not to have been an intimate of the king, only venturing out of the Avranchin when it was required of him, he was a prelate actively involved in the religious life of both his diocese, and Europe as a whole. He was an active patron of Vitalis the hermit’s new foundation at Savigny39, a recipient of at least two papal bulls40, and even a correspondent of Ivo, bishop of Chartres41. He is, it is certain, undeserving of his reputation as “obscure”42. The community at Avranches would also benefit greatly during Turgis’ episcopate. The bishop began a second phase of building on the cathedral43, and on 17 September 1121 he consecrated the new edifice44. For the first time since the refoundation of the late tenth century the cathedral chapter also had a full complement of personnel, and the key new position created by Turgis was the deanship. Scholars of the nineteenth century were well acquainted with this fact, the details of which they claimed appeared in the cartulary of the cathedral.

• 45 Lebrun, Michèle, Le temporel des évêques d’Avranches du XI^e au XIV^e siècle, Diplôme d’Études Supéri (...)

5The cartulary of Avranches has been the subject of only one study, and has never been the subject of a critical edition45. Begun in 1241, the cartulary contains acts dating from the twelfth to fifteenth centuries, some of which are written in Latin and others in Old French. The codex itself measures 30 cm in length, 22 cm in width, and is comprised of 163 folia. Michèle Lebrun divided the cartulary into four sections, of which the first two (fol. 1-21v and 22-50) are of interest here. The text up to folio 50 is in a uniform hand which is quite large, and, when the parchment is not damaged, easily deciphered. Each section of the manuscript (except the fourth) is preceded by an inventory of the charters (the acts are numbered), and in the first two sections rubrication explains each charter’s contents. The folia are numbered twice. The pagination written in red ink and in Roman numerals is the original, while the foliation in Arabic numerals dates to the late nineteenth century. Since modern authorities maintain the latter, it will also be used here.

• 47 Desroches, Jean-Jacques, “Sur les paroisses du Mont-Saint-Michel”, Mémoires de la Société des antiq (...)
• 48 Spear, The personnel…, p. 6.
• 49 Le Héricher, Edouard, Avranchin monumental et historique, 3 vol., Avranches, Tostain, 1845-1865, I, (...)
• 50 Le Héricher referenced using the pagination, since the foliation used by modern scholars was not ad (...)

7Desroches repeated this claim on at least one other occasion, but provided no exact reference47. It was the former of these two citations that David Spear included in his fasti of Norman cathedral personnel, but he reported that he had “been unable to locate” the charter in question48. Elsewhere, Édouard Le Héricher, former president of the Société Archéologique et Historique d’Avranches, referenced what he claimed was the same act in his architectural and historical study of the Avranchin49. Fortunately, Le Héricher provided not only a full reference (he held that the act was on page 23 of the cartulary), but also a partial transcription of the act50.

• 51 Appendix, n° 1.
• 52 «L’église de Saint-Pierre-de-Vains fut donnée au XII^e siècle par l’évêque d’Avranches, Turgis, à se (...)
• 53 Waldman, Thomas G., “Hugh ‘of Amiens’, archbishop of Rouen, 1130-1164”, unpublished D. Phil thesis, (...)

8The charter to which both Desroches and Le Héricher referred is actually a confirmation of Hugh of Amiens, archbishop of Rouen (1130-1164). It appears on folia 8v to 9 of the cartulary51. Unfortunately, Le Héricher did not identify the act as such (he thought it was a charter of Richard de Subligny (1143-1153) and mistakenly dated it to the thirteenth century), but the text of his transcription (as well as his reference to p. 23 (fol. 8v)) confirms that he cannot have been looking at another act52. Thomas Waldman, whose doctoral thesis on Hugh of Amiens contains a superb collection of the archbishop’s acta, was unaware of the charter, since it is not found among his editions53. This is significant, since the confirmation on these folia is one of two in the cartulary issued by Hugh of Amiens which relate to the founding of the deanship by Turgis, and their edition and analysis here adds to our knowledge of his acta.

• 54 For the career of Richard de Beaufou, see Fournée, Jean, “Notes sur un évêque d’Avranches au XII^e s (...)
• 55 Vains, dép. Manche, cant. Avranches.
• 56 Saint-Philbert-sur-Risle, dép. Eure, cant. Montfort-sur-Risle.
• 57 Livet-sur-Authou, dép. Eure, cant. Brionne. The identification is that of Michèle Lebrun; Lebrun, " (...)

9The first confirmation corresponds to Desroches’ summary. It is addressed to Richard de Beaufou, bishop of Avranches (1134-1143), Richard the dean, who must be Richard de Subligny, the archdeacons (unnamed), and chapter of Avranches54. The opening section is then followed by the text of a charter issued by Richard de Beaufou, in which he and the dean Richard de Subligny record that the deanship was founded by the “illustrious and pious bishop Turgis” (ab illustri et pie recordationis episcopo Turgisio), and that attached to the prebend was the church of Vains (Saint-Pierre) with its cemetery55, the tithes of three vavassors (William, Roger, Girard and his sons), the tithes of the vineyards of campo Botri, and various revenues from the manor at Saint-Philbert-(sur-Risle)56, including the tithes of the mills at Accurso (unidentified),Tolwio (see below), and Livet-(sur-Authou)57. It is then recorded that Richard de Subligny added to the prebend the tithes of Choeio (see below), which belonged to his brother’s fief (de feodo fratris sui). This is then followed by a later confirmation of Hugh de Morville, bishop of Coutances (1208-1238) and a John, bishop of Dol, and his chapter (see below).

