Oculus ecclesiae or the eyes of the people. Church and society in medieval Frisia

Oculus ecclesiaeor the eyes of the people. Church and society in medieval Frisia Anneke B. Mulder-Bakker

Medieval Frisia, also known as the ‘SevenFrisian Sea Lands’, consisted of clearly distinguishable parts: West Friesland (now part of the Dutch province of Holland), West-Lauwers Friesland (the present-day Dutch province of Friesland), the Lands between the Lauwers and the Eems (the present-day province of Groningen) also called East Friesland, together with German East Friesland (Fig. 1). This study is concerned with the Lands between the Lauwers and the Eems; its main emphasis is on the lands (terrae) of Fiuelgo and Hunsingo (Fig. 2). The history of medieval Friesland is not considered here in terms of modern political theory; instead, emphasis is on theforms of society and administration as they really existed, and on actual farnib and communal relationships. Viewed in this light the peace and truces inspired by the Church are seen to have played an important role. * Journal 0

1985

of Medieval History 1 1 ( 1985) 295-3 14 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland)

The year 12 19 was one to be remembered in Frisia: indeed it was a calamitous year, for that winter the newly-built dikes in Fivelgo were broken through and the lower lying areas behind them were flooded. The water rose so high, wrote Abbot Emo in his chronicle, that the nuns of Rozenkamp had to climb up onto the roofs of their convent and, hand in hand, singing psalms, tried to make a stand against the storm and the angry waves. When the roofs threatened to give way, a number of them even climbed onto the chapel. Miraculously, the crossbeams there held up. As if this was not enough, after the water had subsided farmers from the old high-lying terpen, or artificial mounds, went about plundering and stole whatever they found unattended. Worse still, they refused to help repair the dikes. Certainly,justiciarii were appointed to insist on the return of stolen property, and the consules of that year charged everyone, in the public interest, to co-operate in the repairs, but they lacked the authority to carry this out, and the recalcitrants remained adamant. Even when the maiores from the villages on the terpen intervened, they continued to refuse. At this the victims, supported by the brothers from the double monastery of Rozenkamp, took the law into their own hands and embarked on a feud with the rebels. So justice took its course and “the brothers, by God’s mercy, triumphed with the triumphant,” as Emo expressed it in his chronicle (Weiland 1874:48791). The medieval history of the Frisian lands around Groningen is often described from the perspective of modern constitutional history. Events such as those described abo-

295

FRIESLANL

(WEST

Figure 1. teenth-century

Map

showing coastline.

the

Seven

Frisian

LAUWERS)

Sealands

296

Lands between coastline.

Lauwers

AND

EEMS

ages.

thick

line

FRIESLAND

in the

later

middle

LANDS

Figure 2. Map showing the the supposed thirteenth-century

LAUWERS

and

Eems

BETWEEN

in the thirteenth

The

LAUWERS

century.

AND

The

shows

the

four-

EEMS

thick

line

shows

ve are either left out or merely mentioned in passing, because they are not constitutional in a modern sense. In this way these studies, arguing from a non-medieval viewpoint, miss out essential characteristics of the society of that time; they put far too much emphasis on legal and imperial authority. Of course, ever since the Carolingian conquests there had been a certain amount of imperial authority in the Frisian lands. They belonged nominally to the Carolingian and later to the German Empire. A tradition of this still lived on: formerly we were heathens and belonged to the terrible land across the sea to the north, now we are Christians under the king from the south, states the old Frisian law (eleventh century?) (Sjolin 1970:240). But this did not have much impact on ordinary life, judging from the legal sources, and so it ought to be: people felt that things were as they should be. Pretenders who wanted to enforce the rights of a count, spiritual or temporal princes who received rights to territorial power from the emperor and wanted to execute them, were firmly refused. Examples of this can be found especially in the eleventh century. At that time members of the high German aristocracy, up till then often itinerant and ruling over property spread far and wide, were trying to establish themselves in some castle that might become a family castle and in some limited area that might become their sovereign territory (Boutruche 1968:122; Van Winter 1980:371). The Frisian lands around Groningen, with Hunsingo and Fivelgo as their nucleus, formed an attractive area for these people. Adam of Bremen spoke highly of their riches (Trillmich 1978:384). Thus in 1040 the bishop of

Utrecht received not only estates in Groningen and the area to the south of the town called Drenthe from the hands of the German emperor, but also property in Leermens-Enum and in the whole area ‘between the Eems and the Lauwers’, the then current term for this part of Friesland (Blok 1896: 16). We can assume that these lands were intended as a base for the further deployment of authority; later the bishop also received some counties west of the Lauwers. In 1099, however, he had to pay for his attempts to execute the rights attached to these lands with his life: Bishop Conrad was murdered in that year by a Frisian. Henry of Nordheim perished in the same way, meeting his death in 1101 on the way to Friesland. Earlier Conrad of Werl had died lighting the Frisians in 1092, Even Adalbert of Bremen, who in 1057 had been presented with the counties of Hunzingo and Fivelgo and was ambitious to build up a great territory which would include all the coast lands, was unable to realize anything (Ehbrecht 1974:46-7). A south German chronicle could not record this other than as follows: Nam ex insolentia tumidi et locorum munitione freti dedignabantur alicui domno subici uel dlicuius licet valde potentispreceptum exequi (For, swollen with impudence and confident in the security of their lands they did not deign to be subject to any ruler or to execute any commandment of however mighty a lord.) (MGH SS 6:248). Against ambitious lords from their own region the Frisians were no less firm. Should such a person emerge, according to the socalled Hunsingo manuscript, he should be thrown into the sea towards the north; for anyone who went to Saxony and collected a ‘high helm’, a ‘red shield’ and ‘armed

297

knights’ in order to travel to the Frisian lands, kill people there and burn down castles is condemned to undergo the most ignominious death known to man, for ‘free Frisians’ could not be permitted to suffer such treatment (Buma-Ebel 1969:46; compare SjGlin 1970:360). Free Frisians: thus did they define their position within the Empire. By this they meant: being free from a direct, perceptible domination, not subject to a lord who maintained law and order from his castle, if necessary with force and punishment, cum sint homines liberi et ab omni iugo servitutis et cuiuslibetpertinentis dominii exuti (because they are free men and divested of every yoke of serfdom and every pertinent dominion) (Braaksma 1977:131; compare Sj ijlin 1970:244; Schmidt 1971:521; Merzbacher 1970:258). Thus, in fact, an authority to take care of peace and security, to administer justice and punish offenders, to support the social order, encourage trade or stimulate the building of dikes, was lacking. The regulation of socio-political life had to arise from family and community associations which had been in existence from of old. During the fight against the sea and in the struggle for an existence worthy of a human being, social communities and a sense of responsibility that guaranteed a minimum of law and order developed naturally. The outcome of this can be found in the oldest sections of Frisian law, formulated at the end of the eleventh century and in the twelfth, and also in some thirteenth-century chronicles dating from a period in which much of the former polity still lived on, but at the same time the movement towards a new order was taking place. Two manuscripts written in the Lands between the

