Textual characteristics

Since LDR conformed to administrative demands, they followed the contemporary diplomatic discourse. This is reflected by their uniform structure composed of three parts: an initial protocol, the text of the document and the eschatocol.²²

To exemplify this structure a LDR of 1358, number 43, is analysed in detail.²³ First, the protocol sets out introductory remarks as the so-called intitulatio, naming the issuer of the document, here the future French king Charles VI, then duke of Normandy and son of Charles V, and the inscriptio, i.e. the address²⁴ in (3).

(3) Charles [, ainsné fils du roy de france, duc de normandie, dauphin de viennois,]

savoir faisons a tous presens & avenir que

Charles [eldest son of the king of France, duke of Normandy, Dauphin of Viennois] we let know all present and future that (1358,43)²⁵

This shows that LDR are not addressed to the supplicant but function as legal documents containing a royal order which is announced to all his subjects. This therefore follows Lalière’s (2008) assumption that LDR do not contain an address. Furthermore, the use of the collocation savoir faisons mus be noticed as it is used in all LDR studied in the same place.

Second, the text of a LDR consists of a narratio, a dispositio, an injonctio, and a clause of corroboration. The narratio corresponds to the original plea of clemency: it narrates the events.

22 For further details on the Diplomatic discourse of medieval documents see Goetz (1993) and Guyotjeannin et al. (2006: 71-85). For the translation of the French and German terms to English see the online version of the Vocabulaire international de la diplomatique, hosted by Ludwigs-Maximilian-Universität München

http://www.cei.lmu.de/VID/, 3^rd February 2015, 15:57.

23 The numbering of the LDR corresponds to the numbering used in the CRISCO’s edition.

24 Modification in square brackets is made by the author, it corresponds to the model of the first LDR of 1357. In the CRISCO edition in LDR number 43 of 1358 an “etc.” is to be found at the place of the brackets.

Furthermore, please note that in general, translations are provided of the given examples, glosses will be used only when necessary for the understanding of the syntax. Within the translations, subject pronouns are marked only when there is no overt subject used in the original. In this case, the subject pronouns are bracketed.

25 In order to allow the identification of the origin of the examples used, the year and the number of the corresponding LDR are noted.

First, the facts of the committed crime are exposed, mentioning potentially extenuating or exceptional circumstances as in (4).

(4) que comme la veille de la feste Saint Jehan Baptiste derr. passee ledit Alleaume aprés heure de disner eust encontré en la ville de Dreux feu Jehan Le Norri sergent du baill. de Gisors, lequel li demanda ou estoit le baill. et ledit Allieume li respondi qu’il ne savoit ou il estoit mais bien cuidoit qu’il estoit en la ville et qu’il ne creoit pas qu’il en fust hors pour ce que pluseurs des ennemis du royaume estoient environ ladite ville pour laquelle response ledit Jehan Le Norri se commença moult forment a couroucier audit Alleaume et pour ce sanz autre cause desmenti et gar[çonna] pluseurs fois ledit Alleaume avec pluseurs autres injures et villenies qu’il le dist lors ledit Alleaume esmeu de parol des ordenees que ledit Jehan Le Nourry li avoit dictes li demenda se ce qu’il li disoit il li disoit comme Jehan Le Norri simplement et il li respondi que oil. Si avint que ledit Alleaume a qui il sembloit que ledit Jehan n’avoit nulle cause de l’avoir ainsi desmenti et garconné et dire tant de villenies par eschaufeture aprés vin frapa ledit Jehan d’un coutel dont il fu navré de laquelle navreure ledit Jehan Le Norri mourut dedens VIII jours aprés pour occasion de laquele mort ledit Alleaume a esté appellez aux droiz de nostre tres cher et amé cousin le conte d’Eu et a present conte de Dreux a cause de Ysabel de Meleun sa femme lequel pour doubte de rigueur de justice de longue prison s’est absentez du pais […]

