This book, written in honour of Mayke De Jong, offers twenty-five essays focused upon the importance of religion to Frankish politics. It deals with religious discourse and political polemic in studies that take up the themes of identity, and the creative deployment of the language of the Old Testament within Frankish society. The book explores how the use of ethnic rhetoric in a Christian context shaped medieval perceptions of community. It shows that the Carolingian way of dealing with the Adoptionist challenge was to allow a conversation between the Spanish bishops and their Frankish opponents to take place. Charlemagne's role in the Vita Alcuini as a guardian of orthodoxy who sought to settle a controversy by organising and supervising a theological debate was striking. The book also discusses the admonition of an abbot of Frankish origin who came from southern France and made his monastic career in southern Italy. It showcases three letter manuscripts that share certain features but are different in other aspects. The first manuscript is a collection of the Moral Letters from Seneca to his pupil Lucilius , Paris , BnF, lat. 8658A. The book demonstrates that the lists of amici, viventes et defuncti reflected how the royal monastery was interacting with ruling elites, at different levels, and how such interactions were an essential part of its identity. It also examines the context of Monte Cassino's fading into the background, in the conviction that both political and religious concerns were at play.
, but also because of his Königsnähe
and his membership of the court.
Let us now look to the column in the confraternity book listing abbots.
Abbot Hilduin of Saint-Denis is head of the list. Saint-Denis was of course
one of the most prestigious royalmonasteries, and Hilduin’s predecessor
Waldo was a former Reichenau monk. Hilduin was also abbot of the monasteries of Saint-Médard in Soissons, Saint-Germain des Près and Salonnes.
As arch-chaplain he was one of the most influential counsellors of Emperor
Louis. His position at court was very strong because of his
or abbot of a monastery that had received such immunity could exercise the functions of a prince in that bishopric’s or monastery’s lands. This meant that a great deal of land moved from secular to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. From the reign of Otto III, it became common to grant whole counties to royalmonasteries or to bishoprics, which came with full comital rights. The extreme example of this phenomenon was the bishopric of Würzburg, which possessed all the counties within its geographical boundaries. 68 The close relationship between the crown and the Church
eclipse Reims and Fleury as the royalmonastery par excellence. Thus, with the background now in place it is to that story that we now turn our attention.
1 Richer of Saint-Rémi, Histories , ed. and trans. Justin Lake, 2 vols (Cambridge, MA, 2011), Vol. II, p. 214.
2 Ibid ., Vol. II, p. 221.
3 Yves Sassier, ‘ Rex Francorum, dux Francorum : Le gouvernement royal au dernier demi-siècle carolingien’, in Le monde carolingien: Bilan
brothers taking part in the foundation of the monastery on royal land.
Dagobert not only provided the land but also partially endowed the
institution. 57 This
fact has been seen to raise the important question of whether or not
Rebais may have been a royalmonastery. Indeed, the episcopal privilege
for another monastery, the abbey at Saint-Colombe in Sens, from 660
The bishop was likewise responsible for securing and enforcing monastic privileges. Commenting on the foundations of the royalmonastery of the Holy Apostles in Arles by King Childebert I (d. 558), Gregory summoned the action as a model. Lauding the king’s desire to provide the monastery’s inhabitants with a peaceful existence, one with rights conferred explicitly by the apostolic see, Gregory’s letter mentions the privileges bestowed on that monastery, ‘both in the management of its property and in the ordination of its abbot’. 24 According to the pope, this
Paganism, infidelity and biblical punishment in the Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae
delight at the fact that ‘in our times and yours,
a nation of pagans is led to a true and great religion and a perfect faith, and is
subjugated to your royal authority’.52 Hadrian also promises to host liturgical
celebrations for the longevity of Charlemagne’s victory. These celebrations had
been requested by the king himself, an evident sign that he too laboured under
the impression at this point that the subjugation of Saxony was a done deal.53
Still in 786, Hadrian dispatched a second letter to the Carolingian court.
It was delivered by the abbots of two royal
also integral and even essential parts of the Church around the year 1000, even though they lacked any sacramental power such as presiding at the mass or ordaining priests. Usually the Church’s greatest donors, kings and emperors were also the catalyst for the foundation of new bishoprics as, for instance, at Magdeburg and Bamberg. They also endowed or continued to endow royalmonasteries and collegial canonries, of which they were often members. Christian sovereigns convened and presided over Church councils, and even appointed bishops and abbots as well as
Bernhard Zeller, Charles West, Francesca Tinti, Marco Stoffella, Nicolas Schroeder, Carine van Rhijn, Steffen Patzold, Thomas Kohl, Wendy Davies, and Miriam Czock
). Cf. A. Castagnetti, Arimanni di Lucca e distinzione sociale nelle sepolture (Verona: Daigo Press, 2015), pp. 116–22.
75 For connections with royalmonasteries cf. Folcwin of Rankweil’s presence in the Saint-Gall necrology and in the Reichenau confraternity book; Bullimore, ‘Folcwin of Rankweil’, 47–8.
76 CDMA 39 (791) = ChLA 24, no. 765.
77 CDMA 91 (823) = ChLA 61, no. 37 (822). It has been suggested that Immo bassus domno imperatoris and Occhinus bassus domno imperatoris , attested in 838, were sons or nephews of the gastaldus (Bougard, La
Inalienability of church property and the sovereignty of a ruler in the ninth century
Stefan Esders and Steffen Patzold
charter was being issued – a special
royal privilege confirming the exchange of church property.46 This points to a
deliberate reception and use of Roman imperial law by Louis the Pious and his
advisers. One may suspect that the Carolingian rulers – as Justinian before –
did not intend to give up control over ecclesiastical property, which in the
West had derived to a large extent from the royal donation of fiscal lands.47
Munificence of this kind played an enormous part not only in the endowment
of royalmonasteries, but also in the foundation of new bishoprics, and in