298

Lauwers and the Eems are used here: the so-called Fivelgo manuscript (Sjalin 1970) and in addition the Hunsingo text (BumaEbel 1969). We are concerned here with late medieval manuscripts in which private law collections were put together. They contain material of every kind, not only the very old (eleventh-century) and widely accepted Seventeen Statutes (Zeventien Keuren) and Twenty-four Constitutions (Vierentwintig Landrechten), but also the almost equally old Synodal Laws, as well as specific provisions of a later date such as the Hunsingo Provisions of 1252. Their contents include lists of fines, documents about rights of succession, charters, even legal commentaries, pieces of historical writing and legends. Because they are private legal collections, to some extent perhaps deriving from West-Lauwers Friesland, it is not possible to prove conclusively that the stipulations recorded in them became law in all parts (Gerbenzon 1963). Nevertheless, when considered in connection with the chronicles and where possible compared with documentary evidence, they give a faithful picture of common law between the Lauwers and the Eems. One chronicle which gives a very lively picture of Fivelgo in the thirteenth century is the monastic chronicle of Emo and Menko (Weiland 1874). Emo himself belonged to one of the prominent families in Fivelgo. His uncle, Emo of Romerswerf, had founded a monastery in 1204 on his own patrimony. Under the inspired leadership of Emo the writer of the chronicle (12091237), this developed into one of the most important Premonstratensian abbeys in the Frisian lands. His continuator Menko was the third abbot (1243-1276); the chronicle was continued anonymously until 1296.

In a land like that around Groningen, an area of salt marshes where the sea gained easy access, intersected by pools and creeks and divided by broad estuaries into islands, the so-called lands (terrae), the farmstead was the central unit (Immink 1975). There lived the Frisian farmer with his family, his servants and his cattle. He provided accommodation not only for his wife and children, but also for his parents and his unmarried brothers and sisters. So we know, thanks to his ascetical inclinations, that Emo of Romerswerf, who died in 12 15, after his sisters were married lived in a single homestead with his wife, his mother and his staff. The maid found him from time to time absorbed in prayer on the cold ground beside his bed instead of in it (Weiland 1874:4656). This group of people, together with the cattle and the land, formed an economic, but also a juridical unit over which the farmer ruled. He wielded virtually unlimited authority over the people and property in his were: thi schalc scolde dwan. alsa him sin hera bad. thruch thes liwes willa (the servant should do what the lord instructs him to, if he values his life) (Sjolin 1970:258). His wife, who had passed under his sword at the wedding ceremony, was more or less subject to it; if she committed adultery, for instance, her husband could decapitate her with it, but he could also flog her or swear to her innocence before the court. On the other hand, the farmer was responsible for practically everything that the people in his were did (Sjolin 1970:264; Algra 1966a:67). Family, cattle and land formed a unit, the family estate, the liudgartha, literally the people’s garden. The land and the family were bound together indissolubly. The farmer could not sell or give away the whole

or a part of the family estate: lidsane lond ne memma nout iewa buta thriwan ende dregan. tha wile thet thi mon rith an gant (allodial land may not be given away, though whatever can be driven or carried may, so long as the possessor rides on horseback or goes afoot) (SjGlin 1970:354). He was allowed to live on the land with the members of his own generation, but afterwards he had to pass it on to the following generation intact. Only in the event of dire necessity, driven by hunger or cold or the threat of his soul’s destruction, could he or his widow sell it. Selling land was virtually the same as selling a child: the same word was used for both (Algra 1966a:67). Even giving land to the Church was a laborious undertaking (Weiland 1874:466). The concept of primogeniture was unknown, and daughters, at the time of their marriage, had a right to a share of the inheritance. It is important to note that this hereditary tradition, certainly in times of increasing population, was conducive neither to large estates nor to the creation of manorial or seigneurial authority. Only the free Frisian men were fullblooded members of society and participated in the administration of law and justice. They belonged to the small community of the vicinity, to the larger ones of the parish and the ‘land’, and naturally to the vitally important, though not geographically defined, league of the cognati and amici, the kith and kin. That was the community that really counted. It is everywhere apparent that Frisian society was in essence a feuding society: every free farmer was to a great extent master in his own house and held the law in his own hands. When he felt that his rights were under attack, he had

two possibilities: putting his case before a court of justice for arbitration, or fighting it out with weapons. For some kinds of questions he was assigned to the court, but for most of them he had the right to take up arms and this he mostly did when he knew he was supported by a powerful crowd of friends, an amicitia or pars. Emo and Menko’s chronicle is full of such feud alliances. In the incident already mentioned after the 12 19 floods, one such pars was seen at work. Even when the farmer brought his business before the court he was still dependent on his kith and kin. They had to confirm his oath and assist him in the payment of fines Actually this kind of and compensations. legal procedure had the character of a solemn declaration of the kindred that they stood for their relative and were prepared in the event of his rights being affected to support him, if necessary, in a feud. The feud associations were so supremely powerful that a papal plenipotentiary, the abbot of Klaarkamp, west of the Lauwers, did not dare to carry out his commission at an East Frisian synod and pronounce the excommunication until he was ‘recognised’ by his relatives and kindred there and accepted into their feud association. Only then did he feel strong enough - the synod had in the meanwhile dispersed - to execute his task at a later synod.’ Only the Church tried whenever possible to persuade the free Frisians to settle their differences not with weapons but with words. By her very nature she was against the spilling of blood and it was in the Church’s interests to see that her possessions did not continually fall prey to plunder and fire. So she tried whenever possible

300

to play a mediatory role through the agency of well-educated priests: many a feud, many an apparently insoluble difference, did she manage to settle in the capacity of arbitrator or intermediary. But the Church also attempted to bring her influence to bear in other ways. The clergy, who had arrived with the Carolingian rulers, had from the beginning played a considerable part in the pacification and administration of the conquered lands.* The heathen system of the thing or assembly combined with a cult centre was now apparently split into two separate bodies, the ecclesiastical element with priests and synods on the one hand, and the liudding with its magistrates on the other; in practice, however, little may have changed. There is some, though rather scanty, evidence indicating that synod and court assembled at the same time and place (Algra 1966a:lO; Ebel 1964:312). Moreover the same people figured in both. Only a free, noble Frisian could become a priest, chosen by his own parishioners, thus by prominent families. In the synod, under the provost, who also had to be a free noble Frisian, he had an important task, but he also had a number of competences in the liudding (the Frisian legal assembly) (Ebel 1963). Way back in the oldest common-law text, the Seventeen Statutes, he and the asega were called the eyes of Christianity: thi asega. and ti prestere hia sent and schen alle liudum helpa and then wei wisa ther him sellum nout helpa ni mei. Hwant hia sen Agen oculi ther liuda. (the asega and the priest must assist everyone and show the way to those who cannot help themselves, for they are the eyes of the people) (Sjiilin 1970:238).

