# **The struggle for (self-)integration. Manuscripts, liturgy and networks in Verona at the time of Bishop Ratold (c. 802-840/3)**

by Francesco Veronese

Between the 780s and the 840s the episcopal see of Verona was held by bishops coming from beyond the Alps, appointed by the Carolingian rulers and charged with control over a prestigious and strategically key bishopric. They were called upon to boost the communications between the local elites and the political and social machinery of the Carolingian world. In order to achieve that, they first had to negotiate their own integration in their new field of action, and to be acknowledged as effective political mediators between Verona and the rulers. The tools they used to do that were, on the one hand, their own skills and previous experience, on the other, the centre for textual production, preservation and dissemination they found in Verona, that is, the cathedral *scriptorium* and library. The books that can be attributed to them allow us to keep trace of the networks of relationships and cultural exchanges they developed, linking the two sides of the Alps. This paper focuses more specifically on the activities and endeavours of Bishop Ratold (c. 802-840/3). The liturgical and hagiographical manuscripts produced in Verona in that period are examined as key markers of Ratold's intellectual networks, and of the ways in which he used them for his own need for self-integration. They also provide elements casting light on the introduction and reception of the Carolingian cultural reforms in the kingdom of Italy.

Middle Ages; 9th century; North-Eastern Italy; Verona; Reichenau; Ratold; liturgical manuscripts; Carolingian religious reforms

Francesco Veronese, University of Padua, Italy, francesco.veronese.3@unipd.it, 0000-0002-2189-1485 Referee List (DOI 10.36253/fup\_referee\_list) FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

Francesco Veronese, *The struggle for (self-)integration. Manuscripts, liturgy and networks in Verona at the time of Bishop Ratold (c. 802-840/3)*, © Author(s), CC BY 4.0, DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-623-0.05, in Gianmarco De Angelis, Francesco Veronese (edited by), *Networks of bishops, networks of texts. Manuscripts, legal cultures, tools of government in Carolingian Italy at the time of Lothar I*, pp. 67-90, 2022, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 978-88-5518-623-0, DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-623-0

Abbreviations

ChLA2, LIX = *Chartae Latinae Antiquiores*, 2nd series, ed. G. Cavallo – G. Nicolaj, part LIX, Italy XXXI, Verona I, publ. F. Santoni, Dietikon-Zürich 2009.

ChLA2, LX = *Chartae Latinae Antiquiores*, 2nd series, ed. G. Cavallo – G. Nicolaj, part LX, Italy XXXII, Verona II, publ. F. Santoni, Dietikon-Zürich 2010.

CLLA = *Codices Liturgici Latini Antiquiores*, ed. K. Gamber, Freiburg 1963.

MGH, Capit. I = MGH, *Capitularia regum Francorum*, I, ed. A. Boretius, Hannover 1883 (Legum sectio, II/1).

MGH, DD LdF = MGH, *Die Urkunden Ludwigs des Frommen*, ed. T. Kölzer – J.P. Clausen – D. Eichler – B. Mischke – S. Patt – S. Zwerlein, Wiesbaden 2016 (Diplomata Karolinorum, 2). MGH, Libri mem. = MGH, *Libri memoriales*.

MGH, Ordines = MGH, *Ordines de celebrando concilio*, ed. H. Schneider, Hannover 1996.

#### 1. *Introduction*

In one of the oldest parts of Reichenau's *liber vitae*, dated to 824, the *amici viventes* (living) and *defuncti* (dead) of the monastery, those who contributed to its patrimonial prominence through gifts of lands, are listed1 . In the first stage of entries of *amici viventes*, five groups of names, identified by titles and functions, were recorded by one common hand and placed in five columns2. The first list includes members of the Carolingian family, starting from the co-emperors Louis the Pious and Lothar. The second one, of eighteen names, is a list of archbishops and bishops. These are followed by a list of abbots (no abbess was recorded) and one of *presbiteri*. The fifth column is dedicated to the counts. As Régine Le Jan underlined, the image suggested by this structure is that of an «ordered Christian society (…) led by Carolingian rulers and their *ministri*, both ecclesiastical and lay magnates»3. Le Jan also highlighted that these five columns of names appear as a sort of "who's who" of the Carolingian world, a highly selective and almost exclusively male club whose members held high-ranking public titles or were particularly well-connected to the *Bodensee* area. The list of bishops provides a clear example of this. Its first entry concerns Ratold, bishop of Verona, of Alamannian origins. The third name is that of Wolfleoz of Constance, the episcopal authority whose jurisdiction also included Reichenau. The list goes on with bishops in Northern and Central Italy (Vercelli, Milan, Arezzo), the Alps (Chur), Provence (Langres, Marseille), Burgundy (Clermont), and the Rhineland (Strasbourg). Ebbo of Rheims and *Patarich*/Badurich of Regensburg are also included. So Reichenau's networks of relations with Carolingian bishops at this time appear especially focused on some areas of the empire, Alamannia and its closest neighbours, Northern Italy, Bavaria, Burgundy and Provence – which is hardly surprising. But the heartlands of the Carolingian world, the old Austrasia and Neustria, were also part of them.

<sup>1</sup> For the date of original composition of Reichenau's *liber vitae*, see Schmid, *Wege zur Er-*

*schließung*, esp. pp. LXV-LXVIII. <sup>2</sup> *Das Verbrüderungsbuch*, ed. Autenrieth – Geuenich – Schmid, pp. 98-99, also available for online consultation at < https://www.dmgh.de/mgh\_libri\_mem\_n\_s\_1/index.htm#page/(I)/ mode/1up >, [accessed on 22/03/2022]. <sup>3</sup> Le Jan, *Reichenau*, p. 267.

