This chapter pulls together the previous chapters’ conclusions about the early medieval laity. It then asks why new, Carolingian-style formula collections stopped being made in the course of the tenth century. After surveying possible answers offered by the scholarship, it suggests – while acknowledging that we will likely never know for certain – another, namely that they continued to be produced as long as scribes wanted to write their documents and letters like others were writing theirs, for a clientele whose interests could span very long distances. As the Carolingian world disintegrated in the later ninth and tenth centuries, this became less important. The chapter closes with the history of the manuscript Paris, BNF, ms. lat. 2123, as it disappears from view, surfaces in the early modern period, arrives at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, and ends up in the hands of Karl Zeumer as he edited the formulas for the Monumenta Germaniae Historica. It discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the MGH edition, the impact that Zeumer’s editorial methods had on the formula texts and their images of the laity, and the resulting dangers of treating this edition, rather than the surviving manuscripts, as a primary source.

This chapter focuses on the evidence for both continuity and change in the role of the advocate during the tenth century. Under the Ottonian rulers of the East Frankish Kingdom, the position of advocate acquired new prestige, as high-ranking nobles and even the rulers themselves claimed to be the advocates for individual monasteries and churches. As part of this trend, sources increasingly emphasized the advocate’s role as protector of ecclesiastical properties. At the same time, local evidence continues to show advocates closely overseeing the property interests of monasteries and churches in ways that have clear parallels with eighth- and ninth-century sources from the Carolingian empire. This chapter further argues that the position of advocate was developing organically in this period and that scholarly attempts to create different categories of advocates are misguided. It is precisely because the role of advocate was open to interpretation that advocates were increasingly able to abuse their positions for their own profit.