In the late middle ages the priest could apparently indict for certain matters, which then became irrefutable: the accused could then no longer deny the charge however many oaths from amongst his kindred he may have managed to produce.3 Although the bishop in 1276, according to canon law, decreed: [ne] iurisdictionem secularem exerceant net advocent in foro contentioso, nisi in casibus a iure concessis (that they may not administer secular jurisdiction nor plead in a court of law, unless in cases assigned to them by law) (Blok 1896:94) the principal priest was held co-responsible, in the communal constitution of Appingedam (1327), for the choice of new judges and for the coinage (Blok 1896:217). A century later the Focko Ukena Provisions (1427) went even further. They laid down that if there were too many factions in the ‘land’, the prelates and principal priests together with the inhabitants were to take care that ‘high’ justice be maintained (Sjiilin 1970:281). It is moreover apparent from numerous documents that the conveyance of land by gift or sale was carried out before the priest, sometimes assisted by wedmannen and parishioners. In similar ways leading laymen, as sworn men and jury members in the ecclesiastical courts,4 had a voice in the determination of the synod verdict,5 while at the same time as koningsorkenen or witnesses of the king, they played a decisive role in the ‘land’ court (Kalifa 1960: 168; Algra 1966a:40). As Kalifa (1972-3: 109) remarks: La distinction entrejuridictions eccl&iastiques et lai’ques est commode, mais plus thebrique que pratique. This intertwining of religious and secular affairs was a matter of course in Frisian eyes. They saw their own legal order, after all, as a reward for their conversion to

Christianity. In the twelfth century there was a legend in circulation in the Frisian lands that a group of Frisians under Magnus had helped Charlemagne in the conquest of Rome. Impressed by their bravery, Charlemagne had offered each of them a small principality, where people would have to serve them just as one served a reigning king. Charlemagne is supposed to have offered them each a hierarchically organized lordship. The Frisians however refused this and requested something else. They asked (Sjiilin 1970:262): thene sexta kere. Thet hia hiara ain riucht welde halda. binna hiara ayna sogen selondum. bi thes paws ande kaysers iefte. an bi alle riuchta bonnum. bi asega domum. and bi riuchta papana ordele. alsa hia hethe twen leyan to folgre... thet orlof ief thi paws and ti kening kerl mith munde. and efter wedden se mitha hondum. En helich biscop set tha to. and screuet mith sine hondum. and magnus spreket hit mitha munde vt ther stena teula. thet god her Moyses ief vp tha birge to synai. If they could maintain their own laws in their own ‘Seven Sea Lands’, by permission of the emperor and pope, and according to all legal pronouncements, the dooms of the asega and the legal sentences of the clergy if they had two laymen as assessors. This the pope and king allowed by word of mouth; afterwards they shook hands on it. A holy bishop set himself to write it down with his own hand and Magnus pronounced it by word of mouth just like the stone tables which God had given to the lord Moses on Mount Sinai.

From this and other texts it appears that the Frisians compared themselves with ancient Israel, delivered from the hands of the grim king of Norway, just as the Jews had been from the hands of the Pharoah. Forty years in the wilderness reminded them of thena wilda w&end. the wild Viking, symbol of paganism, tempestuous high tides and Norman attacks combined. The administration of justice in courts was, in their view, the fruit of this.

301

Here all that the Frisians saw as the most important characteristics of their social organization were gathered together in one legend. Whilst they did recognize a kingemperor above them, they did not accept any direct power. In Frisian society no person or authority was tolerated which stood above others, and could direct and punish them. The free and lawful Frisians had law and order in their own hands, God-given as in ancient Israel; a distinction between the ecclesiastical and secular spheres existed more in theory than in practice. The Frisians mostly contested their rights with weapons by feud and foray. They understood that it was more in keeping with the new order to submit a question to the court. Then the priest could bring his influence to bear on it. He, the toga-wearer, the scribe and often iurisperitus, versed in the law (expressed in Frisian as asega) knew how to bring the legal proceedings (concerning a case) to a satisfactory conclusion by means of argument and counterargument, and he had the authority to ‘substantiate’ a charge. He could, moreover, as arbitrator or intermediary, also deal with conflicts which seemed insoluble outside the court. He did not possess coercive authority, nor means of enforcement with which to impose his sentence - unless he himself was a member of a very powerful family or feud community. He was, as the ancient law expressed it, with the asega, the eyes of the people: he had to keep an eye on the interests and the rights of everyone. The expression oculus ecclesiae was also used elsewhere, especially for the archdeacons who under the bishop’s direction, superintended the conduct. of the faithful.6 Yet again, it reflects the intertwining of the ecclesiastical and secular spheres

302

in the Frisian lands. In the context of these ideas the clergy could attempt to convey some of these ideals to the Frisians. They advocated a different marriage law, a restriction of the ‘clan’, but above all, control of feud and violence through the administration ofjustice by the court.7 One of the Seventeen Statutes laid it down: Hwasa inna otheres hewa. and wera farith vn bi telede tele. and un bi thingades thinge. vter fra na bon. and vter asega ledene. and liuda orleJ: Sa brecht hi .x. liudmerc (Anyone who breaks into someone else’s property and possessions, without having first lodged a complaint and asked for a legal verdict, thus acting without an injunction from the officer of the law, without guidance from the asega and permission from the people, is breaking the law and shall be fined ten marks) (Sjolin 1970:238; compare 246). At the same time an attempt was made to discourage violence in the legal procedures themselves. A number of provisions stipulated that decisions should no longer be made by single combat, but by twelve witnesses swearing on behalf of the parties concerned (Algra 1966b). Single combat, itself a stylization and curtailment of feud, was in this way, at least in theory, replaced by the expressed declaration of the kinsfolk to stand by their relative when his rights were called in question. In the law, in the form in which it has been preserved, and as it goes back to the eleventh and twelfth centuries, stipulations are also to be found which are incorporated elsewhere into the peaces of God: the protection of churches, widows, orphans and penitents (pilgrims for instance) thruch frethe an thruch nethe (for the sake of peace and mercy). They enjoyed peace of the same

kind as the inhabitants of a farmstead, as the cognates in a feud league or the participants in a court session (242,254). Whether the Church had much success in this endeavour, is doubtful. Despite her care, feud and violence do not appear to have been noticeably reduced. The many feuds mentioned for instance by Emo in the thirteenth century, but also the innumerable lists of lines for wounds inflicted, justify a healthy scepticism (see His 1901:201-7). After 1200, however, changes in this do occur. Frisian society was under pressure from two sides. The first we already know: the Church in her innate struggle to restrain feud and violence. The other pressure was exerted by changing material conditions. In the course of the twelfth century in particular, the nature of Fivelgo and the adjoining lands was changing radically. Beginning from the sandy ridges and the terpen (artifical mounds) to the east of the town of Groningen, the reclamation of the fen was undertaken, weirs and dikes were constructed, estuaries were closed off, and finally the whole area of terpen was encircled by a sea dike. Towards 1200 this had proceeded so far that the estuaries of the Five1 and the Heekt had been partially closed off with dams and locks, at least some of the terpen were protected by a dike (the old Fiveldijk) and the resulting necessary alterations in the system of waterways had been Emo and Menko mention undertaken: dams, dikes and sluices which indicate this (Formsma 1976-7). Some of them are called ‘new’, which means that they must have been constructed a relatively short time beforehand.*

