Bernhard Zeller, Charles West, Francesca Tinti, Marco Stoffella, Nicolas Schroeder, Carine van Rhijn, Steffen Patzold, Thomas Kohl, Wendy Davies, and Miriam Czock
landscape was complicated by the interests of a powerful monastic institution, although one might say it was already complicated by the interests, and presence, of a powerful landowner. Here, in north-west Iberia, far beyond the reach of the legacy of the CarolingianEmpire, we have elements of many of the themes that have recurred in this book.
It hardly needs saying that the source material available for the early Middle Ages does not allow reconstruction of the feelings and the nuances of personal relationships of individual peasants. There is a limit to what can be
objectives. We shall return to this below. It is useful, however, first to review in more detail both traditional and revisionist interpretations of this so-called movement in order to have a better understanding of its connection with eleventh-century reform as well as its repercussions for eleventh-century society.
Traditionally, the ‘peace of God’ has been seen as something of a ‘war on war’, in other words, as a reaction to the disorder, whether real or perceived, that resulted from the disintegration of the CarolingianEmpire during the later ninth and especially
secular components and repercussions, and vice versa.2 In his efforts to further his reforms
Charlemagne relied on networks based on trust, loyalty and values shared with
his fideles. The two meanings of the word fides, ‘faith’ and ‘fidelity’, exemplify the
interwovenness of politics and religion in the Carolingianempire. When it comes
to assessing Monte Cassino’s position within Charlemagne’s network of renovatio, important clues are held by Theodemar’s epistolary guide to the world of
Benedictine monastic discipline, including his lengthy discussion of fashion. But
Gottschalk of Orbais and the predestination controversy in the archdiocese
Matthew Bryan Gillis
controversy represent a remarkable case of defiance of episcopal authority and an unusual occurrence of heresy in the Carolingian world, both of which exposed Hincmar’s limitations as a defender of doctrine and ecclesiastical discipline in his own archdiocese.
A missionary of grace
Theological controversy came to the archdiocese of Rheims in 848 when Gottschalk, a priest from the archdiocese and former monk of the abbey of Orbais, returned after a decade of travels through the Carolingianempire, Dalmatia, Bulgaria and
. It is mainly from Hincmar’s own writings that Flodoard constructed his history of Rheims.
Our own view of the Carolingianempire is also greatly shaped by Hincmar’s work. Hincmar was born within a decade of Charlemagne’s acceptance of the imperial title in 800; he died in 882, six years before the death of the last undisputed Carolingian emperor, Charles the Fat. His long life therefore encompassed the greater part of the Frankish empire’s existence. But Hincmar was not just a witness to the Carolingian ninth century. As archbishop of Rheims, he was one of its
. 13 The archdiocese was divided: 14 the bishopric of Cambrai, held by Theoderic, a supporter of Lothar, lay within the Middle Kingdom, while Rheims itself and Hincmar’s other suffragans – some of whom, like Prudentius, had reservations about the new archbishop 15 – were in Charles the Bald’s kingdom. Moreover, Rheims held lands right across the newly divided Carolingianempire, from Aquitaine (largely under Pippin II’s de facto control in 845) to the Wormsgau. Many were in lay hands as a result of royal grants, by Lothar and Charles the Bald among others
examples of Ambrose and Martin. Like Ambrose, Martin stayed in his city and faced the usurper Maximus. 40 Their examples are supported by two quotations from Augustine to show firstly that communication with a king without being contaminated by his sin is possible, and secondly that it is not his usurpation that is held against him, but the sacrileges of which it is the cause. 41 As the CarolingianEmpire was Christian, there was little risk of bishops being prosecuted and led to martyrdom. As a consequence, Martin and Ambrose are more effective examples because they
in the Late Ninth Century: Charles the Fat and the End of the CarolingianEmpire (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 116–17.
43 M. J. McCarthy, ‘Power and kingship under Louis II the Stammerer, 877–879’ (PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge, 2012), pp. 74–7.
44 Devisse, Hincmar , II, p. 922.
45 Ibid .
46 Ibid ., I, p. 29: ‘Reims est aussi un centre important pour l’administration du royaume et Charles compte sur le prélat pour l’aider à reprendre en mains un
Hincmar would have liked); relevant too were ideas about the deference owed to patrons, whether these patrons were kings or the founders or owners of a small local church; so too were rules about ‘translation’, that is moving from one church to another. 62 Just as the great abbeys and cathedrals of the CarolingianEmpire were sanctified places, so Hincmar considered that modest parish churches were holy buildings too, whose materiality was of great symbolic significance and therefore needed to be monitored. 63 If the issues raised by the parish were both major and
II: Christian Marriage and Political Power in the Carolingian World , trans. T. M. Guest (Ithaca, 2010), pp. 82–3; A. Firey, A Contrite Heart: Prosecution and Redemption in the CarolingianEmpire (Leiden, 2009), pp. 9–60.
97 Trial by ordeal was not usually approved, although sometimes supervised, by the Church at this time: see R. Bartlett, Trial by Fire and Water: the Medieval Judicial Ordeal (Oxford, 1986), especially pp. 70–5 on ninth-century critics; F. McAuley, ‘Canon law and the end of the ordeal’, Oxford Journal of Legal