currently I'm working on all the old documents that proove that something that many people claim to be true actually happened. It's quite fascinating to find yourself reading nearly 1000 year old texts. And mostly they are quite easy to understand (see the green lines form the dedication charta on the bottom right of the page) - at least once you've got used to having a giant dictionary on your lap most of the time. Its interesting how you can even read between the lines. HAINRICUS' reasons for his foundations are pretty obvious. He was old and ill, and worried about his spiritual welfare as well as the future of his kingdom. Thus, in the few months before his death he founded Saint Martin des Champs and a lithurgical memorial donation at St.Remi in Reims, and announced his son Philipp to be successor to the throne. That all makes perfect sense. But why did his son, Philipp, that is Philipp Ist, King of France, after continuing his father's foundation for a few years, turn Saint Martin des Champs into something completely different - he exchanged the secular canon monks for Clunacian ones, decreased the independant status of the abbey by turning it into a priory and put it under the control of the abbot of Cluny, then Hugo Ist... hmm, Andreas Sohn gives nice answers to this. He's my favourite in this whole literary battle anyway. His arguments are fresh, he seems to trace back everything himself (a good opportunity to find other people's mistakes) and always gives the exact sources of what he's claiming. A model of a historian. Pity he isn't an art historian; on the other hand I wouldnt have anything to do here, if he was.