In consequence of all this the salt marshes developed into a densely populated cultivated area with rich pastures and fields, protected by dikes and locks and irrigated by ditches and trenches. They had become valuable arable land, reclaimed with much pain and trouble. This was no longer land which could be trampled underfoot out-of-hand or devastated by feud. Still less was it land to be willingly exposed to the former practices of robbery and arson, just because some people wanted to take the law into their own hands. What everyone now lacked was a well-organized society in which justice was administered in the court and a strong hand provided for safety and tranquility. Did a powerful manorial system develop? Did a count or a bishop assume power? Did the patterns of thought and legal traditions now change in such a way that great landowners could set themselves up as lords of a seigneurie banale ? There certainly were families rich enough to undertake such a deployment of power. In the former Heekt estuary the Hatebrand family acquired so much property in two generations that they could found a prosperous abbey on their own land (1173). The Emo family acquired similar large landed possessions. The already-mentioned Emo of Romerswerf, described as nobilis, inherited so much property from his parents that he was able to found a Premonstratensian priory on this patrimony ( 1204)) whilst another branch of the family had sufficient wealth at its disposal to send both sons to Oxford, Paris and Orleans to study (Weiland 1874:466-7; 524). These sons, called Emo (the writer of the chronicle) and Addo, were at loggerheads with the Herderik family who

303

founded the Schildwolde monastery (also in 1204), a Premonstratensian priory as well, on family property (Weiland 1874:467). All these families in Fivelgo must have acquired considerable properties, but not one of them assumed territorial power - at least. not in the ways we might expect. A count or a bishop then? The Frisian lands to the east of the Lauwers belonged to the diocese of Miinster. And the bishop of Miinster at the time did indeed make determined attempts to extend his sovereign power. In East Friesland he bought the titles of the counts of Ravensberg (1253), with a view to building up a sovereign authority there (Ehbrecht 1974: 125). He also made a serious bid for power in the Lands between the Eems and the Lauwers. In the person of Herderik of Schildwolde, who was also a canon of Cappenberg and had been appointed the bishop’s official in the Frisian lands, he tried to gain a firm foothold: unsuccessfully, however, of which more later. First, it should be explained how other possibilities, more suited to local customs and ideas, were available, enabling prominent people, large landowners and bishops alike, to attract a form of authority to themselves. This possibility consisted in the foundation of a monastery belonging to one of the ‘new’ orders, a Cistercian or even better a Premonstratensian abbey. In the period after the Gregorian Reform and the Investiture Contest when the old system had served its purpose, the foundation of ‘private’ churches (Eigenkiwhen) and private monasteries (Eigenkliister) with all their advantages for lay lords had become a disgrace. Searching for alternatives the lords quickly found a workable substitute in the ‘new orders’ (Kroll 1978:38-g). They fol-

304

lowed in the footsteps of the counts of Cappenberg in particular, who, having no descendants in the direct line, were worried about the survival of their patrimony9 and therefore, in 112 1, presented their castle with its allodial property to Norbert of Magdeburg, who himself assumed the office of provost of the foundation. This gift was a direct affront to the bishop of Miinster, who had himself hoped to acquire the rights of a count over, or at least the episcopal administration of, the new foundation. The counts, however, themselves continued to protect the monastery as custodians, and asked the emperor to guarantee its immunity, so that the monastery remained detached from the episcopal administration. This situation lasted until the end of the century, when the foundation became subject to the high chapter of Miinster and hence to the bishop. From then onwards it fulfilled an important role in episcopal politics (Petry 1973:especially 58). Weinfurter and others have shown that princes were glad to found chapters or monasteries of regular canons and also richly endowed them, because, as custodians, they could continue to administer the donated gifts and at the same time draw the necessary income from them. Moreover in this way the priests in the parishes served by the monasteries came under their sphere of influence, and if the founders succeeded in having the monastery as such made exempt, then it would be freed from episcopal authority and become like an old-style private monastery (Weinfurter 1978). The Cistercian order was exempt as an order, but had no guardianships. The Premonstratensian order, in the first decades of its existence, obtained exemption for Premontrt itself and for most

of the other foundations (Weinfurter 1977:92-6). For some princes the establishment of a regular chapter had other attractions, too. Otto of Reveningen, for instance, the founder of Gotteshausen in the diocese of Magdeburg had, like the count of Cappenberg, no descendants. Therefore he considered: ut...in aliquo fundi allodiorum suorum claustrum fundaretur, quatenus ,tanto tenatius et evidencius tam locus quam loco contradita hereditas sui memoriam posteris presentaret (that...a cloister should be founded on one of his allodial lands because in that way the place as well as the heritable rights bestowed on that place would present his memory more durably and overtly to posterity (MGH SS 20:687). Here, former family possessions were preserved from destruction by the foundation of a mo
fall into the hands of strangers. Therefore, driven by a desire to keep his forefathers’ property together, he decided to found a monastery and predium suum promouere (to promote his patrimony).” What kind of monastery was not yet clear, but his nephew Emo, the writer of the chronicle and, to distinguish him from the earlier Emo, usually called ‘of Wittewierum’, a much-traveled man and versed in the law, deliberately decided on a Premonstratensian abbey (Weiland 1874:468). Together with a familiaris, he deposited their share of the ancestral property, entered himself as a monk (later his brother was to do the same), thereby clarifying even further the character of the monastery as a family concern as well as achieving their desire of keeping the ancestral property together, and demonstrated his determination to bring the foundation to prosperity. With a great deal of trouble, and ignoring the bishop of Miinster,” he managed to found a Premonstratensian priory and place it directly under patronage of PrCmontre - Prtmontrt, which was completely exempt from the bishop’s jurisdiction, enjoyed papal protection, and would henceforth devote itself to ensuring a similar status for Bloemhof (Weiland 1874:475, 503-6). In the years that followed, Emo began to enlarge his monastery, which was divided into a nunnery, Rozenkamp, on the ancestral property of Romerswerf, and an abbey for monks, Bloemhof at Wittewierum, both under the abbot of Wittewierum, into an important political power in Fivelgo (Weiland 1874:475). In the early days of the foundation, in 1219, when the conflict with the bishops was still going on, he had to sit by powerless, as we have seen, while

305

farmers in the neighbourhood refused to cooperate in the repair of dikes or to bestir themselves for the public well-being. Later this sort of thing could not have occurred. The abbots of Wittewierum soon became presidents of the local dike and sluice organization, and, at the setting-up of a superior polder-board De Drie Delfzijlen in 1317, presidents of that (Blok 1896:181). When, around 1300, the farmers had embanked a new section of the Five1 estuary, they asked the abbot of Wittewierum to exercise supervision: . ..tot welken wij moegen toevlucht hebben, ofter in en&en @den twijst off schelinge van desseuorscreuenarticulen tusschen uns daervan reese (to which we can have recourse at any time that a dispute or a discussion may arise between us over these aforementioned decrees) (Blok 1896:135). In 1317 they gave him the entire management of a . ..cum intentio ciuium Sondennew operation: sium circa nouum aggerem in novalibus construendum versaretur, miserunt itaque nuntios in Floridum Ortum vocantes dominum Hayconem abbatem, ut eorum consilium regeret et foueret (because the burghers of ‘t Zandt planned to build a new dike in the new lands, they sent messengers to Bloemhof, asking the lord abbot to lead their deliberations and to support them) (Blok 1896:180). This much is clear, the family of the Emos had discovered a good way to expand their ancestral property. By keeping together the different parts of the inheritance it was protected, as occurred elsewhere through primogeniture, against subdivision, and thus combined it offered a good starting-point for the expansion of power and prestige. Thanks to the monastery, Emo and the other abbots after him could develop into important central administrators