The souls of the people whose names were recorded in Reichenau's *liber vitae* benefitted from the monks' prayers of commemoration4. Both the monks and their patrons were meant to take advantage from the *liber*'s entries: the first saw the land patrimony of their monastery grow bigger and bigger, while the latter were helped with intercessory prayers5 . Yet these were not the only issues at stake. In the earliest entries of its *amici viventes*, the monks exploited the symbolic power and the liturgical functions of the written word in order to celebrate the support coming from both the imperial family and some of the key public figures of the Carolingian world6. The composition of a "book of life" provided an opportunity to formulate a graphic representation of the cooperation linking Carolingian rulers, the empire's magnates and Alamannian élites in their shared effort to support the monastery. Reichenau placed itself centre stage in this imagery, and at the heart of the network of relations it symbolised, thus claiming a pivotal role for the peace and concord that, according to Carolingian capitularies, were supposed to reign at the top levels of society7 . Being included in these lists meant to be included in Reichenau's network, that is to say, contributing to the empire's stability.

The records of the *liber vitae* reflect the extension of the monastery's networks and their transformation in time8. But what was the meaning of these networks for the people recorded in the *liber vitae*? To what extent, in what ways and for what purposes did these figures use their connection to Reichenau? In this paper I will focus my attention on the first bishop listed among the monastery's *amici viventes*, Ratold of Verona. Some of the textual tools that he used to build his own network will be analyzed from the perspectives of their elaboration, contents, and manuscript dissemination. This will allow me better to assess Ratold's integration in both his field of action (Verona) and in the wider strands of communication running through the Carolingian world. The liturgical and hagiographical books that can be traced back to Ratold's activity as bishop will be especially at the core of my analysis. In Carolingian times, as a result of Charlemagne's programmes of religious reform, both liturgy and hagiography experienced deep transformations, including in their dissemination9. That is why they represent a vantage point for examining Ratold's endeavours and choices. The liturgical and hagiographical books of early Carolingian Verona have been the object of a number of investigations, both individually and in the context of studies on the texts they include10. Yet only

<sup>4</sup> Hoffmann, *Anmerkungen*; Butz – Zettler, *The Making*. On monastic commemoration, see Choy, *Intercessory Prayer*. <sup>5</sup> Butz, *Eternal* amicitia*?*. <sup>6</sup> McKitterick, *The Carolingians*; Butz, *Herrschergedenken*. <sup>7</sup> Kershaw, *Peaceful Kings*; Kramer, *Rethinking Authority*. <sup>8</sup> Butz, *Von Namenlisten zu Netzwerken?*. <sup>9</sup> Hen, *The Royal Patronage*; Heene, *Merovingian and Carolingian Hagiography*; Gibson, *The* 

*Carolingian World*. <sup>10</sup> Just to mention some of the most recent ones: Santoni, *Scrivere documenti*; Polloni, *I più* 

*antichi codici*; Bassetti, *Da Pacifico a Raterio*.

seldom have they been connected to the general context of the Carolingian calls to *correctio*, of the textual and book products resulting from it, and of the responses they produced. I have no ambition to redraw Ratold's networks on different grounds than those already illustrated by previous scholarship in recent times11. My contribution aims instead at providing some considerations on the role that these connections, especially those between Ratold and Reichenau, had in shaping the position of Verona in the intellectual landscape of the Carolingian – and Lothar's – kingdom in Italy.

## 2. *Bishops coming from across the Alps*

Between the 780s and the 840s, the bishopric of Verona was held by men coming from the other side of the Alps, especially from Alamannia12. We know nothing about the manner of their election, yet it seems reasonable to suppose that these figures were imposed by the Carolingian rulers. They were called to act as mediators in communicating between the royal authority and local society, in order to boost the integration of the latter's élites within the political dynamics of the Carolingian world. The introduction of public officers (bishops and counts) from beyond the Alps was something that Verona shared with a number of Italian areas, as Eduard Hlawitschka and Andrea Castagnetti have shown13. The bishops of Verona were thus part of a wider phenomenon, whose goals, at least initially, could be that of flanking the new king of Italy, Pippin, with a trusted staff14. Whatever the case, the condition of these bishops in the local context of Verona was initially that of outsiders. They owed their charges and their continuation through time exclusively to the support of the Carolingian royal power. In order to fulfill their role as political mediators, they were called first and foremost to negotiate their own integration in the dynamics of Verona and the kingdom of Italy.

This is the frame of Ratold's activity as bishop. His Alamannian provenance and training are supported by both his connections to Reichenau and his script, surviving in an autograph subscription to a *pagina offersionis* of 80915. His long episcopacy (c. 802-840/3) is usually described as being composed of two different stages16. The beginning of his experience in Verona is usually set in 802, at the death of his predecessor Egino17. Yet his first appear-

<sup>11</sup> See for instance Tronca, *Late Antique and Early Medieval Patristic Manuscripts*; Tronca, Libri maioris Ecclesiae; Valtorta, Anecdota Veronensia.

<sup>12</sup> On early Carolingian Verona, see Castagnetti, *Minoranze etniche*; La Rocca, *Pacifico*; Stoffella, In vico Gussilingus.

<sup>13</sup> Hlawitschka, *Franken*; Castagnetti, *Minoranze etniche*; Castagnetti, Teutisci. <sup>14</sup> Bullough, Baiuli; Stoffella, *Staying Lombard*. <sup>15</sup> ChLA2, LIX, n. 2, pp. 37-41. Also see Zamponi, *Pacifico*, pp. 232-233; *Le carte antiche*, pp. XXXVII-XXXVIII.

