Making Agreements in Medieval Catalonia: Power, Order, and the Written Word, 1000-1200 (review)

In this impressively researched and profoundly suggestive book, Kosto offers a thorough examination of more than 1,000 written agreements from medieval Catalonia, the convenientiae. Drawing on a variety of disciplines (including social, economic, and political history; legal anthropology; cultural studies; and diplomatic studies), the author addresses several historical problems regarding the nature and dimension of change in eleventh- and twelfth-century Europe. The intent is to uncover "transformations in the structures of power" (13), particularly those promoted by the counts of Barcelona. Kosto argues convincingly that from the middle of the eleventh century, beginning with Count Ramon Berenguer I of Barcelona (1035-1076), counts and bishops (and later the lower aristocracy) disseminated and relied on convenientiae to enhance and extend their control over frontier territories. They did so by recording in writing "the terms of castle-holding, military obligations, and the settlement of disputes" (71).

Several historical problems are explored in this book. Did there occur in Catalonia during the early decades of the eleventh century a "feudal revolution," a rapid transformation of economic, social, and political structures? Is "feudalism" a useful and valid category of historical analysis for Catalonia? What can convenientiae tell us about the interaction of literacy and orality in Catalonian society? Kosto marshals extensive archival evidence to side with those historians, such as Bonnassie and Duby, who argued that feudal revolution did indeed occur during the early eleventh century.¹ However, in the case of Catalonia, he notes that the pace of this "mutational change" was slower than that in the North: "Changes in these areas seem to take place over three generations, rather than just one, a pace closer to that of economic developments, which also did not occur overnight" (75). Furthermore, the convenientiae were not indicators of a shift from an oral to a written culture—a transformation described for England by Clanchy.² Nor did they represent a complex blending of written texts within a society that was still basically oral (as suggested by Stock for Europe as a whole).³ Rather, real transformations were taking place, and the "new form of the convenientiae developed because of the inadequacy of the old forms to meet the needs of a society undergoing structural transformations" (291). They sought to regulate relationships in the future, not simply to record past agreements. As such, they marked a shift "from memory to imagination" (294).

The lively and informed manner by which the author has used this case study to engage in several historiographical debates is compelling and admirable. However, a few minor criticisms are warranted. First, the language used to describe the significance of the convenientiae varies, and it can lead to some confusion. For instance, in one passage, the author observes that "convenientiae determined a social and political order" (3), whereas elsewhere he argues that they "can only be understood as establishing a vision of order," and that they "reveal collective expectations" (271). If their function seems primarily ideological, can they realistically be thought to have "determined" a political order, especially since many agreements do not seem to have been kept? Second, one particular mechanism that encouraged enforcement of the agreements deserves further attention—witness lists. Finally, if the structural changes chronicled in the book "take place over three generations" (75), can they still constitute a "feudal revolution"? At what point does "change" become "revolution"?