306

in Fivelgo. At the same time the Herderik family tried to do the same by founding Schildwolde; they failed, thanks to Emo, but their struggle was none the less for that. For that matter, Emo was very reticent about the family links and this struggle for worldly power and possessions; actually we hear most of it from his continuator, Menko. Emo, as a good canonist, knew that his behaviour was unworthy. Looking between the lines of his chronicle one can see that he had qualms of conscience about it. In view of the elevated ideas he had concerning his task,” this is hardly surprising. In the more meditative sections of his chronicle he demonstrates his concern about his own failings and the disasters which struck his monastery. He conscientiously wondered if these were not a punishment from God for all the sins committed. It was not so much the temptation of feminine beauty, as Jansen suggests (1983:385 but compare 1984:20) - even the saints were exposed to that and it was no shame to have to overcome it; no, it was rather his all too covetous struggle for earthly profit and power that drove him to despair: . ..metuebat intus in anima vicium cupiditatis temporalium, que est radix malorum (the striving for temporal goods, which is the root of all evil, troubled his soul) (Weiland 1874:486). And all too eagerly he represented his great rival Herderik as suffering from the (Weiland 1874:507 and same faults elsewhere); as does the Gesta abbatum, where a plain account of this is indeed given. Its author has Herderik, angry because he has to take on the paternity of Mariengaarde, make a revealing plea for high-handedness:

Quando fundamenta huius templi [Schildwolde] locata sunt, quando parietes erecti, quando domus iste quas hit circumquaque vides constructe, quando arbores iste sic in ordine posite, quando agri ad semen recipiendum et ad fructum dandum in tempore suo sic exculti: ubi tune fuit iste abbas Orti [Mariengaarde]? Certe, certe manus iste [Herderik], que hec omnia elaboravere, hec quamdiu superfuerint possidebunt; net valebit quisquam mortalium de meis evellere manibus. When the foundations of this temple [Schildwolde] were laid, when the walls were erected and the houses you can see here all around were built, when those arbours were set out, the fields well prepared for sowing and yielding fruit in due season - when all that was done, where was that Garden’s abbot then? Verily these hands [of Herderik] that have done all these things will possess them as long as they exist; no mortal man shall snatch them away from me.

The joy over the influence gained and the importance of his own family shines forth from every page of his chronicle (Wijbrands 187921, 34-7, 189, 229 (quotation) and elsewhere). The conflict between Emo and Herderik of Schildwolde reveals another trait of character: in the person of Emo of Wittewierum and the other Premonstratensian abbots, the libertas Premonstratensium (Weinfurter 1977:81) was combined, as it were, with the libertas Frisionum, because these abbots revealed themselves as champions of Frisian freedom. Under their leadership all the Frisians allied together against the threat of Herderik, the bishop of Miinster’s representative. l3 Around 1200 the bishop had considered Herderik, originally a canon at Cappenberg, a good candidate for the establishment of his power in the Frisian lands. Herderik with his family founded a Premonstratensian monastery presumably under episcopal influence; and he was appointed the bishop’s official and procurator and at the same time, administrator of the

Cappenberg properties. Together with the deans, he was to give substance to episcopal authority in the Frisian lands. But Emo saw through this design and with great ingenuity led the light against this ‘extortioner’ - his own potential leadership was after all at stake. Although the fight was conducted with the weapons of the day (the necessary paternity and the prohibition on Premonstratensian abbots from exercising episcopal functions) the true design was not concealed. In the thick of the fight Emo let slip: . . .per Dei gratiam in tanta libertate in Frisia constituti sumus, quod net pullo galline violenter per suos nos poterit spoliare (by God’s grace we are established in such freedom in Friesland that he [the bishop of Miinster] cannot rob us of even a chicken through the agency of his creatures [Herderik and his people]) (Weiland 1874:502). Chickens were the symbol of lordly authority (Blok 1896:178); in essence the fight was about the hierarchically ordered sovereign power of the bishop against the communally structured authority of the abbot of Wittewierum, within the boundaries of Frisian freedom. Thanks to the support of the Frisian aristocracy and of the pope who, at the insistence of the crusade-preacher Olivier of Cologne and the abbot of Premontre, intervened in the matter, Emo won his plea. Herderik had to resign his episcopal functions and accept the paternity of Mariengaarde, although he retained great personal influence in the region for many years to come. Frisian freedom, already strongly ecclesiastically or perhaps rather papally orientated, in this way took on an even more religious aspect.‘* As abbot of a monastery that was the$lia specialis of Prtmontre, Emo enjoyed a special freedom and had close ties

307

with the pope. Because of this he was able to give his power a religious dimension. In the view of the Frisian aristocracy their freedom was not curtailed by this - as would have been the case under the bishop’s dominion - but deepened and ennobled. In a way, it was only now that the Frisians’ aspirations to freedom were fulfilled: for the abbots, Emo and with him the other abbots, saw it as their special task to give substance to this freedom by achieving peace and quiet, and restraining feud and war. The struggle for peace and justice, up till then undertaken by the parish clergy and conducted to little effect, now, in the years after 1200, took on a new momentum. Behind this, lay a more profound reason why the Frisian aristocracy was prepared to allow its abbots to wield so much authority. Longing for a new order in the altered social circumstances, but refusing to accept that of a sovereign lord, charging the abbots with authority and power seemed the least evil solution. The problem under the old system had always been lack of coercive power. No single official, lay or clerical, possessed sufficient power to enforce a sentence or a legally imposed feud. The author of the Nurrucio (Braaksma 1977: 145-7), writing in 1232, expressed this emphatically: . ..notandum occur&, quod arbitri iam prenominati guerram Hunsegonum et Veuelgonum componere non poterant, quia potestatem non habuerunt (it must be noted that the already-mentioned arbiters could not settle the feud between the people of Hunsingo and Fivelgo, because they lacked power). If one family tried to work its way up to such a power, for instance by building a stone house and engaging a small army, then it inexorably encountered the mistrust and opposition of the others (sjijlin 1970:244). There appeared to 308

