Gianmarco De Angelis,

Francesco Veronese

NETWORKS OF BISHOPS, NETWORKS OF TEXTS

# **NETWORKS OF BISHOPS, NETWORKS OF TEXTS**

Manuscripts, legal cultures, tools of government in Carolingian Italy at the time of Lothar I

*edited by* Gianmarco De Angelis, Francesco Veronese

# **Reti Medievali E-Book**

ISSN 2704-6362 (PRINT) │ ISSN 2704-6079 (ONLINE)

## **41**

#### **Reti Medievali**

#### *Editors-in-chief*

Maria Elena Cortese, University of Genoa, Italy Roberto Delle Donne, University of Naples Federico II, Italy Thomas Frank, University of Pavia, Italy Paola Guglielmotti, University of Genoa, Italy Vito Loré, Roma Tre University, Italy Iñaki Martin Viso, University of Salamanca, Spain Riccardo Rao, University of Bergamo, Italy Paolo Rosso, University of Turin, Italy Gian Maria Varanini, University of Verona, Italy Andrea Zorzi, University of Florence, Italy

#### *Scientific Board*

Enrico Artifoni, University of Turin, Italy María Asenjo González, Complutense University of Madrid, Spain William J. Connell, Seton Hall University, United States Pietro Corrao, University of Palermo, Italy Élisabeth Crouzet-Pavan, Sorbonne Paris IV University, France Christopher Dartmann, University of Hamburg, Germany Stefano Gasparri, University of Venice Ca' Foscari, Italy Patrick Geary, Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, United States Jean-Philippe Genet, Panthéon-Sorbonne Paris 1 University, France Knut Görich, University of Munich Ludwig Maximilian, Germany Julius Kirshner, University of Chicago, United States Maria Cristina La Rocca, University of Padua, Italy Michel Lauwers, Côte d'Azur University, France Isabella Lazzarini, University of Molise, Italy Annliese Nef, Panthéon-Sorbonne Paris 1 University, France Beatrice Pasciuta, University of Palermo, Italy Annick Peters Custot, University of Nantes, France Giuseppe Petralia, University of Pisa, Italy Walter Pohl, Technische Universitaet Wien, Austria Flocel Sabaté, University of Lleida, Spain Roser Salicru i Lluch, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas Barcelona, Spain Francesco Vincenzo Stella, University of Siena, Italy Giuliano Volpe, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Italy Chris Wickham, All Souls College, Oxford, United Kingdom

#### *Peer-review*

All published e-books are double-blind peer reviewed at least by two referees. Their list is regularly updated at URL: http://www.serena.unina.it/index.php/rm/referee. Their reviews are archived.

#### ru l i ng i n h a r d t i m e s

*Patterns of power and practices of government in the making of Carolingian Italy*

1

# **Networks of bishops, networks of texts**

## **Manuscripts, legal cultures, tools of government in Carolingian Italy at the time of Lothar I**

edited by Gianmarco De Angelis, Francesco Veronese

**Firenze University Press 2022**

Networks of bishops, networks of texts : manuscripts, legal cultures, tools of government in Carolingian Italy at the time of Lothar I / edited by Gianmarco De Angelis, Francesco Veronese. – Firenze : Firenze University Press, 2022. (Reti Medievali E-Book ; 41)

https://books.fupress.com/isbn/9788855186230

ISSN 2704-6362 (print) ISSN 2704-6079 (online) ISBN 978-88-5518-622-3 (Print) ISBN 978-88-5518-623-0 (PDF) ISBN 978-88-5518-624-7 (ePUB) ISBN 978-88-5518-625-4 (XML) DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-623-0

The volume has been published thanks to the contributions of the Department of Humanities and Philosophy of the University of Trento and the Ministry of University and Research, Project of Relevant National Interest, call for proposals 2017 - project code 2017ETHP5S, *Ruling in hard times. Patterns of power and practices of government in the making of Carolingian Italy*. The project leader is Giuseppe Albertoni (University of Trento); the editors of the volume, Gianmarco De Angelis and Francesco Veronese, are members of the unit of research at the University of Padua.

Front cover: *Codex Eginonis* (Verona, end of 8th Century), Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz, *Manuscripta Phillippsiana*, Ms. Phil. 1676, f. 24*r* (Saint Ambrose at the *scriptorium*).

#### *Peer Review Policy*

Peer-review is the cornerstone of the scientific evaluation of a book. All FUP's publications undergo a peer-review process by external experts under the responsibility of the Editorial Board and the Scientific Boards of each series (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice.3).

#### *Referee List*

In order to strengthen the network of researchers supporting FUP's evaluation process, and to recognise the valuable contribution of referees, a Referee List is published and constantly updated on FUP's website (DOI 10.36253/fup\_referee\_list).

#### Firenze University Press Editorial Board

M. Garzaniti (Editor-in-Chief), M.E. Alberti, F. Vittorio Arrigoni, E. Castellani, F. Ciampi, D. D'Andrea, A. Dolfi, R. Ferrise, A. Lambertini, R. Lanfredini, D. Lippi, G. Mari, A. Mariani, P.M. Mariano, S. Marinai, R. Minuti, P. Nanni, A. Orlandi, I. Palchetti, A. Perulli, G. Pratesi, S. Scaramuzzi, I. Stolzi.

*FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing* (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

The online digital edition is published in Open Access on www.fupress.com.

Content license: except where otherwise noted, the present work is released under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode). This license allows you to share any part of the work by any means and format, modify it for any purpose, including commercial, as long as appropriate credit is given to the author, any changes made to the work are indicated and a URL link is provided to the license.

Metadata license: all the metadata are released under the Public Domain Dedication license (CC0 1.0 Universal: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode).

© 2022 Author(s)

Published by Firenze University Press Firenze University Press Università degli Studi di Firenze via Cittadella, 7, 50144 Firenze, Italy www.fupress.com

*This book is printed on acid-free paper Printed in Italy*

### *Ruling in hard times. Patterns of power and practices of government in the making of Carolingian Italy*

### **Project Coordinator Giuseppe Albertoni**


### **Index**


FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

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*, © 2022 Author(s), CC BY 4.0, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 978-88-5518-623-0, DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-623-0



### **Episcopal authority and networks in Carolingian times: recent approaches and perspectives\***

by Gianmarco De Angelis and Francesco Veronese

This paper introduces the volume, aiming first of all at presenting the historiographical framework in which the collected essays are placed and the common questions around which they revolve, with particular regard to typologies, characteristics, extension of the social and cultural networks that the Italian bishops built around themselves, and to their effects on the integration of the *regnum* in the Carolingian political structures.

Early Middle Ages; 9th century; Carolingian Italy; Manuscript studies; Literacy; Episcopal powers.

\* This essay is a joint work between the two authors. In particular, Gianmarco De Angelis wrote paragraph 1, Francesco Veronese paragraph 2.

Gianmarco De Angelis, University of Padua, Italy, gianmarco.deangelis@unipd.it, 0000-0002-1668-4510 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)

Gianmarco De Angelis, Francesco Veronese, *Episcopal authority and networks in Carolingian times: recent approaches and perspectives*, © Author(s), CC BY 4.0, DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-623-0.02, 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. 1-11, 2022, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 978-88-5518-623-0, DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-623-0

#### 1. *Carolingian* ecclesia *and multiple episcopal identities*

In the last two decades, studies on bishops and episcopal identity in the Carolingian age have participated in the profound renewal of interpretation to which the Carolingian world as a whole has been subjected1 . New approaches to the age-old question of the functioning – and, before that, the existence or otherwise – of state systems in early medieval Europe have led to a refocusing of attention on the vocabulary of the sources and the representations of public power they construct and transmit2. The overlapping of meanings in the term *ecclesia*, highlighted by Mayke de Jong, has provided new bases for rethinking the relationship between public power and religious authorities3. The Carolingian *ecclesia*, as an ensemble of ecclesiastical structures and, in a broader sense, of all the people over whom the Frankish kings exercised their sovereignty, became the common framework within which to elaborate and give meaning to representations of society aimed at calling all its components to collaborate for the prosperity and stability of the social body and its rulers. A first, fundamental, subdivision was established between laymen and the clergy, based above all on the different ways in which the two groups reproduced themselves over time: through marriage and procreation for the former, through social and ritual means (priestly consecration) for the latter4. Within the group of ecclesiastics, a further distinction was made, taking up pre-existing patterns, between secular clerics, specialised in pastoral care, and monks, experts in intercessory prayer. For each of these groups (*ordines*), specific models of life and behaviour were identified and applied, and as many texts were produced, for example Gregory the Great's *Regula pastoralis* for clerics, and the *Regula Benedicti* for monks5 . The laity were the recipients of moral teachings by means of treatises (*specula*) composed by leading intellectual figures of the Carolingian world, such as Alcuin, Paulinus of Aquileia, Jonas of Orléans, and Dhuoda6. The progressive elaboration of this image of

<sup>1</sup> Overview in Costambeys – Innes – MacLean, *The Carolingian World*. <sup>2</sup> Historiographical account and some overall considerations were last proposed by Santos Salazar, *Governare la Lombardia*, pp. 15-27. <sup>3</sup> In particular de Jong, Ecclesia; de Jong, *The state of the church*; de Jong, *The two republics*. <sup>4</sup> Stone, *'In what way'*. <sup>5</sup> See for example the *Concilium Moguntinense*, pp. 259-260. <sup>6</sup> Stone, *Morality and Masculinity*.

society as divided into *ordines* aimed at framing each group – ideally, each individual – within it, establishing its position, and the contribution it was called upon to bring to the common good.

The Carolingian scheme of the *ordines*, long known and analysed in the historiography, has traditionally and for a long time been the basis of a clear distinction between the group of the laity and that of the ecclesiastics, meant as socially separate bodies, bearers of different interests and often in mutual conflict. This distinction and opposition were then used as instruments to interpret the peculiar (and ambiguous) political-institutional balance of the Carolingian world, and even the reasons for its dissolution7 . The sovereigns, especially from Louis the Pious (814-840) onwards, used the ecclesiastical structures and their leaders, bishops and abbots, to counter the centrifugal thrusts and individual interests of the secular aristocracies, especially of those among their members who held public offices (counts, dukes, *marchiones*)8. In this way, however, they would have bestowed increasing quotas of public functions and lands on their ecclesiastical allies, ultimately emptying royal and imperial authority of its meaning and practical effectiveness9.

More recent approaches have allowed these readings to be nuanced. The greater emphasis on the ideological-discursive character of the distinctions internal within Carolingian society, has led to see them as a framework of representations and images aimed at legitimising the power of the Frankish sovereigns and at integrating the aristocracies into the shared management of public functions10. On this basis, the social, familial and cultural practices of the elites of the Carolingian world have also been observed from different perspectives, which have attenuated the image of incompatibility between the interests of the rulers and those of the aristocracies11. A decisive contribution came from the analysis of these dynamics in terms of collaboration, competition and the intertwining between them, i.e. coopetition. Collaboration was what, for example, bishops and counts were called upon to do on several occasions in the capitularies, in order to support each other in the joint exercise of justice, a fact which Gerda Heydemann has recently observed from the point of view of its exegetical justifications12. The competition between kin and political groups, strictly supervised and regulated by the Carolingians, aimed instead at obtaining public offices, lands and movable goods and fiscal bene-

<sup>7</sup> *L*'*ambiguità delle istituzioni nell'Europa costruita dai Franchi* is just the title of an essay of Giovanni Tabacco (1975, repr. in 1993) on the problems posed by the the institutional parallelism of the church and kingdom systems.

<sup>8</sup> With particular regard to the age of Louis the Pious, a fundamental overview can be found in Werner, Hludowicus Augustus; see also Bührer-Thierry, *L'épiscopat en Francie orientale*. <sup>9</sup> Useful summary on this point in Nelson, *Kingship and Royal Government*, pp. 389-392; see

also the considerations of Rosenwein, *Negotiating Space*, pp. 3-19. <sup>10</sup> Nelson, *How Carolingians created consensus*. <sup>11</sup> Le Jan, *Famille et pouvoir*; Bougard – Bührer-Thierry – Le Jan, *Les élites du haut Moyen* 

*Âge.*

<sup>12</sup> Heydemann, Nemo militans Deo.

fits, and a privileged relationship with the sovereigns themselves13. Collaboration and competition were therefore both integral parts of the horizons and schemes of action with which the Carolingian elites elaborated their projects of social affirmation or reinforcement, conceived therefore in a framework that responds to the sociological definition of coopetition14.

The renewed analysis of the role of bishops in Carolingian society, and of political mechanisms, went hand in hand with these historiographical reconfigurations. As part of the Carolingian *ecclesia* in both senses of this term, the bishops represented indeed an observatory of particular interest to examine the processes of self-definition of identity by individuals and groups. For some time now, bishops have been recognised by scholars as members in all respects of the social and family groups from which they came, and thus of the aristocratic elite, and a large part of their choices and actions has been traced back to their belonging to these groups, rather than to ecclesiastical structures15. On the basis of this close correlation, and even kinship, between bishops and secular aristocracies, a clear distinction between the two groups, and between their respective interests, seems difficult to find16. However, from Charlemagne's reign onwards, the social origin of the Carolingian episcopal body is less homogeneously restricted to the aristocracies. Unprecedented career opportunities opened up in the ecclesiastical sphere for those figures, even those from lower social classes, who demonstrated their ability to provide the sovereign with refined doctrinal, theological, exegetical and, in general, cultural skills. This knowledge was particularly required and appreciated in the context of the efforts of *correctio* initiated by Charlemagne, to standardise the religious practices of his increasingly vast domains but, above all, to fulfil the ambitious task (*ministerium*) that the Carolingian sovereigns developed for themselves, that of leading their subjects to spiritual salvation. In the first decades of the ninth century, a new generation of bishops, arising as a result of these new requirements, developed self-representations for themselves in which membership of the social elite played a very limited role, precisely because many of them could not boast of such a pedigree17; for this reason they also attracted criticism from those episcopal circles in which nobility of birth was still considered an inalienable value18. With Louis the Pious, the *correctio* also took on the characteristics of a moral reform, and a revision of individual and collective behaviour within the empire, one of the foundations of what Mayke de Jong has defined as the penitential state elaborated by Charlemagne's successor19. In this phase, the bishops claimed with

<sup>13</sup> Le Jan, *Compétition et sacré*; Loré, *Introduzione*; Joye, *Introduction*. <sup>14</sup> Le Jan, *Coopétition*. <sup>15</sup> Prinz, *Klerus und Krieg*, p. 70; more in general Parisse, *Les évêques et la noblesse*. <sup>16</sup> Noble, *Secular sanctity*. <sup>17</sup> Patzold, *Redefinir l'office épiscopal*. <sup>18</sup> See for example Thegan, *Gesta Hludowici*, 44, pp. 232-238. <sup>19</sup> De Jong, *The Penitential State*.

increasing decision a role, first as assistants of the sovereigns, then as real guides, in the process of revision of the individual and collective behaviour of the various social components of the Carolingian world.

Moreover, the bishops, in continuity with the Merovingian age, were called upon by the Carolingians to perform public functions and represent the sovereigns at a local level20. The difference with respect to the previous age lay, if anything, in the people who attained episcopal dignity. In the central decades of the eight century, through their connection with – and support of – the reforming work of the missionary Bishop Boniface, the masters of the palace (later kings) replaced at least some bishops with figures politically faithful to them21. In the aftermath of these changes, the integration of the bishops into the framework of public power was further strengthened, since the Carolingian sovereigns saw them as reliable and, above all (and precisely because they were so), as carefully selected supporters. This is demonstrated by the frequent assignment of duties as *missi* to episcopal figures, to be exercised in the territories of their dioceses22. The multiplicity of roles, functions and identities thus developed by the Carolingian bishops has emerged in all its complexity, as has been highlighted in particular by the important work of Steffen Patzold23.

#### 2. *Back to manuscripts and politics of textuality: readings from this book*

In this framework of fruitful historiographical repositioning, the questions on which scholars have focused when dealing with episcopal activities and identities have also changed. Traditional themes such as the economic and patrimonial basis of the bishops' power, prosopographical reconstructions, and stances in moments of political crisis, have not been completely set aside, but have been flanked by investigations into the education and cultural skills of the bishops, their writing and documentary practices, the training of their subordinate clergy, the books they owned, and the uses they made of them24. Working methods have also undergone important changes. Manuscript studies, one of the outcomes of the recent material turn, have made a solid contribution in this respect25. Long neglected aspects of manuscripts, their graphic features, forms and contents, such as marginal *glossae* or possession notes, corrections and other editorial interventions, have been and are at the centre of a season

<sup>20</sup> Jégou, *L'évêque, juge de paix*, pp. 139-286; Patzold, *Die Bischöfe*; Bührer-Thierry, *Épiscopat et royauté*. <sup>21</sup> Glatthaar, *Boniface and the Reform Councils*; Halfond, *The Archaeology of Frankish Church* 

*Councils*, pp. 198-210. <sup>22</sup> Davis, *Charlemagne's Practice*, pp. 54-57. <sup>23</sup> Patzold, *Redéfinir l'office épiscopal*, and, above all, Patzold, *Episcopus*. <sup>24</sup> A fundamental work on this field of study is van Rhijn, *Shepherds of the Lord*. <sup>25</sup> Rosamond McKitterick's studies from the first half of the 1990s paved the way and remain

fundamental: see, in particular, McKitterick, *Books, scribes and learning* and *The Carolingians and the written word*.

of studies that has produced new insights into the history of manuscripts and texts, such as the recent re-attribution of the *supplementum* to the *Hadrianum sacramentarium* no longer to Benedict of Aniane, but to Theodulph, bishop of Orléans26. Similarly, Carolingian bishops have been reinserted, and studied within the networks of relations of which they were a part, and which were nourished by contacts (personal and epistolary) and exchanges of news, books and texts27. From and through these networks, they drew and transmitted the textual and cultural tools they used to fulfil their duties, and through them they developed behavioural patterns and self-representations for themselves and their colleagues. One example is represented by the rewriting of the *Vita Hucberti*, commissioned by Bishop Walcaud of Liège from Jonas of Orléans, and constructed by him as a mirror of episcopal life28. The cultural activities of the Carolingian bishops have thus been enriched with new data and reconstructions, and at the same time have been read within broader contexts, capable of giving them meaning and a place not only in the political and social, but also in the intellectual, processes of that time29.

The two-day workshop from which this volume derives seeks to fit into these strands of research, bringing the contribution of a perspective focused on the Italian kingdom in the first half of the ninth century – but with episodic projections before and after this chronological threshold. The networks of relations and textual exchanges in which the bishops active in Italy inserted themselves, and which they helped to shape, were at the centre of the analyses presented on that occasion, as they are in the contributions collected here30. One of the questions from which the programme of the workshop was developed is in fact of a historiographic nature: how is Italian historiography, and that of the *regnum* in general, positioned, and what contribution can it bring to these new themes and interpretations31? The impression seems to be that it is not yet fully integrated in this field of studies, and therefore, that there is still a condition of relative isolation of the Italian kingdom in the reconstruction of the episcopal networks that ran through the Carolingian world. Even in a recent and important synthesis on the Carolingian episcopate proposed by Raffaele Savigni, Italy plays a marginal role, except for an in-depth study on the case of Lucca32. There is no lack of precise analyses on single figures or


*autres*. <sup>28</sup> On this text see Heydemann, *Text und Translation*, pp. 307-322. <sup>29</sup> Most recently Ward, *History, Scripture, and Authority*. <sup>30</sup> With respect to the programme of the conference, however – and for reasons beyond the authors' control – the proceedings introduced here could unfortunately not include the contributions by Giorgia Vocino (*The relics of St Syrus: episcopal promotion, doctrinal debates and catechesis in the capital of the kingdom*) and Matteo Bagarolo (*Subalpine episcopates and legal culture in late Carolingian Italy: normative reception and ideological reworking*). <sup>31</sup> A recent and up-to-date starting point is that proposed by Bougard, *Was there a Carolingian* 

*Italy?*

<sup>32</sup> Savigni, *L'episcopato nell'Europa carolingia*.

single contexts, some of which are due to some of the authors contributing to the volume33. What is lacking, however, is an overall view and an attempt to observe what the Lombard kingdom had been like as part of the Carolingian structure from this point of view as well, as has been done in other fields, from the administration of justice to the production of documents and law, just to give a few examples34. The reasons for this situation are undoubtedly many, and can only partly be summarised here. The initial position of the Frankish and Italian bishops, in the aftermath of the conquest of 774, was certainly different. As Stefano Gasparri has pointed out, the weight of the bishops and their involvement in the political life of the Lombard kingdom, also because of a social origin of the episcopal body that was not always restricted to the level of the aristocracies, appeared to be less central than in the Frankish context, even if it was growing during the eight century35. In some contexts and episcopal sees, the Carolingian conquest also led to the introduction of transalpine personnel to replace the Lombard bishops. This phenomenon of mobility has attracted, and still attracts, much attention from scholars, who have insisted on the dialectic between the local identities of the Lombard tradition and those of the newcomers36. These aspects are also the focus of studies dedicated to the use that the bishops made of the past and the traditions of their seats, such as the memories linked to their predecessors (particularly if they were saints), the cult of relics and the related hagiographic legends, the architectural and monumental heritage37. The panorama of studies is therefore rich and constantly growing, and is part of a general, renewed interest in the role of the *regnum* in the balance and mechanisms of the Carolingian world38. It is precisely this broadening of perspective, and the horizons of comparative and integrated analysis that it offers, that can contribute to its further implementation. Although (or precisely because) it is also structured as case studies focused on specific areas or figures, this volume aims to bring together different realities, to place them in dialogue with each other. The collected essays, structured around some common questions, aim to offer a picture as articulated as possible of the social and cultural networks that the Italian bishops built around themselves, and of the effects of these networks on the integration of the *regnum* into the Carolingian political structures.

<sup>33</sup> De Angelis, *Poteri cittadini*, pp. 21-56 (in particular on Hagano of Bergamo); Heil, *Bishop* 

*Leodoin*; Tessera; *L'autel d'or*; Tessera, *"Angilbertus ovans"*. <sup>34</sup> Costambeys, *The laity, the clergy, the scribes*; Davis, *Charlemagne's Practice*, pp. 206-238;

De Angelis, *Scabini e altri ufficiali pubblici*. <sup>35</sup> Gasparri, *Recrutement social et rôle politique*. <sup>36</sup> Hlawitschka, *Franken, Alamannen, Bayern* is a classic work, alongside the many studies on this subject by Andrea Castagnetti on Northern Italy; an interesting recent research is that of

Predatsch, *Migration im karolingischen Italien*. <sup>37</sup> A cornerstone of this line of research is Picard's volume, *Le souvenir des évêques*. <sup>38</sup> See the papers collected in the volume *After Charlemagne*, ed. Gantner – Pohl.

#### **Works cited**


R. Le Jan, *Famille et pouvoir dans le monde franc. Essai d'anthropologie sociale*, Paris 1995.


Gianmarco De Angelis Università degli Studi di Padova gianmarco.deangelis@unipd.it

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

### **Lothar's manuscripts, manuscripts for Lothar, manuscripts of Lothar's time**

by Laura Pani

This paper aims to give an account of some of the manuscripts related to Lothar. In its first section an attempt is made at retracing a set of books that could have belonged to Lothar's library, nowadays known only from secondary sources. In the second section some display codices are discussed, either commissioned by Lothar, or dedicated to him, such as Lothar's Gospel Book MS Par. lat. 266 or those traditionally referred to as the *Lothar-Gruppe*, whose actual connection both to Lothar and to each other is questioned here. The third and last part of the paper contains some considerations on the manuscripts produced during the years of Lothar's government in Italy, that essentially coincide with the second quarter of the ninth century.

Middle Ages; 9th century; Carolingian Italy; Verona; Lothar; Pacificus; Carolingian royal libraries; Carolingian manuscripts; Carolingian court school; Carolingian illumination; Carolingian law-books; *Lothar-Gruppe*.

Laura Pani, University of Udine, Italy, laura.pani@uniud.it, 0000-0002-5364-1392

Referee List (DOI 10.36253/fup\_referee\_list)

FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

Laura Pani, *Lothar's manuscripts, manuscripts for Lothar, manuscripts of Lothar's time*, © Author(s), CC BY 4.0, DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-623-0.03, 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. 13-31, 2022, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 978-88-5518-623-0, DOI 10.36253/978- 88-5518-623-0

Abbreviations

*C.A.L.M.A.* = *Compendium Auctorum Latinorum Medii Aevi 500-1500*, 2.5, ed. M. Lapidge – C. Leonardi – F. Santi, Firenze 2008.

MGH, DD Lo I / Lo II = *Die Urkunden Lothars I. und Lothars II*., ed. T. Schieffer, München 1979 (MGH, DD Karolinorum, 4).

MGH, Epp. V = MGH, *Epistolarum Tomus V*, ed. E. Dümmler *et al.*, Berlin 1899 (Epistolae Karolini aevi, 3).

MGH, Poetae II = MGH, *Poetae Latini aevi Carolini*, II, ed. E. Dümmler, Berlin 1884.

MGH, Poetae VI/1 = MGH, *Poetae Latini aevi Carolini*, VI/1, ed. K. Strecker, Weimar 1951.

#### 1. *A Lothar library?*

I will start with that which does not exist anymore, that is with the traces of Lothar's library or, at least of the books that Lothar, similarly to other Carolingian sovereigns, owned and presumably read1 . With the exception of the famous display codices discussed in the next section of this paper, only secondary sources, such as letters and inscriptions, or later manuscript copies, actually allow us to retrace what seemed to be more, in any case, a set of books meant to meet the emperor's interests and inclinations, than an organized collection.

Some time between 854 and 855, Lothar wrote to Hrabanus, at that time bishop of Mainz, asking for a lectionary for the Sundays and the other main liturgical feasts, to be read to him during his meals. Lothar's request was that each reading from the Gospel would have to be followed by an explanation by one of the Fathers of the Church; this would mean that he would not have to take with him «omnem commentariorum copiam» on every expedition. For similar, practical reasons, Lothar asked that this homiliary should be contained in just one volume, although at the end of the letter he considered that the work could be divided into two or even three books2.

Hrabanus granted Lothar's wish. A tenth-century copy of the first volume of his homiliary, from Christmas to Holy Week, is now MS Jena, Thüringer Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, El. f. 32, and includes in the first folios Lothar's letter to Hrabanus and Hrabanus' answer accompanying the work3. The second volume, from Easter to Pentecost, is now missing but was still extant in the seventeenth century, when an edition was made from it in Cologne, whilst the third volume was probably never compiled due to Lothar's death4.

<sup>4</sup> Étaix, *L'homéliaire*.

<sup>1</sup> A first summary on the Carolingian royal collections of books is Lesne, *Histoire*, 4, pp. 446- 452 (p. 450 on Lothar's). As is known, Charlemagne's, Louis the Pious' and Louis the German's libraries were later extensively discussed by Bernhard Bischoff (*The Court Library of Charlemagne*; *The Court Library*; *Bücher*), Charlemagne's library being further questioned by Villa, *La tradizione di Orazio*, and Bullough, *Charlemagne's Court Library*. An account on Charles the Bald's library is McKitterick, *Charles the Bald*. <sup>2</sup> De Jong, *The Empire*, pp. 191-192. The letter is published in MGH, Epp. V, pp. 503-504. 3 A full catalogue description of this manuscript, as well as a digitization, is apparently lacking.

The codex is briefly described only by Waitz, *Handschriften*, pp. 694-695, with a focus on the two letters.

The abundance of commentaries mentioned by Lothar in his letter suggests that his library was rich in exegetical books, which is confirmed by what we know from his previous exchanges with Hrabanus himself. Between 840 and 842 Lothar had been the recipient of Hrabanus' Commentary on Jeremiah, begun during his father's reign5 . Moreover, between 842 and 846, Lothar had asked Hrabanus for more «expositiones», namely on the beginning of Genesis, Jeremiah's sermons and Ezechiel, that had not been covered by Bede, Jerome and Gregory the Great respectively. Eventually, Hrabanus had sent to Lothar his commentary on Ezechiel, at the same time explaining why he had not written one on Genesis, and recalling having already sent to him the commentary on Jeremiah6.

In addition to this, the Commentary on the Song of Songs by the monk of Luxeuil Angelomus was written at Lothar's request around 8517 .

Lothar's quite extensive knowledge of exegetical works by different authors, and his eagerness to have as complete a collection of them as possible, as shown in his letter to Hrabanus from 842-846, confirms that exegesis significantly complied with the interests of ninth-century both ecclesiastical people and lay noblemen and royals, the latter not seldom being the first addressees of the Carolingian scholars' works8.

The MS Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, Class. 30 is a composite manuscript, the first codicological unit of which contains two grammatical treatises: an *Ars grammatica* by Clemens Scottus, an Irish schoolmaster at Louis the Pious' court († after 826), and a *Pauca de barbarismo collecta de multis* by an unknown author; on fol. 70*v* a 9-dystich-long dedicatory poem follows, whose author is Clemens Scottus himself and the recipient, again, Lothar9. According to Bernhard Bischoff, this manuscript was copied in Rheims in the third quarter of the ninth century and is, therefore, a later copy of a book that had been probably presented to Lothar by Clemens as an homage from a master to his pupil10.

<sup>5</sup> De Jong, *The Empire*, p. 208; MGH, Epp. V, pp. 442-444. On the work: Guglielmetti, *Hraba-*

*nus Maurus*, pp. 318-320. 6 De Jong, *The Empire*, pp. 211-212; MGH, Epp. V, pp. 475-476 and 476-478. On the commen-

tary on Ezechiel: Guglielmetti, *Hrabanus Maurus*, pp. 320-322. 7 Guglielmetti, *Angelomus*, pp. 40-42. See also Gorman, *The Commentary*, particularly pp. 563, 567. The prefatory letter, testifying to Lothar's demand, is published in MGH, Epp. V, pp. 625-630.