• 58 Appendix, n° 2.
• 59 The dates of tenure for the cathedral dignitaries are based on those in Spear, The personnel…, p. 9 (...)
• 60 Chronique de Robert de Torigni, abbé du Mont Saint Michel, éd. Léopold Delisle, 2 vol., Rouen, A. L (...)
• 61 John of Marmoutier, “Historia Gaufredi ducis Normannorum et comitis Andegavorum”, in Chroniques des (...)
• 62 Hugh’s support of Stephen is based upon the dating his charters by the king’s reign; Waldman, “Hugh (...)
• 63 Hugh of Amiens sent a letter to the bishop of Avranches asking that he protect the monks and posses (...)
• 64 Schriber, Carolyn, The dilemma of Arnulf of Lisieux: new ideas versus old ideals, Bloomington, Indi (...)
• 65 Arnulf was finally recognised by Geoffrey in 1143 after he had paid the duke 900 livres ; Barlow, F (...)

10Archbishop Hugh’s second confirmation, which appears on folio 34-v of the cartulary, opens with essentially the same text as the first act58. Unlike the first charter, however, it is not followed by the act of Richard de Beaufou, but rather by a brief statement that those who would violate the terms of the deanship are subject to anathema. There then follows a witness list that includes the archbishop himself, Richard de Beaufou, Arnulf, bishop of Lisieux (1141-1181), Waleran, dean of Rouen (c. 1137-c. 1146), Geoffrey, archdeacon of Rouen (1133-1148), Osmund II, archdeacon of Rouen (1111x1115-1158), Bernard, abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel (1131-1149), Fraternus, abbot of Saint-Ouen de Rouen (after 12 June 1141 x before 1 Aug. 1142-1157), Rodulf, abbot of La Croix-Saint-Leufroy (before 1143-after 1158), and three archdeacons, two of whom, Fulbert III (c. 1124-c. 1158) and Giles (1138-1170), were attached to the church of Rouen, while the third could either be Hugh de Fréuville, archdeacon of Rouen (c. 1138-c. 1158), or Hugh de Lingèvres, archdeacon of Avranches (1142)59. Based on these dates, the charter was probably produced in around 1142, and certainly no later than 25 April 1143 (de Beaufou’s death). If it was issued at this time, it was undoubtedly related to the increasing influence of Geoffrey of Anjou in the duchy. On 6 April 1141 he had seized Lisieux from its bishop, and by 1142 he had captured both Avranches and Coutances60. According to John of Marmoutier, the count of Anjou was met by Richard de Beaufou as he approached the city, and the two men walked to the cathedral and then the castle, where the bishop officially surrendered the city61. Aware that such a dramatic shift in the politics of the duchy could have ramifications for the cathedral’s possessions, the chapter had perhaps petitioned the archbishop of Rouen, who still seems to have been supporting King Stephen as late as 1143, for a second confirmation62. The first had not made any provisions for those who would violate the terms of the deanship, but the second expressly threatened anathema for such actions, a warning perhaps implicitly intended for the new master of Avranches. Indeed, the cathedral was not the only religious institution in the region to seek the archbishop’s protection following the Angevin occupation of the Avranchin63. The gathering of men who witnessed the charter probably occurred in Rouen. It was one of the last cities not under Angevin control at this time, and was home to eight of the twelve witnesses. Moreover, we know that Arnulf, bishop of Lisieux, was in Rouen in 1142 conducting diocesan business64, although he had not yet been recognised by Geoffrey of Anjou65.

• 66 Waldman, “Hugh ‘of Amiens’…”, p. 125-146.
• 67 Ibidem, p. 92.

11The diplomatic value of Hugh’s charters has already been discussed in detail by Thomas Waldman66. Although these two additional acts represent only one percent of the total number of charters issued by the archbishop, they are not without their importance to our understanding of this body of texts. The second confirmation, for example, allows us to refute the claim that Richard de Beaufou never witnessed for Hugh67. More interesting still is the act’s anathema clause:

• 68 Ibidem, “The Acta of Hugh ‘of Amiens’”, n° 14, 16, 36, 56, 80, 86, 101, 112, 114, 118, 128, 131, 13 (...)
• 69 Ibidem, “The Acta of Hugh ‘of Amiens’”, n° 8, 9, 33, 58, 60, 147, 150, 151, 157. All these charters (...)
• 70 Ibidem, “The Acta of Hugh ‘of Amiens’”, n° 60, 61, 147, 150 and 151.
• 71 Ibidem, “Hugh ‘of Amiens’…”, p. 126-128, 133, 136.
• 72 Ibidem, “Hugh ‘of Amiens’…”, “The Acta of Hugh ‘of Amiens’”, n° 80.
• 73 The word is not found in any royal or ducal charter of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and is n (...)
• 74 Waldman, “Hugh ‘of Amiens’…”, “The Acta of Hugh ‘of Amiens’”, n° 80.