that the day before the past feast of Saint Jehan Baptise, the said Alleaume had met after the hour of lunch in the town of Dreux defunct Jehan Le Norri, sergeant of the bailiff of Gisors, who asked him where the bailiff was, and the said Alleaume answered him that he did not know where he was but that he believed indeed that he stayed in town and that he did not think that he was outside the town because several enemies were in the surroundings of the said town. Because of this answer, the said Jehan le Norri started getting very angry with the said Alleaume and because of that and without any other reason, (he) repudiated and treated the said Alleaume with disdain several times with several other insults and vilenesses that he said to him, whereupon the said Alleaume moved by the upset words that the said Jehan Le Nourry had said to him asked him if what he said to him he said to him as Jehan Le Norri simply

and he answered to him that yes. So (it) occurred that the said Alleaume, to whom it seemed that the said Jehan did not have any reason to repudiate and treat him with disdain and to say so many vile things, enraged and after having drunken wine struck the said Jehan with a knife. Of that he got injured. Of this injury the said Jehan Le Norri died within 8 days. Because of this death, the said Alleaume had been summoned to appear at the court of our very dear cousin, the count of Eu and at present count of Dreux because of Ysabel de Meleun his wife. He (Alleaume) had left the country fearing the harshness of justice and of prison (1358,43)

As has been seen before, such mitigating circumstances could comprise antecedent insults by the victim and drunkenness. Second, the request for pardon followed as in (5), justified by a portrayal of the supplicant’s positive characteristics and his impeccable behaviour as a citizen in the past:

(5) […] si nous a supplié que comme il soit et ait tou[t]jours esté homme de honeste conversacion et de bonne fame et renommee sanz nul mauvais reproche nous en ceste partie wuillons avoir pitié et compassion de li

[…] so (he) has begged us that since he is and has always been man of honest conduct and of good fame and reputation without any reproach, we on this behalf should have mercy and compassion with him (1358,43)

There are no collocations as such to be found, but it is noticeable that the description of the supplicant’s quality alludes to his honourableness, his reputation, and his impeccable conduct and can therefore be analysed as a recurrent element.

The dispositio is the core of the whole document: the act of law. It states the issuer’s motivation and records his decision, compare (6).

(6) Savoir faisons que nous eu consideracion aus choses dessusdites audit Alleaume ou cas dessus dit le fait de ladite mort avec toute paine corporelle et civille que pour ce il puet avoir encouru envers nostre dit seigneur et nous li avons quicté, remis et pardonné et par ces presentes de grace especial et auctorité royal dont nous usons a present quictons, remetons et pardonnons et le restituons au pais a sa bonne femme et renommee et a ses biens

(We) let know that we having considered the above said things have removed, remitted and forgiven the said Alleaume for the above said case the said death with all corporal and civil penalty that he for this could have incurred towards our said lord and us and by the present (letters) of special pardon and royal authority which we exercise at present, (we) remove, remit and forgive and restore to him the land and his good fame and reputation and his goods (1358,43)

Once again, there is the collocation Savoir faisons by which the disposition is introduced in all the LDR of thecorpus. The use of the first person plural pronoun combined with the participle eu and the noun consideration is likewise the same in all LDR studied. Similarly, the wording by which the suppliant has been remitted and granted pardon accords with the other LDR. Only the collocation on corporal or civil penalty shows small variations in the word order in the relative clause. For instance, instead of pour ce il puet avoir encouru, one also finds il pour ce puet avoir encouru or still il puet avoir pour ce encouru. This structure needs therefore to be analysed in detail hereafter.

LDR do not contain an explicit sanctio, but in some cases, it imposes additional conditions by reserving the validity of the document to commitments of the supplicant as in (7).