<sup>16</sup> La Rocca, *Pacifico*; Hlawitschka, *Ratold*; Depreux, *Prosopographie*, pp. 358-360. <sup>17</sup> On Egino, see Zettler, *Egino*; Zettler, *Die karolingischen Bischöfe*.

ance as bishop dates from 806, when a dispute between the episcopal and the comital authority of Verona, started some decades before, was settled, in the spirit of the call to cooperation between counts and bishops conveyed by Carolingian legislation18. In this first stage, Ratold's struggle for (self-)integration looks successful. Cooperation was extended not only to counts, but also to highly-visible members of the local élites. Scripts influenced by Rhaetian elements spread in both the books and the documents in whose production these élites were involved, thus reflecting their links with the bishop's milieu and the cathedral school over which he presided19. These considerations allow us to place our understanding of this period in Ratold's activity on firmer grounds than in the past. A notable part of the documents transmitted for these years have been proved to be false or interpolated. The purpose of the interpolations was to date the rights and conditions of the cathedral clergy back to the Carolingian times, and to elevate the early ninth century to the role of a golden age for the Church of Verona20. The cooperation between Ratold and King Pippin in the reconstruction of the basilica of S. Zeno after a fire, with the establishment of a monastic community there, is also witnessed by later sources21. Yet in this first period the bishop seems certainly successful in setting himself as a focus for local society, especially from a cultural point of view.

Things dramatically changed in the 820s and 830s. Ratold's activity and presence in Verona become increasingly limited, while he appears with growing frequency in other places. From the early 830s to his death, some time between 840 and 843, he is no longer attested in Italy22. In those years, Louis the Pious gave him tasks of responsibility in the core regions of the empire. This switch has been generally connected to the support that Ratold consistently showed to Louis the Pious during the revolts led first by Bernard of Italy, and then by the emperor's sons. In 834 Ratold contributed to the release of the Empress Judith, prisoner in Tortona23. For this reason he would definitively lose Lothar's support, and thus access to the kingdom of Italy. The sources on Ratold's role in these events, first of all the Astronomer's *Vita Hludowici*, are a little later and include a clear agenda24. Moreover, they tell us nothing about the responses of the local society in Verona to Ratold's political choices. The sources produced locally, especially charters, allow us to glimpse a range of transformations in the networks and balances of power of the local society. The Veronese monastery of S. Maria in Organo arose as a new focus for local

Also Stoffella, *In threatening times*. <sup>19</sup> Santoni, *Scrivere documenti*. <sup>20</sup> La Rocca, *Pacifico*. <sup>21</sup> On the whole issue, see now Stoffella, *La basilica*. <sup>22</sup> Depreux, *Prosopographie*, pp. 359-360. <sup>23</sup> Hammer, *From* ducatus *to* regnum, pp. 328-334. <sup>24</sup> Goetz, *The perception*; De Jong, *The Penitential State*, pp. 79-89.

<sup>18</sup> See for instance Pippin's *Capitulare italicum* maybe dating to that same 806: MGH, Capit. I, n. 102 (801-810), pp. 209-211. The charter of 806 is published in ChLA2, LX, n. 17, pp. 78-81.

élites25. Charters witness the rapid growth in the monastery's land patrimony in the 830s. Because of Ratold's absence, figures who had previously focused around the bishop found themselves lacking this reference point for social and patrimonial aggregation, and were in need of a new one, that they identified with S. Maria in Organo. These changes in local networks were traditionally interpreted as a sign of disaffection on the part of the élites in Verona toward Ratold, due to the support he had given to Louis the Pious26. In this framework, the figure of the Archdeacon Pacificus would have been seen as the champion of local identity, never fully integrated or vanquished by the Frankish conquerors. The presence of the same figures in both the charters of the bishop and those of S. Maria in Organo would seem to contradict this reconstruction, in which the idea of ethnic identity plays a key role27. The rise of the monastery was not the consequence of opposition to Ratold's politics, but rather an answer to immediate needs resulting from his absence. Signs of continuity seem stronger than those of rupture, as the study of liturgical and hagiographical manuscripts produced in Verona in that period also highlights.

## 3. *Verona and the* ordines romani

The codex XCII (87) of the Cathedral Library in Verona contains a collection of *ordines romani*, liturgical formularies for rituals pertaining to bishops28. The date of its composition is still the object of debate. In the past the manuscript had been attributed to the hand of Archdeacon Pacificus, active in the first two decades of the ninth century29. Recently Susanna Polloni identified five hands having worked on it, all sharing a minuscule script influenced by Rhaetian elements30. Francesca Santoni identified one of these hands with that of Sigmarius, *cancellarius sancte Veronensis Ecclesie*, attested in the 830s and 840s31. So there is no doubt about the local origin of the manuscript. Even though the attribution to Pacificus has been rejected, the archdeacon could in fact have been involved in its production. The authors of the *ordines* took care to distinguish the functions of each clerical figure called to support the bishop in performing the rituals. One of these is that of the deacon, sometimes charged with the role of coordinating the liturgical actions performed by the other members of the cathedral clergy. Pacificus could have been interested in the contents of the codex due to both his cultural responsibilities in the cathedral *scriptorium* and his liturgical functions as an archdeacon.