12Although many of Hugh’s acts contain penal clauses, of the 158 charters edited by Thomas Waldman, only 25 (about 15 %) make specific reference to anathema68. The penal clause above is also distinctive for its use of the phrase venire temptauerit, which appears in only a handful of Hugh’s charters, the majority of which date to within four or five years of 114269. The phrase is found most often in papal documents, and among Hugh’s charters is limited to use in confirmations, a number of which Waldman held were “papal” in style70. The papal influence on Hugh’s charters is well known, and includes the use of Roman formulas for blessings and anathema71. It seems fairly certain, therefore, that the original charters were produced by the Rouen chancery, rather than that at Avranches. The closing words of the anathema clause (et gravi iactura plectandum) are unknown among Hugh’s charters, however. The unusual word is plectandum, which is a derivative of the verb plecto (‘to beat’, ‘to punish’). Only one of Hugh’s charters contains a variant of this word (plectetur)72, and since the form plectandum is almost unknown, it is perhaps a corruption of the passive subjunctive plectandur (‘they may be punished’)73. Unfortunately, there is nothing else to link this charter and that containing the form plectetur, which was issued for the abbey of Montebourg between c. 1153 and c. 115774. Nevertheless, perhaps what is most interesting about the two confirmations is how long they maintained their currency after they had been issued. The Avranches chapter never seems to have wanted to replace them with the confirmation of a later archbishop of Rouen, and when figures of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries came to confirm the deanship, it was the veracity of Hugh’s charters that they endorsed.

• 75 Appendix, n° 3.
• 76 Bibl. mun. d’Avranches, ms 206, f°. 23.

13It is possible that the third charter in the Livre vert concerning the deanship was also produced in response to the new Angevin presence in the region. Issued by Richard de Subligny, it appears on folia 33v-34, just before the second confirmation of Hugh of Amiens, and perhaps dates to the first year of the bishop’s reign75. Like Hugh’s confirmation, it once again threatens anathema, but also places the deanship under the protection of the Apostles Andrew, Peter and Paul. Besides the summoning of these celestial heavyweights, the charter’s only other distinctive feature is that the rubricator has incorrectly labelled it as the confirmation of Hugh of Amiens, and vice versa. This was a mistake that apparently went unnoticed until the fifteenth century, when a scribe, whose hand appears later in the codex, noted the correction in the margin. It is, however, not the only inconsistency relating to the charter’s classification, for the inventory which details the charters found in the second part of the cartulary contains the following confusing entry76:

• 77 The charter text numbered xlii is actually a charter of Richard de Subligny’s brother, Hasculf ; Bi (...)
• 78 Lebrun, “Le temporel [diplôme]…”, p. 1-2

14The problem is that the numbering of the inventory does not correspond with the numbers assigned to the charter texts, except for that which is numbered xl. The charter numbered xli, and which claims to be a confirmation of a bishop Richard, is actually the charter that includes, among others, an inspeximus of the bishop of Bayeux, which is numbered xlii in the inventory77. The charter numbered  xxxix could refer to the charter of Richard de Subligny on folia 33v-34, but the description seems to suggest otherwise. Indeed, the charter that has been given the number  xli in the inventory, and which is listed after the confirmation of Hugh of Amiens, is a more accurate description of our charter, since it refers to the act as a confirmatio. However, the text of the charter of Richard de Subligny is numbered  xxxix. Two conclusions can be reached from this. Either the scribe, who produced both the inventory and main body of text simply described and numbered Richard de Subligny’s charter twice (no. xxxix and xli), only to realise that he had only one charter (which was then given the number xxxix in the main text), or, the charters numbered  xxxix and xli are actually two different texts, one of which (most likely that numbered  xxxix in the inventory) was not included in the cartulary. Such discrepancies provide what might be fleeting evidence of a now lost charter, although these are not the only inconsistencies between the inventories and the main body of charter texts78.

• 79 Appendix, n° 4.
• 80 For the history of the inspeximus and its related forms, see Giry, Arthur, Manuel de diplomatique, (...)
• 81 As can be seen above, the scribe responsible for the cartulary’s inventory went even further in his (...)

15The fourth charter concerning the deanship is found on folio 34v, and is comprised of four different inspeximus79. This style of confirmation, which began to evolve in the second half of the twelfth century, has long presented special problems for diplomatists80. The first raised by our example is whether the inspeximus should, in reality, be considered as a separate act at all. Those responsible for compiling the cartulary clearly felt that they should, for not only was the act numbered (xli), but it was also entitled by the rubricator (Littera episcopi Baiocensis super decanatu ecclesie Abrincensis)81. This description is highly misleading, however, for the text, which immediately follows the second confirmation of Hugh of Amiens, is no more a charter of the bishop of Bayeux than the inspeximus issued by later bishops for Hugh’s first confirmation can be called a charter of the bishop of Coutances. Why the scribe decided to make a distinction between these inspeximus and the charter to which they relate, whereas he had previously kept these two parts together, is a question that can, unfortunately, never be answered.

• 82 Lebrun, “Le temporel [diplôme]…”, p. 62.
• 83 For what follows, see Spear, The personnel…, p. 34-35.
• 84 OV, ii, p. 138-140, 150 and 292.
• 85 Bourrienne, Valentin (éd.), Antiquus cartularius ecclesiæ Baiocensis (livre noir), 2 vol., Société (...)
• 86 Ibidem, Antiquus..., I, n° cxxxix.
• 87 This figure is calculated once again by assuming that had he witnessed the charter at a date before (...)