(7) sauf droit de partie a poursuir civilement par ainsi que dedens Noel prochain venant ledit Alleaume sera tenu d’aler en pelerinaige a Nostre Dame de Roychemadeur

apart the right to pursue (him) by civil law in that until next Christmas, the said Alleaume is bound to go on a pilgrimage to Notre Dame de Rocamadour (1358,43)

In addition, in the injonctio given in (8), the local agents of the ruler and anyone else are obliged to respect this decision, to discontinue legal prosecutions and to refund seized goods.

(8) Si donnons en mandement par la teneur de ces presentes au bailli de Gisors qui a present est et pour le temps avenir sera et a touz les autres justiciers royaux ou a leurs lieuxtenans que ledit Alleaume facent et lessent user et joir paisiblement de nostre presente grace et remission et contre la teneur d’icelle ne le molestent ne seuffrent estre molesté en aucune manere en corps ne en

biens. Et en empliant nostredite grace il nous plaist et voulons que nostredit cousin puisse faire audit Alleaume semblable grace sanz ce que ou temps a venir il porte aucun prejudice a li ne a sa juridicion sauf en autres choses le droit de nostredit seigneur et de nous et en toutes l’autruy

So (we) command by the content of the present (letters) to the bailiff of Gisors who by now is and in the future will be and to all other royal legal commissioners and to their lieutenants that they should have and let the said Alleaume make use of and enjoy peacefully our present pardon and remission and that against the content of the present letter they shall not harass him nor tolerate that he might be harassed by other in any way neither physically nor in his possessions. And by enlarging our said pardon, we would like that our said cousin can give to the said Alleaume similar pardon without that in the future he does harm to him or to his jurisdiction except in other things the right of our said lord and of us and to all others (1358,43)

The wording of the order essentially matches in all the LDR except for the exact names of the local agents. Similarly, the relative clause indicating the unlimited validity does not display variation in my corpus. By contrast, the subordinate corresponding to the content of the order exhibits variation in word order and needs to be scrutinised in the following.

The corrobatio validates the act of law. As such, medieval legal documents include an announcement that the document is to be sealed or to be validated by a list of witnesses. In the case of the LDR, the former is prevalent as illustrated in (9).

(9) Et que ce soit ferme chose et estable a touzjours mais nous avons fait mettre seel a ces presentes lettres

and so that this may be a firm and stable matter forever, we have had the present letters sealed (LDR 1358,43)

The formulation can equally be regarded as formulaic since it can be found in all LDR of the corpus.

Finally, the eschatocol of LDR, given in (10), is composed of the dating and the subscriptio, the signature, and may also contain extra sigillum notes. ²⁶

(10) Donné a Paris le XVIe jour de fevrier l’an de grace MCCCLVII sign. par mons.

le duc a la relacion du conseil ouquel estoient mess. le mareschal de Champ.

Guillaume d’Ambreville et Philippe de Trois Monz. Jobelin. lecta.

Given in Paris on the 16th day of February of the year of our Lord 1357 signed by the duke according to the information of the conseil composed of the brigadier Guillaume d’Ambreville and Philippe de Trois Monz. Jobelin. lecta.

(LDR 1358,35)

In my LDR, I do not have a subscriptio²⁷, the extra sigillum notes comprise the whole part after the dating and do not refer to the act of law itself but to its elaboration. The present LDR is based on the report of the maréchal de camp Guillaume d’Ambreville and of Philippe de Trois Monz and approved during the absence of the duke himself who is nevertheless the only one to have the power to sign the act. This is expressed by the formula a la relacion du conseil (cf.

Lallière 2008). In the example above, Jobelin is therefore the name of the notary. In some of the LDR, at the very end of the document there is the information that the letter was read out loud, such as lecta per dominum Philippum in LDR 1357,25.

To sum up, in the LDR there are typical elements of medieval legal acts, which do not share the characteristics of letters in the classical sense. Nevertheless, traces of their genesis are reflected in the narratio and, therefore, they document themselves. Hence, LDR can be described as codifying a dialogue between the supplicant and the king.²⁸ In the next section, the interest of LDR for linguistic research is discussed.