<sup>8</sup> Hrabanus' exegetical works for Lothar were just a part of the commentaries he dedicated to kings and emperors, and to their wives too: Lothar's wife Irmingard was herself the recipient of Hrabanus' commentary on Esther (De Jong, *The Empire*, pp. 194, 212). See also a recap on the royal recipients of Hrabanus' exegetical works in Guglielmetti, *Hrabanus Maurus*, p. 276. More hints on the exegetical works compiled by Carolingian scholars for Carolingian sovereigns in Gorman, *The Commentary*, pp. 567-568, 589, 601. 9 On Clemens Scottus: *C.A.L.M.A.*, 2.5, pp. 646-647; Ó Corráin, *Clavis*, 2, nn. 517-519. The

poem is published in MGH, Poetae II, p. 670. See also Garrison, *The English*, pp. 99-100. 10 Bischoff, *Katalog*, 1, n. 206, < https://zendsbb.digitale-sammlungen.de/db/0000/sbb00000094/ images/ >.

Since all these books mostly survive only in later copies, we have no clue as to their codicological and paleographical features.

The Vatican MS Reg. lat. 438, containing on fols. 1*r*-30*r* the Martyrology in verse composed by Wandalbert of Prüm and dedicated to Lothar, is also a later copy than the original: whilst the work was composed around 848-849, this extant copy dates to the last decades of the ninth century, and probably comes from Reichenau11. As a matter of fact, the miniatures of this manuscript have recently been attributed to an illuminator working in the Lake of Constance region at the end of the century, and responsible for a number of decorated codices12. We cannot be sure whether the picture with the monk presenting the book to a king on fol. 1*v* of the Vatican manuscript is an original subject – and in this case on who the king is – or a copy from an exemplar showing the same set of miniatures13. Should this exemplar consist in, or have been copied from14, the original one dedicated to Lothar, this would allow us to add a new portrait to the two Lothar portraits known from other luxury codices that were actually produced during his reign15.

#### 2. *Lothar's display codices and the* Lothar-Gruppe *reconsidered*

The first portrait of Lothar is found in the famous Gospel Book Par. lat. 266, also known as Lothar's Gospel Book («Évangiles de Lothaire»)16. This manuscript comes from the scriptorium of Tours, of which it shows the wellknown hierarchy of scripts (including half-uncial beside square capital and uncial, and of course caroline minuscule), and the style of rich ornamentation. Lothar's portrait, sitting on the throne and flanked by two soldiers, is found on fol. 1*v*, preceding an inscription in verse that mentions the making of

noël, *Évangiles de Lothaire*, in Laffitte – Denoël, *Trésors carolingiens*, pp. 102-103, n. 12.

<sup>11</sup> On Waldalbert of Prüm Brunhölzl, *Histoire de la littérature*, pp. 67-70, 504-505. The Martyrology is published in MGH, Poetae II, pp. 567-622. On the Vatican MS Reg. lat. 438 (digitised in < https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS\_Reg.lat.438 >): Wilmart, *Codices Reginenses Latini*, 2, pp. 559-560 («Saec. IX-X»).

<sup>12</sup> Utz, *The Master*, pp. 43-53. 13 Bernhard Bischoff dated the Vatican manuscript to a few years after the mid-ninth century (Bischoff, *Katalog*, 3, n. 6678: «Bodenseegebiet, IX. Jh., kurz nach der Mitte»); therefore he identified the king as Louis the German (Bischoff, *Bücher*, p. 189). Utz, *The Master*, p. 43 mentions Louis the German, or Charles III, or Arnulf of Carinthia. The figure in Reg. lat. 438 as portrait of Lothar continue to be taken for granted by other scholars (e.g. Sot, *Références*, p. 18; Poilpré, *Le portrait*, p. 325). 14 According to Haubrichs, *Neue Zeignisse*, p. 3, the MS Reg. lat. 438 shares with two more

copies of the Martyrology a common archetype, that probably dated around the mid-ninth century or a few years later.

<sup>15</sup> It is known that the portraits of sovereigns in books appear for the first time under Charlemagne's heirs. Particularly in the fifth decade of the ninth century, under Lothar and Charles the Bald, they are for the first time found in liturgical or biblical books: Kessler, *A Lay Abbot*, pp. 653-654. Moreover, these representations seem to tend to present a realistic portrayal of the emperor's features: Laffitte, *«Portraits»*, p. 31. 16 Bischoff, *Katalog*, 3, n. 3980, < https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8451637v >; C. De-

the codex at Lothar's request and under the supervision of a Sigilaus (fol. 2*r*), and an illustration of Christ in Majesty on fol. 2*v*17. This manuscript has been traditionally dated to the time-span 849-851, as a celebration of Lothar's and Charles the Bald's reconciliation at Péronne (and before Irmingard's death, mentioned as alive in the dedicatory inscription)18. In more recent years, it has been backdated to right after 842, as a practical sign of the emperor's closeness to the *confraternitas* of monks in S. Martinus of Tours19. It could therefore be one of the first portraits of a sovereign in a Biblical manuscript, together with the other Lothar portrait in Lothar's Psalter in London, one of the five luxury manuscripts of the so-called *Lothar-Gruppe*.

According to traditional scholarship – which has generated a vast literature to which the following pages will refer just in basic terms – this group of display codices was produced at Lothar's court between the fifth and sixth decades of the ninth century, and allegedly continued and renewed the artistic tradition of the so-called Charlemagne's court school, that seemed to have suffered kind of setback under Louis the Pious20. More generally, they perpetuate the habit of producing luxury manuscripts for both royals and eminent personalities of the Carolingian establishment, as either a supply for their chapels, or books for personal devotion, or gifts to ecclesiastical institutions21.

The *Lothar-Gruppe* includes five complete manuscripts, namely:


The term of *Lothar-Gruppe* was used for the first time in 1927 in a study on the Padua Sacramentary, with reference to the latter together with the

<sup>17</sup> Poilpré, *Maiestas Domini*, particularly pp. 265-267; Sot, *Références*, pp. 23-25. The dedicatory poem is edited in MGH, Poetae II, pp. 670-671.

<sup>18</sup> For example, McKitterick, *The Carolingians*, p. 156. <sup>19</sup> Wagner, *Die liturgische Gegenwart*, particularly chapter 3 (Kaiser Lothar I in seinem Evangeliar für St. Martin von Tours [Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Fonds latin 266]), pp. 163-203.

<sup>20</sup> Mütherich, *Book Illumination*, particularly pp. 594-595. <sup>21</sup> Caillet, *Caractères*, particularly pp. 11-13; McKitterick, *Royal Patronage*, pp. 116-117. <sup>22</sup> Bischoff, *Katalog*, 1, n. 445. <sup>23</sup> Bischoff, *Katalog*, 1, n. 449. 24 Bischoff, *Katalog*, 3, n. 6811, < https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS\_Urb.lat.3 >. 25 Bischoff, *Katalog*, 2, n. 2406, < http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add\_

MS\_37768 >. 26 Bischoff, *Katalog*, 3, n. 3892; a monograph on this codex was published in 2005: *Liber Sa-*

*cramentorum Paduensis*. See also *I manoscritti miniati*, pp. 63-69.

Gospel Book Berlin260 and the Psalter Add3776827. Wilhelm Koehler's and Florentine Mütherich through their research led to extending the group to the five codices mentioned above28. In 1990, Rosamond McKitterick added to the group one folio from another Gospel Book, containing the beginning of Matthew's Gospel, which she had examined right before it was auctioned in 198829.

The grouping of these manuscripts mainly rested on art historical criteria, and particularly on the Franco-Saxon style of their initials – either in gold, and/or in gold outlined with minium and/or with brown fillings, and/or on a coloured background, as in the London Psalter30. Furthermore, specific similarities have been pointed out between Berlin260 and UrbLat3 as regards the structure of the canon tables31.

As for the two manuscripts containing full-page illustrations, that is Berlin260 and Add37768, the existence of common models, or the following of a common style, seems more problematic: whilst the representations of the four Evangelists in Berlin260 can be related to the style of Rheims as shown, for example, in the famous Vienna Coronation Gospels, the portraits of Lothar himself, David and Jerome on fols. 4*r*, 5*r*, 6*r* of Add37768 can be traced to different models, the one of Lothar's possibly going back to the Late Antiquity32.

Since two of these manuscripts – Add37768 and PaduaD47 – contain an explicit reference to Lothar, not only does the whole group continue being referred to as the production of Lothar's court school, but also Aachen is frequently pointed out as the physical place where they were allegedly copied and illuminated33.

In the following paragraphs I will try to present some considerations on both the actual consistency of this group, and its connection to Lothar, and the idea of a Lothar's court school.

First of all, the connection to Lothar is undeniable only for the Psalter Add37768: it contains on fol. 4*r* a portrait of the emperor34 and a dedicatory poem in *capitalis rustica* on fol. 3*v* mentioning a Byzantine embassy to Lothar that probably took place in 842 – so giving a valuable *terminus post* 

<sup>27</sup> Mohlberg, *Die älteste erreichbare Gestalt*, pp. xxxiii-xxxiv: «Wir haben eine Gruppe liturgischen Handschriften vor uns, die wir Lothargruppe nennen können».

<sup>28</sup> Koehler – Mütherich, *Die Hofschule Kaiser Lothars*. 29 McKitterick, *Carolingian Uncial*. 30 Koehler – Mütherich, *Die Hofschule Kaiser Lothars*, pp. 17-19. 31 *Ibidem*, pp. 16-17. <sup>32</sup> *Ibidem*, pp. 20-23. A full account on Berlin260 and Add37768 will soon be published by Lawrence Nees in his book *Frankish Manuscripts 7th-10th century*, now in press. I am very grateful to Professor Nees for kindly sending me the pre-proof versions of his entries for the two manuscripts, as well as for fruitfully sharing with me his ideas and papers on schools and networks (see also below, notes 52 and 53).

<sup>33</sup> For example, Laffitte, *Les manuscrits impériaux*, p. 87; Crivello, *L'arte e l'immagine*, pp. 86-87.

<sup>34</sup> Kessler, *A Lay Abbot*, p. 653.

*quem* for its dating35. Whether this Psalter was made either for Lothar or for one of his sisters, as suggested by the prayer added on fols 2*v*-3*r*, it can undoubtedly be related to Lothar's court and Lothar's books.

An explicit mention of Lothar is present in the Sacramentary PaduaD47 too, namely in the last folio and lines of the Sacramentary itself (136*v*), inside the text of the *Exultet*: «Memorare Domine famulum Hlotharium imperatorem»36. In this case, it can only be said that this manuscript was produced during Lothar's time, and particularly between 840 and 850, after Louis the Pious' death and before Louis II's coronation, when Lothar was the only emperor in charge37. Although we are undisputably dealing with a luxury manuscript produced for a high-ranking person, it is not certain that Lothar was its recipient. As a matter of fact, the Italian court of Louis II has been suggested38.

The Gospel Book Berlin260 is the third manuscript of the group that is considered to be closely related to Lothar. Currently, it is also known as the Evangeliary of Prüm, and identified with the Gospel Book presented by Lothar to the abbey of Prüm, when he entered it as a monk in the last years of his life. As it is known, in 852 Lothar gave the abbey two manuscripts – a Gospel Book with a precious binding, and a decorated Bible –, several relics and some liturgical objects39. The 1003 inventory of the Treasure of Prüm lists «Evangelia IIII cum eo quod dominus Lotharius dedit, ex quibus unum interius et exterius aureum»40. The identification of Berlin260 with Lothar's gift to Prüm dates back to 1967, and to a careful reconstruction by Herman Knaus of the history of what had been to that day known as the Evangeliary of Clèves41. In point of fact, we know that two luxury Gospel Books now in the State Library of Berlin come from Prüm, Berlin260 and Theol. Lat. Fol. 733; the latter was made in Tours in Vivian's time (mid-ninth century)42 and includes in the last folios (233*v*-234*v*) some later notes concerning the abbacy of Prüm, among which is one about Lothar entering it in 852 and offering some unspecified gifts43. Which of these two Evangeliaries of Prüm was actually Lothar's gift remains under discussion.

<sup>40</sup> Gottlieb, *Ueber mittelalterlichen Bibliotheken*, p. 65, n. 163. 41 Knaus, *Rheinische Handschriften*; Fingernagel, *Die illuminierten lateinischen Handschriften* (1991), 1, pp. 73-76; 2, ill. 225-234. 42 Bischoff, *Katalog*, 1, n. 470; Schillman, *Verzeichnis*, pp. 94-100. 43 Fol. 234*r*: «Anno dominice incarnationis DCCCLII, indictione XV, adveniens Lotharius im-

<sup>35</sup> Edited in MGH, Poetae VI/1, p. 163. 36 An image in *Liber Sacramentorum Paduensis*, Fig. 8. As it is known, PaduaD47 is a composite manuscript, the Sacramentary being its first codicological unit (ff. 1-138), the second one being a Martyrology (ff. 139-148).

<sup>37</sup> Crivello, *Origine*, p. 59. 38 Koehler – Mütherich, *Die Hofschule Kaiser Lothars*, p. 12. 39 MGH, DD Lo I / Lo II, n. 122, pp. 280-281: «evangelium scilicet cum ebore, cristallo atque auro gemmisque compositum; bibliothecam cum imaginibus et maioribus carachteribus in voluminum principiis deauratis».

perator Prumiam monasterium quod est constructum in honore Domini et salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi nec non et ostriles eiusdem Dei et domini nostri beatissimi quoque Iohannis Babtistę et Pauli ceterorumque apostolorum, Stephani quoque prothomartiris cunctorumque sanc-

In any case, Berlin260 has ever since the beginning of the last century been grouped together with Lothar's Psalter and the Padua Sacramentary, due to their many similarities not only in the decoration but also in the *mise en page* and the script, by the same hand in the three manuscripts according to Bernhard Bischoff. Actually, PaduaD47 and Add37768 are closer in size, whereas Berlin260 is decisively bigger, but Berlin260 and PaduaD47 show similar dimensions of the writing frame; the writing frame itself consists of a similar, though very common, pattern in the three codices, with a double line on the left and on the right of the written surface (and a further framing in Berlin260), 22 lines for the writing in Berlin260 and 21 in PaduaD47 and Add3776844. As for the writing, which is traced in gold in the three manuscripts, I would not take for granted either the identity of the hands responsible for the copy of every manuscript, nor the presence of just one hand in each of them45. Figg. 1-3 could conceivably prove both morphological differences and, at the same time, the stylistic similarities in the scripts of the three samples: a caroline minuscule quite irregular in the alignment, with letters that are basically wider than high, compliant with the canon, although apparently written by not thoroughly confident hands46.

According to Koehler and Mütherich, the MS UrbLat3 was also copied by the same scribe as Berlin26047. But its script is a different, rather stiff and somehow unnatural caroline minuscule, with at least one change on fols. 130- 131 to an equally artificial and at the same time hesitant hand – as regards, for example, the incline of the axis (Fig. 4). The uncial of the display scripts shows a similar lack of confidence. Bischoff himself dated the script of this manuscript to the third quarter of the ninth century, thus implicitly excluding its belonging to the *Lothar-Gruppe*48.

As for the Gospel Book Berlin3, some eccentricities of which had already been noticed by Koehler and Mütherich, it has been more convincingly withdrawn from the group at the end of the 20th century on art historical grounds,

torum martirum, Martini etiam et Benedicti venerabilissimorum confessorum cunctorumque sanctorum, anno imperii in Italia XXXII et in Francia XIII et optulit hęc mente devota sancto Salvatori et omnibus prefatis sanctis pro remedio animę suę et coniugis defunctę prolisque et omnium predecessorum suorum pro statu regni».


<sup>44</sup> Koehler – Mütherich, *Die Hofschule Kaiser Lothars*, pp. 38, 48, 53.

<sup>45</sup> I make these observations on the basis of a personal analysis of Berlin260 and of the digitization of Add37768. Unfortunately, I could not examine Padua D47 due to the closure of the Chapter Library.

<sup>46</sup> As far as I know, the only palaeographical description of the script of the *Lothar-Gruppe* was made for the Padua Sacramentary: Mohlberg, *Die älteste erreichbare Gestalt*, pp. XVIII-XXII;

Lazzarini, *Un sacramentario*, pp. 37-39; Martini, *Descrizione*. 47 Koehler – Mütherich, *Die Hofschule Kaiser Lothars*, p. 15. <sup>48</sup> Bischoff, *Katalog*, 3, n. 6811: «etwa Nordostfrankreich, IX Jh. 3. Viertel».

Fig. 1. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Ms. theol. lat. fol. 260, fol. 182*r*.

Fig. 2. © [2022] Biblioteca Capitolare di Padova, D 47, fol. 93*r.*

Fig. 3. © British Library Board. London, British Library, Add. 37768, fol. 10*r.*

Fig. 4. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Urb. Lat. 3, fol. 130*r.*

which connect it more with the style of the so-called Charlemagne's court school than with the one shown by the other codices of the *Lothar-Gruppe*49.

Taking into account all these considerations, the criteria for inclusion of the manuscripts in the *Lothar-Gruppe* might seem elusive and notably grounded in the authority of the tradition and of the scholars who dealt with them.

On the one hand, the similarities between the five manuscripts do not seem to be exclusive of the group, as regards both the widespread – in North-Eastern France in the central decades of the ninth century – Franco-Saxon style of the initials and the artistic features of the illustrations, that have in part been attributed to the school of Rheims, as well as a number of other display codices of different content and provenance50. On the other hand, some differences in style, script and features of the manuscripts of the *Lothar-Gruppe*, of which Albert Boeckler in 1930 was already aware51, make it difficult to locate their origins in a specific place or at a specific writing centre. Furthermore, Lothar's patronage or possession can only be proved certain for the London Psalter.

All of this will not surprise if we consider, as recent scholarship tends to do, the so-called court school not as a physical place but rather as «neworks of men and books»52, clusters of illuminators and perhaps scribes working together on common projects, the illuminators not seldom moving from and to

<sup>51</sup> Boeckler, *Abendländische Miniaturen*, p. 30. 52 Nees, *Imperial Networks*, particularly p. 92.

<sup>49</sup> Fingernagel, *Die illuminierten lateinischen Handschriften* (1999), 1, pp. 133-135; 2, ill. 360- 363, 396.

<sup>50</sup> Not by chance the second part of Koehler – Mütherich, *Die Hofschule Kaiser Lothars* (pp. 71-115) is about other single manuscripts from Lotharingia.

different centres, the full-page illuminations themselves possibly being sent to complete codices copied elsewhere53.

In this sense, the *Lothar-Gruppe* can become just a fraction of a wider manuscript production for a royal or, more generally, a high-profile patronage that took place in Lothar's time; and Lothar could have been only one among possible recipients of books, or perhaps the recipient of books that no evidence can connect to him anymore.

#### 3. *Manuscript production in Lothar's Italy*

Which books were copied and circulated in Northern Italy during the years of Lothar's government, which essentially coincide with the second quarter of the ninth century?

When it comes to Carolingian Italy, identifying manuscripts of documented origin is rather difficult. On the one hand, apart from some well known ecclesiastical libraries, the surviving manuscripts are often scattered across different institutions with no traces left of their previously belonging to other collections54. Therefore, not only reconstructing the activity and production of specific writing centres is more difficult, but any attempt to do so can also have an unexpected, frustrating outcome in terms of (not) shared graphic tendencies55. Bernhard Bischoff's many uncertainties in proposing an Italian origin for ninth century manuscripts confirm this difficulty. Moreover, due to praxis and tradition or simply by chance, and so quite differently from the situation beyond the Alps, most of the presumably Italian manuscripts lack any explicit data concerning their origin or provenance apart from, sometimes, the disappointingly common scribe's name.

I recently investigated the bishops' libraries in the Early and High Middle Ages, on the basis of the manuscript evidence, that is of both library inventories and booklists, and *ex libris*, colophons and notes mentioning the bishops as owners, patrons or donors. Whilst, for the regions beyond the Alps, these kind of data allow one to piece together significant sets of manuscripts that the bishops of the ninth century owned, commissioned or presented to their cathedrals or other ecclesiastical institutions, the Italian situation appears

<sup>53</sup> Nees, *Early Carolingian Manuscripts*, p. 172: «We should pay more attention to who produced books, and for whom they were produced, and perhaps pay less attention to where they might have been produced, shifting emphasis to scribes, artists, patrons and readers and away from abstracted localized centers of production which are in many instances as much or more a product of modern imagination as of medieval evidence». On the reconsideration of the idea of court school see also Caillet, *La classification*, and again Nees, *Networks or Schools?*. 54 I discuss this issue in Pani, *Manuscript Production*, p. 277. 55 I refer here, for example, to the significant yet unpublished work by Rosso, *I manoscritti*,

especially pp. 34-79 on ninth-century manuscripts from Bobbio and the difficulties in pointing out graphic similarities and common tendencies as expected for a scriptorium traditionally regarded as one of the most organized and productive writing centres of Carolingian Italy.

very incomplete56. As a matter of fact, the Vatican MS S. Maria Maggiore, 43, a Gregory the Great's *Regula pastoralis* copied at the request of the bishop of Priverno Martinus around 861, is the only such case for the ninth century (and is later than Lothar's years)57. There are of course groups of books that can be attributed to the action of specific bishops – as Miriam Tessera's paper in this volume shows – but this fact does not rest on explicit data, at least as far as Lothar's years are concerned. Therefore, any attempt to investigate the Italian Carolingian manuscript production must deal with the common sensation of a lack of "anchors".

There are, though, both single manuscripts datable on internal grounds, and groups of manuscripts that can quite unmistakably be related to the activity of specific and well-defined (and definable) writing centres, such as as Verona or Nonantola.

Some law books, for example, contain on their last folios additions that offer not only the *termini post quem* and *ante quem* for their original parts, but also samples of precisely datable scripts.

The famous MS Sankt Paul im Lavanttal, Stiftsbibliothek, 4/1, a book of *leges* and capitularies, was copied after 818-819, perhaps outside Italy – excerpts from the *Capitula per se scribenda* and the *Capitula legibus addenda* being the latest among the texts copied by the main scribe – but before 825, when the *Capitulare Olonnense mundanum* was added on fols 182*r*-183*v*58.

The MS Ivrea, Biblioteca Capitolare, XXXIV (5) is a slightly later collection of Carolingian capitularies and Lombard laws, datable to the time-span 825-832: whilst the *Capitulare Olonnense mundanum* and the contemporary *ecclesiasticum* one belong to the original core of the book, copied by different, more or less cursive hands (e.g. fols 21*r*, 27*r*), Lothar's *Capitulare Papiense* is added by a different – and younger – hand on fols 166*v*-167*v*59.

Lastly, the Vatican MS Lat. 5359, another collection of Lombard laws and Italian capitularies from many different, unsteady and unskilled hands, offers just the *terminus post quem* of 832 for its copy, as it contains Lothar's *Capitulare Papiense* on fols 142*v*-145*v*. In any case, it was presumably copied right in the following years, with a little chance of a later dating as proposed by Bischoff60.

What strikes one in the scripts of both the original parts and the additions of these manuscripts – all datable to the second quarter of the ninth century, as shown above – is their remoteness from the canons of the caroline

<sup>56</sup> Pani, *The Bishops' Libraries*, in print. 57 < https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS\_S.Maria.Magg.43 >. <sup>58</sup> Mordek, *Bibliotheca*, pp. 685-695; Bischoff, *Katalog*, 3, n. 5934, < http://www.leges.uni-koeln.de/en/mss/codices/st-paul-abs-4-1/ >. <sup>59</sup> Mordek, *Bibliotheca*, pp. 178-185; Bischoff, *Katalog*, 1, n. 1561, < http://www.leges.uni-koeln.

de/en/mss/codices/ivrea-bc-xxxiv-5/ >. <sup>60</sup> Mordek, *Bibliotheca*, pp. 881-883; Bischoff, *Katalog*, 3, n. 6903; < http://www.leges.uni-ko-

eln.de/en/mss/codices/vatikan-bav-vat-lat-5359/ >. On this manuscript see also the recent Garipzanov, *Magical Charaktêres*, pp. 287-308.

Fig. 5. Sankt Paul im Lavanttal, Stiftsbibliothek, 4/1, fol. 182*r.*

minuscule. All these hands, whether skilled or unskilled, seem still to adhere more to the early-medieval, pre-caroline graphic tradition than to a renewed graphic system (Figg. 5-7).

It must be noticed that such manuscripts as the law books discussed here can perhaps be referred to non-ecclesiastical contexts of book production – such as counts' or notarial offices –, whose existence, though elusive, is more and more often suggested for the Early Middle Ages as regards the copying of at least certain types of books61.

If these ill-identified "lay" centres show a tardiness in the reception of the new graphic models, due to a graphic education rooted in a different epoch and in different models, and addressing different purposes than the copying of books, what can then be said about some ecclesiastical institutions located in what is supposed to have been the core of the Carolingian domination in Italy, notably Verona or Nonantola?

With about 70 surviving manuscripts datable to the ninth century, all clearly recognizable in terms of codicological and especially graphic features, the scriptorium of the Cathedral library of Verona could be regarded as a sort of prime example of the Italian book production in Lothar's years, especially because it would basically coincide with the so-called "Pacificus age", a phase of intense activity for the copying of books, under the supervision of the archdeacon Pacificus († 846).

<sup>61</sup> See, for example, McKitterick, *Some Carolingians Law-Books*, pp. 13-14, 22-23; Nicolaj, *Ambiti di copia*, pp. 354-357.

Fig. 6. Ivrea, Biblioteca Capitolare, XXXIV (5), fol. 7*r.*

In this regard, I would note that not only Pacificus' role must be – and actually has been – downplayed62, but also that the "Pacificus' age" might in reality exceed Pacificus' life (and so Lothar's epoch) in paleographical terms. In other words, that the graphic features normally related to the book production under Pacificus persisted throughout the ninth century, and therefore it is possible/likely that some of the manuscripts dated to Pacificus' age might have been, in reality, copied later63.

In any case, what is traditionally defined as the "Veronese caroline minuscule" – and therefore a testimony to an early adoption of the new Carolingian book script by the Veronese scriptorium64 – can hardly be considered a Caroline minuscule: with the persistence of other cursive ligatures than &, *ct* and *st*, and of half-uncial letters such as *a* and *g*, it is a typised script, used across the whole ninth century by a high number of scribes, much more inspired by the old half-uncial script and its Alemannic filiation than by the reformed Carolingian handwriting65.

Caroline minuscule is absent from Verona until the mid-ninth century («sembrerebbe […] plausibile che di carolina, a Verona, si possa concretamente parlare non prima della metà del secolo

<sup>62</sup> La Rocca, *Pacifico*, is a well-known essential work on this topic. <sup>63</sup> The MS Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, XLVII (45) (Bischoff, *Katalog*, 3, n. 7042) is a significant example. It contains John the Deacon's *Vita Gregorii*, a text composed around 873-875. It is copied, arguably in the last decades of the ninth century, by several hands, some of which still show the graphic features normally related to Pacificus, in terms of both general appearance of the script and the shape of the single letters. Furthermore, many of the *marginalia* in Veronese codices normally attributed to Pacificus' hand (by Bischoff too) are by different hands, and therefore cannot *a priori* count as *termini ante quem* for the dating. 64 This is still Paolo Cherubini's and Alessandro Pratesi's opinion: Cherubini – Pratesi, *Paleo-*

*grafia latina*, pp. 385-386. <sup>65</sup> On this topic Santoni, *Scrivere documenti*, especially pp. 207-211. According to Santoni the

Fig. 7. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. Lat. 5359, fol. 143*v.*

In 2009, in a fundamental multi-author monograph on the famous MS Cesena, Biblioteca Malatestiana, S.XXI.5, of Isidore's *Etymologiae*, Anna Bellettini wrote: «L'impressione (…) è che si tratti del prodotto di uno scrittorio importante ma non al centro del rinnovamento carolingio, in cui è in uso una scrittura volta al passato, se si giudica che il manoscritto dovrebbe essere stato scritto in anni in cui altrove la minuscola carolina era già diffusa e affermata»66. Bellettini dated the manuscript to the first half of the ninth century and convincingly suggested Nonantola as the place of its origin. Actually the other manuscripts that can be arguably attributed to Nonantola and the first half of the ninth century show graphic features which, not so unlike those from Verona, reproduce a local pre-Caroline type rather than adhere to the Caroline canon67.

A random check of manuscripts dated to the second quarter of the ninth century, of presumed Italian origin, would confirm the strong presence of pre-Caroline features such as cursive ligatures and a pre-Caroline form of the letters.

If the Caroline minuscule is supposed to have spread across Italy in Lothar's years, the ways and channels of its penetration are yet to be discovered.

IX», p. 211). As I stated above, I believe the end of the century a more convincing chronological term, if not for the appearance of the Caroline minuscule, at least for the persistence in the use of the Veronese type of minuscule.

<sup>66</sup> Bellettini, *Testi e scritture*, p. 22 («My impression is that this manuscript was copied in a *scriptorium* that was not at the core of the Carolingian reform, in which a script was used, that looked back to the past. We must consider that this manuscript was copied in a time when elsewhere the Caroline minuscule was spread and used»).

<sup>67</sup> Palma, *Manoscritti nonantolani*, p. 105, and *passim*; on the Nonantola-type also Cherubini – Pratesi, *Paleografia latina*, pp. 284-285.