16The second problem relates to the identity of those responsible for the inspeximus, the first of which was issued by a certain R. Baiocensis episcopus. Michèle Lebrun did not hesitate to expand the R. to Ricardus, which would make the bishop Richard of Gloucester (1135-1142)82. This identification is acceptable, however, only if one assumes that the next inspeximus, issued by a dean of Bayeux named William, was made at a different time than the one that precedes it. Otherwise, we are forced to consider a different identity either for the bishop or the dean, or perhaps both. Three Williams were dean at the cathedral during the ducal period83. William de Rots, who according to Orderic was simultaneously dean, chanter and archdeacon of Bayeux, had left the cathedral to become a monk at Saint-Étienne de Caen at a date before 1080, and eventually became abbot of Fécamp84. The second William first appears on 7 May 1092, while he was dead by 111385. William de Tournebu was the last dean during the ducal period to carry the name, but his first known appearance dates to 3 March 115386. In 1184 he was consecrated bishop of Coutances, a position that he held until 1202. Even if he were just of canonical age in 1153, he would have died a man of seventy-nine. If it was he who issued the inspeximus, he must have done so at a date before 1142 (Richard of Gloucester’s death), which means he would have died a man anywhere between ninety and one hundred years of age87! Consequently, none of the three deans called William could have issued an inspeximus at the same time as that delivered by an R. Baiocensis episcopus identified as Richard of Gloucester. However, since the position of dean was never held simultaneously by two individuals, the William of our charter could be a previously unknown occupant of the position who was dean between Ralph, whose last occurrence datable to a single year is in 1135, and Richard de Bohon, who first appears in 1144. This would not only confirm that the first inspeximus was issued by Richard of Gloucester, but would require that the succession of deans at Bayeux should be rewritten as follows: William I (de Rots), 13 September 1077- c. 1080; William II, 7 May 1092-1113; Ralph, 1107x1133-1135; William III, 1135x1144; Richard de Bohon, 1144-1151; William IV (de Tournebu), 3 March 1153-1184.

• 88 Gallia Christiana, xi, col. 399. The only other medieval dean of Bayeux called William was William (...)
• 89 The inspeximus first appeared in the English dioceses of Worcester, London, Bath and York in the 11 (...)
• 90 The word originalis, or a variant therefore, appears in charters dating from the beginning of the e (...)
• 91 Innocent II wrote to Algar about his efforts to install canons at Saint-Lô ; Gallia Christiana, xi, (...)
• 92 Dubosc, François-Nicolas (ed.), Cartulaire de l’abbaye de Saint-Lô, Saint-Lô, 1882, 95 p.
• 93 Gallia Christiana, xi, col. 920.
• 94 Cf. Gazeau, Normannia monastica..., ii, p. 171-176.
• 95 Lebrun, “Le temporel [diplôme]…”, p. 3-4.
• 96 The first definitive example of the language of the inspeximus as it would be in the thirteenth cen (...)

17It is possible, of course, that the bishop of Bayeux is Robert des Ablèges (1206-1231). This would make the dean William IV (not the IV in our reckoning), who occupied the position from 1213 to 122688. Indeed, the use of words in the charter such as ‘originalis’ and ‘sustinencia’, which, along with the inspeximus form itself, are rare for the twelfth century89, might indicate that the scribe either made a poor copy of an earlier charter, or was working from a document dating from a later century90. We have already seen how the first confirmation issued by Hugh of Amiens was later confirmed by figures of the thirteenth century, while our charter was subject to two other later inspeximus. The first of these was issued by the community at Saint-Lô (conventus sancti Laudi dyocesis Constanciensis). Unfortunately, there is no indication at what time this inspeximus was made, although it was not until the mid-twelfth century (around 1145) that the abbey of Sainte-Croix had its first abbot (Theoderic), having been turned into a community of regular canons by Algar, bishop of Coutances (1132-1151), in the 1130s91. There is no reference to the confirmation in the abbey’s cartulary92. The other inspeximus was made by a certain Sylvester, who is said to be an abbot of Lessay. The only abbot by this name, however, comes from the early fourteenth century (c. 1321- c. 1337), and his career is remarkable only for a sole appearance in 132993. Véronique Gazeau has established the abbatial succession at Lessay for the ducal period, and there was not another occupant of the position with this name during this time94. It is possible that the cartulary scribe wrote Sylvester in error for another name, but with many of his predecessors and successors having such standard Norman monikers as William, Warner, Robert, Roger and Rodulf, it is difficult to see with which of these he was confused. His presence demands, therefore, that we revaluate the dates assigned to this part of the cartulary, which Michèle Lebrun claimed contained no charters dating beyond 129095. It seems likely that the Bayeux charter therefore dates to the early thirteenth century. However, since the cartulary scribes reproduced this and other charters with errors, and given the complex nature of this type of act and the fact that words emphasising personal examination are not uncommon in early Bayeux episcopal charters96, we cannot dismiss the idea that the first inspeximus was issued by an earlier bishop.

• 97 Appendix, n° 5.
• 98 “…duas garbas de Toi quas Ricardus frater meus pie recordacionis episcopus habuerat dum decanus”.
• 99 Lebrun, “Le temporel…”, p. 71. I have been unable to locate the document on which Lebrun based this (...)
• 100 Lolif, dép. Manche, cant. Sartilly ; Pigeon, Le diocèse d’Avranches…, II, p. 341.
• 101 Berville-en-Roumois, dép. Eure, cant. Bourgtheroulde-Infreville ; Bates, David, (ed.), Regesta regu (...)
• 102 For the identification and association with Bec, see Lebrun, “Le temporel…”, p. 75.
• 103 “In Suligneio vineam de Toi…” ; Gallia Christiana, xi, Instrumenta, cols. 112-113, at col. 113.