<sup>25</sup> Tondini, *Un modello*. <sup>26</sup> Mor, *Dalla caduta*, p. 70; Castagnetti, *Minoranze etniche*. <sup>27</sup> Stoffella, *Collaborazione*, pp. 191-195. <sup>28</sup> On Roman *ordines*, the obvious reference is still Andrieu, *Les* Ordines romani. <sup>29</sup> T. Venturini, *Ricerche paleografiche*, p. 149; Meersseman – Adda – Deshusses, *L'orazionale*, pp. 5 and 62-65.

<sup>30</sup> Polloni, *I più antichi codici*, pp. 349-350. <sup>31</sup> Santoni, *Scrivere documenti*, pp. 194-198; Bassetti, *Da Pacifico a Raterio*, pp. 98-99.

At ff. 68*r*-71*v* three *laudes regiae* were transcribed32. *Laudes regiae* were litanies asking for God's protection on the rulers, ecclesiastical authorities, and the Christian people33. Those in codex XCII were written at different moments by different hands, one of which was also at work in the transcription of the *ordines*34. The vicissitudes in the composition of these litanies allow us better to assess the *laudes*' chronology and succession. The three texts share the mention of the emperor together with the empress, a fairly uncommon feature of Carolingian *laudes regiae*<sup>35</sup>. The first litany (ff. 67*r*-68*r*) includes no actual names. The other two (ff. 68*v*-69v and 70*v*-71*v*) report the names of specific emperors and empresses, but the latter were repeatedly corrected and replaced. The emperors mentioned in the second text are two, Louis the Pious and Lothar, as well as the empresses, Judith and Ermengard. Yet Judith's name was later erased (see Fig. 1). In the third litany, though the parchment is here severely affected by humidity, one can still read the name of one emperor, Louis the Pious. The line concerning the empress was repeatedly rearranged (see Fig. 2). Judith's name, probably included after the erasure of a previous name, was itself replaced with that of Ermengard. The original name was probably that of Louis the Pious' first wife, Ermengard, substituted at the time of the emperor's second marriage. So the third text emerges as the oldest one, dating to the years (814-818) when Louis the Pious was already *augustus imperator* and was married to Ermengard. The second litany comes after Lothar's marriage to Ermengard (821). Scholars connected the erasure of Judith's name in both litanies to the years of the rebellions of the emperor's sons. The clergy of Verona would have taken position against her, that is, against Ratold, who assisted her in Tortona36. The first *laus*, the most recent one, is more difficult to date. Scholars' assessments range from the late ninth to the eleventh century37.

What these litanies most clearly reflect is the textual changes they underwent38. Their content was updated according to the events linked to imperial power. Existing *laudes* were reshaped, and new texts were composed. Substitutions in the empresses' names confirm this, and it seems unnecessary to assume they were motivated by political allegiances. Judith's name was itself added to the third *laus* (though chronologically the first one) on the erasure of that of (the first) Ermengard. To focus one's attention almost exclusively on the names of individual empresses prevents one from appreciating the inno-

<sup>32</sup> Edited in Meersseman – Adda – Deshusses, *L'orazionale*, pp. 188-190. <sup>33</sup> Kantorowicz, Laudes regiae; Garipzanov, *The Symbolic Language*, pp. 46-52; Welton, *Orchestrating harmony*, pp. 136-140. <sup>34</sup> Polloni, *Manoscritti liturgici*, pp. 165-168. <sup>35</sup> Welton, *Orchestrating harmony*, p. 137. <sup>36</sup> Venturini, *Ricerche paleografiche*, pp. 84-88; Meersseman – Adda – Deshusses, *L'orazio-*

*nale*, pp. 63-64. <sup>37</sup> Polloni, *Manoscritti liturgici*, pp. 167-168; Santoni, *Scrivere documenti*, p. 196, note 85; Pol-

loni, *I più antichi codici*, p. 350. <sup>38</sup> Westwell, *The dissemination*, p. 91; Welton, *Orchestrating harmony*, p. 142.

vative character of the two oldest *laudes*. The Veronese litanies are the oldest Carolingian *laudes* to attribute the title of *imperatrix* to the emperor's wife. In Louis the Pious' diplomas the title of *imperatrix* only appears twice, in two interpolated documents of 82439. The woman called *imperatrix* is Hildegard, wife of Charlemagne and mother of Louis – yet she never was an empress. In Thegan's *Gesta Hludowici* this title got just one mention, in the *capitula* later attached to the text by Walahfrid40. The Astronomer never used it in his *Vita Hludowici*. In these sources the title usually attributed to the wife of a ruler is that of *regina*41. In the litanies composed in Verona, Carolingian imperial authority was defined in an innovative way, one that reflected contemporary developments in the image of a royal *consortium* as a shared responsibility between a husband (the king) and his wife (the queen)42. During Ratold's episcopacy, the Church of Verona took care of praying for the prosperity of the empire, but also of developing a new definition of imperial authority, grounded in family legitimacy. Empresses, regardless of whose wives they were at any precise moment, were at the core of this effort.

The collection of *ordines* of codex XCII shows something similar. The ordinary from Verona is one of the oldest witnesses of what Michel Andrieu called the "collection B" of Roman *ordines*, the origins of which have been recently located in the Rhineland43. The criteria with which the formularies included in this collection were assembled, consistent with the guidelines of Carolingian liturgical *correctio*, did not prevent adaptations of its contents according to local needs. The basic principle was that of composing a liturgical book highlighting the bishops' religious and spiritual authority. For that purpose, the collection's author(s) deployed the idea of Romanness attached to the *ordines*44. *Romanitas* was in fact more evoked than real. In many cases the texts of the *ordines* were modified and adapted to local liturgical practices, and even formularies of non-Roman origins were presented as Roman. As Arthur Westwell argued, «the Collection B compiler (…) was firmly engaged in the endeavour of liturgical *correctio*»45.