#### **Works cited**


in *Committenti e produzione artistico-letteraria nell'alto medioevo occidentale*, Spoleto 1992 (Settimane, 39), pp. 647-675.


Laura Pani Università degli Studi di Udine laura.pani@uniud.it

### **A fragmentary story: episcopal culture in Milan during Lothar I's reign?**

by Miriam Rita Tessera

Dealing with episcopal culture in Milan during Lothar I's age (822-855), that is the age of Archbishop Angilbert II (824-859), is a difficult task, because of the lack of sources and uncertain origin of many extant manuscripts. As a matter of fact, Angilbert II shared a common cultural background with his transalpine colleagues, but he had to face the loss of the schools in Milan and to rebuild a cultural system which could also improve the political role of his see to the detriment of Pavia. This paper analyses some main features of his cultural policy: the activity of masters accustomed to the new ideas of Carolingian schools, in particular the role played by Hildemar and his library in Civate; the renewal of St. Ambrose's cult and Angilbert's iconographical choices on the golden altar of Sant'Ambrogio, in connection with literary activity in Milan (as for the case of bishop Mansuetus' letter copied in Montpellier, Bibliothèque Interuniversitaire, Faculté de medicine, H 233).

Middle Ages; 9th century; Milan; Sant'Ambrogio Basilica; Angilbert II; Hildemar of Corbie

Miriam Rita Tessera, Catholic University of Sacro Cuore of Milan, Italy, miriamrita.tessera@unicatt.it, 0000- 0002-0796-8773

Referee List (DOI 10.36253/fup\_referee\_list)

FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

Miriam Rita Tessera, *A fragmentary story: episcopal culture in Milan during Lothar I's reign?*, © Author(s), CC BY 4.0, DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-623-0.04, 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. 33-65, 2022, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 978-88-5518-623-0, DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-623-0

Abbreviations

CDL = *Codex diplomaticus Langobardiae*, ed. G. Porro Lambertenghi, Augustae Taurinorum 1873 (Historiae patriae monumenta, 13).

ChLA2, XCIV = *Chartae Latinae Antiquiores. Facsimile-edition of the Latin Charters*, 2nd series, ed. G. Cavallo – G. Nicolaj, part XCIV, Italy LXVI, Milano I, publ. M. Modesti, Dietikon-Zürich 2015.

ChLA2, XCV = *Chartae Latinae Antiquiores. Facsimile-edition of the Latin Charters*, 2nd series, ed. G. Cavallo – G. Nicolaj, part XCV, Italy LXVII, Milano II, publ. A. Zuffrano, Dietikon-Zürich 2016.

MD = *Il Museo Diplomatico dell'Archivio di Stato di Milano*, ed. A.R. Natale, I/1-2, Milano 1970. MGH, Andrew of Bergamo, *Historia* = Andrew of Bergamo, *Historia*, ed. G. Waitz, in MGH, SS rer. Lang., Hannover 1878, pp. 220-231.

MGH, *Annales Mediolanenses minores* = *Annales Mediolanenses minores*, ed. P. Jaffé, in MGH, SS, 18, Hannover 1863, pp. 383-402.

MGH, Gregory the Great, *Registrum* = MGH, *Epistolae*, 2, Gregory the Great, *Registrum epistolarum*, II: *Libri VIII-XIV*, ed. L.M. Hartmann, Berlin 1890.

MGH, Capit. II = MGH, *Capitularia regum Francorum*, II, ed. A. Boretius – V. Krause, Hannover 1897 (Legum sectio, II/2).

MGH, Conc. II = *Concilia aevi Karolini*, ed. A. Werminghoff, Hannover-Leipzig 1906-1908.

MGH, Conc. III = *Die Konzilien der karolingischen Teilreiche*, ed. W. Hartmann, Hannover 1984.

MGH, DD Lo I / Lo II = *Die Urkunden Lothars I. und Lothars II*., ed. Th. Schieffer, München 1979 (DD Karolinorum, 3).

MGH, Epp. V = MGH, *Epistolarum Tomus V*, ed. E. Dümmler *et al.*, Berlin 1899 (Epistolae Karolini aevi, 3).

MGH, Epp. VI = MGH, *Epistolarum Tomus VI*, ed. E. Dümmler, Berlin 1925 (Epistolae Karolini aevi, 4).

MGH, Necr. Suppl. *Libri confraternitatum* = MGH, Necr. Suppl. *Libri confraternitatum Sancti Galli Augiensis Fabariensis*, ed. P. Piper, Berlin 1884.

MGH, HL = Paul the Deacon, *Historia Langobardorum*, ed. L. Bethmann – G.Waitz, in MGH, SS rer. Lang., Hannover 1878, pp. 12-187.

MGH, Poetae I = MGH, *Poetae Latini aevi Carolini*, I, ed. E. Dümmler, Berlin 1881.

Placiti I = *I placiti del Regnum Italiae. 776-945*, I, ed. C. Manaresi, Roma 1955 (FSI, 92).

#### 1. *Episcopal culture during the age of Angilbert II: an open question*

«Aegregius quod praesul opus sub honore beati / inclitus Ambrosii templo recubantis in isto / optulit Angilbertus ovans Dominoque dicavit / tempore quo nitidae servabat culmina sedis»1 .

These often quoted hexameters were engraved on the silver side of the main altar in Sant'Ambrogio in Milan by the will of Archbishop Angilbert II, who aimed to glorify the treasure of saints – his holy forerunner Ambrose and the two martyrs Protasius and Gervasius – hidden in the glittering ark, and to claim for himself the reward of eternal life. *Angilbertus ovans* was aware of his high duty, the charge of archbishop of Milan, a city which he ruled for more than thirty years (824-859), when the whole body of bishops of Northern Italy was renewed during the age of Louis the Pious2. His metropolitan see was a difficult one: the Milanese Church was proud of its own rite, deeply influenced by the memory of its most revered patron saint Ambrose, and had a strong local identity which Angilbert had to integrate into the broader framework of the Carolingian empire3.

Thus, dealing with episcopal culture in Milan during Lothar I's age (822- 855) – that is, from a Milanese point of view, the age of Archbishop Angilbert II (824-859) – is a very difficult task which, too often, has been made to coincide with the sole significance of the golden altar, a true Carolingian masterpiece4. The idea of "Milanese episcopal culture" is as yet an open question, which has been discussed by – among others – Mirella Ferrari, Silvia Lusuardi Siena, Paolo Tomea, Simona Gavinelli and Marco Petoletti5 . These studies have thrown light on some critical points of the Milanese Carolingian age6 : in fact, few manuscripts that can be ascribed for certain to the Milanese

<sup>1</sup> Petoletti, *"Urbs nostra"*, p. 31; see also Ferrari, *Le iscrizioni*, p. 150. 2 Tabacco, *Il volto ecclesiastico*, pp. 29-33; for a wide survey: Patzold, *Episcopus*, pp. 21-36. <sup>3</sup> Cattaneo, *Terra di Sant'Ambrogio*, pp. 149-220; Rossetti, *Società e istituzioni*; Castagnetti,

*La società milanese*, and Balzaretti, *The Lands of Saint Ambrose* (see also the discussion in «Reti Medievali Rivista», 22 [2021], 1).

<sup>4</sup> See *Liber notitiae sanctorum Mediolani*, coll. 86A, 290D, 397A: «Ipso tempore erat Mediolano archiepiscopus Angelbertus secundus qui fecit deaurare altare sancti Ambrosii». For the golden altar see par. 3.

<sup>5</sup> Ferrari, *Centri di trasmissione*; Ferrari, *Manoscritti e cultura*; Lusuardi Siena, *Tracce archeologiche della "depositio"*; Tomea, *Ambrogio e i suoi fratelli*; Gavinelli, *Irlandesi, libri biblici* 

*greco-latini*; Petoletti, *Le migrazioni dei testi classici*. 6 Political context: Jarnut, *Ludwig der Fromme, Lothar I.*; Bougard, *"Italia infirma est"* (in particular pp. 162-163).

area have survived, and there are no *scriptoria* with a distinctive script, as in monastic centres north of the Alps such as Corbie, Lorsch, Reichenau, Fulda or Tours7 . Few hagiographical writings were produced, and none of them can be ascribed with certainty to episcopal patronage; liturgical manuscripts preserving the Ambrosian rite do not exist (except for a few fragments) before the Carolingian rule8. Moreover, most of the surviving Milanese Carolingian charters come from the archive of the monastery of S. Ambrose, where we find interpolations in many copies of the charters at the time of the trials between monks and canons in the twelfth-thirteenth century9. Lastly, the Caroline minuscule took a very long time to be adopted by local notaries10.

#### 1.1 *Episcopal culture and episcopal network: Angilbert II and Carolingian culture*

In spite of these difficulties, the age of Angilbert II could be labelled as an age of transition and renewal, starting with the appointment of this "new" man to the Milanese see in June 82411. His origins and education are unknown, and his only surviving autograph signature (17 May 859, just seven months before his death on 13 December) was written in a rough Caroline minuscule, which does not help to identify his cultural background12. Previous historiography ascribed to him a Frankish origin, possibly within the same family as that of his predecessor Angilbert I (822-823), whose origins are also unknown13. He was obviously associated with Lothar's ascent in Italy and had a strong bond with Lothar's wife Ermengard, Hugh of Tours' daughter who, in January 835 asked her husband to assign the rich *curtis* of Limonta to the monastery of S. Ambrose to provide *luminaria* for her brother Hugh's tomb14. As the city of Tours (*Turonica*) played an outstanding role in the apse mosaic of S. Ambrose, side by side with Milan (*Mediolanium*), in representing

<sup>7</sup> Similar views in Bougard, *Was There a Carolingian Italy?*, pp. 64-81, but some of his conclu-

sions can be challenged: Petoletti, *Le migrazioni dei testi classici*. <sup>8</sup> Ferrari, *Libri liturgici e diffusione della scrittura carolina*, p. 277. <sup>9</sup> Biscaro, *Note e documenti*; Natale, *Falsificazioni e cultura diplomatistica* (his conclusions need reconsidering). See also Balzaretti, *The Lands of Saint Ambrose*, pp. 49-69. <sup>10</sup> Valsecchi, *La scrittura carolina nei documenti*. <sup>11</sup> Savio, *Gli antichi vescovi d'Italia*, pp. 318-326; Bertolini, *Angilberto*, pp. 318-326; Ambrosio-

ni, *Gli arcivescovi nella vita di Milano*, p. 98. 12 MD, I/2, n. 101, new edition in ChLA2, XCV, n. 16, pp. 63-69. <sup>13</sup> In his last charter (17 May 859), Angilbert remembered that he heard more than once the

monks of S. Ambrose complaining about his predecessor Angilbert I (MD I/2, n. 101), thus suggesting his presence in Angilbert I's entourage in 822-823.

<sup>14</sup> MD I/1, n. 57, other editions in MGH, DD Lo I / Lo II., n. 23, pp. 93-95, and ChLA2, XCIV, n. 20, pp. 80-83 (24 January 835); Lothar renewed this privilege on 8 May 835 (MD I/1, n. 60; MGH, DD Lo I / Lo II, n. 27, pp. 101-102), three days after the confirmation of property grant issued for S. Ambrose at the request of archbishop Angilbert (5 May 835, MD I/1, n. 59, ChLA2, XCIV, n. 22, pp. 88-91). For the queen's role see La Rocca*, La reine et ses liens*, p. 279; La Rocca, *Monachesimo femminile e poteri delle regine*, pp. 130-131.

Ambrose's miracle mass at the burial of saint Martin, one may wonder if Ermengard's patronage towards the basilica was in fact greater than surviving charters record, and if Angilbert himself was a kinsman of the outstanding family of the Etichonids15.

Be that as may be, Angilbert pursued a shrewd policy of autonomy and balance towards the royal power, judging by the well-known (even if the only one) episode which occurred after the revolt against Louis the Pious in 833- 834, recorded in Andrew of Bergamo's chronicle. King Lothar and Angilbert had a lively clash when the latter refused to bow to the king as court ceremonial prescribed. Lothar rashly rebuked the archbishop («You behave as though you are St Ambrose!») who, in turn, proudly answered that of course he was not Ambrose, but neither was the king God16. This dialogue recalled the one between saint Ambrose and the Emperor Theodosius outlined by Cassiodorus in chapter IX, 30 of his *Historia tripartita*, which had been adopted as a model for the relationship between *regnum* and *sacerdotium* by Frankish bishops during Louis the Pious' reign17. Notwithstanding his fierce reply, in the end Angilbert acted as a go-between Lothar and his father Louis. He travelled North of the Alps to reach the imperial court and pleaded with the emperor to obtain his pardon on behalf of Lothar.

The archbishop's role grew during the reign of Louis II: he was appointed *missus regius* from April 84418, he regularly attended the general councils summoned by the new king in Pavia and took part in Louis II's coronations in Rome in 844 and 85019, thus being actively involved in the plan that Louis II was setting out for the *regnum Italiae*. On the other hand, he carefully reformed the Milanese Church according to Benedict of Aniane's ideas, by appointing the abbots of the monastery of S. Ambrose (Gaudentius, Rachimpertus, and possibly Peter II) and by introducing his cathedral clergy within the monastic milieu20.

<sup>15</sup> Hugh of Tours: Vollmer, *Die Etichonen*, pp. 163-174; Hlawitschka, *Franken, Alamannen,* 

*Bayern*, pp. 221-226; see also Veronese, *Un franco (anzi due) in Brianza*. <sup>16</sup> MGH, Andrew of Bergamo, *Historia*, pp. 225-226. <sup>17</sup> For the use of Cassiodorus' excerpt during Louis the Pious' troubles see Werner, *Hlodovicus Augustus*, pp. 57-60; Ganz, *The Epitaphium Arsenii*; see also Depreux, *The Penance of Attigny*.

On the Paris/episcopal model see Patzold, *Episcopus*, pp. 135-184. <sup>18</sup> MD I/1, n. 74; ChLA2, XCIV, n. 33, pp. 129-135; Bougard, *La cour et le gouvernement de* 

*Louis II*. <sup>19</sup> Council of Mantua (827): MGH, Conc. II/2, pp. 583-598. Councils in Pavia: MGH, Conc. III, n. 21, pp. 207-215 (Pavia 845-850); n. 23, pp. 217-229 (Pavia 850); bishops' decisions ratified by Louis II (Pavia 865): MGH, Capit. II, n. 216, pp. 91-93; see also Padoa Schioppa, *La giustizia ecclesiastica nei sinodi lombardi*. Angilbert in Rome: MGH, Conc. III, n. 5, pp. 24-26; Placiti, I, pp. 176-187, n. 50 (the authenticity has been questioned by Polock – Schneider, *Anhang. Die gefälschte Synodalurkunde von Rom 850(?)*, pp. 495-502); MGH, Conc. III, n. 24, pp. 230-231. <sup>20</sup> Gaudentius (835-842?): MD I/1, n. 58; Tagliabue, *Cronotassi degli abati*, p. 292 and pp. 280-

<sup>281;</sup> Zagni, *Gli atti arcivescovili*, pp. 12-13. Rachimpertus/Rachibertus (843-844): MD, I/1, n. 73 (Rossetti, *Società e istituzioni*, pp. 92-93; Zagni, *Gli atti arcivescovili*, pp. 12-13); Tagliabue, *Cronotassi degli abati*, p. 293. For Peter II's appointment: Petoletti, *La produzione epigrafica a Milano*, pp. 20-21. For Angilbert's patronage of the monastery of S. Ambrose: Rossetti, *Società e istituzioni*, pp. 88-95.

In 856 the name of *Angilbert(u)s archiepiscopus* headed the list of bishops and clerks recorded in the *Liber vitae* of S. Giulia/S. Salvatore in Brescia (now Brescia, Biblioteca Queriniana, G VI 7, f. 16*r* [20*r*])21. The Milanese archbishop was registered together with his suffragans – most of them of Frankish origin – Notting of Brescia, Dodo of Novara, Hagano of Bergamo, Benedict of Cremona, and the bishop of Como Amalric – a list which offers a good example of the new "geography of power" established by Carolingian rulers in Italy22. This network mirrored that sketched nearly fifteen years earlier, in the *praeceptum synodale* of 842, when Archbishop Angilbert II authorized the foundation of Ss. Faustinus and Jovita in Brescia, a monastery promoted by the local bishop Rampert23. Together with the archbishop, there were Adalgisus of Novara, Hagano of Bergamo, Pancoardus of Cremona, Ercambertus of Lodi, Verendarius of Chur24, Ermenfredus of Tortona and a Walfericus whose see has not yet been identified.

Many sources witness the great role Brescia played during the pontificate of Rampert (827-844 ca.), both from a cultural and from a political perspective. Cultural exchanges between Verona, Brescia and Reichenau were well attested; masters coming from the best schools of the Empire – i.e. Hildemar and Maginarius of Reichenau – taught there; Frankish monks were well established at S. Salvatore and at the abbey of Leno; lists of manuscripts and books made for the new foundations have survived (i.e. Ss. Faustinus and Jovita), and hagiographical texts ordered by bishops – and written by Rampert himself, like the *Translatio sancti Filastrii* – too25. In Rampert's words, all these achievements were accomplished under the inspiration of Angilbert of Milan, but evidence for similar activities in Milan is scanty26. Moreover, even if these sources are a testimonial of a close spiritual and institutional bond between Milan and Brescia, there is no proof that exchanges of books and the circulation of cultural models will consequently follow.

In May 825 – when Angilbert II had been in office for just over a year – the capitulary of Corteolona ordered every student coming from Milan and its diocese to go to Pavia and to study there under the guidance of the Irish master Dungal. This means that there was no longer a functioning school in Milan,

<sup>21</sup> Brescia, Biblioteca Queriniana, G VI 7, *Liber vitae*, f. 16*r* (20*r*); MGH, *Der Memorial- und* 

*Liturgiecodex*; Ludwig, *Das Gedenkbuch*. <sup>22</sup> Select bibliography: Gavinelli, *Il gallo di Ramperto*; Gavinelli, *Il vescovo Giuseppe di Ivrea*; Gavinelli, *Dodone di Novara*; Lo Monaco, *Aganone di Bergamo*; De Angelis, *Poteri cittadini e intel-*

*lettuali di potere*, pp. 39-56; see also Bullogh, *Leo,* «*qui apud Hlotarium magni loci habebatur*». <sup>23</sup> *Concilium Angelberti archiepiscopi Mediolanensis a. 842*, in MGH, Conc. II, pp. 814-815;

Zagni, *Gli atti arcivescovili*, n. 8, pp. 26-28. 24 For cross-cultural exchange between Milan and Rhaetia: Petoletti, *Un frammento del sec. IX*. <sup>25</sup> Violante, *La Chiesa bresciana*, pp. 1001-1124; see also Bischoff, *Das Güterverzeichnis des Klosters SS. Faustino*; Bettelli Bergamaschi, *Ramperto vescovo di Brescia*; Gavinelli, *Il gallo di Ramperto*; Vocino, *Triginta autem Brixienses*; Ludwig, *I libri memoriales e i rapporti di* 

*fratellanza*. 26 CDL, n. 140, coll. 245-248, 31 May 841. See also *Rampertus Brixiensis ep*. in *Clavis scriptorum latinorum Medii Aevi*, pp. 239-240.

despite important remains of late-antique libraries still survived there27. That is why the *Liber glossarum* was introduced in Milan, where the famous Ambr. B 36 inf., copied during Angilbert's pontificate (in the first half of the ninth century) in Caroline minuscule (with some pre-Caroline features) overcoming the regional features of local contemporary scripts, still survives28. Over a century, this manuscript was used as an exemplar for many copies written in several episcopal sees of northern Italy, thus spreading out the programme Angilbert took up from the more advanced cultural centres of the Empire, a topic which deserves closer examination.

### 2. *Re-building Milanese culture during the age of Lothar I*

#### 2.1 *The library of master Hildemar "of Corbie"*

In Angilbert II's thought, re-building a school and a cultural background able to support the new political role which Milan was undertaking, was a primary goal. The strategy that the archbishop employed connected the translation of relics and the diffusion of Carolingian culture to the assertion of Milanese authority on the borders of his diocese29. This is the case of the chapel of S. Syrus/Ss. Primus and Felicianus of Leggiuno, a family church in the countryside of Lake Maggiore, whose dedication to the bishop of Pavia Syrus was changed in June 846 by his founder, the *vassus Erembertus*, after the arrival of the Roman relics of Primus and Felicianus30. The dedicatory epigraph, whose content otherwise emphasizes the role played by Archbishop Angilbert himself («ordinante domno Angilberto archiepiscopo»), took up Roman models to establish a parallel between the dignity of the Apostolic See and that the Milanese Church and its archbishop had gained31. In the skilled hands of Angilbert II, the renewal of epigraphy became a powerful tool to promote the power of his Church, starting from the inscription on the golden altar of S. Ambrose which later on was followed by the outstanding examples of the Milanese archbishops and Louis II's epitaphs32.

<sup>27</sup> Ferrari, *In Papiam conveniant*; Ferrari, *Dungal*; Gavinelli, *Dungal e l'organizzazione scola-*

*stica*; Petoletti, *Le migrazioni dei testi classici*. <sup>28</sup> Ferrari, *Manoscritti e cultura*, pp. 247-252; Ferrari, *Libri liturgici*. A related manuscript of Ambr. B 36 inf. is Vat. Pal. lat. 1773, IX1 century, belonging to Lorsch: Bischoff, *Lorsch im Spiegel*, p. 51. For the *Liber glossarum* see also < http://liber-glossarum.huma-num.fr/ >. <sup>29</sup> Tomea, *"Nunc in monastero prefato Clavadis"*; Tessera, *Ambroise et Martin*, pp. 8-10. For

the translation of saint Aurelius, whose body was given by Angilbert to bishop Notting in about 830: Schmidt, *Kloster Hirsau*, pp. 30-53; Picard, *Le souvenir*, pp. 630-631. <sup>30</sup> Castagnetti, *Una famiglia di immigrati*; Tomea,*"Nunc in monasterio prefato Clavadis"*, pp.

<sup>159-160, 170-171.</sup>

<sup>31</sup> Petoletti, *Contributo all'epigrafia lombarda*. <sup>32</sup> Petoletti, *"Urbs nostra"*; Petoletti, *La produzione epigrafica a Milano*. For the ninth-century burials of the Milanese archbishops in S. Ambrose (with the notable exceptions of Angilbert I and Angilbert II): Picard, *Le souvenir des évêques*, pp. 92-98.

This policy is also clearly shown by the introduction of the monastic reform that Angilbert II promoted: in the decade 833-845 the archbishop moved the monastic community of S. Peter in Mandello Lario, which since its foundation had been subject to the monastery of S. Pietro in Ciel d'Oro in Pavia, to a new location at S. Peter in Civate, thus placing it under Milanese influence33. Then he strengthened its religious and cultural power by translating there the relics of saint Calogerus from Albenga and by sending there from Brescia his advisers, the Frankish monks Leodegarius and Hildemar34.

In the case of Civate Angilbert's goals and tools were clear: to compete against Pavia, through the promoting of new cults and the re-shaping of the presence of monks in border areas, submitting these new communities to S. Ambrose, was at the core of his programme. He then placed these foundations in the midst of spiritual and cultural networks extending from one side of the Alps to the other (Hildemar and Leodegarius are mentioned as monks in the *Liber vitae* of S. Salvatore/S. Giulia, and the whole monastic community of S. Peter in Civate in the *Liber vitae* of Pfäfers)35. Finally, he encouraged throughout the whole diocese of Milan the scholarly activities of Hildemar, a master coming from an important centre of the Carolingian reform (perhaps Corbie?) who was able to build a strong relationship between Milan and other outstanding cultural areas of the empire of Charlemagne36.

I cannot examine here in detail the *Commentary on the Rule of Benedict* attributed to Hildemar, or dwell upon all the related questions about its origins and its multiple stages of composition37. This text circulated rapidly during the ninth century between Reichenau, Engelberg and Einsiedeln, and its manuscript transmission by 875 can be in part ascribed to northern Italy38. Nevertheless, it is significant to remember that the three letters which are copied only in Hildemar's work – Hildemar to Ursus, bishop of Benevento, on *De ratione bene legendi*39; Hagano of Bergamo to Rampert about the arrival of the scholar Maginarius in Brescia (c. 844); and Wolfhoz bishop of

<sup>33</sup> Spinelli, *L'origine desideriana*; Bognetti – Marcora, *L'abbazia benedettina di Civate*. <sup>34</sup> See Vat. Reg. lat. 540, f. 29*r*, quoted by Tomea, *"Nunc in prefato monasterio Clavadis"*, pp. 171-172, note 4.

<sup>35</sup> Gavinelli, *Per un'enciclopedia carolingia*, pp. 22-23. As for Pfäfers and Civate: MGH, Necr. Suppl. *Libri confraternitatum*, p. 384. 36 Hildemar: *Hildemarus Corbeiensis*, in *Clavis Scriptorum Latinorum Medii Aevi*, pp. 132-

<sup>137;</sup> see also De Jong, *Growing up in a Carolingian Monastery*. There is no conclusive evidence that Hildemar came from the abbey of Corbie.

<sup>37</sup> Mittermüller, *Vita et regula ss. p. Benedicti*; Hafner, *Der Basilius-Kommentar*; Zelzer, *Überlegungen zu einer Gesamtedition des frühnachkarolingischen Kommentars*; Engelbert, *Status quaestionis circa la tradizione del commento di Ildemaro*. <sup>38</sup> Two copies at Reichenau (IX3/4 century: Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Aug. 179 and

Aug. 203; the first one written at Reichenau and northern Italy); one at Engelberg, Stiftsbibliothek 143 (olim 6/23), IX2/2 century, possibly coming from Reichenau; one at Einsiedeln, Stiftsbibliothek, 253, ff. 79r-106*r* (IX2/2 century, northern Italy). 39 *Ursus Beneventanus, ep.*, in *Clavis Scriptorum Latinorum Medii Aevi*, pp. 275-276.

Constance to the same Rampert about a young clerk to educate and perhaps ordain priest in Brescia – deal only with literary education and cultural training required for the clergy and religious people40. Even if Hildemar's legacy was not received in a systematic way, his influence can be perceived through a catalogue of books in the library of Civate, copied on the last folio of a twelfth-century manuscript containing Remigius of Auxerre's *Expositio in Matthaeum* (now Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Theol. Lat. Fol. 564, f. 199*v*)41. This list shows many entries belonging to the original nucleus of texts, in all probability Carolingian ones, sometimes badly damaged as was the third part of Gregory the Great's collection of *Moralia in Job,* which «inutilis est quia legi non potest».

Next to Alcuin's widespread *Commentary on the Gospel of John*, two exegetical works by Bishop Claudius of Turin stand out: the *Commentary on Leviticus*, dedicated to Abbot Theodemirus of Psalmodi (c. 823), whose text survives only thanks to a single copy coming from Rheims (Reims, Bibliothèque Municipale, 123, beginning of the ninth century), and the now lost *Commentary on Numbers* («Expositio Taurensis *(sic)* episcopi super leviticum unum volumen. / Expositio eiusdem super numeri aliud volumen»)42. Another rarity kept in the library of Civate was the *Commentary on Ecclesiasticus* in three books, written by Hrabanus Maurus and dedicated to the archbishop of Mainz Otgar, whose transmission during the Carolingian age is somewhat fragmentary. As for ninth century copies, only two fragments survived, one from Fulda (Sankt Petersburg, Historical Archiv, ms. 625/14) and one written in South Germany (IX4/4 century, Basel, Stadtarchiv Basel-Stadt, II 12 UU I Fragmente Tasche); the tradition of this text would spread in France later, during the eleventh-twelfth century43.

The catalogue of Civate also shows an entry referring to a *psalterium ignote translationis*, that is a version difficult to recognize for a twelfth-century reader used to the widespread Gallican Psalter. The presence of an "unknown" version of the Psalter in Civate could mirror the polemics which flourished in the ninth century about the translation of the Psalms, which involved Florus of Lyon, Eldrad of Novalesa and, indirectly, also impacted the production of the Milanese revised version of Psalms44. This Milanese version, indeed, was produced by an anonymous author who was not well acquainted with Ambrosian liturgy – perhaps an Irish master dwelling in S. Ambrose during

<sup>40</sup> See Villa, *"Denique Terentii dultia legimus acta…"*. <sup>41</sup> Ziesche, *Ein Bibliothekskatalog*. 42 *Claudius Taurinensis ep.*, in *Clavis Scriptorum Latinorum Medii Aevi*, pp. 75-88 (pp. 85-86 for the *Commentary on Leviticus*); Fravventura – Ricci, *Claudius Taurinensis ep.*; Ferrari, *Note su Claudio di Torino*, and Bouhlol, *Claude de Turin*. <sup>43</sup> Kottje – Ziegler, *Verzeichnis der Handschriften*, pp. 9-10; Guglielmetti, *Rabano Mauro*, pp.

<sup>315-316.</sup>

<sup>44</sup> MGH, Epp. VI, pp. 201-205, n. 33; see also Bogaert, *Florus et le Psautier*.

Angilbert's age45 – as he himself declared in the prologue (*inc*. *Ut reprobare superflua*). It was subsequently copied in the famous series of three Milanese Psalters whose dating (from the end of the ninth to the tenth century?) raised a great deal of scholarly debate not yet resolved46.