18The final twelfth-century charter concerning the deanship also appears on folio 34v97. It was issued by Hasculf de Subligny, the brother of the bishop of Avranches, and is a confirmation of the “two sheaves of Toi, which my brother Richard, bishop of blessed memory, had had while dean”98. As the quote noted above demonstrates, Desroches believed that this donation was the same as that of Choeio / Toeio, which is stipulated in the confirmations of Hugh of Amiens and Richard de Subligny. Émile-Auber Pigeon noted that Hasculf had given to the chapter the tithes of Thoué, in the commune of Lolif, which Michèle Lebrun held the bishops of Avranches had possessed since the eleventh century99, although frustratingly Pigeon did not specify which act in the cartulary he was interpreting100. Elsewhere, one could identify Toi as Toit, which was tentatively linked by David Bates with Le Tuit, a dependancy of Berville-en-Roumois. This toponym appears in a charter for the abbey of Bec,101 and is close to other benefices (approx. 11 km) associated with the deanship, namely those located at Pont-Authou (the mills atAccurso andTolwio), which were also later associated with the same abbey102. The foundation charter of La Lucerne d’Outremer confirms, however, that Toi was within Subligny itself103.

• 104 For bibliographic details of these different forms, and a discussion of the origins of the name Vai (...)
• 105 Bibl. mun. Avranches, ms 206, fol. 23, 34v.
• 106 This is the only appearance of Toi in a Lucerne document. It is not found among those charters edit (...)
• 107 Masselin, Marie-Joseph, “Études sur les étymologies des noms de lieux et des noms de famille dans l (...)
• 108 Lebrun, Le temporel [diplôme]…, p. 14 ; Lebrun, Le temporel…, p. 71.
• 109 Furthermore, the name Toi has not survived among any of the many hamlets in modern-day Subligny; IN (...)

19It remains to be determined, of course, if Toi and Choeio / Toeio are the same place. Unfortunately, the onomastic evidence is inconclusive. One need only look at the myriad forms for Vains in the eleventh and twelfth centuries (Veim, Vein, Vehim, Vehin, Vehein, Vedun) to see how inconsistently scribes rendered the name of an important local settlement104. Toi, however, appears in the cartulary three times and the form is always fairly uniform (Toe, Toy and Toi)105. Moreover, the charter of La Lucerne also uses the form Toi, which suggests that this was its recognised rendering among local scribes106. In his etymological study of regional toponyms, Marie-Joseph Masselin claimed that Thoué is the modern rendering of Toi, but unfortunately he did not specify the location of this particular place. He does seem to suggest, however, that the ancient form of Thoué was Toi, and Toi alone107, although Michèle Lebrun, who transcribed Choeio as Thoeio in the confirmation of Hugh of Amiens, believed that this was the Latin rendering of Thoué in Lolif108. Until more conclusive evidence is found it is possible that the place known as Choeio / Toeio is different from Toi, but since this form is absent from both national and regional onomastical studies it must remain unidentified109.

• 110 Robert of Torigni, Chronique…, ii, p. 12.
• 111 Presles, dép. Calvados, cant. Vassy.
• 112 Verdun, dép. Manche, in Vessey, cant. Pontorson.
• 113 For what follows, see Keats-Rohan, Katherine S.B. (ed.), Domesday people: a prosopography of person (...)
• 114 Sauvage, René Norbert, L’Abbaye de Saint-Martin de Troarn au diocèse de Bayeux des origines au se (...)
• 115 Keats-Rohan, Domesday descendants…, p. 650.
• 116 A pilch is an outer garment made of animal skin with the fur used as a lining.
• 117 Bibl. mun. Avranches, ms 206, fol. 35 (Appendix n° 1). The decision was confirmed by neighbouring a (...)
• 118 Chantorre, dép. Manche, cant. Sartilly, c. Bacilly ; Bibl. mun. Avranches, ms 206, fol. 34v-35. Thi (...)

20Fortunately, we can be more certain about the charter’s dates. It must have been issued after 1162, since it refers to the dean Rolland (who first appears on 8 April of that year), but before Hasculf’s death in 1169110. The act was witnessed by various figures, including Rannulf de Presles111, Alan d’Île, Peter of Verdun112, and William, son of Auger, although their presence does not allow for a more exact dating. All except William were descendants of Domesday tenants-in-chief, and were members of families that had a presence in both England and Normandy. Only Rannulf can be traced with any certainty113. There were two twelfth-century figures of the de Presles family named Rannulf. According to a charter of the abbey of Troarn, the first was the son of a certain Turstin (not listed by Keats-Rohan)114, and the brother of Robert, who died a monk of this same house in c. 1120115. The other was the son of Matthew de Presles and his wife Beatrice. Matthew was a tenant of the earls of Chester, who were also the vicomtes of Avranches, as was his son, who succeeded him by c. 1180. Since members of Hasculf’s family were themselves tenants of the earls of Chester, it is likely that this Rannulf witnessed our charter. What prompted the confirmation at this particular time is unclear. It may have been the result of a dispute between the cathedral chapter and another religious institution over this benefice. Indeed, the chapter and abbey of Mont-Saint-Michel were involved in a dispute over the grey pilch (pellicia grisia)116, which the abbot owed annually to the dean, and when this matter was settled by Hugh de Morville, bishop of Coutances, in 1213, it was perhaps at this time that he issued his inspeximus of Hugh of Amien’s first confirmation117. It is even possible that if Robert des Ablèges was the bishop responsible for the Bayeux inspeximus discussed above, that his act might also be associated with this event. Unfortunately, no record of any dispute over the tithes granted by Hasculf exists, although the dean Rolland was not unaccustomed to such incidences, and at some point was involved in a dispute with a certain Alan de Saint-Pierre over the tithes of the land of Chantorre118.