Based on the supposed origins of collection B in the Rhineland, one can plausibly argue that Ratold took this to Verona from beyond the Alps, thus making use of his networks to introduce books and texts in North-Eastern Italy. Yet these texts were not simply imposed from above. Corrections and marginal notes were added to the texts of the *ordines* by a contemporary hand. Their

<sup>39</sup> DD LdF, 2, n. 237, pp. 587-590 (824 XI 3, Ingelheim), and n. 238, pp. 591-596 (824 XI 3, Ingelheim).

<sup>40</sup> Thegan, *Gesta*, *Walahfridi capitula*, 51, p. 174. <sup>41</sup> Cimino, *Royal Women*. <sup>42</sup> MacLean, *Queenship*; De Jong, *The Penitential State*; Stone, *Carolingian Domesticities*; Joye, *La "crise de la famille"*. Specifically on royal *consortium*, see Delogu, Consors regni; La Rocca, Consors regni.

<sup>43</sup> Westwell, *The dissemination*, pp. 60-63. <sup>44</sup> Westwell, *The* Ordines Romani. Also Westwell, *The content*. <sup>45</sup> Westwell, *The dissemination*, p. 89.

introduction was the result of negotiations and cooperation between the bishop and the local clergy, called to appropriate the liturgical innovations of the XCII ordinary. Corrections were made on the basis of the texts included in another exemplar of Collection B, likely to be the manuscript 138 of the Dombibliothek in Köln, of North-Italian origins46. There is, therefore, a possibility that in the same years Verona had two exemplars of the Collection B of Roman *ordines*. Textual differences between them are minor, except one. The Köln ordinary is the oldest witness of *ordo* 7 for the holding of an episcopal council, a Carolingian reworking of a Visigothic formulary, *ordo* 3 (see Fig. 3)47. Herbert Schneider placed the origins of *ordo* 7 around 800, within the intellectual circles surrounding Charlemagne, among whom the Visigothic Theodulf of Orléans had a key role48. Changes from the original Visigothic text concerned the involvement of the ruler in conciliar debates on doctrinal issues49. Thus *ordo* 7 perfectly matched Carolingian definitions of the religious responsibilities of the rulers, who frequently convoked councils and took position on doctrinal technicalities. Its integration in the Köln ordinary could be yet one more expression of Ratold's adherence to the Carolingian principles of reform.

Collection B of the Roman *ordines* is transmitted in another three ninth-century manuscripts. The composite codex Munich, BSB, Clm 14510 contains the *ordines* in its first part, together with some sermons and excerpts from Alcuin's *De fide sanctae trinitatis* (this text is also attested in Verona)50. In its royal *laudes,* Louis the Pious and his sons are mentioned, while the empresses are not. Pope Eugenius (824-827) and Bishop Baturich of Regensburg (818-848) also appear. So the collection was copied in Regensburg on Baturich's order towards the mid 820s. The codex Zürich, Zentralbibliothek, Car C 102 has been dated to the third quarter of the ninth century and its origin placed in Switzerland or Northern Italy, possibly at Nonantola51. Despite the *ordines*' episcopal destination, their circulation in monastic contexts is also attested by the late-ninth-century codex Paris, BNF, lat. 14008, attributed to a monastic *scriptorium* in Brittany52. The direction of dissemination of Collection B includes elements, places, and people in common with Ratold's connections, as mirrored in the *liber vitae* of Reichenau. Baturich of Regensburg appears in the column of bishops in the list of Reichenau's *amici viventes*. The community of Nonantola was equally included in Reichenau's

<sup>46</sup> The codex is available for online consultation at < http://www.ceec.uni-koeln.de/ceec-cgi/ kleioc >, [accessed on 22/03/2022]. Also Westwell, *The dissemination*, pp. 109-125. <sup>47</sup> MGH, Ordines, pp. 205-216 (*ordo* 3) and 296-315 (*ordo* 7). Also see Kramer, *Order in the* 

*church*. <sup>48</sup> MGH, Ordines, pp. 44-53. <sup>49</sup> Raaijmakers – Van Renswoude, *The ruler as referee*. <sup>50</sup> The codex is available for online consultation at < https://mdz-nbn-resolving.de/details:b-

sb00046285 >, [accessed on 22/03/2022]. Also see Helmer – Knödler – Glauche, *Katalog*, pp. 394-395; Westwell, *The dissemination*, pp. 125-148. <sup>51</sup> Bischoff, *Katalog*, 3, n. 7591, p. 538; Westwell, *The dissemination*, pp. 160-161. <sup>52</sup> The codex is available for online consultation at < https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bt-

v1b9076764f >, [accessed on 22/03/2022]. Also see Bischoff, *Katalog*, 3, n. 4959, p. 216.

*liber vitae*. The connections between these two monasteries are also shown by the early arrival at Nonantola of a copy of the *Visio Wettini* in prose by Heito of Reichenau53. Exchanges of texts were thus at the root of this relationship. Westwell underlined that «an intellectual and powerful network of bishops [and monasteries] around Reichenau now becomes highly significant for the dissemination of Collection B»54. These networks also included Ratold, who made use of his membership of this group in order to introduce new liturgical books in Verona. Ratold and his links to Alamannia guaranteed that Verona played a crucial role in the Italian adaptation and dissemination of liturgical formularies imbued with (real or constructed) *romanitas*, in the context of the Carolingian liturgical reforms55.