Certainly, the library that Hildemar left in Civate was rich in fundamental texts aiming to teach grammar and to encourage a good practice of monastic life, but it was also provided with contemporary rare works which witnessed the liveliest, and sometimes most discussed, cultural tendencies of Lothar's age. If the mysterious priest Todo, mentioned together with his fellow brothers of Civate in the *Liber viventium* written in Pfäfers, can be identified with the *Tado subdiaconus* who, on 15 March 848, signed two charters issued by order of Abbot Andrew of S. Ambrose in favour of the Aleman Gunzo47, this would be suggestive of a need to reconsider the role played by S. Peter of Civate in training the high Milanese clergy. Hildemar's teaching would have influenced Tado's subsequent career as one of the most cultivated archbishops of Milan, the *Tado pater patriae* praised by the Irish master of Bern 363, who became Angilbert's successor on Ambrose's chair (860-868) and a key figure during the debates on the divorce of Lothar II48.

#### 2.2 *Hildemar's legacy: the miscellany Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, LXIII (61)*

The cultural strategy that Angilbert built thanks to the writings of Hildemar met with success, at least judging by the spreading of other works ascribed to the Carolingian master. Such were the introductory letter written by a *pater spiritualis*, that Benedetta Valtorta has identified with Hildemar himself, to an unnamed abbess (Par. lat. 3226, ff. 154*v*-157*r*), which is mentioned in a catalogue of the library of Gorze, and the well-known letter to Archdeacon Pacificus about the eternal destiny of Adam49. Moreover, not long ago, Valtorta found a new witness of Pacificus' letter to Hildemar, unfortunately badly damaged, copied amongst other *excerpta* of Hildemar's *Com-*

<sup>45</sup> For the scholarly debate about Irish masters and their knowledge of Greek language during Angilbert's pontificate: Gavinelli, *Irlandesi, libri biblici*; Petoletti, *Iscrizione greca di Ambrogio*. For the possible presence of Sedulius Scottus in Milan or Pavia: Traube, *O Roma nobilis*; Staubach, *Sedulius Scottus*; Herren, *Sedulius Scottus and the knowledge*; Petoletti, *La mano* 

*di Sedulio Scoto*. <sup>46</sup> Paredi, *Nota storica sui Salteri*; Ferrari, *Manoscritti e cultura*, pp. 261-264; Gavinelli, *Irlandesi, libri biblici*, pp. 354-357; Crivello, *Die Buchmalerei in Oberitalien*; Demarchi, *Milanese Early Medieval Psalters*. See also the Greek-Latin Psalter dedicated to Abbot Peter II of S. Ambrose (Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Hamilton 552): Paredi, *Nota storica sui Salteri*, pp. 163-164; Ferrari, *Manoscritti e cultura*, pp. 260-261; Gavinelli, *Irlandesi, libri biblici*, pp. 357-358. <sup>47</sup> ChLA2, XCIV, nn. 39-40, pp. 149-155. <sup>48</sup> Tessera, *Tadone*; Tessera, *Milano, gli irlandesi e l'impero carolingio*. <sup>49</sup> Campana, *Il carteggio di Vitale e Pacifico*; Valtorta, *Anecdota Veronensia*, pp. 250-253. For

Pacificus see *Pacificus Veronensis archidiac*., in *Clavis Scriptorum Latinorum*, pp. 177-181, with extensive bibliography (to which must be added the review of M.G. Di Pasquale discussing La Rocca, *Pacifico di Verona*, in «Rivista di storia della Chiesa in Italia», 51 [1997], pp. 549-555).

*mentary on the rule of Benedict* in an interesting manuscript kept in Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, LXIII (61), ff. 1*r*-2*r*50. This manuscript has been dated to the beginning of the tenth century, but can perhaps be ascribed to the end of ninth century on the basis of palaeographical data: the hands of the scribes who copied the text belong to a cultural milieu spreading from Western Lombardy (Vercelli, perhaps?) to Pavia, but this aspect deserves further inquiries51. Next to Hildemar's works and short patristic passages, the miscellaneous manuscript of Verona contains canons and penitential texts (the first five books of Halitgar's *Penitential*, among others) focusing on the role and duties of the clergy, and on questions about marriage and church law, which became of paramount importance just slightly later, during the controversy about Lothar II's divorce. In any case, Verona LXIII (61) could mirror an older exemplar, perhaps a collection prepared in Milan to support Angilbert's pastoral care, as the presence of some texts spreading from the city of Ambrose suggests. These are: a fragmentary passage from Ambrose's *De poenitentia*, ch. I, 14 (f. 11*r*); the chapter on the clash between Ambrose and Theodosius in Cassiodorus' *Historia tripartita* (ff. 13*r*-15*r*); and a short collection of canons (ff. 72*r*-78*r*) opening with the canon *Si quis nefandum crimen* (f. 72*r*), which was promulgated in Milan by Archbishop Letus (751-755) during a synod52. This canon is otherwise copied only in Ambr. I 145 inf., a manuscript written for the canonical community of S. Ambrose during the lifetime of the active provost Martinus Corbus (1134-1154 c.)53.

But, surprisingly, Verona LXIII (61) also preserves another canonical collection (ff. 16*r*-38*v*), which once again has been transmitted only through a second Milanese manuscript, the twelfth-century book of canon law Ambr. Trotti 44054, a collection which could have been used during Angilbert's rule. If this were proved, it would make a good indirect argument – through the renewal of Carolingian legacy during the age of Commune – of how important it was for Carolingian bishops to have at their disposal legal and normative texts to reform the local clergy and to perform pastoral duties55, a task Angilbert fulfilled at his best even if traces are now scanty.

<sup>50</sup> Valtorta, *Manoscritti agiografici*, pp. 79-97; Valtorta, *Un dossier ildemariano*. I would like to express my gratitude to Francesca Carnazzi who generously supplied me with photos of this manuscript.

<sup>51</sup> Bischoff, *Katalog*, 3, n. 7049, p. 468 (IX2 century, *Oberitalien*?). I am deeply indebted to Mirella Ferrari who kindly discussed with me some preliminary remarks about the dating and origin of Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, LXIII (61). For Pavia as a possible origin of the short canonical collection at ff. 72*r*-78*r* see Pokorny, *Eine zweite Zacharias-Dekretale*. <sup>52</sup> Ratti, *Un vescovo di Milano*; Picasso, *Si quis nefandum crimen*. <sup>53</sup> Picasso, *Si quis nefandum crimen*, pp. 151-152; see also Picasso, *Collezioni canoniche mila-*

*nesi*, pp. 17-18. <sup>54</sup> I am grateful to Marco Petoletti who shared with me some of the first results of his current

research on Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, LXIII (61). For Trotti 440: Pokorny, *Eine zweite Zacharias-Dekretale*, p. 305, n. 32. <sup>55</sup> See Gavinelli, *Modelli librari*; for the general frame about episcopal statutes: Van Rhijn, *She-*

*pherds of the Lord*.

### 3. *Networks of texts and images around the golden altar: Angilbert II and the portrait of Mansuetus, bishop of Milan*

The lavish inscription on the silver front of the new altar Angilbert ordered, possibly around 835 (though the dating is debated) for S. Ambrose56, where he moved the precious relics of Ambrose himself and of the two martyrs Protasius and Gervasius, summarizes the whole programme of the archbishop. Angilbert's altar displayed echoes from Pope Paschal I's inscriptions in S. Praxedes and S. Maria in Domnica, and from king Liutprand's in the royal church of S. Anastasius of Corteolona (survived only in the epigraphic syllogae Vat. Pal. lat. 833), thus mixing allusions to Roman papal models, Lombard kingship and the memory of the Emperor Constantine (recalled by quotations from Optatianus Porphyrius' poems)57. All these literary and iconographic models were interlaced in order to honour the patron saint of Milan in a figurative scheme taken from the contemporary Hrabanus Maurus' *De laudibus sanctae Crucis*58, thus answering with the materiality of gold and silver the contemporary fierce polemics against the cult of the Cross59. According to Marco Petoletti's fascinating hypothesis concerning the role of the *magister phaber* Volvinus (portrayed as the Biblical artisan Bezalel)60, Angilbert conceived the golden altar – and the internal porphyry late-antique sarcophagus which contained the treasure of relics – like a new Ark of Covenant, which connected Ambrose, his Church, and his bishop61. This idea could suggest a similarity with Hrabanus Maurus' writings on the symbolic mes-

*reliquie, migranti*, pp. 107-160 (sometimes misleading). <sup>58</sup> The transmission of Hrabanus' *De laudibus Sanctae Crucis* in northern Italy during Lothar's

age needs further study: see Perrin, *Le De laudibus Sanctae Crucis*. 59 Ferrari, *Le iscrizioni*, pp. 150-154; Petoletti, *"Urbs nostra"*, pp. 21-22; see also Thunø, *The Golden Altar*. <sup>60</sup> Volvinus: Elbern, *Der karolingische Goldaltar*, pp. 99-103; Elbern, *Vuolvinio*; see the

<sup>56</sup> MD, I/1, n. 58 (interpolated charter, dated 1 March 835); Tessera, *Ambroise et Martin*, pp. 13-15. According to the so-called *Annales Mediolanenses minores*, Angilbert ordered the golden altar in 840: MGH, *Annales Mediolanenses minores*, p. 392. Scholarly debate about the dating: Ambrosioni, *L'altare e le due comunità*, pp. 59-64 (after 844); Gavinelli, *Il gallo di Ramperto*, pp. 416-421 (830-835).

<sup>57</sup> Ferrari, *Le iscrizioni*, pp. 150-154; Gavinelli, *Il gallo segnavento*, pp. 30-31; Petoletti, *"Urbs nostra"*, pp. 21-22. For Vat. Pal. lat. 833: Vircillo Franklin, *The epigraphic syllogae*; Ferrari, *Manoscritti e cultura*, pp. 257-258; Petoletti, *Poesia epigrafica pavese*. Selected bibliography about the golden altar: Elbern, *Der karolingische Goldaltar*; Hahn, *Narrative on the Golden Altar* (needing some corrections); *L'altare d'oro*, in particular Ambrosioni, *L'altare e le due comunità santambrosiane*, pp. 57-71; Thunø, *The Golden Altar of Sant'Ambrogio*; Foletti, *Oggetti,* 

hypothetical relationship between Volvinus and the Aleman family of Wolvene of Rheinau: Hlawitschka, *Franken, Alamannen,* pp. 292-293, n. 178; Von Büren, *Vulfinus et le manuscrit*, pp. 325-326.

<sup>61</sup> Petoletti, *"Urbs nostra"*, pp. 22-23; for Angilbert of Saint-Riquier's golden altar: Tessera, *"Angilbertus ovans"*, p. 219; for the sarcophagus: Cupperi, *"Regia purpureo marmore"*. For possible Roman models, in particular the *confessio sancti Petri*, see Elbern, *Rom und die karolingische Goldschmiedekunst*; De Blauuw, *Cultus et decor*, pp. 539-547.

sage conveyed by the reliquaries of saints which were paraded in procession at Fulda, like the Ark of Covenant for the Hebrew people62.

Cultural exchanges and spiritual brotherhood between Fulda and Milan are well known precisely during Angilbert's career: a lost letter from Abbot Thioto of Fulda to Tado, archbishop of Milan – summarised by Matthias Flaccius Illyricus – spoke about the great friendship their predecessors Hatto and Angilbert had enjoyed, and the pious veneration that they had towards their patron saints, Boniface and Ambrose63. Fulda could also have been an artistic model for the Milanese archbishop in creating his new altar-reliquary-tomb: in 819 Abbot Eigil of Fulda moved Boniface's body to a new precious golden and silver shrine, but other influences (including the lost golden altar of Saint-Riquier ordered by Abbot Angilbert some time before) cannot be excluded64.

Certainly Angilbert used his "new" ark to assert the strong Milanese identity in a wider Carolingian framework, thanks to a shared patronage between Ambrose and the Frankish Martin of Tours. Such a strategy of legitimation had already been used by the Frankish bishops of Verona and Brescia, re-using local saints without interruption with the Lombard past of their sees65. In two central scenes on the back of the altar (and in the related apse mosaic)66, Ambrose, falling asleep while celebrating mass in Milan, was also able to celebrate a "miracle mass" during Martin's burial in Tours: this episode (BHL 5622) was taken from Gregory of Tours' *De virtutibus sancti Martini* or, more likely, from an excerpt of the so-called *Martinellus*, a precis of Martin's miracles compiled and amplified at Tours at the behest of Abbot Fridugise (804- 834)67. In this specific case, Angilbert and his cultural counsellors picked up a textual tradition that was widely spread beyond the Alps but unknown in northern Italy before the eleventh century; moreover, some ninth-century copies of BHL 5622 coming from Lotharingia assigned the authorship to Ambrose himself (though none of those were manuscripts from Tours)68. What is certain is that BHL 5622 was also reworked in the Carolingian version of Ambrose's life, *De vita et meritis sancti Ambrosii* (BHL 377d), a difficult text whose uncertain dating oscillates between the pontificates of Angilbert, Tado and Anspert. This Carolingian life survived in one copy only, written in Milan at the end of the ninth/beginning of the tenth century, but soon moved to

<sup>62</sup> Appleby, *Rudof, Abbot Hrabanus*; Gavinelli, *Il gallo di Ramperto*, pp. 419-420. <sup>63</sup> MGH, Epp. V, *Appendix ad Hrabanum. Epistolarum Fuldensium fragmenta*, p. 532. 64 *Gesta abbatum*, pp. 211-212. <sup>65</sup> For Verona: Veronese, *Foreign bishops*. For Angilbert II's policy of integration between Fran-

kish and Milanese clergy: Tessera, *Ambroise et Martin*, pp. 22-24. <sup>66</sup> Overview of the scholarly debate about the apse mosaic: *Il mosaico di Sant'Ambrogio*; Peto-

letti, *Testimoni d'arte*, pp. 305-309; Foletti, *Oggetti, reliquie, migranti*, pp. 168-174, and Tessera, *Ambroise et Martin*, pp. 24-26. <sup>67</sup> Tomea, *L'immagine e l'ombra di Ambrogio*, p. 30 and note 30. <sup>68</sup> Lanéry, *Ambroise hagiographe*, pp. 507-509; Tessera, *"Angilbertus ovans"*, p. 222.

Saint Gall (Sankt Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, cod. 569, pp. 3-97)69. More than once carefully analysed, the hagiographical production in Milan during Angilbert's pontificate is a *vexata quaestio* which shows just a few fixed points in the correct chronological sequence of the lives of Satyrus, Ambrose and Marcellina (the latter ascribed by Petoletti to the tenth century), their cross-references and their certain relationship with the monastery and the basilica of S. Ambrose70.

However tempting it may be to ascribe to Angilbert the idea of an episcopal character able to face imperial power as his own equal, like Ambrose does in *De vita et meritis* (where Cassiodorus' *Historia tripartita* IX, 30-31 has been quoted in full), the current state of research makes it impossible to say more, unless or until one can take up a patient and careful analysis of the sources, and above all of the textual traditions that the anonymous writer had at his disposal in rebuilding Ambrose's portrait in Carolingian garb71. In this perspective, a complete survey of Carolingian transmission of Ambrose's works, following Mirella Ferrari's remarkable studies, could add some important pieces to the picture, as Camille Gerzaguet has shown when dealing with the main routes of transmission and circulation of Ambrose's writings during the ninth century72.

Notwithstanding these difficulties, it is evident that the mutual interaction between Milanese and Frankish saints was a fundamental tool in Angilbert's programme. Thus, it is not surprising that Ambrose and Martin are both portrayed on the side ends of the golden altar, which are devoted to the adoration of Christ's cross and to Milanese saints. On the southern end, Ambrose, Protasius, Gervasius and Simplicianus stand out; in parallel, at the northern end, there is Martin of Tours, together with the martyrs Nazarus and Nabor, and a bishop whose inscription is *MANV*, usually identified with the holy bishop Maternus. One of Ambrose's predecessors, Maternus was remembered for having transferred the bodies of Nabor and Felix to the homonymous basilica, as depicted in the wall mosaic of the chapel of S. Vittore in Ciel d'Oro/S. Satyrus (V-VI century)73.

In 2008, Mirella Ferrari challenged this hypothesis with an insightful proposal: the bishop portrayed on the southern end would be Mansuetus,

226-229. For Lorsch and the Milanese area: Petoletti, *Le migrazioni*, pp. 554-555. <sup>73</sup> Maternus: Savio, *Gli antichi vescovi d'Italia*, pp. 98-102; Picard, *Le souvenir*, pp. 39-41.

<sup>69</sup> Bischoff, *Katalog*, 3, n. 5795 (IX3/4 century). Critical edition: Courcelle, *Recherches sur saint* 

*Ambroise*, pp. 49-153. <sup>70</sup> Tomea, *Ambrogio e i suoi fratelli*; Petoletti, *La vie de sainte Marcelline*. For Abbot Gaudentius' possible involvement in the production of *De vita et meritis*: Gavinelli, *Per una edizione*, pp. 41-44.

<sup>71</sup> I checked the copy of Cassiodorus' *Historia tripartita* (IX4/4 century, according to Bischoff, *Katalog*, 2, n. 2661), now Milano, Archivio capitolare della Basilica di Sant'Ambrogio, M 7, to confront the text of Cassiodorus' excerpta quoted in the *Vita et meritis* with the corresponding *loci* in this manuscript, but there is no decisive proof that M 7 belonged to the same textual family of the lost Cassiodorus' copy used by *De vita et meritis*. <sup>72</sup> Ferrari, *"Recensiones" milanesi*; Gerzaguet, *La mémoire textuelle d'Ambroise*, pp. 218-221,

archbishop of Milan in the second half of the seventh century (†681), the first one buried in S. Ambrose after the high Milanese clergy came back from the exile in Genoa following the Lombard invasion74. In 679 Mansuetus wrote to the Emperor Constantine IV a letter about the synod celebrated in the city to answer some questions related to the next council of Constantinople (680) – including an *Expositio fidei* on the Creed – whose purpose was to condemn the Monothelist heresy75. Mansuetus' letter could be a fundamental clue for discovering the models that Angilbert reworked and reused in creating the iconography and the narrative cycle of the golden altar, to underline the role of the Milanese archbishop – Ambrose's successor – as a shepherd and a legislator (along the lines of the portrait of Moses in Carolingian exegesis), able to dialogue with emperors in defending the true faith.

In the age of Charlemagne this letter was widely spread, usually by means of an appendix of Cresconius' *Concordia canonum* containing Mansuetus' text, the related *Expositio fidei* on the Creed, and a small canonical collection (inc. *Pro causa iniustae excommunications*) written, according to Zechiel-Eckes' analysis, at the end of the seventh century in Lombardy76. Mansuetus' letter was already known by Paul the Deacon who, however, had ascribed it to Damianus, bishop of Pavia (690/697 ca.-710/711) in his *Historia langobardorum* (VI, 4), even if, to do so, he had to force the chronology somewhat77. On the contrary, the whole surviving manuscript transmission testifies that Mansuetus was the only author of the letter to the emperor78. In this case, we can suppose that Angilbert deliberately used the example of Mansuetus to strengthen the political claims of Milan against Pavia: it should not be forgotten that during Damianus's rule, Pavia was removed from the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Milan and subjected directly to the pope79.

The oldest copy of Mansuetus' letter to Constantine IV can be assigned to the cultural milieu of the basilica of S. Ambrose: the manuscript Montpellier, Bibliothèque Interuniversitaire, Faculté de Medicine, H 233 was written in the first third of the ninth century in a northern Italian hand with strong Rhaetian influences80. It is a miscellany of texts from Church councils and canons, including the *Concordia canonum* of Cresconius (full of marginal notes in a north-Italian hand on grammatical issues), the *Breviatio canonum* of Ferrandus of Carthago, the "Lombard" collection identified by Zechiel-Eckes and, at ff. 128*v*-133*r*, Mansuetus' letter and the *Expositio fidei* on the Creed. But that is not all. The Montpellier manuscript adds to the above-mentioned texts some excerpta from the Church Fathers (Augustine, Leo the Great, Gregory

<sup>74</sup> Ferrari, *Il nome di Mansueto*. <sup>75</sup> Mansi, *Sacrorum Conciliorum nova collectio*, 11, coll. 173-174, 203-206 (letter); 206-208 (Creed).

<sup>76</sup> Zechiel-Eckes, *Die Concordia canonum*, pp. 88-96; Ferrari, *Il nome di Mansueto*, p. 285. 77 MGH, HL, VI 4.

<sup>78</sup> See Ferrari, *Il nome di Mansueto*, pp. 283-284, who returns the authorship of this letter to Mansuetus himself.

<sup>79</sup> Hoff, *Pavia und seiner Bischöfe*, pp. 56-72. <sup>80</sup> Ferrari, *Il nome di Mansueto*, p. 286; Petoletti, *L'epitaffio di santa Marcellina*, pp. 176-177.

the Great) and, above all, at f. 128*rv* without any interruptions, the epitaph for Ambrose's sister Marcellina (inc. *Marcellina tuos cum vita resolveret artus*).

The cult of Marcellina flourished in Milan between the tenth and the eleventh century, when Archbishop Aribert of Intimiano revitalized the veneration for Ambrose's holy family81. The devotion for Marcellina, whose strong relationship with her brothers was emphasized by her burial in the same church of S. Ambrose, was already known at the end of the ninth century, as Archbishops Anselm II and Landulf I wanted to be buried «iuxta altare sancte Marcelline». According to Marco Petoletti, Marcellina's funerary inscription, now lost, was copied on the parchment of the exemplar of Montpellier H 233 from the epitaph itself82, a scheme which fits perfectly with the programme promoted by Angilbert and by his learned circles of S. Ambrose, possibly were engaged in the archbishop's cultural and liturgical activity83.

The same careful attention paid to Milanese epigraphy was also witnessed by the Irish master Dungal, who copied in his *Responsa contra Claudium* the epitaph Ambrose composed for his brother Satyrus (inc. *Uranio Satyro supremum frater honorem*), buried nearby the martyr Victor in the chapel of S. Vittore in Ciel d'Oro84. Dungal used this inscription, which now survives only in two manuscript copies, to disparage the iconoclastic theories spread by Claudius, bishop of Turin, and re-worked on his *Responsa* (whose first version was finished around 827) until the end of his life. In defending the possibility of venerating the holy images and the memories of martyrs, he made use of the epitaphs and the *tituli* he could easily trace around him but also in a broader cultural network whose borders need further investigation. The second witness of Satyrus' funerary inscription is the so-called *Sylloge circumpadana*, a section of the famous epigraphic sylloge copied in Vat. Pal. lat. 833 at Lorsch during the first third of the ninth century85.

The collection assembled in Montpellier H 233 is an echo of the controversy over the cult of holy images, which had arisen amongst the bishops of northern Italy, and which would also reach the cultural melting pot of the basilica of S. Ambrose, so that in the same manuscript, at ff. 125*v*-128*r*, just before Marcellina's epitaph, two letters of Gregory the Great were added, in which he explained the importance of the cult of holy images for the edification of the faithfuls. Gregory's letters were addressed to Bishop Serenus of Marseille (*Reg*. XI, 10) and to a monk named Secondinus (*Reg*. IX, 148

<sup>81</sup> Petoletti, *Il patrimonio epigrafico*, pp. 535-536. <sup>82</sup> Petoletti, *L'epitaffio di santa Marcellina*, pp. 171-172, 177. <sup>83</sup> Literary activity by Irish masters in the shadow of S. Ambrose is well-attested during the pontificate of Tado (860-868). See the famous and somehow still controversial manuscript Bern, Burgerbibliothek, 363: Gavinelli, *Per un'enciclopedia*; Staubach, *Sedulius Scottus*; Tessera, *Milano, gli irlandesi*; Vocino, *A Peregrinus' vademecum*. 84 Dungal, *Responsa contra Claudium*, p. 242. <sup>85</sup> Tomea, *Ambrogio e i suoi fratelli*, pp. 201-210, and Petoletti, *L'epitaffio di santa Marcellina*,

p. 173 on the manuscript transmission of the *Vita Satyri* (BHL 7510).

[147])86, but the version copied in Montpellier H 233 was interpolated at the end of the eight century, and then reused in the *florilegium Hadrianeum*, compiled by order of Pope Hadrian I against the polemical thesis of Charlemagne's theologian about the council of Nicaea87. In 825, during the council of Paris, Louis the Pious agreed with the proposal of the pope, and the bishops who attended the assembly quoted Gregory's interpolated letters in their *Libellus synodalis*, so that these texts gained a certain renown in ecclesiastical circles88: for example, Dungal knew at least the interpolated letter to Secondinus, which he copied in his *Responsa*89.

Thus, the transmission of texts copied in Montpellier H 233 in the learned milieu of S. Ambrose brings to light both the main themes and the main tools of episcopal culture in Milan in the age of Lothar I, which Angilbert and his scholars – perhaps Hildemar or some Irish master studying in the library of S. Ambrose – developed. This involved a keen interest for the tradition of council canons, even those of local importance (Cresconius, Ferrandus and the "Lombard" collection), the programmatic renewal of the cult of Ambrose and of his family (epitaphs of Marcellina and Satyrus), the theological controversies about the holy images (Gregory the Great's letters) and the memory of the ancient Milanese bishops as models for the defence of the orthodox faith (Mansuetus' letter). Angilbert II summarized all these aspects in the iconography and the inscriptions of the golden altar. Because of its hidden treasure of saints, the altar was both a valuable and a concrete answer to contemporary polemics on the cult of holy images, and a definitive assertion of the power gained by Milan and its Church thanks to Ambrose's legacy in the broader framework of the *regnum Italiae*.

In rebuilding and enhancing Milan, Angilbert's constant aim was to promote and integrate the strong local identity of Ambrose and his city within the new trends brought by scholars beyond the Alps, thanks to texts and tools coming from Pavia – but to the detriment of the latter. An interesting example is the miscellaneous manuscript Milan, Archivio del Capitolo della Basilica di S. Ambrogio, M 15, written in an excellent Caroline minuscule at Pavia in the second third of the ninth century, possibly by the same scribe who also compiled the well-known copy of *Historia Augusta*, Vat. Pal. lat. 89990. Very soon M 15 migrated to the monastery of S. Ambrose: while there, immediately after, a Milanese hand added to the martyrology of Bede the *obit* of Archbishop Peter, the founder of S. Ambrose monastery (f. 143*v*), and all the feast days of Milanese saints which were absent. At f. 140*v*, the addition explained that on

<sup>86</sup> MGH, Gregory the Great, *Registrum*, IX, 10, pp. 269-272; IX, 147, pp. 142-149; see Ricciardi, *Gli inganni della tradizione*. <sup>87</sup> Noble, *Images, Iconoclasm*, pp. 42-44; Ballardini, *Fare immagini*, pp. 205-208. 88 Council of Paris, 825: MGH, Conc. II/2, n. 44, pp. 473-551; Noble, *Images, Iconoclasm*, pp.

<sup>263-285.</sup>

<sup>89</sup> Ferrari, *"In Papia conveniant ad Dungalum"*, pp. 16-32; Noble, *Images, Iconoclasm*, pp. 288-294, 306-313.

<sup>90</sup> Ferrari, *La biblioteca del monastero*, pp. 84-107; Ferrari, *Libri strumentali*, p. 570, note 35.

25 March the *exaltatio* of Ambrose, Protasius and Gervasius was celebrated in the basilica of S. Ambrose («et in Mediolano exaltatio corpora *(sic)* sanctorum Protasii et Gervasii martirum et confessoris Ambrosii»)91.

Yet, even if much remains to be studied with regard to Angilbert II's cultural strategies, some of the ideas and tools that he used to rebuild Milanese culture in Lothar's age can be detected from a close analysis of north-Italian surviving manuscripts, sometimes misdated or wrongly located – as in the case of Montpellier H 233 and Verona LXIII (61) – and their entanglements with contemporary testimonies, like Carolingian Milanese epigraphy or the golden altar in S. Ambrose. Otherwise, nothing can be said about the literary education of this clever man, who wanted to leave his name on the back of the golden altar – and on the holy vessels used for the liturgy in S. Ambrose, as attested by the Irish master of Bern 363 about a restored golden cup with Angilbert's name92 – but had no epitaph at all in the church of S. Nazarus. A man who was able to call himself *humilis* and *indignus* in the *intitulatio* of his episcopal charters, but also *insignis*, *aegregius* and *inclitus* when he was openly honouring the patron saint Ambrose93. We have just a glimpse of his complex personality in an enigmatic marginal note added at f. 52*v* of the well-known Greek-Latin manuscript of Pauline epistles (Dresden, Sächsische Landesbibliothek, A 145b), where the Irish principal annotator close to the passage of 2 Cor 11,15-16 («autem ego autem non gravavi vos, sed cum essem astutus dolo vos accipi») wrote the lonely comment «Angelberti»94. Perhaps, this is only a slight hint that Angilbert II himself and Milanese episcopal culture could reveal many surprising perspectives in the future through a rigorous methodological re-examination of both the existing and possibly new evidence.

<sup>91</sup> Marco Petoletti suggests to me that the word *exaltatio* at f. 140*v* could have been rewritten on an erased previous *elevatio*. M 15 came from the monastic library to the canons' one, as the twelfth-century mark of ownership at f. 4*r* shows: «Liber canonicorum sancti Ambrosii» (Fer-

rari, *La biblioteca del monastero*, p. 86). 92 Bern, Burgerbibliothek, 363, f. 197*r* (edition MGH, Poetae, 3, p. 236, and Petoletti, *Urbs no-*

*stra*, p. 31, see also here at p. 24); see also Tessera, *Milano, gli irlandesi*, p. 250. <sup>93</sup> See i.e. MD I/1, nn. 58, 61, 73; CDL, n. 148; Zagni, *Gli atti arcivescovili*, pp. 11, 13, 26, 32. 94 Zimmer, *Glossae hibernicae*, p. XXXIV; Ferrari, *Manoscritti e cultura*, p. 261; Tessera, *Milano, gli irlandesi*, p. 252. Another marginal note at f. 107*r* of Bern 363 (*Angel*) has often been explained as a reference to a lost commentary on Paul's works written by Angilbert II, but Traube, *O Roma nobilis*, p. 351, had already proved that it refers to a lost commentary on Paul by Angelomus of Luxeuil.