• 119 For the dates of the other Norman chapters, see Spear, The personnel…, p. 34, 101, 136, 172, 200 an (...)
• 120 Richard de Subligny died in 1153. If he died a man of seventy, and was thirty when he became dean, (...)
• 121 Members of the de Subligny family, or their relatives, appear in some ten charters in the cartulary (...)
• 122 Pigeon, Le diocèse d’Avranches…, II, p. 341, 407.
• 123 The name was rendered Othuerus by Orderic (OV, vi, p. 304), but the author of the ‘E’ version of th (...)
• 124 Nicolas-Méry, David, “Le ’Grand Doyenné’ à Avranches, résidence urbaine des seigneurs de Subligny”, (...)
• 125 Subligny, dép. Manche, cant. La Haye-Pesnel.
• 126 Pontorson, dép. Manche, chef-lieu de cant.
• 127 Saint-James, dép. Manche, chef-lieu de cant. ; Keats-Rohan, Domesday descendants…, p. 725-726. For (...)
• 128 Gallia Christiana, xi, Instrumenta, col. 113. Arthur Du Monstier held that the abbey had originally (...)
• 129 Spear, The personnel…, p. 4.

21The cathedral of Avranches was the last Norman diocese to establish the position of dean119. At what point during his reign Turgis actually created the position is unclear, but his choice of benefices for the dean’s prebend, and Richard de Subligny as the first dean, cannot have been accidental120. The new dean belonged to a powerful local family, which by the early twelfth century had established both secular and religious dynasties in the region121. Émile-Auber Pigeon believed that the family patriarch was Otuel, an illegitimate son of Hugh I, earl of Chester122, but while there was such an individual, he drowned on the White Ship on 25 November 1120123. The idea, nevertheless, persists124. Alternatively, it has been argued that while the family later held land at and around Subligny125, they were actually of Breton origin, and that their toponym (rendered Suligny) came rather from the region between Pontorson (where there is a hamlet called Soligné in the commune of Tanis)126 and Saint-James (de Beuvron)127. Richard de Subligny had two brothers (Rodulf and Hasculf, styled Harscoit by Keats-Rohan). The former was dead by 1142, while the latter is perhaps most famous for founding the abbey of La Lucerne d’Outremer, which he established in 1143 with the ‘council and assent’ (consilio et assensu) of his surviving brother128. Richard was also a kinsman (cognatus) of Richard de la Mouche, who was elected abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel at the insistence (ad instantiam) of the bishop of Avranches in 1152129.

• 130 De abbatibus montis sancti Michaelis in periculo maris, Migne, PL, ccii, col. 1327.
• 131 According to Desroches, Richard de Subligny was buried at Sequellammelle ; Desroches, “Annales reli (...)
• 132 This is certainly the logic applied by one scholar to the unsuccessful election of Abbot Geoffrey ( (...)
• 133 Spear, The personnel…, p. 7, 9.
• 134 Nicolas-Méry, “Le ’Grand Doyenné’…”, p. 151-163. It should be noted, however, that some of the argu (...)
• 135 Ibidem, p. 155.

22Unfortunately, the monks did not inform Henry of Anjou of the election. The new duke of Normandy was incensed at the decision, and immediately ordered de la Mouche removed and replaced with Robert Hardy, the cellerarius of Fécamp. Richard de la Mouche then appealed to the pope, who on 7 July 1152, wrote to the bishop of Avranches ordering him to bless de la Mouche as abbot130. The ceremony that followed in Avranches cathedral did little to resolve the problem, however, and all three parties (de Subligny, de la Mouche and Hardy) eventually travelled to Rome to petition the pope in person. Eugenius III again decided in favour of de la Mouche, threatening a clash with Henry, but the situation was resolved when all three men died on their return from Italy131. The exact cause of Henry’s ire is unknown. He undoubtedly wanted to maintain tight control over ecclesiastical appointments in the duchy, but the monks may have expected some leniency given their unwavering support of the duke during the civil war132. Whether the de Subligny had opposed the Angevin presence in Normandy is unknown. Their increasing dominance of ecclesiastical matters in the region must have troubled Henry, however, for not only were the bishop of Avranches and abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel members of the same family, but Hugh de la Mouche, who succeeded de Subligny as dean, and William Hayr, the archdeacon, were also related to both men133. Their presence in the city was further reinforced by Hasculf, who built an imposing urban dwelling close to the cathedral, which was later known as the “Grand Doyenné”134. Henry may simply have wanted, therefore, to prevent the domination of every key ecclesiastical post by a single family whose presence in the region already represented “une véritable colonne vertébrale”135.

• 136 For a brief survey of the various medieval ecclesiastical benefices located in Vains, see Lemetayer (...)
• 137 Pigeon, Le diocèse d’Avranches…, ii, p. 667.
• 138 Fauroux, Recueil…, n° 148 ; Bates, Regesta…, n° 214 ; Keats-Rohan, The cartulary…, n° 6.
• 139 Robert Curthose confirmed this grant of land, which was made by his father on his deathbed (i.e. 9 (...)
• 140 Johnson and Cronne, Regesta…, II, n° 1672.
• 141 Longnon, Auguste, Pouillés de la province de Rouen, Paris, Imprimerie nationale, 1903, p. 155.
• 142 Le Héricher, Avranchin monumental…, I, p. 179.