#### 4. *Innovations in liturgy and book production in early Carolingian Verona*

*Ordines romani* were one among a range of reform-connected books for the liturgy that the Alamannian bishops introduced in Verona. The manuscript XCI (86), almost entirely copied by one early-ninth-century Veronese hand, contains the *Gregorianum-Hadrianum* sacramentary, a copy of which was sent by Pope Hadrian to Charlemagne in response to the ruler's request for Roman liturgical materials56. As underlined by Yitzhak Hen, Carolingian calls to liturgical *correctio* were less meant to establish uniformity in liturgical practices and texts, than to urge everyone to feel involved in maintaining harmony and a proper relationship with God57. The rhetoric of reform was evoked according to the royal power's need for self-legitimation: if reform was necessary, someone who oversaw the struggle for reform was equally necessary, and that someone was the Carolingian ruler58. Nonetheless, beside these general guidelines, Charlemagne and his intellectuals never explicitly supported any specific product of these struggles. The task to identify practical solutions for the local application of the guidelines was outsourced to individuals. Even the *Gregorianum-Hadrianum* sacramentary, despite the authority connected to its Roman origin, was never imposed as an official text. Its formularies, shaped around the Roman liturgical customs and year, needed adaptations and integrations in order to be used outside Rome. According to Jean Deshusses, the man who took care of this task in the early ninth century was Benedict of Aniane, who produced a *supplementum* of mass formularies for ordinary Sundays and votive celebrations59. Recently Franck Ruffiot has


attributed the *supplementum* to Theodulf of Orléans60. Whatever the case, until the mid-ninth-century, this sacramentary, with or without the supplement, was only one of the different types of sacramentary circulating in the Carolingian world, all equally accepted and used. So the result of Carolingian liturgical reforms was not general uniformity – *au contraire,* it saw the multiplication of experiments and local solutions.

The sacramentary XCI (86) provides clear evidence of this process. Here the regular formularies of the *Gregorianum-Hadrianum* were supplemented with a range of masses taken from an eighth-century Gelasian sacramentary, another kind of book equally, though independently, produced in the context of the Carolingian calls for liturgical *correctio*61. Scholars argued that the codex XCI was copied from an exemplar coming from Reichenau, taken to Verona by one of its first Alamannian bishops, Egino or Ratold62. Yet the dating of the manuscript XCI to the first quarter of the ninth century points to a direct involvement of Ratold in the reproduction of this archetype from Reichenau.

The *Gregorianum-Hadrianum* sacramentary shown by the codex XCI was a novelty, not only for Verona, but for the Carolingian kingdom as a whole63. Mirella Ferrari argued that for a long time Verona represented an *unicum* in the North-Italian landscape for its early reception of new books and liturgical solutions resulting from Carolingian reforms64. The introduction of this new liturgical toolkit went hand in hand with that of the scripts in which these books had been written, Rhaetian-Alamannian forms of minuscule featuring graphic peculiarities of Irish origin65. These scripts are increasingly seen in ninth-century books and charters from Verona66. They first ran alongside, then gradually replaced, the local *corsiva nuova* writings still witnessed in the late eighth century, for instance in the corrections and interventions operated in that period by one Veronese hand on at least six canonical collections of different periods (fourth to seventh century)67. Massimiliano Bassetti recently identified the sixth one in the manuscript LXI (59), of Hiberian origins, then taken to Lucca, where two local hands transcribed a fragment of Pirmin of Murbach (and Reichenau)'s *Scarapsus*68. Bassetti also connected this late-eighth-century hand from Verona to the stage of «spontaneità disordinata della prassi "longobarda"» that Attilio Bartoli Langeli placed between the «severi e regolati modelli tardoantichi» and the «disciplinamento del IX

<sup>60</sup> Ruffiot, *Théodulphe d'Orléans*. <sup>61</sup> Moreton, *The Eighth-Century Gelasian Sacramentary*. <sup>62</sup> Meersseman – Adda – Deshusses, *L'orazionale*, pp. 29-31; Polloni, *Manoscritti liturgici*, p. 169.

<sup>63</sup> Bougard, *Was There a Carolingian Italy?*, p. 72. <sup>64</sup> Ferrari, *Libri liturgici*, pp. 269-272. <sup>65</sup> Gavinelli, *Early Carolingian: Italy*, pp. 264-265. <sup>66</sup> Santoni, *Scrivere documenti*; Galeazzi, *Scrittura e interpunzione*. <sup>67</sup> Bassetti, *Un inedito frammento*, pp. 382-383. <sup>68</sup> *Ibidem*. On this text and its manuscript transmission, also see Hauswald, *Die handschriftliche Überlieferung*; Pirmin, *Scarapsus*.

secolo»69. Similar developments also took place in other regions of the Italian kingdom, but only from the mid-ninth century. The diffusion of these scripts among Veronese copyists and charters' subscribers testifies to their closeness to the bishop's cultural milieu, its texts and books working as channels of communication with the local society. The operation's success seems reflected in the ongoing authority attributed to the form of sacramentary transmitted by the codex XCI. Around the mid-ninth century, a new exemplar of the *Gregorianum-Hadrianum*, directly deriving from XCI, was produced in Verona, and is now preserved as the manuscript LXXXVI of the Cathedral Library70. The liturgical practices and books of Carolingian Verona were thus the ones introduced by its foreign bishops, as a result of their personal connections to Alamannian monasteries.