1. Brescia, Biblioteca Queriniana, G VI 7, *Liber vitae* of S. Giulia/S. Salvatore, f. 16*r* (20*r*): the name of *Angilbert(u)s archiepiscopus* headed the list of bishops and clerks recorded in the memorial book.

#### Miriam Rita Tessera

2. St. Gallen, Stiftsarchiv (Abtei Pfäfers), Cod. Fab. 1, p. 120: *Liber viventium Fabariensis* naming the *confratres* of S. Peter of Civate. The priest *Todo* maybe can be identified with the Milanese Archbishop *Tado*, successor of Angilbertus.

*A fragmentary story: episcopal culture in Milan during Lothar I's reign?*

3. Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, LXIII (61), f. 72*r*: canonistic miscellany (IXex. century) with a conciliar canon of Archbishop Letus (751-755).

Miriam Rita Tessera

4. Leggiuno, church of Ss. Primus and Felicianus: dedicatory inscription by Erembertus mentioning the chief role played by Archbishop Angilbertus («ordinante domno Angilberto archiepiscopo»).

#### *A fragmentary story: episcopal culture in Milan during Lothar I's reign?*

5. Milano, church of S. Ambrose, golden altar, back side: detail with Archbishop Angilbertus offering the altar to the patron saint Ambrose.

#### Miriam Rita Tessera

6. Milano, church of S. Ambrose, golden altar, Southern side: Bishop MANV (Mansuetus) portrayed amongst the saints Nazarus, Nabor and Martin of Tours.

7. Montpellier, Bibliothèque Interuniversitaire, Faculté de Medicine, H 233, f. 128*v* (IX1/3century): epithaph of Santa Marcellina and *incipit* of Mansuetus' letter. SCDI Montpellier - Service photographique.

Miriam Rita Tessera

8. Milano, Archivio e Biblioteca Capitolare della Basilica di Sant'Ambrogio, M 15, f. 140*v* (IX2/3century): addition to the martyrology of Bede in Milanese hand mentioning the *exaltatio* of Ambrose, Protasius and Gervasius on 25 March («et in Mediolano exaltatio corpora *(sic)* sanctorum Protasii et Gervasii martirum et confessoris Ambrosii»).

#### **Works cited**

*L'altare d'oro di Sant'Ambrogio*, ed. C. Capponi, Milano 1996.


Miriam Rita Tessera Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano miriamrita.tessera@unicatt.it

### **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

### **Canons, books of canons, and ecclesiastical judgments in Carolingian Italy: the Council of Mantua, 827\***

by Michael Heil

The long-running jurisdictional dispute between the patriarchs of Aquileia and Grado entered a period of particular activity in the 820s, culminating in a judicial decision in Aquileia's favor at the Council of Mantua in 827. This council and its consequences offer fertile ground for exploring the ways that texts figured in ecclesiastical conflicts in ninth-century Italy. Recent work has shed light on the role hagiographical texts played in this dispute. This chapter examines another "textual" dimension: the role of canons and canon-law norms in arguments and decisions, in the "courtroom" and beyond. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion of a different case, from Lucca, that shows with particular clarity the close connection that could exist between canon law in the manuscripts and in legal practice.

Middle Ages; 9th century; North-Eastern Italy; Mantua; Aquileia-Grado; Maxentius; canon law; legal practice

\* I would like to thank the organizers of and participants in the *Reti di vescovi, reti di testi*  conference as well as the *Early Medieval Law in Italian Charters and Manuscripts* workshop (Berlin, 2021) for discussion of earlier versions of this chapter. The cases discussed in summary and selective fashion here are examined more fully in my monograph in progress, provisionally titled *Clerics, Courts, and Legal Culture in Early Medieval Italy*. In what follows, bibliographical references have been kept to a minimum.

Michael W. Heil, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, United States, mwheil@ualr.edu, 0000-0002-3284-5521 Referee List (DOI 10.36253/fup\_referee\_list)

FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

Michael W. Heil, *Canons, books of canons, and ecclesiastical judgments in Carolingian Italy: the Council of Mantua, 827*, © Author(s), CC BY 4.0, DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-623-0.06, 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. 91-110, 2022, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 978-88-5518-623-0, DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-623-0

Abbreviations

ACO II = *Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum,* II: *Concilium universale Chalcedonense*, ed. E. Schwartz, Berlin 1932-1938.

BMZi = J.F. Böhmer, *Regesta Imperii*, I. *Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter den Karolingern 751-918 (926)*, 3: *Die Regesten des Regnum Italiae und der Burgundischen Regna*, 1: *Die Karolinger im Regnum Italiae 840-887 (888)*, ed. H. Zielinski, Köln-Wien 1991.

CDL IV/2 = *Codice diplomatico longobardo, IV/2: I diplomi dei duchi di Benevento*, ed. H. Zielinski, Roma 2003 (FSI, 65).

ChLA2, LXXII = *Chartae Latinae Antiquiores. Facsimile-edition of the Latin Charters*, 2nd series, ed. G. Cavallo – G. Nicolaj, part LXXII, Italy XLIV, Lucca I, publ. C. Gattagrisi, Dietikon-Zürich 2002.

ChLA2, LXXIII = *Chartae Latinae Antiquiores. Facsimile-edition of the Latin Charters*, 2nd series, ed. G. Cavallo – G. Nicolaj, part LXXIII, Italy XLV, Lucca II, publ. F. Magistrale, Dietikon-Zürich 2003.

EOMIA 2.2 = *Ecclesiae Occidentalis Monumenta Iuris Antiquissima*, ed. C.H. Turner, 2, part 2, Oxford 1913.

J3 = *Regesta Pontificum Romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum MCXCVIII*, 3rd ed., ed. P. Jaffé – K. Herbers – M. Schütz *et al.*, 1, Göttingen 2016.

JK = *Regesta Pontificum Romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum MCXCVIII*, 2nd ed., ed. P. Jaffé – W. Wattenbach – S. Loewenfeld – F. Kaltenbrunner – P. Ewald, 1, Leipzig 1885.

MGH, Conc. II = MGH, *Concilia aevi Karolini*, ed. A. Werminghoff, Hannover-Leipzig 1906- 1908 (Concilia, 2).

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

MGH, DD Lu II = MGH, *Die Urkunden Ludwigs II.*, ed. K. Wanner, München 1994 (Diplomata Karolinorum, 4).

MGH, Epp. V = MGH, *Epistolarum Tomus V*, ed. E. Dümmler *et al.*, Berlin 1899 (Epistolae Karolini aevi, 3).

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

MGH, Poetae II = MGH, *Poetae Latini aevi Carolini*, II, ed. E. Dümmler, Berlin 1884.

#### 1. *Introduction*

Among the items in the textual "toolkit" of the bishops of Lothar's Italy must be included canons and books of canon law. The versatility of the canons as tools – for collective episcopal action, for diocesan administration, for competition with other bishops – is evident from several contributions to this volume. Here I would like to explore one context in which the bishops of Carolingian Italy used the canons: in making arguments and in reaching judicial decisions. Canon law, as it existed in manuscripts of canonical collections, was of real and direct relevance to the legal practice of bishops. To illustrate this I would like primarily to examine a single case: the adjudication of the long-running dispute between the patriarchs of Aquileia and Grado at the Council of Mantua in 8271 . Recent scholarship has shed fresh light on the importance of hagiographical texts and traditions in that conflict, at Mantua and beyond2. Here I will suggest that canon law also played a crucial role, and will try to determine precisely how it did so. I will conclude by briefly turning to a different case, from Lucca, which shows with particular clarity how close the connection could be between canon law in the manuscripts and in legal practice.

Two general observations about canon law in this period must be made at the outset. The first is that the term *canones* was multilayered: the canons were texts, but not only texts. To say that something was done *secundum* or *contra canones* could mean (and do) different things – and perhaps multiple things at once. "The canons" might refer to specific canons that could be explicitly cited or quoted; to a clearly defined canonical norm without explicit reference to the canons instantiating the norm; or to a vaguer sense of what was "right" according to ecclesiastical tradition. The canons could also be invoked in a general assertion of the correctness or legitimacy of, for instance, a decision made by a bishop or a council. Untangling these and other senses of "the canons" in records of legal practice is not always straightforward.

The second is that "canon law" did not exist as a single consistent and coherent body of law, but rather manifested itself in a wide variety of differ-

<sup>1</sup> MGH, Conc. II/2, n. 47, pp. 583-589. The literature on the council and the dispute between the patriarchs is very extensive. Recent extended discussions, with references to earlier literature, are Vocino, *Les saints en lice*; Pangerl, *Die Metropolitanverfassung*, pp. 80-90; Cerno, *Holding the Aquileian Patriarchate's Title*; and Veronese, *Rome and the Others*, pp. 230-237. <sup>2</sup> See especially the works of Vocino, Veronese, and Cerno cited in the previous note.

ent collections, families of related collections, and *sui generis* manuscripts3. Beyond the well-known *Collectio Dionysiana* and *Collectio Dionysio-Hadriana*, in Carolingian Italy these included collections such as the *Concordia Canonum* of Cresconius, the *Epitome Hispana*, the *Collectio Novariensis*, the *Collectio Sanblasiana*, the *Collectio Vaticana*, and more4. These collections presented different combinations and arrangements of conciliar canons, papal decretals, and other texts. Even the canons of the authoritative early ecumenical councils – which we can assume formed a shared core of canonical knowledge – varied in these collections, since they transmitted different Latin translations from the Greek. Beyond this diversity in collections is the even wider diversity in the individual manuscripts. In short, the sum of "canon law," and its form, varied from place to place. This multiplicity of forms and contents shaped the canonical culture of early medieval Italy in ways that remain to be explored. For the historian attempting to trace connections between the canons in the manuscripts and their use in legal practice, it means that it is imperative to think in terms of the specific canonical resources that may have been available in a specific time and place. This is not always easy to discern, not least because surviving manuscripts cannot be taken straightforwardly to indicate which canonical collections circulated where5 .

#### 2. *The Council of Mantua: context*

The complex background to the dispute heard at the Council of Mantua can be summarized briefly as follows. According to Paul the Deacon's account in the *Historia Langobardorum*, in 568/569 the patriarch Paul fled the old city of Aquileia in the face of the invading Lombards and took refuge on the island of Grado in the Adriatic. The church of Aquileia was at that time in schism with Rome over the so-called "Three Chapters" that had been condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 553. Four decades after Paul's flight to Grado, early in the seventh century, the patriarchate of Aquileia underwent its own division: when at Grado an "orthodox" patriarch Candidianus was elected who reentered communion with Rome, a "schismatic" patriarch John was elected on the Lombard-controlled mainland. At the end of the seventh century John's successor on the mainland would reconcile with Rome, but neither he nor his rival at Grado renounced the patriarchal title or claims to metropolitan authority. The old ecclesiastical province of Aquil-

<sup>3</sup> For skepticism about the appropriateness of the term "canon law" for this period see Reynolds, *Normative Texts*, pp. 34-38. <sup>4</sup> For an overview of canonical collections in northern Italy before Gratian see Landau, *Kano-*

*nessammlungen.*

<sup>5</sup> The presence of a *Dionysiana Bobbiensis* or a similar collection in late ninth-century Modena, for instance, can only be inferred from its quotation in a letter written in that period; Heil, *Bishop Leodoin*, pp. 19-21.

eia thus remained divided in two: while the coastal dioceses were under the control of the patriarch at Grado, the dioceses of the mainland fell under the authority of the "Lombard" patriarch of Aquileia, who in fact resided not at the old city of Aquileia but rather at Cormons and then at the Cividale, the seat of the Lombard duke of Friuli.

In the 820s the long-standing tensions between the patriarchs broke into open conflict, focused on the dioceses of Istria. While the zones of control of the two patriarchs in this period largely coincided with political boundaries – the coastal dioceses subject to Grado lying at least nominally in the Byzantine sphere and those subject to Aquileia now part of the Frankish *Regnum Italiae* –, Istria represented an anomaly: while the Istrian peninsula was now in Frankish hands, the patriarchs of Grado had long claimed metropolitan authority there. Patriarch Maxentius of Aquileia seems to have exploited this discrepancy to assert his own authority over the Istrian dioceses. Probably in 826, Patriarch Venerius of Grado complained about the situation in Istria to the Carolingian emperors, Louis the Pious and Lothar I, and through them to the pope. The two patriarchs were twice summoned to Rome so that the dispute could be judged in a papal synod. Maxentius refused to appear, no doubt aware that Venerius could capitalize on a long and well-documented history of antagonism between the popes and the mainland patriarchs. The patriarch of Aquileia, who enjoyed connections to the imperial court and whose province was of strategic importance to the Carolingians, instead convinced the emperors to have the dispute adjudicated in a much friendlier venue: a synod at Mantua, within his own ecclesiastical province. Pope Eugene II seems to have been in no position to refuse. Two papal legates appear to have chaired the resulting synod on 6 June 827, which was also attended by two legates of emperors Louis and Lothar6. The other 22 prelates in attendance represented sees within the Carolingian Kingdom of Italy, and nearly half were Maxentius's own suffragan bishops<sup>7</sup> . Aquileia's advantage in this forum was obvious, and Venerius of Grado refused to attend.

The only surviving account of the Council of Mantua's proceedings exists in a fifteenth-century copy, and the origin of this report is unclear. It lacks obvious features that would suggest it was an "official" document issued by the synod – it does not include subscriptions, for instance – and it may be that the report was drawn up within the church of Aquileia at some point after the synod. Even more than usual, we should not suppose that we have anything like a "neutral" or a complete record of what happened at the synod8.

<sup>6</sup> The papal legates were a bishop Benedict, probably of Albano or Amelia, and the Roman *diaconus bibliothecarius* Leo. <sup>7</sup> In attendance were the archbishop of Ravenna and six of his suffragans; the archbishop of

Milan and four of his suffragans; the patriarch of Aquileia and ten of his suffragans, as well as an archdeacon representing another (Trento). Among Aquileia's suffragans, only Como was not represented.

<sup>8</sup> Cf. West, *Dissonance of Speech*.

Nevertheless, other sources do confirm Aquileia's victory at Mantua9, and the report seems likely to convey the tenor of the arguments made there by the Aquileians10.

The surviving report tells us little about the council beyond its hearing of the dispute. But the assembly's identity as a church council – a «sancta synodus», as the report calls it – might suggest something about the role of canons and books of canons there. Synods were, among other things, liturgical events. This is seen most clearly in the *Ordines de celebrando concilio*, the liturgical "instructions" for the holding of a synod11. Synods' liturgical dimension was crucial to their unique character and authority, as it was understood to ensure that the Holy Spirit was present in, and helped to guide, such gatherings. In the oldest extant *ordo*, which originated at the Fourth Council of Toledo (633) and is preserved in Northern Italy in the probably late-eighth-century manuscript of the *Collectio Novariensis*, the canons play a starring role in the liturgical drama of the synod12. After the opening prayers, «When all are seated in their places in silence, the deacon, clothed in an alb, shall bring the book of canons (*codex canonum*) into the middle [of the synod] and read out the *capitula* concerning the holding of councils»13. Some later *ordines* specify which canons should be recited, while allowing for the substitution of other canons «that seem more appropriate to the [presiding] metropolitan»14. Once the deacon had read out the canons, the metropolitan was to declare: «Now, most holy priests, the sentences from the canons of the ancient fathers concerning the celebration of a council have been recited». The synod could then turn to the examination of any disputes, likewise framed in terms of the canons15.

<sup>9</sup> See, e.g., the sources cited below, section 5. <sup>10</sup> There is more reason for skepticism about its account of arguments supposedly made by a late arriving Gradese *missus*, included at the end of the report, which failed to convince the bishops. I consider these arguments, and other elements of the synodal report passed over here, in my monograph in progress.

<sup>11</sup> MGH, Ordines. See also Kramer, *Order in the Church*, and Francesco Veronese's contribution to this volume.

<sup>12</sup> Novara, Biblioteca Capitolare, LXXXIV (54). This *ordo* (*Ordo* I in the MGH edition) is also preserved in Italian manuscripts of the late ninth century and after. For the manuscripts, see MGH, Ordines, pp. 125-135, with note 3.

<sup>13</sup> «4. Sicque omnibus in suis locis in silentio consedentibus, diaconus alba indutus codicem canonum in medio proferens capitula de conciliis agendis pronuntiet"»; MGH Ordines, *Ordo* 1, p. 140. Cf. *Ordines* 2 and 4, pp. 178 and 226. <sup>14</sup> E.g.: «vel aliud de canonibus, quod metropolitano aptius visum fuerit, ut legatur»; MGH,

Ordines, *Ordo* 2, p. 179. Cf. *Ordo 4*, p. 227. Both of these *ordines* are preserved in Italian manuscripts beginning in the later ninth century.

<sup>15</sup> «5. Finitisque titulis metropolitanus episcopus concilium alloquatur dicens: "Ecce, sanctissimi sacerdotes, recitatae sunt ex canonibus priscorum patrum sententiae de concilio celebrando. Si qua igitur quempiam vestrum actio commovet, coram suis fratribus proponat". 6. Tunc si aliquis quamcumque querelam, quae contra canonem agit, in audientiam sacerdotalem protulerit, non prius ad aliud transeatur capitulum, nisi primum, quae proposita est, actio terminetur»; MGH, Ordines, *Ordo* 1, p. 140. In *Ordo* 7, discussed by Francesco Veronese in his contribution to this volume, the canons are presented as alternate readings.

In these *ordines* the canons seem to have set the tone for and helped to legitimize the synod: their recitation affirmed that it was being held in good order, and tied the present gathering into the long synodal tradition stretching back to the church fathers. The recitation of the canons helped establish the synod *as* a synod. We do not know whether the Council of Mantua made use of such an *ordo*, but accounts of some other Carolingian synods do reveal the canons functioning in ways similar to those stipulated in the *ordines*. In his opening address at the Council at Cividale in 796, Paulinus of Aquileia recalled the injunction of the «sacred rules of the venerable canons» to hold provincial councils twice each year16, and announced that it was necessary to convoke the synod «in accordance with the inviolable prescriptions of the ancient canons»17. Contemporary visual depictions of synods, including those in the opening folios of a canonical manuscript at Vercelli dating to the second quarter of the ninth century, show a variety of books in and around synods – among them, we may suppose, *codices canonum*18. Books of canons were also used for the "substantive" business of a synod, including the resolution of disputes and the drafting of its own canons19. Paulinus stressed that the canons promulgated at the Council of Cividale in 796 were formulated «after examining the sacred pages of the canons of the Fathers», and were simply re-expressions of these old authorities in a «newer style»20. At Mantua, too, we shall see that there is reason to suppose that a *codex canonum* was put to use.

#### 3. *Maxentius's canonical argument*

At Mantua the patriarch of Aquileia appeared before a body predisposed in his favor, but according to the synodal report he nevertheless arrived well

<sup>16</sup> «Nulli prorsus dubium Domini sacerdotum, qui sacras venerandorum canonum regulas vigilanti non omiserit ingenio sagatius explorare, bis in anno concilium per unamquamque provintiam fieri debere»; MGH, Conc. II/1, n. 21, p. 179. The requirement to hold provincial synods twice a year is among the canons identified for recitation in *ordines* 2 and 4. The Council of

Cividale is also said (*ibidem*) to have convened «canonicis siquidem evocatum syllabis». <sup>17</sup> «Necessarium duximus summopere festinantes dilectissimam fraternitatem vestram iuxta priscorum canonum inviolabiles sancciones in uno collegio adgregari»; MGH, Conc. II/1, n. 21, p. 180. On the "juridical language" that pervades Paulinus's address at the Council of Cividale

and his letter to Charlemagne reporting on it, see Vocino, *Between the Palace*, pp. 255-257. <sup>18</sup> Vercelli, Biblioteca Capitolare, CLXV. Celia Chazelle has recently argued that the illustrations in the Vercelli manuscript were created for Lothar I; Chazelle, *Emperors and the Law*  (forthcoming). I would like to thank Prof. Chazelle for sharing this work with me in advance of

publication. See more generally Reynolds, *Rites and Signs*. <sup>19</sup> On the use of canonical collections in synods north of the Alps see, e.g., Halfond, *The Archaeology*, pp. 87-88 and works cited there; Schröder, *Die Westfränkischen Synoden*, pp. 86-88; Hartmann, *Kirche und Kirchenrecht*, pp. 99-105. <sup>20</sup> «Non novas, karissimi, regulas instituimus nec supervacuas rerum adinventiones inhianter

sectamur, sed sacris paternorum canonum recensitis foliis ea, quae ab eis bene gesta salubrique promulgata mucrone persistunt, summa devotionis veneratione amplectentes recentiori stilo opere praecium duximus renovare»; MGH, Conc. II/1, n. 21, p. 189.

prepared with evidence and arguments. Much of Maxentius's presentation superficially takes the form of a chronological account of his see's history. But the narrative fluency of his account, which would no doubt have made its oral delivery especially effective, should not obscure the sophistication of its arguments. In its argumentative structure, Maxentius's presentation can be divided into three parts. The first is largely defensive, and aims to counter an interpretation of Patriarch Paul's flight to Grado as a formal transfer of the metropolitan see. Building on this, the second and most crucial part focuses on the double election of the early seventh century and develops a bold argument for the illegitimacy of the rival patriarchal line at Grado, an argument that hinges on canon law. The final part presents evidence on the narrower question of jurisdiction over Istria. I focus here on the second part, where canon law is decisive.

Maxentius entered the synod carrying his «precum libelli» – his dossier of authorities – with which he would argue «that the churches of his province, which the incursion of the Barbarians had separated from their mother (*matrix*), should by the authority of the canons now in time of peace» be returned to Aquileia's jurisdiction21. Drawing on the *Passio Hermachorae et Fortunati* or a closely related text, he began by recounting the early history of the church of Aquileia from its founding by saint Mark and Hermagoras, its first prelate22. This he followed with a modified passage from Paul the Deacon's *Historia Langobardorum* narrating Patriarch Paul's flight to Grado in the face of the «barbarity of the Lombards». Maxentius's changes to the *Historia*'s account make clear his intention to show that Paul's flight to Grado was only an emergency measure, forced upon the patriarch by the threat of imminent violence and devastation and devoid of larger significance; that is to say, that it should not be construed as a permanent transfer of metropolitan authority to Grado23.

<sup>21</sup> «Residentibus igitur in hac synodo reverentissimis episcopis, adstantibus diaconibus et caetero clero, veniens vir sanctissimus Maxentius, Aquileiensis patriarcha, precum libellos pro dispersione suae Aquileiensis aecclesiae obtulit, ut suae provintiae aecclesias, quas Barbarorum incursus a sua matrice segregaverat, auctoritate canonum iam pacis tempore percipere mereretur ad propria»; MGH, Conc. II/2, n. 47, p. 585. For *precum libelli*, cf. later in the report: «universa, quae Maxentius, patriarcha Aquileiensis, in libello obtulerat»; *ibidem*, p. 587. I would like to thank Susan Boynton for discussing this terminology with me.

<sup>22</sup> See Vocino, *Les saints en lice*. <sup>23</sup> While Paul the Deacon says only that Paul «Langobardorum barbariem metuens, ex Aquileia ad Gradus insulam confugit secumque omnem suae thesaurum ecclesiae deportavit» (MGH, SS rer. Lang., p. 78), Maxentius says that he «Longobardorum barbariem et immanitatem metuens, ex civitate Aquileiensi et de propria sede ad Gradus insulam, plebem suam, confugiens omnemque thesaurum et sedes sanctorum Marci et Hermachorae secum ad eamdem insulam detulit idcirco, non ut sedem aut primatum aecclesiae suaeque provintiae construeret inibi, sed ut Barbarorum rabiem possit evadere» (MGH, Conc. II/2, n. 47, p. 585). A full analysis and discussion is out of place here; I note only that Maxentius's surprising addition of the thrones of saints Mark and Hermagoras in particular suggests that he was trying, at least in part, to neutralize Gradese claims that possession of those thrones was a sign of Grado's legitimacy as the heir to "old" Aquileia.

Maxentius next came to the most crucial part of the story: the double election in the early seventh century and the resulting division of the province of Aquileia. Maxentius again relied on Paul the Deacon's *Historia Langobardorum*. Paul's account implicitly privileges the Aquileian over the Gradese claim, since it first narrates John's ordination as patriarch at Aquileia before adding that Candidianus was «also» ordained, as «antistis» – not patriarch – at Grado. But here too Maxentius made several crucial emendations to Paul's text (see table 1). Most significantly, he removed Paul's reference to the involvement of the Lombard king and duke of Friuli in John's election on the mainland, instead saying only that the election occurred «in the time of» king Agilulf. In this way he avoided any suggestion of Lombard interference or coercion in John's election. He also replaced Paul's reference to the «Romani» at Grado with the audacious claim that the "orthodox" Candidianus was a heretic24.

**His diebus** defuncto Severo **patriarcha**, ordinatur in loco eius Iohannes **abbas** patriarcha in Aquileia **vetere**, **cum consensu regis et Gisulfi ducis**. In Gradus quoque ordinatus est **Romanis** Candidianus antistis. Maxentius26:

Defuncto **itaque** Severo ordinatur loco eius Iohannes patriarcha in Aquileia **eo tempore, quo Agilulfus rex Longobardorum regnabat**. In Gradus quoque ordinatus est **haereticus** Candidianus antistes.

Table 1. Bold text indicates divergences and Maxentius's additions.

This brought Maxentius to the core of his argument: «For this Candidianus was ordained neither by the consent of his co-provincial bishops nor in the city of Aquileia, but in the Aquileian *dioecesim et plebem* of Grado, which is a tiny island, contrary to the statutes of the canons and the decrees of the holy fathers»27. This is not an empty invocation of canonical authority. Maxentius was invoking a specific, and somewhat obscure, canonical norm to argue that Candidianus's ordination failed to fulfill the necessary requirements. While numerous canons lay out the procedures for the election and ordination of bishops, far fewer canons address those of metropolitans (such as the patriarchs)28. Two canons that do address this stipulate that it should be done in the metropolitan city and in the presence of the bishops of the province.

Paul the Deacon, 4.3325:

<sup>24</sup> The «enim» in Maxentius's next sentence, which introduces his canonical argument, may indicate that he intended the charge of heresy in relation to Candidianus's supposedly uncanonical ordination and the resulting division of the patriarchate. On this point see also below, note 45.

<sup>25</sup> MGH, SS rer. Lang., p. 127. <sup>26</sup> MGH, Conc. II/2, n. 47, p. 586. <sup>27</sup> «Hic enim Candidianus nec per consensum comprovintialium episcoporum nec in civitate Aquileia, sed in dioecesim et plebem Aquileiensem Gradus, quae est perparva insula, contra canonum statuta et sanctorum patrum decreta ordinatus est»; MGH, Conc. II/2, n. 47, p. 586.

<sup>28</sup> For episcopal election see, e.g., the canons collected in the *Concordia canonum* of Cresconius, *capitula* 1 and 228.

Canon 19 of the Fourth Council of Toledo establishes that «a metropolitan [should be consecrated] only in the metropolis, with the co-provincial bishops coming together there»29. A decretal of Pope Leo I specifies that «when a metropolitan has died and another is to be elected in his place, the provincial bishops shall convene in the metropolitan city, so that when the will of all the clergy and all the citizens has been discussed, the best man may be chosen from the priests of this same church or from the deacons»30.

Both of these canons were accessible in collections that circulated in at least some areas of northern Italy in the early ninth century: the Toledo canon in the so-called *Collectio Novariensis*31; the decretal of Leo I, probably much more widely, in collections including the *Collectio Dionysiana* and the *Collectio Vaticana*32. A summary of the relevant part of Leo's decretal could also be found in the *Epitome Hispana*: «For the ordination of a metropolitan, all the bishops shall gather in the metropolis and examine the priests and deacons, and one of these shall be ordained»33. The *Epitome Hispana*'s summary uses the verb *ordinare*, as Maxentius does, and isolates the issue of metropolitan ordination. Both the Toledan canon and Leo's decretal in its original form, on the other hand, use different vocabulary and address a number of additional issues. (The *Epitome Hispana*'s highly abbreviated form would, moreover, have made it a convenient instrument for finding relevant canons quickly, even if its "epitomized" versions were presumably less authoritative.) Never-

<sup>29</sup> «Episcopus autem comprouincialis ibi consecrandus est ubi metropolitanus elegerit; metropolitanus autem non nisi in ciuitate metropoli comprouincialibus ibidem conuenientibus»; *La* 

*colección canónica Hispana*, 5, pp. 210-211. <sup>30</sup> «Metropolitano vero defuncto, cum in locum ejus alius fuerit subrogandus, provinciales episcopi ad civitatem metropolim convenire debebunt, ut omnium clericorum atque omnium civium voluntate discussa, ex presbyteris ejusdem Ecclesiae, vel ex diaconis optimus eligatur»; PL 54, Ep. 14 (*Quanta fraternitati*, J3 918/JK 411), cap. 6, col. 673. On the reception of this decretal in canon law collections, see Maassen, *Geschichte*, p. 259. The principle would also be

articulated in the Pseudo-Isidorian decretal of Anicius; *Decretales*, p. 120. <sup>31</sup> *La colección del ms. de Novara*, pp. 499-500; for the manuscripts, see Kéry, *Canonical Col-*

*lections*, p. 32. <sup>32</sup> Bernhard Bischoff suggested that BAV, Barb. lat. 679, an eighth- or ninth-century manuscript of the *Collectio Vaticana*, may have been produced at Aquileia (relevant text at fol. 105v); Bischoff, *Die Rolle*, pp. 97-98; cf. Mordek, Bibliotheca capitularium, pp. 751-754; Kéry, *Canonical collections*, p. 25. But see now Pani, *I libri dell'età di Carlo Magno*, pp. 35-36, and Vocino and West, *On the Life*, note 54. The *Concordia Canonum* of Cresconius does not contain the relevant portion of Leo's letter, though it is included in an appendix found in several extant manuscripts of the collection; see Zechiel-Eckes, *Die* Concordia canonum, pp. 86-113. The letter is not included in the so-called *Collectio Grimanica* of Leo's letters, the only manuscript of which has been linked to Aquileia.