be only one way of breaking the vicious circle: the Narracio continues as follows: sed ab aliquot menses inter se treugaverunt (but after some months they swore a treuga). They swore a treuga, a sworn truce, in which they, as appears from the clauses of a few peaces which have been preserved, renounced various rightsccof their own accord and made them over to justices for the peace and the abbots. Thus the abbots gained the authority to initiate action for security and peace. They made the most of this chance. Spurred on by crusade preachers and, when necessary the popes - mandamus quatinus partes ad firmam pacem vel saltim ad treugas ineundas ex parte Dei et nostra moneatis (we command you that you warn the parties on behalf of God and ourselves to make a firm peace or at least a truce)15 - they got down to the maintenance of security and tranquillity via the law court. Even Frederick of Hallum, the first Premonstratensian abbot in the Frisian lands (1163-l 175), exerted himself to this end. To give an example: a certain Asego, of a prominent Frisian family viri fortes et famosi, repentant after a number of outrages, was sent by Frederick with some others to the Holy Land. In this way he hoped to bring it about that they . ..a Terra San&a redeuntes armis depositis palmis uti, discordantibus partes suas interponere, communi paci totius patrie vigilanter intendere (returning from the Holy Land, having laid down their arms should take up palm branches, intercede between belligerents, and strive vigilantly for a common peace of the whole land) (Wijbrands 1879:35-6). Presumably a great deal of trouble was involved in the finding of effective ways and institutions to give substance to this peace - just as we have a great deal of trouble

finding out precisely what the methods at their disposal were. The sources are pitifully inadequate. Much would have been settled by word of mouth, documents for this period are of the utmost scarcity and what has come down to us in chronicles and rare lives of the saints if full of lacunae. Nevertheless, in wh_at follows we shall try to organize and interpret the available information. The preaching of crusades must have played a crucial role. In the tens and twenties of the thirteenth century, Olivier of Cologne preached in Frisia several times, accompanied by a number of Cistercian, Premonstratensian and Cluniac abbots (Blok 1896:39). He not only appealed to the people to go to the Holy Land, but also ordered peace (otherwise no one could go) and appointed justices for the peace (iudices) to maintain it through the courts: ...negocium crucis...vobis tam in Groninge quamper totam Frisian Monasteriensis diocesiscommittimus in absentia nostra, sine in terra pacanda et armis deponendis, siue in causis signatorum (we commit the affairs of the cross to you, both in Groningen and in all the Frisian parts of the bishopric of Miinster during our absence, both in the pacification of the country and the laying down of arms, as well as in suits between crusaders) (Weiland 1874:499). The prevention of potential strife and the maintenance of peace were thus presented as separate items. Crusading enthusiasm was used -just as it was elsewhere - to establish more lasting institutions for the maintenance of peace and tranquillity. Frederick of Hallum availed himself of crusading enthusiasm in this way; Pope Honorius III tried to do the same, as appears from his letter to the Frisian abbots;

and a subsequent crusade preacher, the Franciscan Wilbrand, gave the idea further substance. When he preached the crusade here in 1246 he ordered a treuga, a territorial peace for five years (Weiland 1874:540). We do indeed know of some such territorial peaces from the middle of the thirteenth century: the peace of Hunsingo in 1252, of which the provisions have been preserved (Sjolin 1970:380-90 and others), and some from Fivelgo ( 1226, 1256 and later). One of these, the Primum plebiscitum Fivelgumanum (Richthofen 1840:283-90) has survived. The abbots evidently fulfil a cardinal role in this. Yet again, twenty years later, Herardus the Dominican, founder of the Dominican convent at Norden, was inciting people to go on crusade. As chance will have it, we know from a chronicle written in that convent at about the same period, that men were appointed ‘for the peace’ (Mohlmann 1959:30): Anno 1277...constituta et conciliata est pax in Frisia, novus magistratus creams est, cui nomen inditum vredmannen, id estjudices pacit’icatores... . Hi, ut Frisii tutam tranquillamque pacem traherent, sua perfecerunt diligentia ac vigilantia in fortunarum periculum ac vitae discrimen se inferentes, quo primores ac optimates Frisiae orientalis hat pace uterentur, neve quis in armis esset aut arma capere auderet. Atque in hat pace per multos annos fuerunt nostri Frisii. In the year 1277...a peace was negotiated and concluded in Friesland, a new magistrature was created, called of uredmannen, that is justices of the peace. These men fulfilled their duty conscientiously and vigilantly in order to maintain the Frisians in a secure and quiet place. They risked their lives and their fortunes so that the East Frisian aristocracy could enjoy this peace, and nobody was armed or dared to reach out for his weapons. And our Frisians lived in this peace for many years.

These were officials who remind us of the pacieri in Italy. Pope Clement IV had introduced ideas there derived from the peace of

309

God movement, and had established the office of paciarius, a justice of the peace who had to settle the many feuds and tussles in noble families and towns . ..ut pacem melius conservaret, cum pax iustitiae sit opus et fructus, ipsum ut habereret exhibende omnibus iustitiae potestatem, vicarium...constituit, (he [Clement] installed him [the paciarius] as his vicar so that he had the power to wield justice over all and could maintain peace better, for peace is the work and fruit ofjustice) (Dickerhof 1977:377). Thispaciarius, too, derived his power from the fact that the people, out of a deep longing for peace, took an oath and if need be, compelled the nobility to do the same, thus investing the paciarius with a sort of permanent office as arbitrator. Something similar seems to have taken place in the Frisian lands. Finally there are the sworn men of the Opstalboom, representatives from different Frisian lands who assembled at Aurich in East Friesland and who were probably comparable to Emo’s iurati orientales, about whom we know exceedingly little except that they emerged wherever peace was endangered and feud threatened, and that the restoration of peace was their task: pro reformanda pace (Weiland 1874:495, 505, 507, 513). How must this scanty information be interpreted? Perhaps as follows: in the Frisian lands from of old sworn men were known, men from prominent houses, well informed about what was going on and in duty bound to bring questions before the court, whether in their capacity of synodal jurymen in the jurisdiction of the synodal court, or as witnesses of the king, later wedmannen, under the old-Frisian common law. They participated, moreover, in decision-making and in

310

the pronouncing of sentences, thus as judges in a modern sense. This was the Church’s first attempt to replace private settlements by procedures before the court. For the sake of crusading peace at first, and afterwards for a more general peace, the Frisians were brought round to taking an oath for the peace of God or a territorial peace, making use of similar sworn men for its maintenance. In vital questions the Frisian freemen waived their right to make a settlement themselves, for an agreed period, and delegated it to the ‘court’, thus handing the maintenance of the peace over to judges or sworn men. These could be officiating redgers or sworn men, who were then, for the agreed period, allotted extra powers, but also special officials who took action in support of the normal ones: the peaces were, after all, intended to tighten up and extend the existing law and not to undermine it. Hence it was that these different functionaries could take collective action, that peace settlements could support the ordinary law and that the Provisions of Hunsingo as well as the Fivelgo plebiscitum saw the protection of redgers and the court session (war3 as an important task: whoever disturbed a warf by feud or fighting, impeded a witness or killed someone present suffered a very severe fine. A clear distinction between the two legal circles, the ecclesiastical functionaries and the magistrature, does not appear. The first task was the promotion of law instead of force of arms. Although both the Hunsingo Provisions and the Fivelgo plebiscitum clearly originated in the ecclesiastical corner “these are the stipulations of the abbots and wise men in the Hunsingo area” - they decreed purely secular settlements and refer-