23The domination of ecclesiastical affairs by the de Subligny may have been problematic for the duke, but for the cathedral it offered the best means by which the deanship could be established, ensured and enriched. The repeated issuing of confirmations for the dean’s possessions suggests that these benefices needed constant safeguarding. The principal benefice of the dean’s prebend was, of course, the church at Vains with its cemetery136. The church was first given to the bishop of Avranches by William II at some time between 1035 and 1060137. Other religious establishments with possessions in Vains were constantly engaged in disputes over their property with both secular and religious authorities. Mont-Saint-Michel fought for over half a century with local landowners over their possession of the mill at Vains138, while Saint-Étienne de Caen, which had established the priory of Saint-Léonard using land donated by William II139, was involved in disputes with John, bishop of Lisieux (1107-1141), and Roger de Mandeville regarding water within the town140. Not only was Richard de Subligny able to rely on his brother to protect the dean’s possessions (issuing charters long after the bishop’s death), but he could also encourage him to enrich them. By 1412, the church at Vains brought in revenue of 17 shillings for the chapter (the third highest earning benefice in the deanship of Genêts)141, and it was still in possession of the dean in 1755142.

• 143 Spear, The personnel…, p. 6.
• 144 There is a commune called Champ-du-Boult, dép. Calvados, cant. Saint-Sever-Calvados, but it seems u (...)
• 145 BnF, ms lat. n. a. 1022, p. 140 (n° 147).
• 146 Fauroux, Recueil…, n° 229.
• 147 The cathedral’s other significant extra-diocesan holding was in Portchester (Hampshire), which was (...)
• 148 “Ita que in anniuersario felicis memorie Iohannis quondam Abrincensi episcopi qui dedit manerium sa (...)
• 149 Pigeon, Le diocèse d’Avranches…, ii, p. 661.
• 150 Lebrun, "Le temporel…”, p. 75. It is possible that Accurso was in the same place as Touvoie.

25David Spear held that Turgis gave the tithes of the vineyards of campo Botri, which he located at Vains143. Desroches, however, from whom Spear worked, did not assign the vineyards to any particular location (see above). The first charter does not stipulate where these vineyards were, while the second charter clearly indicates that not only did Turgis grant tithes rather than vineyards, but that this benefice was in the manor of Saint-Philbert-sur-Risle. The rather clumsy formula employed by de Subligny’s charter (“the tithes of his own [i.e. the bishop’s] tithes”) perhaps suggests a scribal error, but nothing is certain without originals to prove otherwise. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to confirm the presence of a campo Botri, which Desroches styled Champ-du-Bout, in either Vains or Saint-Philbert144, although a later agreement between Hasculf and the abbot of Savigny, which stipulated that his monks would lead Hasculf’s mule as far as campo Botri, probably suggests that it was in the former145. Regardless, the decision to sustain the deanship with donations from the manor of Saint-Philbert is itself significant. The manor had first been given to the cathedral by Bishop John in 1066146. It was one of only a handful of eleventh- and twelfth-century cathedral possessions located outside the diocese, and was highly valued147. John was remembered fondly in the cartulary for his endowment148, while his successor secured confirmation of the donation from William de Breteuil by paying him 100 livres in Rouen money149. Two of the three mills in the manor (Livet, Accurso and Tolwio) from which the dean claimed tithes were identified by Michèle Lebrun as Livet-sur-Authou and Touvée or Touvoie, which was situated at Pont-Authou150. Combined with the tithes of the market, and the tithes of the revenue of the manor, these benefices must have brought substantial revenue to the dean and his chapter. Given its value, it is strange that among the numerous confirmations issued by other bishops for the deanship, there is not one from the bishop of Évreux, in whose diocese the manor of Saint-Philbert lay.

• 151 Bibl. mun. Avranches, ms 206, f° 35-v.
• 152 Lemarignier, Étude..., p. 158-160; Allen, “John of Ivry…”, (forthcoming).
• 153 Dufief, “La vie monastique…”, p. 101-119.
• 154 For what follows, see Chazelas, Jean, “La vie monastique au Mont Saint-Michel au XIII^e siècle”, Mil (...)
• 155 Both charters dealing with dispute make reference to the authority granted by Innocent III to the b (...)
• 156 “Lis in hunc modus amicabiliter conquierunt, videlicet que quam uis antea pro dicta pellicia vi lib (...)

26Despite their value, it appears that only one of the benefices was ever contested. In 1213, Hugh de Morville, bishop of Coutances, arbitrated a dispute between the abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel and Nicholas de Aquila, dean of Avranches, over the grey pilch that the abbot owed annually to the dean as part of his prebend151. Relations between the abbey and cathedral were rarely easy. During the century long vacancy that had occurred in the episcopal seat during the ninth and tenth centuries, Mont-Saint-Michel had established itself as the premier ecclesiastical institution in the region. Only when Bishop John issued his famous conventio in 1061 was episcopal authority reasserted over the abbey in the eleventh century152. The twelfth century was one of two halves for the abbey. During the first half it was plagued by successive woes, but by the end of the second it had been fully regenerated by Robert de Torigini153. Despite this renaissance, during the thirteenth century the bishops of Avranches began increasingly to exercise their authority in the diocese, which was met with resistance at Mont-Saint-Michel154. The opening years of the century were unhappy ones for the abbey, however, and under Abbot Jordan (1191-1212) the religious life, which had been seriously disrupted by a fire in 1204, continued to be neglected. The situation became so bad that four years later the pope, at the urging of the bishop of Avranches, had ordered the bishop of Lisieux and abbot of Savigny to investigate. This apparently had little impact, and on 5 September 1210 the pope ordered the same two men, plus Hugh, bishop of Coutances, to revisit the abbey, which they did on 30 May 1211155. An agreement was made placing the monastic chapter in charge of abbey life, which it duly governed until Jordan’s death on 6 August 1212. Relations between the bishop of Avranches and the abbey remained sour, however, and when William (IV) Bureau (1210-1236) attempted to oversee the election of Jordan’s successor he was refused entry to the abbey. The next abbot, Rodulf des Isles (1212-1229), energetically pursued the reconstruction of his abbey, and it is in the context of this renewal that our charters must be placed. Turgis, undoubtedly well aware of the subordinate role his predecessors were often forced to play by the abbey, had perhaps deliberately involved it in the sustenance of the new deanship, but it was a role that by 1213 it either would not, or could not, afford to play. The abbey was not entirely successful in its case, however, since the bishop of Coutances ordered that it pay six livres annually (nine in the money of Tours on the Octave of Easter) in lieu of the pilch156.