<sup>33</sup> «II. In ordinationem metropolitani omnes episcopi in metropoli congregentur et discutiant presbiteros et diaconos et ex ipsis ordinetur unus»; *El epitome hispanico*, p. 205. For manuscripts transmitting the *Epitome Hispana*, see Kéry, *Canonical collections*, pp. 58-59. On Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, LXI (59) (and its relationship to the Lucca manuscript of the *Epitome*), see now Bassetti, *Un inedito frammento*. I would like to thank Marco Stoffella and Donatella Tronca for discussion of the Verona manuscript. Reliance on Leo's letter, either in its original or its epitomized form, might explain why Maxentius removed Paul the Deacon's reference to John as «abbas» (see above, table 1): Leo specifies that the metropolitan shall be chosen from among the priests and deacons of the church.

theless, it cannot be said that the patriarch's words hew particularly closely to any of these sources (see table 2). Based on the evidence of the synodal report, then, it seems that Maxentius identified a specific canonical norm but perhaps did not quote directly from any particular canon – in marked contrast to his extensive quotations from his narrative *auctoritates*.

Maxentius: Hic enim Candidianus **nec per consensum comprovintialium episcoporum nec in civitate Aquileia**, sed in dioecesim et plebem Aquileiensem Gradus, quae est perparva insula, contra canonum statuta et sanctorum patrum decreta **ordinatus est**.

Toledo IIII, c. 19: metropolitanus autem [consecrandus est] non nisi in **ciuitate** metropoli **comprouincialibus** ibidem conuenientibus.

Leo I, Ep. 14, c. 6: Metropolitano vero defuncto, cum in locum ejus alius fuerit subrogandus, **provinciales episcopi** ad **civitatem** metropolim convenire debebunt, ut omnium clericorum atque omnium civium voluntate discussa, ex presbyteris ejusdem Ecclesiae, vel ex diaconis optimus eligatur.

Leo I, Ep. 14, c. 6 in the *Epitome Hispana*: In ordinationem metropolitani omnes **episcopi** in metropoli congregentur et discutiant presbiteros et diaconos et ex ipsis **ordinetur** unus.

Table 2.

With the modified excerpts from the *Historia Langobardorum* Maxentius had already claimed to show that Candidianus's ordination failed to meet one of the two requirements specified by the canonical norm, since it occurred at Grado, a mere «plebs», rather than at the metropolitan city of Aquileia. He next introduced evidence intended to show that the ordination also occurred without the proper involvement of the bishops of the province. He quoted from a letter of Patriarch John of Aquileia to the Lombard king Agilulf, in which John laments that three of his suffragan bishops in Istria, who had previously refused to consent to Candidianus's ordination, were dragged from their churches and compelled to do so by the Greeks34. While John's letter supported the case against Grado in other ways too – not least by maligning Candidianus personally35 – Maxentius's concluding commentary on the letter makes clear that the crucial point for him was that the apparent involvement of the Istrian bishops in Candidianus's ordination had been obtained only

<sup>34</sup> Maxentius introduces the letter immediately after his statement of the canonical norm, and he makes explicit that the letter is intended to prove that the ordination had been uncanonical: «Contra canonum statuta et sanctorum patrum decreta ordinatus est. Et inter alia probat hoc huius Aquileiensis aecclesiae Iohannis antistitis epistola»; MGH, Conc. II/2, n. 47, p. 586.

<sup>35</sup> «Candidianus inutilis, qui se ob sui sceleris immanitatem prefatae sanctae recordationis domno Severo, decessori nostro, sub anathematis interposicione obligatus est, ne ad potiorem gradum unquam accederet, quoniam a se eique corde faventibus in praedicto Gradensi castro adulterium matri aecclesiae improbe ingereretur, ordinatur episcopus»; *ibidem*.

through coercion, and so did not represent true consent36. Thus neither condition of the canonical norm had been met in Candidianus's case, and from that uncanonical ordination the entire line of Gradese patriarchs had descended.

While acceptance of his argument for Grado's illegitimacy would render moot the question of jurisdiction over Istria, Maxentius prudently concluded by also arguing the narrower issue. To this end he presented a late eighth-century *decretum* of the clergy and people of Pola in Istria to the patriarch of Aquileia, while a delegation of Istrians made a *petitio* to the synod in Aquileia's favor.

#### 4. *The Council's decision*

The papal legates then led the synod in a review of the evidence: they «brought forth everything that Patriarch Maxentius of Aquileia had presented in his *libellus*, and the most truthful authorities that were displayed in this synod, with the canons also read out (*recitatis etiam canonibus*), reviewing everything in order»37. The recitation of the canons is here portrayed as a part of the synod's review of the evidence, implying that the recited canons were considered directly relevant to the case. But which canons were read out? Were these canons part of the dossier that Maxentius presented to the synod? While the passage leaves this and much else unclear, its syntax suggests that these canons were not part of Maxentius's *libellus*. If this is correct, it might explain why the synodal report depicts Maxentius presenting long (modified) quotations from his other texts but referring to the canons only in inexact terms. A litigant was expected to present his own *auctoritates*, but perhaps it was properly the role of the court to scrutinize the canons and determine which were appropriate to the case. This is the sort of circumstance in which we would expect the synod to make use of a *codex canonum*38.

<sup>36</sup> «Histriae episcopi de aecclesiis suis a militibus Graecorum tracti sunt et hunc Candidianum ordinare compulsi»; *ibidem*. Another sentence making a similar point should perhaps likewise be understood as commentary by Maxentius rather than part of the letter itself: «Si enim recte

ei consencientes essent, voluntarie illi consentire debuerant, non autem per vim»; *ibidem*. <sup>37</sup> «Auditis itaque horum precibus sanctissimi et reverentissimi legati sanctae Romanae aecclesiae, Benedictus videlicet episcopus et Leo diaconus, universa, quae Maxentius, patriarcha Aquileiensis, in libello obtulerat, auctoritatesque veracissimas, quae in hac synodo propalatae sunt, recitatis etiam canonibus, recapitulando cuncta per ordinem protulerunt»; MGH, Conc. II/2, n. 47, p. 587.

<sup>38</sup> Cf. CDL IV/2, n. 45, pp. 148-154, a Beneventan *placitum* of 762. In this case, heard before the duke of Benevento, the abbot of the monastery of S. Benedict argued that several families had been granted freedom «contra canonicam regulam». After having the documentary evidence in the case read out, the duke «precepimus sacros adduci canones in nostram presentia, quorum capitula sciscitantes ita continentes invenimus in sanctorum Apostolorum seu Nicino nec non Anquiritano atque Silvestri pape urbis Rome conciliis, ut…». That is, the abbot made his argument in canonical terms, but the duke is portrayed as reviewing the canons (as well as Lombard laws) in deciding the case.

The announcement of the synod's decision lends some further support to this suggestion. The papal legates asked the bishops both whether they accepted the Aquileian claims over Istria and also whether «according to these authorities Aquileia has always been the metropolis, or if the province, which contrary to the statutes of the canons has been divided between two metropolitans, should be restored» to its original unity39. The bishops' decision in favor of Maxentius is framed in the same terms, predicated on the determination that Aquileia «contrary to the statutes of the fathers had been divided between two metropolitans»40. Although the canons are invoked in generic terms («canonum statuta», «patrum statuta»), the reference to a specific canonical norm, and to a specific canon, is clear: canon 12 of the Council of Chalcedon, prohibiting the division of one province into two. The words attributed first to the papal legates and then to the synod echo the rubric to this canon in the *Collectio Dionysiana* and collections derived from it, such as the *Concordia canonum* of Cresconius (see table 3).

Council of Mantua (papal legates): si **provintia**, quae contra canonum statuta **in duos metropolitanos divisa est**

Rubric of Chalcedon, c. 12 in *Collectio Dionysiana*41: Ut nequaquam **in duos metropolitanos** 

**provincia dividatur**

Table 3.

The wording is close enough to suggest that recourse may have been made to this canon, or at least its rubric, in a *codex canonum*. But beyond any general "legitimizing" function an appeal to the canons might have had, for what purpose was this canonical norm referenced? The Chalcedonian canon cannot be said to form the basis for the decision in Maxentius's favor. After all, the Gradese might well agree that the old province should be restored to unity – but under the

<sup>39</sup> «interrogatisque singulis episcopis, utrum iusta sit an iniusta Histrianorum petitio et si secundum has auctoritates Aquileia semper metropolis fuerit aut, si provintia, quae contra canonum statuta in duos metropolitanos divisa est, ad unam et primam reformari debeat». The report continues: «"et si placet eorum petitio, clara voce proferte", – universi respondentes dixerunt: "Iusta est Histrianorum petitio, et quia, quod Aquileia semper metropolis extitit dominaque fuit Gradensium, novimus et quia contra patrum decreta divisa est, ideo auctoritate patrum ad priorem statum reformetur; omnibus nobis placet". Et illi respondentes dixerunt: "Et nobis ita placet"»; MGH, Conc. II/2, n. 47, p. 587.

<sup>40</sup> «Statuit igitur sancta synodus, ut Aquileia metropolis, quae contra patrum statuta divisa in duos metropolitanos fuerat, deinceps secundum quod et antiquitus erat prima et metropolis habeatur et Maxentius, sanctae Aquileiensis aecclesiae patriarcha, eiusque successores in singulis Histriae aecclesiis electos a clero et populo ordinandi in episcopos licentiam sicut et in caeteris civitatibus suae metropoli subiectis modo et futuris temporibus habeant»; *ibidem*. <sup>41</sup> ACO II/2.2, pp. 144 and 149; cf. Zechiel-Eckes, *Die* Concordia, p. 684, cap. 200. In the *Con-*

*cordia Canonum* the rubric prefaces both Chalcedon c. 12 and an excerpt from a decretal of Innocent I (J3 700/JK 310). This rubric was also used for the canon in many later collections; see Fowler-Magerl, Clavis canonum. The same rubric – with an initial «Quod» instead of «Ut» – also occurs in the *Collectio Hispana*: ACO 2.2/2, pp. 178 and 181. Cf. Chalcedon c. 12 in the *Epitome Hispana*: «In una provincia duo non sint metropolitani»; *El epitome hispanico*, p. 129.

authority of the patriarch at Grado42! The canon was crucial in a different way. Evidence beyond the synodal report suggests that the council was convoked to resolve the particular problem of the Istrian dioceses43. This would mean that Maxentius raised the stakes dramatically when he made the case about the very legitimacy of the two patriarchates. How could the synod, however friendly to Maxentius, justify accepting these far broader terms of debate, especially when the two patriarchs had coexisted for over two centuries? Framing the issue before the council in terms of canon 12 of Chalcedon, in effect, compelled the bishops to decide the larger question of patriarchal legitimacy. A single province clearly had been divided between two metropolitans; how could they allow this uncanonical situation to persist? Although the Chalcedonian norm is voiced by the papal legates and the assembled bishops in the synodal report, we can easily imagine that it was Maxentius who first framed the issue in these terms44.

#### 5. *The canonical argument after Mantua*

The apparently definitive judgment at Mantua did not in reality lead to the abolition of the patriarchate of Grado. It did however enable Maxentius to exert his metropolitan authority over Istria, about which Venerius of Grado protested to the pope45. Even in the apparent absence of formal judicial proceedings in the decades after Mantua, the two sides continued to collect – or confect – *auctoritates* and to develop arguments46. The details of this process

<sup>42</sup> Maxentius's "counter-argument" in the first section of his presentation suggests that the Gradese saw Paul's flight to Grado as an effective transfer of metropolitan authority there. The prologue to the *Translatio Marci* would explicitly claim that Paul's successor-but-one Helias «ex consensu beatissimi papae Pelagii, facta synodo viginti episcoporum, eandem Gradensem urbem totius Venetiae metropolim esse instituit»; Colombi, *Translatio Marci*, VI/3, pp. 115-116. <sup>43</sup> See, for example, Louis the Pious and Lothar's response to Venerius in 826 (MGH, DD LdF, B13, pp. 1219-1220); cf. Venerius's letter to Pope Gregory IV after the Council of Mantua (MGH, Epp. V, n. 12, pp. 315-316). The account of the Gradese argument at the end of the synodal report, if more or less reliable, would likewise suggest that Venerius's legate arrived at Mantua expecting only to argue the "Istrian question".

<sup>44</sup> Reference to canon 12 of Chalcedon may help to explain one surprising element of Maxentius's presentation: his assertion that Candidianus of Grado was a heretic. In glossed ninth- and tenth-century Italian manuscripts of the *Collectio Dionysiana Bobbiensis* and of the *Concordia Canonum* of Cresconius, the following gloss is found on canon 12 of Chalcedon: «Duo heretica sacrilegia in hoc facto dampnantur flagitiosa, unum, quod amissa unitate aeclesiae ad terrenas potestates convolans sine Deo usurpat impium et anathematizandum ejusdem potestatis ingestum typo serpentis in paradiso, alterum, quod odiosa discordia inter catholica sacrificia dissensionem dampnabilem ingerit, obnoxius Deo et ecclesiae et episcopis et potestati R[omani] P[ontificis]»; Maassen, *Glossen*, p. 274. I am grateful to Steffen Patzold, to whom I owe this important observation. On the glosses see further Patetta, *Glosse*; Zechiel-Eckes, *Die* Concordia canonum; Firey, *How Carolingians Learned Canon Law*. <sup>45</sup> MGH, Epp. V, n. 12, pp. 315-316. <sup>46</sup> I explore the judicial and legal dimensions of this process in more detail in my monograph in

progress. For the elaboration of hagiographical traditions in this context see Vocino, *Les saints en lice*; Cerno, *Holding the Aquileian patriarchate's title*; Veronese, *Saint Marc*; Veronese, *Rome and the Others*; Colombi, *Translatio Marci*.

are beyond my scope here, but it is necessary to observe that the partisans of Grado took Maxentius's canonical argument seriously and found it necessary to respond. This can be seen from the so-called *Carmen de Aquilegia numquam restauranda*, which is addressed to Lothar and Louis II and can be dated to the period between 844 and 85547. The poem is filled with broad denunciations of Aquileia's long history of wickedness, and reserves particularly harsh words for the «poisoner» Maxentius and his «well-known trickery» – perhaps an indirect recognition of his lawyerly skill. It also responds to the substance of the arguments he made at Mantua. It does so by showing that the accusations leveled against Candidianus – including those at the core of Maxentius's canonical argument – apply instead to John, his rival on the mainland. «John the abbot» was a «heretic» for his support of the Three Chapters and a «criminal and perjurer against his bishop». Most significantly, it was John, not Candidianus, who «first split the one church in two»: he was a «rebel», who «was raised up in the little *plebs* (*plebicula*) of Cividale» – not the metropolis – and «seized episcopal office» with the support of the «faithless» Lombards48. By the criteria set out by Maxentius at Mantua, it was John's election that was uncanonical.

A diploma of Louis II confirming Aquileia's jurisdiction over Istria, issued perhaps in 855, suggests that this Gradese line of attack may have hit its mark49. The diploma's long *narratio* gives voice to the arguments that the Aquileians evidently made in order to secure the confirmation. Noting that the dispute between the patriarchs was «wholly settled by the sentences of the bishops» at the *synodale concilium* at Mantua, the *narratio* offers a revised version of Maxentius's argument against the Gradese claim that Paul's flight represented a transfer of patriarchal authority, and also develops a new argument by analogy with the history of the see of Milan, which regained metropolitan authority after its archbishop returned from exile in Genoa. Conspicuously absent is Maxentius's argument about Candidianus's uncanonical ordination. The Gradese had, perhaps, succeeded in rendering it unusable by showing that the patriarchs of Aquileia were vulnerable to the same line of argument.

<sup>47</sup> MGH, Poetae II, pp. 150-153. For discussion, and a partial translation which I have largely followed, see Everett, *Paulinus,* pp. 147-149; De Nicola, *I versi*. <sup>48</sup> «15. Pulso Gotho Longobardus adiit Italiam,/ quem deus ad suam numquam perduxit noti-

ciam,/ et sub quo Iohannes abbas deguit hereticus./ 16. Qui super nefanda nefas adiecit scelestius,/ ut secutus apostatarum dampnatorum heresim,/ ipse primus unam in duas scinderet ecclesiam:/ 17. Quod Hieroboam malignus in Israel egerat/ ut amisso templo dei adoraret vitulos,/ quos conflatiles erexit rex infidelissimus,/ 18. Reus et periurus suo Viventio pontifici/ isdem Foroiuliensi Iohannes in plebicula/ erectus atque rebellis presulatum arripuit./ 19. Superbus ob infideles et avaros iudices/ Longobardos atque Gothos periit iusticiam/ sanctorum et perietur idem infideliter»; MGH, Poetae II, p. 152.

<sup>49</sup> MGH, DD Lu II, n. 17, pp. 97-99. The diploma has problematic elements and is at least superficially interpolated (see Wanner's comments in the MGH edition and BMZi, n. 143), but there is little reason to doubt the substance of its *dispositio*.

#### 6. *A Lucchese coda*

Canonical norms were pivotal to Maxentius's arguments at Mantua and the council's sweeping judgment in his favor. Despite this, and despite the fact that the record tells us that canons were «read out» in the synod, the connection between canonical norms, specific canons and canonical collections, and physical *codices canonum* has for the most part remained elusive. I will conclude by briefly turning to a different case, in which our knowledge of local canonical resources allows us to establish this connection more concretely. As the forum for this case was very different from the Council of Mantua, it also suggests something of the breadth of judicial contexts in which the canons might be evoked.

The case comes from the diocese of Lucca and concerns a priest, Alpulus, who had been degraded from the priesthood following his abduction of a nun. In 803 and again in 813 Alpulus appeared before Bishop James of Lucca, claiming that he had been unjustly removed from his church. Alpulus's complex case, known to us from the original *notitiae* of the judgments, is an extremely valuable window into Carolingian justice and ecclesiastical legal practice, including the use of canon law50. Here I will highlight just one aspect of this. In both 803 and 813, immediately before announcing the judgment against and excommunication of Alpulus, the bishop invoked a canonical norm concerning clerics who have been excommunicated and presume to perform anything pertaining to the ministry. Several commentators have observed a resemblance to canon 4 of the Council of Antioch but, making recourse to "standard" canonical collections such as the *Collectio Dionysiana*, *Collectio Dionysio-Hadriana*, and *Collectio Hispana*, they have noted that the wording in the *notitiae* does not closely parallel that canon or any other51. It might, then, seem that we face the same uncertainty as in the case of Maxentius's reference to the canons at Mantua. One might suppose that the bishop cited the canon inexactly from memory. But we reach a different conclusion when we recall the diversity of canonical collections in Carolingian Italy, and consider the particular canonical resources the bishop of Lucca may have had at his disposal. The famous manuscript 490 of the Biblioteca Capitolare of Lucca is a large miscellany of texts produced between the late eighth and early ninth centuries52. The codex contains two canonical collections, the *Epitome Hispana* and the *Collectio Sanblasiana*. The *Sanblasiana* (also known as the *Collectio Italica*) transmits the canons of Antioch in a form of the so-called

<sup>50</sup> Placiti I, n. 16, pp. 44-48 (803 VII, Lucca)/ChLA2, LXXII, n. 24, pp. 83-89, and Placiti I, n. 26, pp. 80-84 (813 IV, Lucca)/ChLA2, LXXIII, n. 50, pp. 164-171. For key bibliography, see the following note.

<sup>51</sup> See Besta, *Nuovi appunti*, p. 390; Andreolli, *Uomini*, pp. 42-43 with note 6; Padoa Schioppa, *Giudici*, p. 1651 with note 105 (referencing canon 3 of Antioch); Hamilton, *Inquiring into Adul-*

*tery*, pp. 28-29 with note 33; Loschiavo, *The priest*, pp. 246-247 with note 28. <sup>52</sup> On this codex see Paolo Tomei's contribution in this volume, with references to key bibliography.

*versio Prisca*53. The words recorded in the two judgments against Alpulus are, with a few intentional omissions and minor variants, identical to those of canon 4 of the Council of Antioch as it appears in the Lucca *Sanblasiana* (see table 4). In addition, the words that James used to introduce the canon in court in 803 are identical to the rubric for the canon in the *Sanblasiana*. The similarity to the text in the codex suggests that the scribe of the two *notitiae*, the subdeacon and notary Richiprandus, made use of the Lucca *Sanblasiana* – or its exemplar or a related copy – as he drew up the charters. It is perhaps not too far-fetched to imagine that the bishop of Lucca had before him the same codex as he pronounced his judgments in court.


Table 4.

<sup>53</sup> On the *Sanblasiana* and its contents, see Maassen, *Geschichte*, pp. 504-512; Kéry, *Canonical collections*, pp. 29-31; Elliot, *Collectio* (pp. 21-27 for the Lucca manuscript). See also Paolo Tomei's contribution in this volume.

datur

<sup>54</sup> *EOMIA* 2.2, pp. 247 and 249. <sup>55</sup> Cf. *EOMIA* 2.2, pp. 246 and 248 (*Versio Prisca*, with siglum *S* for the *Sanblasiana*, but not collating the Lucca manuscript).

#### **Works cited**


*Ecclesiae Occidentalis Monumenta Iuris Antiquissima*, ed. C.H. Turner, 2, part 2, Oxford 1913.


Michael W. Heil University of Arkansas at Little Rock mwheil@ualr.edu

### **Representations of Lothar I in the** *Liber pontificalis Ravennatis*

by Edward M. Schoolman

Lothar looms large in the *Liber pontificalis* of Ravenna, an episcopal *gesta* composed after 846 by a local cleric of that city named Agnellus. In its prefatory verse, Lothar was tied to the memory of his grandfather Charlemagne, and afterwards was presented as an ally of the city and its church, a relationship sealed by the service of the bishop George (837-846) as godfather to Lothar's daughter Rotruda. Furthermore, upon the death of Louis the Pious, as part of an embassy attempting to resolve the conflicts between Lothar and his brothers, George sought to affirm Ravenna privileges on the eve of the battle of Fontenoy, an event described quite differently from other sources. Completed following these struggles, the *Liber pontificalis* of Ravenna used this image of Lothar to further claims of the special status of the city, especially in its independence from Rome and longstanding imperial connections, and actively sought to legitimize Lothar's own position through a juxtaposition with Charlemagne. Although preserved in the accounts of the bishops of Ravenna, the singular efforts to elevate and memorialize Lothar differ from other contemporary institutional chronicles, and underscore the tension inherent in the narrative.

Middle Ages; 9th century; Italy; Ravenna; Lothar I; Agnellus of Ravenna; *Liber pontificalis Ravennatis*; civic memory.

Edward M. Schoolman, University of Nevada, Reno, United States, eschoolman@unr.edu, 0000-0002-1416- 1222

Referee List (DOI 10.36253/fup\_referee\_list)

FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

Edward M. Schoolman, *Representations of Lothar I in the* Liber pontificalis Ravennatis, © Author(s), CC BY 4.0, DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-623-0.07, 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. 111-129, 2022, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 978-88-5518-623-0, DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-623-0

Abbreviations

ChLA2, LV = *Chartae Latinae Antiquiores. Facsimile-edition of the Latin Charters*, 2nd series, ed. G. Cavallo – G. Nicolaj, part LV, Italy XXVII, Ravenna II, publ. R. Cosma, Dietikon-Zürich 1999.

#### 1. *Introduction*

The only narrative source to emerge from ninth-century Ravenna was the *Liber pontificalis* of a local cleric Agnellus, who not only recorded the institutional history of the local church, but used the serial biographies of its bishops to reframe the city's recent history against its illustrious and tumultuous past1 . During his own lifetime, the arrival of Lothar in 834 made these efforts all the more important, as the return of an emperor with interest in the city mirrored many moments of its former life as imperial, royal, and exarchal capital. Despite Lothar's rebellion against his father Louis the Pious, and later conflicts with his brothers, Agnellus generally portrayed the Carolingian ruler in a positive light, following in the footsteps of his grandfather Charlemagne; however, Agnellus also incorporates anxieties about the status of Ravenna, the errors of its bishops, and the difficulties faced by the city and church during Lothar's reign2. Exploring this tension, as well as the episodes featuring Lothar that appear in the *Liber pontificalis* of Ravenna, will be the primary goal of this chapter.

The other major figure in Agnellus's narrative was George, who served as bishop from ca. 837-846. On the surface, there is great animosity towards the bishop for his various misappropriations and his unsuitable character, but the *Liber pontificalis* also traces his efforts to legitimize the city's imperial status through a close alliance with Lothar. In placing Lothar as central to contemporary Ravenna, Agnellus also must configure his own appropriation of sources and the methods by which he composed his set of serial biographies, taking from older (now lost) accounts, the *Liber pontificalis* of the Roman Bishops, and various eyewitness accounts, including, presumably, those close

<sup>1</sup> Agnellus, *Liber Pontificalis*. Trans. from Agnellus of Ravenna, *The Book of Pontiffs*. The Italian translation appears in Pierpaoli, *Il Libro di Agnello*. The bibliography for Agnellus's use of history and narrative is considerable, and includes: Brown, *'Romanitas' and 'Campanilismo'*; Martínez Pizarro, *Writing Ravenna*; Borri, *Nightfall on Ravenna*. <sup>2</sup> An overview of the roles Ravenna's bishops played in the eighth and ninth centuries by ex-

tending their local authority through allying with Frankish rulers and offering the symbolic value of a past imperial capital appears in Brown, *A Byzantine Cuckoo*. On the Italian narrative sources for this period, see also: Noble, *Talking about the Carolingians*; Brown, *Louis the Pious and the Papacy*. For Lothar's reign in Italy, a recent major study has reviewed the most critical sources: Sernagiotto, Spes optima regni.

to Bishop George, and especially his own experiences in serving the bishops of Ravenna3.

Addressing the representations of Lothar, however, also lend themselves to further questions about the ways in which the text of the *Liber pontificalis Ravennatis* negotiated with the city's contemporary situation*.* That is, how did Agnellus try to balance the disreputable nature of George, the bishop of Ravenna who was allied to the Emperor Lothar in much of the narrative, with the efforts to elevate the city's "imperial" status within its own history and community memory? How did the Carolingian civil wars of the early 840s impact the historical memory of local Italian institutions? And, finally, how does the unique position of Ravenna and its relationship to Lothar manifest when placed in comparison with similar contemporary parallels, such as the *Gesta episcoporum neapolitanorum* and other institutional chronicles? Exploring these issues illuminates the inconsistencies in how local communities responded to and commemorated Lothar's complex reign4.

#### 2. *Emperors in Ravenna*

Lothar was not the only medieval emperor to visit Ravenna in an effort to legitimize political ambitions, following the model of both the late Roman emperors and the Ostrogothic king Theodoric. Both Charlemagne and Louis the Pious visited the city before Lothar, and there was continued activity from late- and post-Carolingian rulers claiming the imperial title5 . For example, in 877 Charles the Bald held a synod in Ravenna two years after his own imperial coronation and shortly before his death6 ; in 882 it was the site were Charles the Fat issued six charters, important for their legislative materials7 ; and in 892, the city played host to the coronation of Guy and Lambert of Spoleto as co-emperors by Pope Formosus8. For the first half of the tenth century, the regular appearance of emperors (or claimants) slowed to a trickle, with the exception of Berengar I, who issued a charter in Ravenna in 916. Yet with the arrival of Otto

<sup>3</sup> On the sources and methodology used by Agnellus, see Deliyannis's introduction to Agnellus, *Liber Pontificalis*, pp. 20-52; on Agnellus's use of the Roman *Liber pontificalis*, see: Deliyannis,

*The 'Liber pontificalis' of the Church of Ravenna*. <sup>4</sup> I have purposefully only addressed contemporary texts and those not already analyzed in Sernagiotto, Spes optima regni. Other evidence, such as the charters, have been expounded in

Screen, *Lothar I in Italy*. <sup>5</sup> There is significant difference in the quantity and quality of visits by Charlemagne and Louis the Pious. For Charlemagne, Ravenna was a regular stop on his Italian itineraries, and the city likely served as a model for his own imperial capital in Aachen: Deliyannis, *Charlemagne's Silver Tables*. Louis the Pious, on the other hand, may have only visited the city once, in 793, as part of a campaign of his brother Pepin of Italy: Brown, *Louis the Pious and the Papacy*, p. 301. On visits to Ravenna as part of Carolingian itineraries, see: Brühl, Fodrum*,* Gistum, pp. 400-403. <sup>6</sup> Savigni, *I papi e Ravenna*, pp. 350-351. <sup>7</sup> MacLean, *Legislation and politics*. <sup>8</sup> Brown, *A Byzantine Cuckoo*, pp. 193-194.

I in 951 and the establishment of the Saxon dynasty, Ravenna became one of the most important imperial sites in Italy once more (rivaling Pavia and Rome)9.