Books, texts, and scripts all had a key role in the struggles for integration that took place in early Carolingian Verona – integration of the foreign bishops into the local elites; integration of the latter in the Carolingian world. Innovations also concerned the ways in which texts were transmitted. The codex XCV (90) of the Cathedral Library is an especially obvious example of the experiments conducted in the cultural and scribal environment of Verona71. Its present shape is the result of the conjunction, between the late ninth and the early tenth century, of different parts, dated to the first half of the ninth century72. Three main sections emerge. The first is a hagiographical collection *per circulum anni*. Its texts concern saints whose feastdays were celebrated between 14 October and 23 December. The inner organization of the other two is different, and no clear criteria are really evident. Their main feature is the gender of their protagonists, all women. The opening text of the first section, the *Passio Calixti* (BHL 1523), was marked by a contemporary hand with the number LXXXII. Numbering goes on throughout the whole manuscript. The *Passio Fabiani* (BHL 1322), closing the first section, is numbered C. The following texts were numbered in the same way, from CI on, but by a different hand. Paolo Chiesa argued that the first section was probably the final part or volume of a hagiographical collection covering the whole liturgical year and composed of exactly one hundred texts. Comparisons with calendars and martyrologies from early-ninth-century Verona, though limited to the last two months and a half of the year, show commonalities between the feastdays they recorded and the texts included in this first section of XCV73. Dates and the succession of texts usually correspond, even though the calendars celebrate many more saints than those whose *passiones* were included in the

<sup>69</sup> Bassetti, *Un inedito frammento*, pp. 383-384; Bartoli Langeli, *La mano e il libro*, p. 89 (also quoted in Bassetti, *Un inedito frammento*, pp. 383-384). <sup>70</sup> CLLA, n. 726, p. 130, and n. 811, p. 157; Polloni, *I più antichi codici*, pp. 269-285. <sup>71</sup> Polloni, *Manoscritti*, pp. 178-181; Polloni, *I più antichi codici*, pp. 362-379. <sup>72</sup> On what follows, see Chiesa, *Note*. <sup>73</sup> The calendars are published in Meersseman – Adda – Deshusses, *L'orazionale*, pp. 138-145,

<sup>196-201;</sup> and Meersseman – Adda, *Manuale*, pp. 173-180. Also see Santoni, *Scrivere documenti*, pp. 198-201; Butz – Zettler, *Two early necrologies*, pp. 210-217.

collection. So one can conclude that the Church of Verona didn't possess hagiographical texts for all the saints commemorated in its liturgy, even though the available repertoire of texts still looks remarkably rich.

The material composition of codex XCV can provide us with precious information on the cultural and textual developments at work in Carolingian Verona. The *libelli* on female saints show precisely that, in that context, *libelli* were one of the book supports of hagiography. At the same time the first part of codex XCV shows that Verona quickly appropriated new ways of transmitting hagiographical texts. The earliest known witnesses of passionaries and legendaries are dated to the mid-eighth century74. Collections are first attested in the Frankish world, and were soon disseminated to Bavaria and, slightly later, Alamannia. They gradually replaced the previous form in which hagiographical texts were transmitted, that of autonomous *libelli*, short dossiers embracing a limited number of texts75. Between the eighth and ninth century, a major change took place in the way in which hagiographical texts circulated. This was probably one more effect of the Carolingian Rome-centered reforms concerning the liturgy. A considerable part of the texts included in passionaries concerns Roman martyrs. According to Jean-Claude Poulin the transition from *libelli* to collections took place by simply copying the texts of the *libelli* within the passionaries76. Sometimes *libelli* were just materially sewn together so as to create larger collections. This is precisely what happened in the case of codex XCV. The final part of the passionary *per circulum anni* became itself a section of a passionary built by the juxtaposition of lesser collections, themselves originarily conceived as *libelli*.

An indirect witness of the existence of a *libellus* is, in some cases, the integration within collections of small yet consistent groups of texts, plausibly copied in the order in which they are found in the *libellus*. An early example of this can be observed in the passionary now in Karlsruhe, BLB, Aug. perg. XXXII, composed in Reichenau in the early ninth century77. Its inner structure is shaped *per circulum anni*, but a little group of texts coming from Aquileia and Verona were written in succession. They were most probably taken to Reichenau in a hagiographical *libellus,* the production of which has been circumstantially, yet plausibly, set in Verona78. Its texts also include the *Life* of saint Zeno written in Verona by a certain *Coronatus notarius* between the late eighth and the early ninth century, whose oldest witness is precisely the passionary XXXII79. This codex thus gives a hint of the use of the *libelli* for the transmission of hagiographical texts in early Carolingian Verona, at

<sup>74</sup> For this and what follows, see Dolbeau, *Naissance*. <sup>75</sup> Poulin, *Les* libelli; Pilsworth, *Vile Scraps*. <sup>76</sup> Poulin, *Les* libelli. <sup>77</sup> The manuscript is available for online consultation at < https://digital.blb-karlsruhe.de/ blbhs/content/titleinfo/3413876 >, [accessed on 22/03/2022]. Also see Holder, *Die Handschri-*

*ften*, V/1, pp. 119-131. <sup>78</sup> Chiesa, *I manoscritti*, pp. 109-110. <sup>79</sup> *Sermo de vita*.

a time just slightly earlier than that of the composition of the collection now partially surviving in the codex XCV. The idea of collecting hagiographies in one compilation *per circulum anni* was most probably introduced in Verona by the bishops coming from Alamannia, where passionaries are attested very early. In this case the manuscript witnesses show that the exchange of texts also took place the other way round. Through its bishops' connections to Alamannia, Verona played a vanguard role in Italy from the perspective of hagiography too, and its means of transmission. The passionary XCV is the oldest witness of this kind of book in the context of the *regnum* of Italy80. Only from the mid-ninth century did passionaries start to circulate widely in Italy. The kingdom actually experienced a huge production of hagiographical texts in Carolingian times, but this had an impact on their book supports only later81. Through its combination of different solutions of textual transmission, the passionary of Verona summarizes the experiments that involved hagiography in early Carolingian times. Once more the connections to Alamannia mediated by Verona's bishops show the latters' role in the introduction of texts and books inspired by the Carolingian *correctio* in the context of the kingdom. In addition, the negotiation and adaptation to local customs that surrounded the acquisition of these new books are equally clear. Even after the introduction of the passionaries, *libelli* were not immediately cast aside, but continued to be used as material supports for hagiographical texts.