red to the old-Frisian Constitutions. They also decided the sums for breaches of the peace which had to be paid in the presence of the abbots: in Hunsingo the abbots of Rottum, Aduard and Oldeklooster in the Marneland, each in his own region, in Fivelgo evidently Wittewierum (Weiland 1874:566). Extra fines were fixed for arbitrary feud and privately organized raids. The remaining laws continued as they had always been, as laid down in the Constitutions, for instance the power of the lord over his family and servants. They obviously constituted no threat to the safety and tranquillity of the land. The sworn men of the Opstalboom or the iurati orientales at the beginning of the thirteenth century were probably similar in character to those described above, for the clauses of the Opstalboom as we know it later (1323) show in both their objectives and their purport substantial agreement with the peace of God and ‘land’ peaces of earlier times (Meijering 1974:279). When, in the decades that followed, the abbots in the Groningen and East Frisian lands had acquired power and prestige, they were the designated leaders of the local peace alliances. They were able to press the aristocracy to swear to territorial peace, they could draft the clauses and attend to their maintenance, assisted by the prominent jury members and the ordinary officials, for whom they represented a powerful support, but whom they had also to supervise. Abbot Menko, with regard to the territorial peace in Fivelgo which came into being thanks to his labours, formulated it in this way (Weiland 1874:552) : . ..iam ad 12 annos vel ultra per iudices eorum potentes bona servabatur iustitia...plurimum

et alias ad hoc

studentibus et effkaciter cooperantibus honestis laicis..., consilium principaliter ad hoc addente abbate Floridi Orti, cuius consilio dicti laici et alii nobiles terre satis acquieverunt. Good justice has already been maintained there for twelve years or more by their justices and other prominent men. The honest laymen..., too, strove very hard and co-operated with them efficiently..., but mainly according to the abbot of Bloemhofs advice, which the said laymen and other noblemen honestly followed.

Later, special justices were apparently appointed to maintain the peace. They appear to have fulfilled the same function as did originally the jury members of the Opstalboom, and later the crusade judges. When the crusade peace was secularized into a general territorial peace, or peace of the land, the justices were also secularized into general justices for the peace. In this way the territorial peaces accorded authority to the abbots, together with the perhaps specially appointed justices for the peace, so that they could restrict private justice, forbid feuds, or at least allow them when sanctioned by the court, and promote the law pronounced in the court. This however had no permanent effect. The euphoria was short-lived. Even under abbots and justices for the peace the Frisian aristocracy was not prepared to cede its right to feud and war irrevocably. The peaces were, after the first enthusiasm, permanently dismantled. Even worse, the continuing changes in social and economic circumstances played into the hands of the rising powerful families - which we may now term hoofdelingen. It was they who, in the next century, were to dominate social life to an ever-increasing extent. It was a laudable effort, a remarkable attempt to build up a peaceful and stable society in an area that was neither feudally

311

organized not hierarchically structured. For a number of years in the thirteenth century Fivelgo did indeed enjoy a salutary tranquillity. Abbot Menko was tremendously proud of this; he had certainly done his very best to bring it about. It seemed to be a true ‘peace of God’ in the full meaning of the words: man and nature, abiding by God’s created order, lived together in harmony. The land was spared further floods. Rich and poor alike enjoyed the new order. Emo must indeed have been satisfied when he had seen this peace achieved. He must have been content with his own pursuit of rights and property. He had reaped his harvest. The Frisian freedom for which he must have been aiming was now achieved - even if it were for all too short a time.

Notes *

I wish to thank my colleagues for their stimulating help and advice in preparing this study, namely: Professor P. Gerbenzon for criticizing an earlier draft of this article, Dr. E. R. Smits and 0. Vries for checking the translation of Latin and Frisian sources, and Margaret Vaughan for translating this study into English. I These events were described partly by Emo (Weiland 1874:503-5) and partly in the Gesta abbatum orti Sanctae Mariae (Wijbrands 1879:152), thus:..postquam cognitus est ab eis, animantibus et in suam eum defensionem recipientibus ac tutelam. Unde factus securior, per iniurias prestito silencio, negocium plenius enucleavit coram omni vulgi multitudine... . 2 See for example the Annales Bertiniani (Rau 1958:32): Unde et ad comprimendam Frisionum [here the area around Dorestad] inoboedientiam strenui abbates ac comites directi sunt. 3 Brokmer law (Buma-Ebel 1965:61); Blok 1896:299; Fivelgo law (Sjiilin 1970:350): undeniable * accusation of homicide, 376: theft and plunder, 378: testamentary dispositions, 350: law of succession. 4 In Fivelgo law the wedmannen appear to have held this office (Sjolin 1970:350, 386).

312

5

Kalifa 1960:169 suggests: Ainsi des lai’ques ont en Frise ltgalement collabore a des actes d’autorite reserves en principe aux membres du clergt. 6 See for example a letter from Peter of Blois (MPL 207:490): Iterum vulgariter dicitur quod archidiaconi sunt oculi pontilicis sui. 7 I hope to come back to the influence of the Church on marriage and relationships in another study. The $h urch tried to soften the strict Frisian law with regard to women and servants who were in a lord’s were. According to Hunsingo law (Buma-Ebel 1969:36) a servant was free to appeal to the synodal court because before the synodal court everyone was equal. 8 Aggeres...quorum patres immunes erant operis illius (Weiland 1874:490); ab aqueductu stabilito 45 [that is to say in 12271 (533); agger...qui dicitur novus (543) and elsewhere. 9 Vita Godefridi (MGH,SS 12:515): Cum autem interdum discursantes milites praedari et aliena, ut assolet, usurpare conspiceret... lacrimas fudit, hisque verbis omnipotentiam Salvatoris exoravit dicens: Scio... quod in meum redundat caput, quicquid a meis delinquitur, omnisque dissimulationis meae negligentia tua merita districtione punietur. . ..facturus esset claustrum in patrimonio suo TWeiland 1874:466). , zelo sancte conversationis et promotionis eiusdem in loco avito totus ardebat (466); . ..sua optulit domno Reindoni abbati . . . ea conditione . . . ut in loco suo transponeret conventum (466); et liber esse voluit et predium suum promovere (467); ad locum promovendum rebus et religione (468). 11 Emo does tell us in his chronicle that he had traveled to Miinster, but that the bishop had not been ‘at home’. In a later copy of the chronicle an interpolation mentions that Emo on his return had to deal with invidorum malivolenciae. In order to defend himself against this he must have once more made a request to the bishop and received a favourable decision from him. This letter appears to be a forgery (Weiland 1974:469). 12 See the enormous care he devotes to the acquisition of the correct readings, hymns and practices of ;,he order (Weiland 1874:472-3). For the struggle with Herderik see Weiland 1874:especially 500-9 and Wijbrands 1879: 151-3; 226-251. 14 On the German side various studies with a different outlook are devoted to the development of the so-called ‘Frisian freedom’, Friese Vrijheid, and the Landgemeinden in the thirteenth century: Aubin 1958; Schmidt: 1971, 1978 and elsewhere.