These visits did not just concern the city, but the political role of its bishops and the reciprocity of legitimation and support of the emperors in equal measure, a pattern that had been continually replicated and rehabilitated since Late Antiquity10. As early as the fifth century, those living in the city of Ravenna, and especially its bishops and clergy, promoted their connections to the emperors living in their midst. Peter Chrysologus, who served as bishop from 433 to 450, made mention of the imperial family of the house of Theodosius when they were in attendance at his sermons, highlighting both the family's faith as well as their patronage of the local church11. In the sixth century, the decorative schema of the church of S. Vitalis linked together parallel images of bishop Ecclesius, who served as bishop from 522 to 532, with that of the Emperor Justinian, both depicted as donors, but with the clear primacy of Bishop Ecclesius in the apse12. The idealized donor form presented here remained a significant source for this tradition with its eastern roots, but one which was readily adopted in Italy for later imperial figures like Otto I, perhaps even through these very appearances in Ravenna's mosaics13.

It is worth considering the imperial panels from S. Vitalis on their own. In the famous scene of the imperial court with Justinian, a prominent space is dedicated to Maximian, who according to the *Liber pontificalis* was hand selected by the emperor to serve as bishop of Ravenna. If we can trust the inscription and its identification, he might have been the only member of that retinue to have even seen this mosaic, which was described in the 840s by Agnellus in the *Liber pontificalis* as «Eiusdem Maximiani effigies atque augusti et augustae tesselli ualde comptitatae sunt. Quamdiu possumus de hoc sancto uiro tantam bonitatem referre, deficit michi tempus narrationis. Iste plus omnibus laborauit quam ceteri pontifices predecessores sui»14. To those serving the church of Ravenna or seeking imperial legitimacy, the visibility of such a relationship must have served as a constant reminder of its benefits, perhaps even to George and Lothar as Agnellus's contemporaries.

<sup>9</sup> Schoolman, *Rediscovering Sainthood*, pp. 84-85; Brown, *Culture and society*; Brühl, Fodrum*,* Gistum, pp. 473-474. <sup>10</sup> Deliyannis, *Ravenna in Late Antiquity*. <sup>11</sup> Schoolman, *Rediscovering Sainthood*, pp. 6-7; Sivan, *Galla Placidia*, pp. 74-75 and 161-162.

Tom Brown has pointed out that despite this connection and Peter's popularity, there is little later cult activity: Brown, *The 'Political' Use of the Cult of Saints*, p. 57. <sup>12</sup> On the design and interpretation of the apse mosaic in S. Vitalis, see: Deliyannis, *Ravenna* 

*in Late Antiquity*, pp. 236-243. On Ecclesius's image, see: Deliyannis, *Ecclesius of Ravenna*. <sup>13</sup> Schoolman, *Rediscovering Sainthood*, pp. 110-114. The long hiatus from imperial politics in

Italy during this period has been attributed to Ravenna's political recentering towards its local aristocracy: West-Harling, *Rome, Ravenna, and Venice*, p. 86. <sup>14</sup> Agnellus, *Liber pontificalis*, 77 («the image of this same Maximian and of the emperor and

empress are beautifully created in mosaic» going on to note that «however long we could tell of the goodness of this holy man, the time for narration is lacking to me. He labored in all things more than the other bishops his predecessors»; trans. Deliyannis).

Some of Maximian's successors as bishops also labored to maintain connections – or at least the appearance of connections – to the emperors now in Constantinople. For example, this mosaic panel from S. Apollinaris in Classe «came to represent the various functions of the archbishop, from his liturgical role to his political importance to his status as heir of Apollinaris» who was also prominently featured on the apse15. Although a rough parallel in design to the panel in S. Vitalis, the imperial figures in the mosaic of S. Apollinaris have been heavily restored, but enough remains to suggest that this panel commemorates the granting of privileges to Ravenna's church. The panel includes a bishop and his episcopal retinue receiving a physical copy of the *privilegia* from a Byzantine emperor (or group of emperors), perhaps Emperor Constantine IV (668-685) and his brothers Heraclius and Tiberius with Bishop Reparatus (671-677) as described in the *Liber pontificalis* (and whose names are later inscribed in mosaic during a medieval repair)16. Through the images manifested in the physical environment of the city of Ravenna, and in its history as understood in the ninth century, Ravenna's bishops protected and promoted the city by means of their relationships to emperors. Along with the career of Agnellus and his personal grievances, it is this context that the representation of Lothar in the *Liber pontificalis* of Ravenna also must be understood.

#### 3. *The* Liber pontificalis *as a source for Ravenna and Lothar*

The *Liber pontificalis* of Ravenna has a limited and late manuscript tradition. It was written by Agnellus, who refers to himself within the text also as «Andreas», along with the methodology he used:

Hunc praedictum Pontificalem, a tempore beati Apolenaris post eius decessum paene annos .dccc. et amplius, ego Agnellus qui et Andreas (…) composui. Et uni inueni quid illi certius fecerunt, uestris aspectibus allata sunt, et quod per seniores et longaeuos audiui, uestris oculis non defraudaui17.

Agnellus refers back to himself, his family, his activities in the church, and his practice in composing the *Liber pontificalis* in 17 other passages, along with his animosity to a number of bishops caused by both personal slights and perceived shortcomings of morals and leadership. As noted above, Agnellus extended the work from Ravenna's first bishop Apollinaris to his contempo-

<sup>15</sup> Deliyannis, *Ravenna in Late Antiquity*, p. 274. <sup>16</sup> *Ibidem*, pp. 271-272; Carile, *Production, promotion and reception*, pp. 70-74; Carile, *Piety,* 

*Power, or Presence?*. <sup>17</sup> «I, Agnellus, also known as Andreas (…) have composed this abovementioned pontifical book from the time of blessed Apollinaris and after his death lasting almost 800 years and more. And when I found out what they certainly did, these deeds were brought to your attention, and what I heard from elders and old men I have not stolen from your eyes»: Agnellus, *Liber pontificalis*, 32; trans. Deliyannis.

rary George; what survives in the manuscript tradition does not preserve the end of George's life, nor does it include the life of George's immediate predecessor, Petronax, who served from 818-837, and contains another lacuna for the bishop Valerius (c. 789-810)18.

Like many contemporary texts, the original ninth-century manuscript of Agnellus's work does not survive. We must be content with significantly later copies of the fifteenth and sixteenth century suggesting one limit on their circulation, but with the knowledge that two of the lives Agnellus wrote, that for the bishops Severus and Peter Chrysologus, began circulating in the late ninth or early tenth century in response to the illegal translation of the relics in the first case, and the growing status of the sermons in the second19. Despite this uneven history, and its relatively minor influence in the medieval historical canon until the sixteenth century, the *Liber pontificalis* of Agnellus remains a crucial witness to the events of the ninth century, and on Lothar in particular. First, it sets Lothar as a parallel to his grandfather Charlemagne in both positive ways and under more critical light; second, it highlights the nearly familial relationship between Ravenna's bishop, George, and Lothar; and finally, it offers a decidedly pro-Lothar view of his defeat at the battle of Fontenoy.

It is within the first few lines of the *Liber pontificalis*, written by someone else before Agnellus's final work was complete, that we begin to see the framework for setting up Lothar following the footsteps of Charlemagne20. The verse reads:

Tempore apostolicus Gregorius alta salubris Soluendi et contra almifici quo numina Petri Compte habet, et sceptra imperii augustus tenet almus, Armipotente satus Magno Karolo, Lodouicus, Pacificus, natusque suus Lotharius acer, Belliger, Itala regna tenens Romaque potitus, Regibus et populis lectus solio imperiali21.

The section of the verse, which continues on for another 75 lines, establishes the importance of inheritance, setting up Pope Gregory IV "in the place" of Peter, and extending to Lothar a similar legitimacy as heir of Charles through Louis.

<sup>18</sup> Despite the lack of a *vita* for Petronax, Agnellus does include instances from his episcopate, notably the instance of translations of a number of relics under Agnellus's own supervision, but especially those of the bishop Maximian. Schoolman, *On moving relics and monastic reform*; Schoolman, *Reassessing the Sarcophagi of Ravenna*. <sup>19</sup> See Deliyannis's introduction to the *Liber Pontificalis*, pp. 58-67. <sup>20</sup> The reference to the Pope Gregory IV and bishop Petronax is the clear indication that the

verse predates the completion of the text to sometime between 827 and 835.

<sup>21</sup> «At the time when Pope Gregory holds the high powers as is fitting / of loosing and binding, in place of gracious Peter, and the kindly / emperor Louis holds the scepter of the empire, peaceful descendant of / mighty Charles the Great, and his son, fierce Lothar, war bringer, holds the / Italian kingdoms and possesses Rome, chosen for the imperial throne by kings and people»: Agnellus, *Liber pontificalis*, Prefatory verse, 19-25; trans. Deliyannis. A literary analysis of this passage appears in Sernagiotto, Spes optima regni, p. 115.

Yet this is just foreshadowing of closer parallels. Later in his narrative, Agnellus describes objects taken from Ravenna by Charlemagne during his visit to that city in 801, notably the equestrian statue of Theodoric, which was taken and set up in Aachen22. Missing from Agnellus's reports are the other spoliated materials that we know from Einhard's *Vita Karoli* and letters of Pope Hadrian, which enumerate other gifts or treasures taken from the city and may have been strategically omitted in the *Liber pontificalis*<sup>23</sup>*.* To offer a parallel with the removal of Theodoric's statue by Charlemagne, Agnellus reports on «a large piece of polished porphyry in the church of S. Severus, which was taken to Francia on the order of Emperor Lothar and used as a table in the church of S. Sebastian; Agnellus knows this because he himself was the one who supervised its packing, "but with [his] heart full of grief"»24. In comparing this to the images of emperors we have in churches like S. Vitalis and S. Apollinaris in Classe, there seemed to have been a difference between earlier Byzantine imperial «patrons» and later Carolingian «despoliators» – beneficent and legitimate as they may have been. Despite this perspective on Ravenna's material goods, the fact that Agnellus composed the *Liber pontificalis* over an extended period, possibly even more than a decade, might be why the treatment of Lothar is uneven, incorporating both his deprivations of the church and his marshal valor at the Battle of Fontenoy.

Agnellus's own participation in the removal of the porphyry slab was not the only time that he played a part in the relationship between emperor, bishop, and city. From the very first lines of his description of the bishop George, we find personal animus towards the bishop in reporting key details about his participation with George in the baptism of Rotruda25.

Georgius .xlviii. Iste iuuenis aetate, capillo crispo capitis, grandes oculos. Ab Gregorio quarto papa Romanus consecratus fuit. Sed postquam sacramentum a corpore beati Petri praebuit, egressus Romam, statim contrarius ordinatori suo extitit. Hic postquam accepit regimen, omnes gazas ecclesiae confregit et criptas disrupit et thesauros praedecessorum pontificum extraxit. Et ut filiam Lotharii de fonte leuaret, magnas opes exinde expendit. Eo anno iuit Papiam; et post omnia exenia augustali tributa, emit ex palatio eiusdem imperatoris uestimenta baptismalia quingentos aureos, ex auro ornata, bissina alba; et suscepit filiam praedicti augusti nomine Rotrudam, quam

<sup>22</sup> This spoliation is described in Agnellus, *Liber pontificalis*, 94, but had lasting implications for Charles and his legacy; Thürlemann, *Die Bedeutung der Aachener Theoderich-Statue*; Hellgardt, *Agnellus von Ravenna und Walahfrid Strabo*. <sup>23</sup> Nelson, *Charlemagne and Ravenna*, pp. 250-251. <sup>24</sup> From Deliyannis's introduction to Agnellus of Ravenna, *The Book of Pontiffs*, p. 79. The de-

scription appears in Agnellus, *Liber pontificalis*, 113. <sup>25</sup> On the event itself, see: Sernagiotto, Spes optima regni, pp. 465-466. The *Liber pontificalis* 

is the only source to mention Rotruda with any certainty, and there has been some debate if she survived into adulthood and was married to one of Lothar's allies. Settipani remains skeptical, but Hlawitschka argued that she married Landbert/Lambert II, count of Nantes, based on a donation from 870 of a certain Witbert who names his parents as Lambert and Rotrudis. Settipani, *La préhistoire des Capétiens*, p. 265; Hlawitschka, *Waren die Kaiser Wido und Lambert*, pp. 367-369.

michi porrexit, et manibus meis uestiui et calciamenta in pedibus decoraui auro et iacintho ornata, et postmodum missas ad augustum celebravit26.

Despite the success of the gifts and the baptism, the baptismal mass itself reflected George's unacceptable temperament, as Agnellus further reports, «et ante introitum missarum fatebat, se exardescere siti, et bibit occulte plenam fialam uini peregrini», although nothing further about this event was mentioned27.

For George, serving as *compater* during baptism, especially for the daughter of the emperor, formed powerful bonds even beyond those between natural parents and godparents28. In Agnellus's description, George's actions would have been in imitation of popes like Stephen and Hadrian, who actively sought to forge relationships with the Carolingian dynasty through baptism and its associated patronage, as noted in the work of Arnold Angenendt29. A key difference between the baptism of Rotruda and those performed by the popes was in the location: while George had to travel to Pavia, the popes typically used spaces in Rome30. Pavia would have been a powerful choice for Lothar, selecting the site of the former Kingdom of Italy and a bishop from one of Rome's diminished rivals, and also for George, for whom standing among the new imperial family might have seemed in imitation of the actions of his predecessors preserved in mosaic.

A few other items stand out about this account beyond the fact that Ravenna's bishop stands in as *compater* for a daughter of Lothar. The first was that in order to manage the cost associated with the imperial sponsorship, George raided the church's treasury and the tombs of his predecessors, in parallel with typical activities of the Carolingians. The second is that Agnellus de-

<sup>26</sup> «George, the forty-eighth bishop. He was young in age, with curly hair on his head, big eyes. He was consecrated by the Roman Pope Gregory IV, but after he had received the sacrament from the body of blessed Peter, having left Rome, at once he stood in opposition to the one who had ordained him. After he received the authority, he destroyed all the treasures of the church and broke open the crypts and dragged out the treasures of his episcopal predecessors. And he paid out great wealth from them so that he might raise the daughter of Lothar from the font. In that year he went to Pavia; and after having given all the gifts to the emperor, he bought baptismal vestments for fifty gold pieces from the palace of the same emperor of fine white linen decorated with gold; and he received the daughter of the said emperor, by the name of Rotruda, whom he handed to me, and with my hands I clothed her and decorated her feet with shoes ornate with gold and jacinth, and afterward he celebrated mass for the emperor»: Agnellus, *Liber* 

*pontificalis*, 171; trans. Deliyannis. <sup>27</sup> Agnellus, *Liber pontificalis*, 171 : he «confessed that he was burning with thirst, and he drank secretly a vial full of foreign wine»; trans. Deliyannis).

<sup>28</sup> Lynch comments that in the Carolingian period, «the baptismal sponsor became a spiritual parent to the child as well as a coparent to the child's father and mother», which served to reinforce both practical and religious bonds; Lynch, *Godparents and Kinship*, p. 288. In this case, it also mirrored the typical position that the popes took as well.

<sup>29</sup> Angenendt, *Das geistliche Bündnis*. <sup>30</sup> Charlemagne's third wife Hildegard visited Rome twice for the baptism of her children, and a number of later baptisms coincided with royal visits: Story, *The Carolingians and the oratory of Saint Peter*, pp. 269-273.

scribes the role he himself played in dressing little Rotruda. This does not seem to be an official role, but rather something that Agnellus was invited to do because of his relationship with George (which at the time seems to have been positive), or perhaps was indicative of Agnellus playing a role in the baptism ceremony as a member of the clergy31.

The final item that stands out is the composition of the imperial party. Agnellus mentions Lothar, his wife, the empress Ermengarde, and a daughter named Rotruda who appears in no other narrative sources. According to Eduard Hlawitschka, it is possible that the very same Rotruda eventually married Lambert II of Nantes, and even if her marriage into the family of one of Lothar's western allies played a role in later family strategies, they were significantly outshone by the conflicts between her brothers32.

As to the event itself, the timing of Lothar in Pavia between 837 and 840 was early in George's tenure as bishop, and before the death of Louis the Pious and the ensuing chaos. This was a time when Ravenna faced other strains from external forces, including the loss of relics of saint Severus, which were taken to Germany by a professional relic thief in 837 and left a legacy of fear over the possible pilfering of other relics33.

The eyewitness account of this baptism, and the noteworthy cost of Ravenna's participation in the gifts provided by George, highlights the tension that Agnellus must have felt between supporting George's pro-imperial and anti-papal stance, and the bishop's depredation of the tombs of his predecessors and his later failures at the battle of Fontenoy.

#### 4. *The* Liber pontificalis *on the Carolingian civil wars*

The Battle of Fontenoy was the turning point in the conflict among the three Carolingian brothers and kings34. Following the death of Louis the Pious in 840, whose demise coincided with a number of unfortunate portents as recorded by Agnellus, Lothar faced threats from both inside and outside his realm. The greatest and most immediate existential danger was in the ambitions and intentions of his younger brothers, Charles the Bald and Louis the German. In Ravenna, Agnellus depicts George seizing the opportunity presented by this unrest, but also the way in which he positions Lothar as central to the narrative, while the wider conflict amoung the Carolingians appears

<sup>31</sup> A ninth-century version of the baptismal liturgy mentions the role of the clergy as drying-off of baptized infants and dressing them in white, but shoes are not mentioned. Lynch, *Godparents and Kinship*, pp. 302-303. <sup>32</sup> Hlawitschka, *Waren die Kaiser Wido und Lambert*. <sup>33</sup> On the contexts for the theft of the relics of Severus in 837, see: Geary, Furta Sacra, p. 58. On

the anxieties over later relic thefts and the protections that appeared following the theft, see: Schoolman, *On moving relics and monastic reform*. <sup>34</sup> On the importance of and sources for Lothar at Fontenoy, see: Sernagiotto, *Lotario I e la* 

*guerra tra fratelli*; Screen, *The importance of the emperor*.

through the lens of the church of Ravenna as an institution. According to the *Liber pontificalis Ravennatis*, after obtaining papal authorization, George travels to Frankia with a treasure taken from his church (and the privileges obtained by earlier bishops) in an attempt to forge a peace between Charles the Bald, Louis the German, and Lothar, but arrives when the brothers are still preparing for war but the open hostilities had yet taken place. Agnellus describes the battle and its outcome for Lothar:

Sonant arma, humeris uentilantur splendida scuta, tremebant multi animo, se terga dabant, pauida corda et gemitos immensos, cadebant corpora ferro. Lotharius armatus se medium mersit in hostes, uidens uictos suos fugientes passim undique, nec erat quies secantium gladiis membra. In media inimicorum, ut dixi, arma deuentus, non ex eius lateri qui posset auxilium erant praebere, sed solus acer multa demoliuit cadauera hasta. Bella solus uicit, sed sui omnes terga dederunt. Crinito sedens sonipede, pictas ornatus faleras ostro, calce equo percutit, inimicos morsibus uastans. Qualis in hoste solus, decem sicut ille fuissent, <ut> imperium diuisum non esset, nec tantos in sedilia reges. Interea versa est victoria in manus Caroli. Adiuuabat eum Lodouicus, frater suus, Baioariorum rex35.

Agnellus described next the arrival of the aid of Pepin, but despite the renewed forces, Lothar's army was defeated, and George, who had no business near the battlefield in the first place, was captured and abused by those under the command of Charles the Bald, although according to the account in the *Annales Bertiniani*, he was detained by Lothar himself and sent back «cum honore»36. Agnellus, however, goes into great detail about the possible mistreatment of George, and especially the privileges he wished to have imperially reconfirmed that were then destroyed, divine justice for his ignominious actions, but says nothing further about Lothar, and the work ends imperfectly with George's death in 846.

Despite Lothar's acknowledged defeat at the Battle of Fontenoy, echoed in the other major contemporary sources for the conflict, the *Annales Bertiniani* and *Annales Fuldenses*, Agnellus presents him in overtly heroic tones, not just fierce but *acer* (the same adjective used in the prefatory verse), and also *bella solus uicit*, that Lothar «alone, he conquered in war». This was the embodiment of marshal valor, as expected by a king or emperor, and further

fratresque eius pacis gratia directus, sed a Lothario detentus neque ad fratres venire permissus, captus est, et cum honore ad propria remissus»: *Annales Bertiniani*, a*.* 841.

<sup>35</sup> «Weapons resounded, splendid shields were brandished on shoulders, many trembled in spirit, gave their backs, fearful hearts and immense sighs, their bodies fell by the sword. Lothar, armed, plunged into the midst of the enemy, seeing his followers, conquered, fleeing everywhere, nor was there a respite from the slaughter of bodies with swords. Having arrived, as I said, in the midst of the weapons of his enemies, there were none from his side who could offer aid, but alone, fierce, he destroyed many corpses with his spear. Alone, he conquered in war, but all his followers fled. Sitting on a crested horse, decorated with trappings colored with purple, he struck the horse with his heel, devastating his enemies with its biting. Thus alone among the enemy, [he fought] as if he were ten men, so that the empire might not be divided, nor [have] such kings on its thrones. However, the victory turned into the hands of Charles. Louis, his brother, king of Bavaria, aided him»: Agnellus, *Liber pontificalis*, 174; trans. Deliyannis. <sup>36</sup> «In quo proelio Georgius, Ravennatis episcopus, a Gregorio Romano pontifice ad Lotharium

reinforced by his depiction in imperial purple on horseback. For Agnellus, it was the failure of Lothar's army, and not a loss of his innate bravery and skill in battle, that led to Lothar's defeat. If anything, the description offered by Agnellus reconfirms his own allegiances, if not those of the church of Ravenna, to the eldest son of Louis the Pious.

#### 5. *History and memory of Lothar I in and beyond Agnellus*

Although most concerned with the effects of broader events and relationships on the church of Ravenna (or at least its urban clergy), in his account Agnellus balanced the disreputable nature of George, a despoiler of church treasuries who was punished and embarrassed at the hands of an enemy king, with the fact that he was aligned with the ultimately heroic Emperor Lothar. In the same vein, the narratives about Lothar served in essence to re-elevate the city's "imperial" status within its own present, history, and community memory.

Because of this connection, the animus against George was tempered by the association with an emperor who showed favor to the city, and who, unlike his father, was personally invested in Italian affairs, lending to the possibility of Ravenna reasserting its independence from Rome37. Despite Agnellus's searing personal dislike of George, the connections reflected back on four centuries of interaction, going back to Ravenna's position as imperial capital in the fifth century. Simply by becoming emperor, a moment that is not described in Agnellus or any other Italian source, Lothar served to restore the city's imperial status, even if obliquely, through his appearance with George.

This also connects to Ravenna's complicated relationship with Charles the Great. While there are significant differences between the reigns of Charles and his grandson, with respect to Ravenna, they shared crucial features: both were emperors; they were essentially absent from the city's governance and affairs; they were spoliators of the church and city, rather than donors; and they were fierce victors (although this is more tenuous). And in fact, the *Liber pontificalis* of Ravenna was not so different in its application from other contemporary and near-contemporary sources concerning Lothar, which could claim a relationship to Lothar and redraft their own institutional histories to suit various needs, often through connections across the Carolingian dynasty.

For example, the *Gesta episcoporum* of Naples offers three instances where Lothar is mentioned, although often removed from the events around the city, and ultimately promoting a relationship with his son Louis II38. In

<sup>37</sup> While the bishop George was unable to increase Ravenna's autonomy during the reign of Lothar, his activities set the stage for further efforts at independence from the papacy later in

the ninth century. Simonini, *Autocefalia ed Esarcato*, pp. 174-182. <sup>38</sup> *Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum*. For the editions and history of the *Gesta*, which extends in an anonymous original text covering the history of Naples's bishops through 763 and

the first instance, the *Gesta* records an appeal was made by Duke Andrea of Naples for aid from the emperor in dealing with a siege of the city by Sicardus of Benevento, an instance in which the call for help went unanswered and Lothar remaining a distant figure<sup>39</sup>. That conflict progressed, influenced nominally by a treaty between Benevento and Naples in 836, and lasted until Sicardus's assassination in 839. There was not immediate resolution, as the situation was made worse by the arrival of a Frankish general, Contardus, who killed Andrea and married his daughter40. Now weary of Frankish interventions, other threats remained for Naples, especially in the form of various groups of Saracens from North Africa who also served intermittently as Neapolitan mercenaries.

This situation would bring about the next appearance of Lothar in the *Gesta*, when it was reported that he was later moved to supply aid by sending troops to address the rising threats of and damage caused by Saracens in Italy. In 846, Rome itself was targeted by a raid from Muslim forces, likely those that had been established in Sicily in the decades before41. In response to this attack, the *Gesta* describes the events the following way: Lothar sent a force that pursued the Saracens south as far as Gaeta, where the Saracens set a trap along the steep paths and were able to soundly defeat the Franks who were unaccustomed to this type of warfare42. Like the first episode, Lothar remained physically distant from these events. Although he is seen taking action by sending an army, the reality was that he was unable to improve the situation for the Neapolitans, who during this conflict were able to rout the Saracens by sea under the leadership of Cesarius, the son of Duke Sergius of Naples.

In a final episode concerning Lothar recorded in the *Gesta*, it was through the supplication of Sergius that Louis II was installed in Italy, specifically to deal with the Muslim forces still plaguing both the Lombard and Neapolitan territories. While Lothar is given the credit for promoting Louis II to co-emperor, it was Louis himself who personally «ex illis Hismahelitis triumphavit. Et sagaciter ordinans divisionem Beneventani et Salernitani principum, vic-

extended by two known hagiographers through 898, see: Achelis, *Die Bischofchronik von Neapel*; Granier, *La difficile genèse*; Granier, *Transformations de l'église*; Granier, *Le peuple devant* 

*les saints*; Berto, Utilius est veritatem proferre. <sup>39</sup> «Mox autem Andreas consul Franciam direxit, deprecans domnum Lhotharium, ut saltem eius preceptione a tantis malis sopiretur Sichardus»: *Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum*, 57. <sup>40</sup> West, *Communities and* pacta, p. 388. On the author of the *Gesta*'s attitude towards Sicardus, see: Berto, *The Others and Their Stories*, pp. 46-47. On Contradus, see: Whitten, *Franks,* 

*Greeks, and Saracens*, p. 267. <sup>41</sup> Lankila, *The Saracen Raid of Rome*, pp. 98-99. <sup>42</sup> «Lhotharius rex Francorum, ferocem contra eos populum misit; qui celeriter properantes, eos usque Caietam sunt persecuti. Hic autem Saraceni solitam molientes stropham, in locis angustis et arduo calle nonnullos audaciores absconderunt. Franci vero ignorantes calliditatem eorum, conabantur viriliter super eos descendere. At illi de latibulo exilientes, irato Deo, primum ipsorum percutierunt signiferum; quo perempto, cunctis terga vertentibus, validissime occidebantur»: *Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum*, 60.

tor reversus est»43. In each of these episodes, rather than considering larger political interests, the *Gesta* positions Lothar's actions as in some way responding to Naples but in keeping a great distance, finding the resolution to conflicts in other figures.

This is the opposite of the relationship invoked between Lothar and the community of Novalesa in northern Italy's piedmont, found in the eleventh-century chronicle of Novalesa's monastery44. In that recounting, a highly embellished text that included an imaginary son of Charles the Great who became the monastery's abbot, Lothar is presented as a patron: «Lotharius vero de eadem valle abbati Ioseph preceptum faciens, et insuper adcrevit Pagnum, quondam ditissimum et regalem monasterium, quod olim Aystulfus rex ambidexter condiderat»45. Not only was Lothar's grandfather tied directly to the development of the monastery, but Lothar himself was both reestablishing longstanding claims and contributing to the monastery's growing wealth.

What is more remarkable is the Chronicle of Novalesa's creative description of the Battle of Fontenoy. While Lothar's defeat goes unmentioned in the *Gesta* of Naples, and is used to cast Lothar as a valiant hero against insurmountable odds in the *Liber pontificalis* of Ravenna, the chronicle refashions the history of internal Carolingian conflicts, both confusing the main actors of the civil war following the death of Louis the Pious as well as the outcome of Fontenoy and its Italian implications:

Circa igitur haec tempora, cum non inter se aequaliter divisissent filii Caroli regna patris sui, ortum ilico bellum inter eos. Nam in campo quodam, ubi fontes nonnulle oriuntur, unde et nomen accepit videlicet Fontaneto, ibi quoque conglobati quattuor reges cum chuneis suis fortiter invicem dimicarunt; ubi occisa nonnulla milia hominum, non modicam ibi stragem dederunt. Qui licet multi ex utraque parte occubuerint, constat tamen Hludowicus cum Lothari filio, superatis fratribus, campum optinuisse cum victoria. Sicque victores effecti, regnum Italicum potiti sunt46.

For the later abbots and community of Novalesa, the connection (although fictious) proved to be what mattered, and in these cases, it was with the ruling

<sup>43</sup> *Ibidem*, 61 («triumphed over the Ishmaelites» and «wisely ordered the division of Benevento and Salerno»).

<sup>44</sup> *Chronicon Novaliciense*, ed. Bethmann; *Chronicon Novaliciense*, ed. Combetti. Trans. in

*Cronaca di Novalesa*, ed. Alessio; Clark, *The Chronicle of Novalese*. <sup>45</sup> *Chronicon Novaliciense*, 3.26 («Lothar ordered that valley to be made the possession of the Abbot Joseph, which also included Pagnum, at one time a most rich and regal monastery, which long ago King Aistulf had also founded»; trans. Clark).