# 5. *Conclusions. Verona and the Alamannian hub in the first half of the ninth century*

The connections between Verona and Alamannia established and exploited by Egino were strongly developed during Ratold's episcopacy. The result was an increasingly high mobility of manuscripts, texts, ideas, and people between these two areas. The presence, the needs, and the endeavours of the bishops coming from Alamannia set the conditions for the arrival in Verona of some of the products of the *correctio*, around which Carolingian rulers built their legitimacy. By the means of its network, Reichenau worked as a place of concentration and dissemination for these products82. Through Egino and Ratold's mediation, Verona was included in the network of this cultural and textual hub, and was able to develop a role of its own in the dynamics surrounding Carolingian reform. The efficacy and applicability of the new liturgical texts and books were tested in the specific context of Verona, and adapted according to its needs. Nothing of all that is peculiar to Verona. In every context where they were applied, Carolingian innovations in liturgy were

<sup>80</sup> Bougard, *Was There a Carolingian Italy?*, p. 68. <sup>81</sup> Vocino, *Under the aegis*, pp. 30-34. <sup>82</sup> Berschin, Eremus *und* insula; Geary, *Carolingian culture*.

integrated, reworked, and adapted to local practices that nobody, not even rulers, wanted to obliterate83.

Liturgical and hagiographical books were some of the key assets that the foreign bishops of Verona used in order to foster the integration of the Lombard kingdom and its élites in the Carolingian world. They were also one of their key tactics in their preliminary effort to include themselves in the local context of Verona, whose clergy and bookwriters were actively involved in the reception and adaptation of the books and texts brought by Ratold. The latter took care of the material production and reproduction of these books, but also changed, corrected, or commented upon the texts they contained. Liturgical formularies were set as channels in the communication strategy between the bishop and his clergy. This is hardly surprising. Liturgy was supposed to be a language common to bishops and clerics, a field where negotiation and cooperation were necessary in order to fulfill shared religious responsibilities. For this reason liturgy was perceived by Ratold as a possible key to establishing a dialogue with the group of his most immediate local interlocutors, the clergy. The acceptance and recurrence of the Alamannian minuscules among the subscribers of Verona's charters show that this dialogue soon involved increasing sections of local society. The struggle for self-integration (in Verona), preliminary to the struggle for integration (of Verona and the kingdom), was the purpose driving Ratold's activities as a bishop, at least during the first two decades – or a little less – of his episcopal rule. Carolingian *correctio* provided the ideological framework and the cultural toolbox for responding to the specific and immediate needs of the local representatives of the rulers.

To what extent did Ratold's removal from Italy impact on these dynamics? The data exposed here seem partially to counterbalance the common historiographical interpretations. Signs of continuity look as conspicuous as those of rupture. The liturgical books brought to Verona by Ratold kept being used and updated during the following decades. The three formularies of royal *laudes* in the ordinary XCII appear less indicative of conscious political choices than of the consistent reworking deployed to update them to the emperors and empresses' succession. The corrections to its *ordines* attest to the possible availability of another copy of the collection. The *Gregorianum-Hadrianum* sacramentary was not only accepted, but also reproduced in a new exemplar towards the mid-ninth century. Between the late ninth and the tenth century, the hagiographical books produced in early Carolingian times were still reorganized and enriched with new texts. Imported Rhaetian scripts saw a gradual diffusion among local subscribers during the first half of the ninth century. Opposition by parts of the local society to Ratold's political choices, if there were, only concerned him as an individual, not his initiatives, or the texts bearing his mark. After all, his immediate successors, Notingus (840/3- 844) and Billung (attested in 846/7), of foreign origins like him, would feel his

<sup>83</sup> Hen, *The Royal Patronage*.

same need for self-integration, and accept the solutions he had identified84. In Reichenau's *liber vitae*, *Ratoldus episcopus Veronensis* was recorded, as we have seen, as the first entry in the episcopal list of the abbey's *amici viventes*. Yet no list of the clergy or the monasteries of Verona was included in the *liber*. In Ratold's view, as well as to those of the local society of Verona, such an integration was also seen as something personal.

<sup>84</sup> Andenna, *Notingo*. On Billung, see Gasparri, *I testamenti*, p. 104.

Fig. 1. Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, XCII (87), f. 68*v*.

Fig. 2. Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, XCII (87), f. 70*v*.

Fig. 3. Köln, Erzbischöfliche Diözesan- und Dombibliothek, 138, f. 40*v*. CC BY-NC 4.0

## **Works cited**

*After Charlemagne. Carolingian Italy and its Rulers*, ed. C. Gantner – W. Pohl, Cambridge 2021. G. Andenna, *Notingo*, in *Dizionario biografico degli italiani*, 78, Roma 2013, pp. 778-781.


Francesco Veronese Università di Padova francesco.veronese.3@unipd.it