• 157 Hasculf, son of John de Subligny, was given as husband to the heiress Isledis, daughter of John II (...)
• 158 The phrase “ab illustri et pie recordationis episcopo Turgisio” in the charter of Hugh of Amiens be (...)

27The legacy of Turgis’ decision to found the deanship was therefore long felt. It did not take long for the chapter to recognise its debt to him, and the cartulary charters testify to the fondness with which Turgis was soon remembered. But perhaps the greater debt was owed by the de Subligny, for as much as the family had helped establish the deanship, so the deanship had also helped establish the family. For three heady years in the early 1150s they controlled every major ecclesiastical post in the region, while the secular branch also continued to expand. Within two generations members of the family were favourites in the court of Henry II, while the son of Richard de Subligny’s nephew eventually became count of Dol157. If evidence exists to suggest that Richard was aware of the debt he owed his predecessor, it is perhaps to be found in his charter concerning the deanship, where Turgis is for the first (and only) time associated with sanctity158.

• 159 Gallia Christiana, xiv, col. 1052.
• 160 The origins of this cognomen are unknown. It is rendered in many different ways, including Lysenech (...)
• 161 Gallia Christiana, xiv, cols. 1052-1053.
• 162 Hugh was formerly archdeacon of Coutances. For his career, where he sometimes appears as Mag. Hugh (...)
• 163 Gallia Christiana, xi, Instrumenta, col. 115-116.

28These five charters are of the utmost importance to our knowledge of the deanship. While we can reconstruct the holdings of the other deans of the province of Rouen based on later pouillés, it is only for Avranches that we can name for certain the benefices belonging to the dean at the moment of its foundation. The number and scope of the confirmations for the deanship also clearly demonstrates that the chapter was keen to safeguard one of its most important assets. It turned not only to its metropolitan for protection, but also to the abbots and bishops of neighbouring dioceses. Perhaps most interesting of these is that issued by a John, bishop of Dol, which appears in the first charter of the archbishop of Rouen. As has just been noted above, by the late twelfth century members of the de Subligny family had been made counts of Dol. Interestingly, John (V) de la Mouche, whose toponym suggests he may have been a kinsman of the de Subligny, was bishop of Dol between c. 1190 and 1199159. However, since the Dol confirmation follows that of Hugh de Morville, bishop of Coutances, it is more likely that the bishop was John (VI) de Lysenach (1203-1231)160. He occupied his diocese at about the same time as Hugh, and was not unfamiliar with affairs in the diocese of Avranches161. Indeed, in the year before Hugh de Morville ascended to the episcopate162, John worked with him to broker a conventio between the abbey of La Lucerne and the chapter of Avranches concerning the abbey’s use of revenues from vacant prebends163. This benefice had originally been granted to La Lucerne by Achard, bishop of Avranches (1161-1170). Although the chapter claimed to extend these rights willingly it was undoubtedly a costly benefice to maintain. Perhaps in the following year (1208) John de Lysenach was persuaded by the bishop of Coutances, himself a former servant of the bishops of Dol, to issue a confirmation of the deanship by way of recompense.

• 164 Bates, David, “Charters and historians of Britain and Ireland: problems and possibilities”, in Char (...)
• 165 Pigeon, Le diocèse d’Avranches…, ii, p. 329.

29Of course, without originals, and a contemporary narrative history of the diocese, many issues concerning the deanship remain unresolved. We would still like to know when exactly the position was established (was it perhaps associated with the consecration of the new cathedral in 1121?), whether Turgis himself was in any way related to the de Subligny, and, of course, the exact circumstances behind each confirmation. Though as frustrating as these silences are, they also serve to remind us of the unique nature of cartulary texts, and the caution with which scholars of evidence-starved dioceses such as Avranches must use these resources. David Bates, Katherine Keats-Rohan and Pierre Chastang, among others, have all recently recalled that the compilers of cartularies were never mere copiers of existing texts, and that behind the creation of each codex, and the charters selected for inclusion, lay a specific set of circumstances164. Ironically, in works whose primary function was the memorialisation of key benefactors and benefices, the nature of medieval archival culture is often so far removed from current practices that the ability of the cartulary to successfully communicate the memory of a particular act often decreases, rather than increases, with time. The cartulary of Avranches cathedral is no different. Even the medieval scribes responsible for its creation managed to create ambiguity for later generations through their own transcriptional errors (was one of the vavassors named William or Uibert, for example), and such uncertainties could even affect the memorialisation of those individuals principally involved in the deanship’s foundation. Most famously, when Émile-Auber Pigeon came to discuss its creation in his magisterial survey of the diocese’s history, the cartulary texts had proved so confusing that he claimed the deanship had been founded not by Turgis, but instead by Richard de Beaufou165.