15

Blok 1896:45 in which Honorius III applies to the Frisian abbots; compare MGhlmann 1975:25, a letter in which Gregory IX exhorts the abbot of Ihlow and others to moderate the unremitting conflict of the Frisians in ostringen and Wangerland.

Literature Algra, N. E. 1966a. Ein. Enkele rechtshistorische aspecten van de grondeigendom in Westerlauwers Friesland. Groningen. Algra, N. E. 196613. De tekstfiliatie van de 17 keuren en de 24 landrechten. Estrikken 39. Aubin, H. 1958. Zur Entwicklung der freien Landgemeinden im Mittelalter. Fehde, Landfrieden, Schiedsgericht. In: Forschungen zu Staat und Verfassung. Festgabe fir F. Hartung, ed. R. DietrichG. Oestreich, 69-90. Berlin. Blok, P. J. e.a. (ed.) 1896. Oorkondenboek van Groningen en Drente, 1. Groningen. Buma, W. J., Ebel, W. (ed. and transl.) 1965. Das Brokmer Recht. Altfriesische Rechtsquellen, 2. G6ttingen. Buma, W. J., Ebel, W. (ed. and transl.) 1969. Das Hunsingoer Recht. Altfriesische Rechtsquellen, 4. G6ttingen. Boutruche, R. 1968 and 1970. Seigneurie et feodaliti. 2 ~01s. Paris. Braaksma, A. M. e.a. (ed. and transl.) 1977. Quedam Narracio de Groninghe, de Thrente, de Covordia et de diversis aliis sub diversis episcopis traiectensibus. Amsterdam. Despy, G. 1974. Les richesses de la terre: CEteux et PrCmontre devant l’tconomie de profit aux xiie et xiiie siecles. In: Probl&mes d’histoire du Christianisme 5:58-80. Dickerhof, H. 1977. Friede als Herrschaftslegitimation in der italienischen Politik des 13. Jahrhunderts. Archiv f?r Kulturgeschichte 59:366-89. Ebel, W. 1963. Uber das Priesterzeugnis im friesisthen Recht. In: Dona Westfalica. Georg Schreiber zum 80. Geburtstag dargebracht von der historisthen Kommission Westfalens, 55-73. Schriften der hist. Komm. Westf., 4. Miinster. Ebel, W. 1964. Zur Rechtsgeschichte der Landgemeinde in Ostfriesland. In: Th. Mayer, (ed.), Die Anfange der Landgemeinde und ihr Wesen. Vortrage und Forschungen 7:305-25. Konstanz. Ehbrecht, W. 1974. Landesherrschaft und Klosterwesen im ostfriesischen Fivelgo. (970-1290). Miinster.

Formsma, W. J. 1930. De wording van staten van stad en lande tot 1536. Assen. Formsma, W. J. 1976-7. Delvinaria. Groningse Volksalmanak 1976-7, 28-36. Gerbenzon, P. 1963. Teksthistoaryske oantekening bij de Fivelinger tekst fan it syndrjocht. Us Wurk 12:75-80. Gerbenzon, P. 1971. Bijdrage tot het bronnenonderzoek van ‘Haet is riocht’. Us Wurk 20:1-18. His, R. 1901. Das Strafrecht der Friesen im Mittelalter. Leipzig. Immink, P. W. A. 1975. L’evolution de la liberte et de la peine dans les regions non feodalisees situees entre le Vlie et 1’Ems. Leeuwarden. Jansen, H. P. H. 1983. Emo’s emoties. De dertiendeeeuwse kroniek van Wittewierum als ego-document. Bijdragen en mededelingen betreffende de geschiedenis der Nederlanden 98:373-400. Jansen, H. P. H. 1984. Emo, tussen angst en ambitie. Een Groninger abt in de dertiende eeuw. Utrecht. Kalifa, S. 1960 and 1961. Les temoins synodaux frisons faisaient-ils des actes d’autoritt. It Beaken 22:161-73 and 23:52. Kalifa, S. 1972-3. Les modes de preuve frisons issus de l’inquisitio franque et leurs avatars. Us Wurk 2 1-22:97-l 38. Kroll, H. 1978. Expansion und Rekrutierung der Analecta Pramonstratenser 1120-1150. Praemonstratensia 54:36-56. Meijering, H. D. 1974. De willekeuren van de Opstalsboom (1323), een lilologisch-historische monogralie. Groningen. Merzbacher, F. 1970. Die Bedeutung von Freiheit und Unfreiheit im weltlichen und kirchlichen Recht des deutschen Mittelalters. Historisches Jahrbuch 90:257-83. Miihlmann, G. (ed. and transl.) 1959. Norder Annalen. Aufzeichnungen aus dem Dominikaner Kloster in Norden (1271-1530). Quellen zur Geschichte Ostfrieslands, 2. Aurich. Miihlmann, G. (ed.) 1975. Ostfriesisches Urkundenbuch, 3. Aurich. Petry, M. 1973. Die Pltesten Urkunden und die fruhe Geschichte des Pramonstratenserstiftes Cappenberg in Westfalen (1122-1200) 2. Archiv fir Diplomatik 19:29-150. Rau, R. (ed. and transl.) 1958. Annales Bertiniani. Quellen zur Karolingischen Reichsgeschichte, 2. Ausgewahlte Quellen, 6. Berlin. Richthofen, K. 1840. Friesische Rechtsquellen. Berlin. Scammel, J. 1971. The rural chapter in England from the eleventh to the fourteenth century. English his-

313

torical review 338: l-2 1. Schmidt, H. 197 1. Friesische Freiheitsiiberlieferungen im hoshen Mittelalter. In: Festschrift fur H. Heimpel. Veaoffentlichungen des Max Planck Instituts fur Geschichte 36,3:518-46. Gbttingen. Schmidt, H. 1978. Zum Aufstief der hochmittelalterlichen Landesgenneinde im ostlichen Friesland. In: Res Frisicae. Beitrage zur ostfriesischen Verfassungs-, Sozialund Kulturgeschichte. Abhandlungen und Vortrage zur Geschichte Ostfrieslands 59: 1 l-28. Aurich. Sjijlin, B. (ed. and transl.) 1970. Die Fivelgoer Handschrift. 2 ~01s. Den Haag. Trillmich, W. (ed. and transl.) 1978. Adami Bremensis Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae. Quellen des 9. und 11. Jahrhunderts zur Geschichte der Hamburgischen Kirche und des Reiches. Berlin. Weiland, L. (ed.) 1874. Emonis et Menkonis Werumensium Chronica. MGH SS 23:454-572. Leipzig. Weinfurter, S. 1977. Norbert von Xanten - Ordensstifter und ‘Eigenkirchenherr’. Archiv fir Ku.p turgeschichte 59:66-99. Weinfurter, S. 1978. Reformkanoniker und Reichsepiskopat im Hochmittelalter. Historisches Jahrbuch 9718158-93. Winter, J. M. van 1980. Adel en aristocratic in de middeleeuwen. Tijdschrift voor geschiedenis 93:357-76. Wijbrands, A. W. (ed.) 1879. Gesta abbatum orti Sanctae Mariae. Leeuwarden.

314