<sup>46</sup> «So about this time, when the sons of Charles [a mistake for Louis] had not divided equally among themselves the kingdoms of their father, war rose up immediately among them. For, on the plain where several fountains arise (whence its name "Fontaneto"), there also gathered the four kings with their battle lines, and clashed sharply; several thousand men were killed there; they brought about no small slaughter. Although many from each side died, nevertheless it is agreed that after his brothers had been defeated, Louis, with his son Lothar, gained the field and the victory. And thus having become the victors, they controlled the realm of Italy»: *Chronicon Novaliciense*, 3.28; trans. Clark.

powers rather than some semblance of imperial authority or legitimacy that reinforced that community's claims.

Finally, although the appearance and exclusion of Lothar in the narrative of Rome's *Liber pontificalis* has been well reviewed by Sernagiotto and others, it is worth quickly revisiting how that text that served as the model for so many institutional histories in Italy relied on similar types of refashioning and reinvisioning, often through omission of imperial activities that elevates the papacy47. Little attention was paid to events outside of the scope of papal reach, such as the Battle of Fontenoy; instead, Lothar appears as a distant figure, completely absent from the *Vita* of Gregory IV, and appearing in the *Vita* of Sergius II only in sending Drogo of Metz and his son Louis as delegates to Rome following Sergius's election48. As in the other two cases discussed above, the institutional needs took precedence over placing Lothar's reign and relationship with Italy at the forefront.

#### 6. *Conclusion*

Along with the *Liber pontificalis* of Ravenna, what these other accounts from Rome, Naples and Novalesa demonstrate is a substantially uneven presentation of Lothar's Italian activities. In Tom Noble's article on *Talking about the Carolingians* in the recent volume on *After Charlemagne: Carolingian Italy and its Rulers*, he makes the argument that the sources from the time of Lothar «have more to say [than for Louis]… but what they say is often wrong and rarely helpful». This culminates in the fact that «Lothar's imperial coronation in Rome is mentioned in no Italian source and we receive no reports about his activity in Italy» at that time49.

There may be a further layer impacting the inconsistent nature of institutional response, at least in the case of Ravenna, on account of the complex alliance between the Carolingians and Rome. Early in his reign, Lothar and his father Louis issued the *Constitutio Romana* in 824, notably the same year that Agnellus undertook the removal of relics and materials under the order of bishop Petronax. This edict ratified the rights of the papacy and their responsibility to the emperors (among other administrative features, including oaths made by Rome's citizens to the emperor personally), but also may have worked against Ravenna's ambitions for greater autonomy in highlighting the pope's power in dispute settlement50. That it was executed during the time

<sup>47</sup> Sernagiotto, Spes optima regni, pp. 102-108. <sup>48</sup> *Liber pontificalis*, ed. Duchesne, Sergius II, 8. <sup>49</sup> Noble, *Talking about the Carolingians*, p. 24. <sup>50</sup> Noble argues that the *Constitutio Romana* was a product of Lothar under the direction of his father, and that rather than a reframing or reasserting of imperial rights, it followed on earlier efforts by Louis, notably the *Ludovicianum* of 816-817, to formalize the relationship between Frankish rulers and the papacy. Noble, *The Republic of St. Peter*, pp. 308-322.

of Petronax may have been part of the motivation for Agnellus's failure to include his biography in the *Liber pontificalis*, as Petronax clearly sought to affirm Ravenna's privileges through Rome rather than from the emperors, either Byzantine or Carolingian, activities that did not fit with the overall aims of Agnellus51.

While the sources may be wrong, or at the minimum conflicting, they can be extremely helpful in making sense of those living in the confusion following the revolts against Louis the Pious and the wars among his children, especially in making sense of their allegiances and why those allegiances mattered. In the case of Agnellus's *Liber pontificalis* and the city of Ravenna, Lothar was the last emperor to grace the city – and his legacy connected to his grandfather Charles – reconfirming the centuries-old links between the city's bishops and imperial favor. But even here, the appearance of Lothar served to strengthen the city's claims of special status despite his military failures and despoliation, further underscoring the incompatibilities within the medieval narratives.

<sup>51</sup> In 819, Petronax received a confirmation of the privileges of the church of Ravenna from pope Pascal that omitted any mention of the role of contemporary Carolingians; the privilege appears in: *Le carte ravennati*, ed. Benericetti, pp. 21-23; ChLA2, LV, n. 1. On Pascal's relationship with the Franks, see: Goodson, *The Rome of Pope Paschal I*, pp. 30-33; Verardi, *Il papato alla prova dell'impero*.

#### **Works cited**

H. Achelis, *Die Bischofchronik von Neapel (von Johannes Diaconus u.a.)*, Leipzig 1930.


*Le carte ravennati dei secoli ottavo e nono*, ed. R. Benericetti, Faenza 2006.

*Chartae Latinae Antiquiores. Facsimile-edition of the Latin Charters*, 2nd series, ed. G. Cavallo – G. Nicolaj, part LV, Italy XXVII, Ravenna II, publ. R. Cosma, Dietikon-Zürich 1999.

*Chronicon Novaliciense*, ed. L.K. Bethmann, MGH, SS rer. Germ., 21, Hannover 1846.


Edward M. Schoolman University of Nevada, Reno eschoolman@unr.edu

### **«Per Padum fluvium termino currente usque […] Civitatem Novam atque Mutinam». Consolidation and affirmation of the Church of Modena and its bishops in 9th-century Carolingian Italy\***

by Edoardo Manarini

This paper seeks to trace the developments which led the Church of Modena and its bishops to acquire a pre-eminent position in its diocese in the second half of the ninth century and for much of the following one. The analysis sets out from the highly fragmented post-Roman territorial context and from the efforts made by Lombard kings, which were mostly directed towards the fiscal estate of Cittanova, rather than the ancient Roman *civitas* of Mutina. Particular attention is paid to the figure of Bishop Leodoin and to the manuscripts attributed to him in the Chapter Library, especially the famous *Codex legum* (O.I.2), for which a different production context is suggested, prior to its acquisition by the Church of Modena.

Middle Ages; 9th century; Italy; Modena; Leodoin; fiscal estates; bishops' soft power; lay manuscripts.

\* I am indebted to Matteo Al Kalak, Tiziana Lazzari, Luigi Provero, and Giacomo Vignodelli for their helpful comments on earlier written drafts.

Edoardo Manarini, University of Turin, Italy, emanarini@icloud.com, 0000-0002-7796-0742 Referee List (DOI 10.36253/fup\_referee\_list)

FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

Edoardo Manarini, *«Per Padum fluvium termino currente usque […] Civitatem Novam atque Mutinam». Consolidation and affirmation of the Church of Modena and its bishops in 9th-century Carolingian Italy*, © Author(s), CC BY 4.0, DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-623-0.08, 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. 131-155, 2022, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 978- 88-5518-623-0, DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-623-0

Abbreviations

CDL III = *Codice diplomatico longobardo*, vol. 3, 1, ed. C. Brühl, Roma 1973 (FSI, 64).

ChLA2, LXXXVIII = *Chartae Latinae Antiquiores*, 2nd series, part LXXXVIII, Italy LX, Modena-Nonantola I, ed. G. Cavallo – G. Nicolaj, publ. G. Feo – M. Modesti – M. Al Kalak – M. Mezzetti, Dietikon-Zürich 2008.

DD B I = *I diplomi di Berengario I*, ed. L. Schiaparelli, Roma 1903 (FSI, 35).

MGH, Capit. I = MGH, *Capitularia regum Francorum*, vol. 1, ed. A. Boretius, Hannover 1883 (Legum sectio, 2).

MGH, DD Kar I = MGH, *Pippini, Carlomanni, Caroli Magni Diplomata*, ed. E. Mühlbacher, Hannover 1906 (Diplomata Karolinorum, 1).

MGH, DD LdF = MGH, *Die Urkunden Ludwigs des Frommen*, ed. T. Kölzer, 3 voll., Wiesbaden 2016 (Diplomata Karolinorum, 2).

MGH, DD Lu II = MGH, *Die Urkunden Ludwigs II.*, ed. K. Wanner, München 1994 (Diplomata Karolinorum, 4).

#### 1. *Introduction*

Si vero Karolo et Hludowico viventibus Pippinus debitum humane sortis compleverit, Karolus et Hluduwicus dividant inter se regnum quod ille habuit, et haec divisio tali modo fiat, ut ab ingressu Italiae per Augustam civitatem accipiat Karolus Eboreiam, Vercellas, Papiam et inde per Padum fluvium termino currente usque ad fines Regensium et ipsam Regiam et Civitatem Novam atque Mutinam usque ad terminos sancti Petri. Has civitates cum suburbanis et territoriis suis atque comitatibus quae ad ipsas pertinent et quicquid inde Romam pergenti ad laevam respicit, de regno quod Pippinus habuit, una cum ducatu Spoletano, hanc portionem sicut praediximus accipiat Karolus1 .

This paragraph from the 806 *Divisio regnorum* establishes in what way, after the death of Charlemagne (768-814), the Kingdom of Italy's territories were to be divided in the event that the emperor's son Pepin (781-810) died before his brothers Charles (800-811) and Louis (814-840). Charles the Younger would receive that stretch of the Kingdom of Italy which extended southward along the Gallic route (*via publica*) from the entrance into Italy at Aosta, and which included the cities of Ivrea and Vercelli, as well as the kingdom's capital, Pavia. Bounded by the great river artery of the Po, it extended into the plain of eastern Emilia, which in the area of Bologna bordered with the Exarchate. From there, the subdivision continued down to Rome and encompassed the Adriatic stretch of the kingdom, roughly coinciding with the Duchy of Spoleto.

The text offers a representation of the territory in question as this must have been envisaged beyond the Alps, at Charles' court, in the early ninth century. What is striking about it is the varying attention to detail: an evocative bird's eye description characterises the first section, which comprises cities located along the Roman road leading from the Alpine passes to the plain, whereas the second stretch follows the Po's course as its northern limit and includes the plain down to the Apennine coastline to the south. A reference to

<sup>1</sup> MGH, Capit. I, n. 45, p. 128: «If however Pippin should come to the end of his allotted days while Charles and Louis are still alive, then Charles and Louis are to divide the kingdom which he held between themselves, and the division is to be made as follows: starting from the entrance to Italy at Aosta, Charles is to have Ivrea, Vercelli, and Pavia, and then, using the River Po as a boundary as far as the borders of Reggio, he is to have Reggio itself, Cittanova, and Modena as far as the boundaries of Saint Peter. These cities, together with their immediate neighbourhoods and territories and the countries pertaining to them, and everything from Pippin's kingdom which lies on the left of the route to Rome, with the addition of the duchy of Spoleto, this portion Charles, as we have said, is to take over».

cities was not enough to define the boundary of the eastern stretch of the Po Valley; other territorial and juridical points of reference were required. The mention of the Roman cities of Reggio and Modena is thus combined with that of the *fines Regensium* and of the main fiscal estate in this area, *Civitas Nova* – two territorial elements which had been part of the Lombard tradition and administration2.

The rise of the Modenese bishops over the course of the ninth century revolved precisely around the duality between the *civitas Mutinensis* rooted in the Roman tradition and the *Civitas Nova*<sup>3</sup> established by the Lombard central authorities at a time of major public investments in the Modena area. The political, social, and cultural transformations which occurred in the Carolingian period played a crucial role in this process. The present contribution aims to trace the developments that led the Church of Saint Geminianus and its bishops from a position of evident subordination compared to other leading actors in eastern Emilia, to one of pre-eminence in the episcopal context of the Kingdom of Italy.

So far historians have mostly attributed these developments to Bishop Leodoin (870-*ante* 898), compressing the process of self-affirmation of the Church of Modena into the years of his – certainly rather long – episcopate4. The first reason for this distorted perspective is the fragmentary nature of the documents from the *Archivio Capitolare*, which make it very difficult to reconstruct an overall picture of episcopal action for the tenth century5 . The second reason is the relative abundance of manuscripts from Leodoin's age in the *Biblioteca Capitolare*6*.* Such codices bear witness to this bishop's considerable cultural, doctrinal, and pastoral commitment, as well as to the cultural liveliness of Modena in his time. However, both Leodoin's episcopate and, more generally, the process of self-affirmation of the Church of Modena in the Carolingian period, cannot fully be brought into focus without considering the relationship which the bishops of Saint Geminianus established, on the one hand, with kings and emperors and, on the other, with public officials active in the local area. What proves crucially relevant, from this perspective, is the dichotomy between the bishopric of Modena and the nearby fiscal estate of Cittanova.

The starting point for my analysis is therefore the evolution of the territorial and institutional situation in the Modena area from the early eighth

<sup>2</sup> On the *fines Regensium* see the general overview in Bonacini, *Terre d'Emilia*, pp. 132-133. Recently, the topics of the extension of the royal fisc and of the economic capacity of early medieval Western states have become a focus of renewed scholarly attention, see Gasparri, *Le basi economiche del potere*; Loré, *Introduzione. Risorse materiali*; Lazzari, *La tutela del patrimonio fiscale*; Loré, *Spazi e forme dei beni pubblici*; *Biens publics, biens du roi*. <sup>3</sup> Vito Fumagalli was the first to suggest a relationship of political-institutional conflict betwe-

en the two settlements: see Fumagalli, *Terra e società*, pp. 90-91. <sup>4</sup> See Golinelli, *Cultura e religiosità*; Leonelli, *Storia dell'arcidiocesi*. <sup>5</sup> A commendable attempt, albeit one limited to the figures of Leodoin and Gotfredus (902-

<sup>933),</sup> has been made by Al Kalak, *Storia della chiesa di Modena*. <sup>6</sup> See Vigarani, *Inventario dei manoscritti*.

century to the first decades of the ninth. Some important archaeological finds have recently made it possible to reconsider the desolate picture of early medieval *Mutina* that emerges from literary-historical narratives composed in the city in the post-Carolingian age7 . The second step will be to examine the charter granted to the Church by the Emperor Louis the Pious (814-840) in 822: a genuine landmark charter that retraces and redefines the relationship between the Church and the royal authorities over the course of the previous century. It constitutes a first piece in the puzzle of the Modenese bishops' self-affirmation within a narrative of remarkable political, patrimonial, and institutional continuity. The third point revolves around the figure of Bishop Leodoin, who brought this process of consolidation and self-affirmation to completion. An analysis of his personality, court relations, and outstanding effort to affirm the Carolingian ideal of episcopal superiority over society clearly brings out the lines of development destined to become the hallmark of Modenese episcopal power in the following century8. However, I believe that it is necessary to temper the picture of Leodoin's absolute pre-eminence, and especially the attribution of broad public authority and judicial prerogatives to him. This becomes particularly evident when we set episcopal developments within the broader territorial context of Modena where, as late as the end of the century, the royal authorities continued to take substantial measures and different political actors still enjoyed considerable leeway.

#### 2. *A polycentric and complex territory: the Modena area and royal measures in the eighth century*

The polycentric situation described in the *Divisio regnorum* is also confirmed by local sources. The overall picture that emerges suggests an even greater degree of political and institutional complexity than the one drawn at Charlemagne's court.

After the military clashes involving *Mutina* in the aftermath of the Lombard expansion and of the Exarchate's reconquest, the situation became calmer for roughly half a century and the area turned into a buffer zone between the Lombard Kingdom of Italy and the Exarchate9. In relation to this time period, between the late sixth century and the early seventh, archaeological excavations have revealed that the Roman settlement of *Mutina* was affected by seri-

<sup>7</sup> On these narratives, characterised by dramatic tones, see Vocino, Ut hoc flagellum evadamus, and Vocino, *Una comunità minacciata*. <sup>8</sup> On Bishop Leodoin's biography and intellectual activity see Scaravelli, *Leodoino*; Al Kalak,

*Leodoino vescovo*; Heil, *Bishop Leodoin*; on his pontificate in the kingdom's framework see

Manarini, *Politiche regie e conflitti*. <sup>9</sup> See Cosentino, *L'iscrizione ravennate*; Fasoli, *Tappe ed aspetti* also remains a useful source on these developments.

ous flooding10. The alluvial sediments from watercourses smaller than the two main rivers, the Secchia and the Panaro that do not flow through the settlement, significantly reshaped the area by levelling the terrain and erasing the height drops created by human habitation and activities in the Roman age. From the roughly 29 m.a.s.l. of the suburban western area to the south of the *via consularis* and the 31.2 m.a.s.l. of the paving in the basilica area in Late Antiquity, when an extramural necropolis was located there, the settlement reached a new ground level of 32.5 m.a.s.l11. The damage caused to the walls during the attack launched by the Exarch Romanus (590-596) in 590 and strong floods led to the gradual abandonment of the *civitas* in the early seventh century12. The area of the *ad corpus* basilica of S. Geminianus must have found itself in an equally poor state. This church was built in the early fifth century around the tomb of the city's patron saint, in a cemetery area located on the *Via Emilia*, on the western outskirts13. As late as the eighth century, it was still partially buried, with a 1.5 m. drop between the exterior and the interior ground surface14. Given this marked structural crisis, it is unsurprising that the final conquest of the urban area of *Mutina* by Rothari (636-652) occurred without any bloodshed in 643. According to Paul the Deacon – who drew his account from the *Origo gentis Langobardorum*15 – the clash with the troops of the Exarch of Ravenna, Isaac, occurred further to the east, near the river *Scultenna*16 – today's Panaro – which, from the Modenese Apennines, cuts across the plain between Modena and Bologna. Although Rothari's army won the battle, it suffered serious losses, which halted his advance in that direction17.

At least at first, annexation into the Lombard Kingdom did not entail any perceptible changes. The *Rythmus de synodo Ticinense* of 698 credits King Cunipert (688-700) with the restoration of the *urbs* in the late seventh century: «Semidiruta noncupata Motina, Urbe pristino decore restituit»18. The archaeological data attest to reconstruction work over the course of the eighth century: land reclamation and levelling made the areas around the old basilica accessible again. Then this building was replaced by a new church with a baptistery, which became the centre of the new early medieval city and was

<sup>10</sup> Cremonini – Labate, *Modena: un "dissesto"*; Labate, *Modena in età medievale*, pp. 258-261. The second flood has tentatively been identified with the *diluvium* mentioned by Paul the Deacon in the year 589: Paul the Deacon, *Historia Langobardorum*, III, 23, p. 127; concerning this hypothesis, see Cremonini – Labate, *Modena: un "dissesto"*; with regard to the use of this passage from Paul the Deacon, it is also worth considering the methodology outlined by Dall'Aglio,

*Il "diluvium di Paolo Diacono"*. <sup>11</sup> Benassi – Labate, *Le fasi costruttive*, p. 396; Cremonini – Labate, *Modena: un "dissesto"*, pp. 16-17.

<sup>12</sup> *Ibidem*, p. 258. <sup>13</sup> Golinelli, *San Geminiano e Modena*, p. 16. <sup>14</sup> Benassi – Labate, *Le fasi costruttive*, p. 396. <sup>15</sup> Cosentino, *L'iscrizione ravennate*, p. 37. <sup>16</sup> Paul the Deacon, *Historia Langobardorum*, IV, 45, pp. 170-171. <sup>17</sup> Fasoli, *Tappe ed aspetti*, p. 153; see also Cosentino, *L'iscrizione ravennate*. <sup>18</sup> *Rythmus de synodo Ticinense*, p. 729; see also Bonacini, *Regno ed episcopato*, p. 96; Vocino, *Una comunità minacciata*.

probably completed around the mid-eighth century19. The furnishings retrieved, along with the famous altar slab installed by Bishop Lopicenus (749- 752), would appear to confirm this dating20. During this period extending from the eighth century to the end of the ninth, the roads around the church were repaired by paving them with cobblestones from the rivers21. This vast, overall building effort was intended as a genuine urban planning project and may also have received public support – in what form, it is difficult to tell. In this period the sources first mention a new settlement, different form the Roman *Mutina*: the *civitas Geminiani*, whose identity evidently revolved around the figure of the city's first saint22. Historians have always confidently identified this new *civitas* with the site of the Lombard episcopal church and its annexes23. In this regard, it is worth recalling Isidore of Seville's definition of *civitas* as a term describing the inhabitants of an urban space, rather than the material element – which is to say the buildings and stones of a city, for which the term *urbs* was used instead24.

This picture is further complicated by the fact that in the same period a second *civitas* made its appearance, with a more conspicuous royal investment: the fiscal estate of *Civitas Nova*. While the local elites who identified with Saint Geminianus were promoting the building of the new church and the restoration of the infrastructures on the outskirts of the ancient Roman city, King Liutprand (712-744) chose to strengthen an ancient rural settlement located nearby, which he turned into a royal estate. Its foundation is attested by an eighth-century monumental slab discovered near the *pieve* of S. Peter of Cittanova in 1559. The inscription reports that King Liutprand founded and fortified a new *civitas* in that area25*.*

The *curtis* of *Civitas Nova* was located along the *Via Emilia*, near the bridge of the Secchia, west of the Roman city, in an area better protected against flooding26. This *curtis* became a centre for the public authorities in the Modena area, and the seat of a gastald. Probably reinforced with stone walls27, it was directly connected to the great fluvial network of the Po Valley through the harbour of *Aqualonga* on the Secchia28. It is difficult to determine whether this represented King Liutprand's solution to the problem of establishing the Modena territory within the Kingdom of Italy once and for all, a

<sup>19</sup> Benassi – Labate, *Le fasi costruttive*, pp. 396-397. <sup>20</sup> *Ibidem*, p. 397; Trovabene, *Il Museo Lapidario*, pp. 105-106. <sup>21</sup> Labate, *Modena alto medioevale*, p. 350. <sup>22</sup> On saint Geminianus' life and cult see Golinelli, *San Geminiano e Modena.* <sup>23</sup> See Golinelli, *Città e culto dei santi*, pp. 24-29. <sup>24</sup> Isidore of Seville, *Etymologiarum sive Originum*, 15, 2.2. <sup>25</sup> Gelichi, *Studi e ricerche*, pp. 577-578; Bonacini, *Terre d'Emilia*, pp. 141-142; for an edition of this epigraphic text, see Montorsi, *L'epigrafe modenese di Liutprando.* <sup>26</sup> Gelichi, *Studi e ricerche*, pp. 592-595. <sup>27</sup> The fortification work is attested by DD LdF, n. 204, pp. 502-505. Owing to the intense hu-

man activity of the last century, archaeological excavations have brought to light only some segments of the medieval water channels: Gelichi, *Studi e ricerche*, p. 595. <sup>28</sup> Bonacini, *Terre d'Emilia*, p. 143.

solution adopted while work on the new cathedral was underway. Certainly, in the last decades of Lombard rule, Kings Aistulf (749-756) and Desiderius (757-774) also contributed to shifting the territorial balance by introducing royal monasteries as a new way of managing the large fiscal complexes recently established in the area29.

Aistulf and his brother-in-law Anselm founded the Abbey of S. Sylvester of Nonantola around the year 752, and did so within one of the fiscal estates on the plain north of *Mutina*, the *curtis* of Gena30. Desiderius instead endowed the female monastery of S. Salvatore of Brescia – founded by him and his wife Ansa – with a large number of fiscal estates located between Reggio and Modena, most notably the estate of Migliarina31. Even the second monastic institution founded by Desiderius, San Benedetto of Leno, was endowed with fiscal estates in the Modena area32. In this case, however, it is difficult to propose any general reconstruction on account of the loss of the abbey's archives33. The surviving royal and imperial charters and a patrimonial management document, drafted by Abbot Hubert in 938 and now in the *Archivio Capitolare* of Modena34, show that San Benedetto's presence in that framework was significant, enduring, and consistently organised through the presence of the cell of S. Donatus in the *curtis* of Baggiovara, a few kilometres to the south of Modena35.

#### 3. *The 822 landmark charter of the Church of Modena*

Probably as a consequence of the turmoil caused by war and natural disasters, the Modena area presented itself as a complex territory which served as a playing field for several political actors directly in contact with the central authorities. There were many opportunities for self-affirmation, and they increased even further with the Carolingian conquest, when regime change opened up new possibilities for interaction. For example, as early as 780 Abbot Anselm of Nonantola successfully petitioned Charlemagne for the right to

<sup>29</sup> Lazzari, *La tutela del patrimonio fiscale*, pp. 108-110. <sup>30</sup> On S. Sylvester of Nonantola see Manarini, *Politiche regie e attivismo*; Manarini, *Politiche* 

*regie e conflitti*. <sup>31</sup> Manarini, *Politiche regie e attivismo*, pp. 27-29. On S. Salvatore of Brescia's estates in Emilia see Mancassola, *L'azienda curtense*, pp. 182-187; on the fiscal estates of Migliarina see Mancassola, *La corte di Migliarina* and Carboni, *La* curtis *di Migliarina*; on S. Salvatore's function within the royal fisc see Lazzari, *Una santa*; Lazzari, Bertha, amatissima. <sup>32</sup> On the foundation of San Benedetto of Leno see Azzara, *Il re e il monastero*; on its patrimony

see Baronio, *Il «dominatus» dell'abbazia*. <sup>33</sup> Barbieri, *L'archivio*, p. 255. <sup>34</sup> *Regesto della chiesa cattedrale di Modena*, n. 48. <sup>35</sup> On royal diplomas for Leno, beginning with the one granted by Berengar II and Adalbert in 958, see Baronio, *Il «dominatus» dell'abbazia*. The localisation of the cell of S. Donatus is not clear, relying on later attestations Girolamo Tiraboschi located it some eleven kilometres far from modern Baggiovara in the location of *Pradelle*, modern San Donnino (Modena): Tiraboschi, *Dizionario topografico*, p. 265.

manage the *curtis* of Cittanova – among the many others already granted by Aistulf36 – and its revenues through the levying of the *portaticum*37.

In the early Carolingian period, the bishops of Modena would appear to have been chiefly engaged in strengthening their patrimonial position by protecting themselves against possible outside interference. The Modena archives preserve only one original document from this period: a charter by Charlemagne granting immunity to Bishop Geminianus (782) in 78238. Later, thanks to the new sensibility towards the episcopacy shown by Louis the Pious39, the situation also changed for Modenese bishops. In 822 Bishop Deusdedit (813-828) obtained a charter from Louis the Pious that in terms of its size and content may be regarded as a genuine landmark charter of the Church of Modena. The text illustrates the Modenese perspective on the relationship between the Church and Lombard and Carolingian royal power during the previous century.

The charter was issued in Aachen in February 822 and it is preserved through its original parchment, still kept in the *Archivio Capitolare* of Modena40. Recent critical editions have identified two short interpolations attributed to tenth-century hands41. Some significant content features suggest that the Modenese must have provided a rough draft that the court then used to produce the final text. The central figures are Emperor Louis the Pious and the bishop of Modena, Deusdedit, who had been in office at least from August 813, but who on account of his advanced age and poor health, chose to be represented by a priest by the name of *Williarius*. The *narratio* continues by recounting how *Williarius* asked the emperor to issue a charter to confirm all properties and rights that the Lombard kings had either already granted to his Church or confirmed, after ascertaining the genuineness of the documents submitted by the priest. Louis then confirmed the confirmation charter by King Cunipert, four *praecepta* respectively by Kings Liutprand, Hildeprand (744), Ratchis (744-749), and Desiderius42, and two donations by Louis' father Charles. As a side note, it must be said that no trace of these documents is left in the *Archivio Capitolare* in Modena. The only Lombard royal document to have been preserved, albeit in an eleventh-century copy, is a *praeceptum* by King Aistulf43 – the only king not mentioned in the previous list – but it has nothing to do with Louis I's charter as far as its object and patrimonial context are concerned44.

<sup>36</sup> See Manarini, *Politiche regie e attivismo*, pp. 18-23. <sup>37</sup> DD Kar I, n. 131, pp. 181-182. See also Manarini, *Politiche regie e attivismo*, pp. 24-25. <sup>38</sup> DD Kar I, n. 147, pp. 199-200. <sup>39</sup> See Patzold, *Episcopus*, especially pp. 105-184. <sup>40</sup> DD LdF, n. 204, pp. 502-505. <sup>41</sup> *Ibidem*, p. 503; ChLA2, LXXXVIII, p. 38. <sup>42</sup> CDL III, pp. 286-287. <sup>43</sup> *Ibidem*, n. 24, pp. 115-118. <sup>44</sup> The *praeceptum* concerns the donation of the estate of Gena, with its forest, to Bishop Lope-

cinus: CDL III, n. 24, pp. 115-118. This deed was copied into a scroll at some point in the eleventh century, along with another two deeds from 796 and 828, pertaining to the *pieve* of San Pietro in Sicculo (present-day San Pietro in Elda, Modena): *Regesto della chiesa cattedrale*, nn. 3, 11.

Louis' charter concerns four landed patrimonies, comprising either ancient and disputed properties or more recent acquisitions associated with joint involvement in the fiscal system. In this case, what the bishops obtained was control over the rural parish churches located within fiscal estates. In particular, it is worth noting the mention of the castle of Gavello, located in the *Saltus* to the north, towards the Po river – presented as a development of the patrimonial complex which in Late Antiquity was known as the *massa sancti Geminiani*<sup>45</sup> – for which the Church had already obtained no less than three of the aforementioned *praecepta*, by Liutprand, Ratchis, and Desiderius. The Modenese bishops' difficulty in managing this property is further reflected by the fact that at this point in the document we find the addition – on an erasure – of the words *cum suis pescariis*, probably in a tenth-century hand. Among the fiscal acquisitions associated with parish churches, the document also lists the *pieve* of S. Peter of Cittanova and that of S. Thomas within the *curtis* of Ganaceto46.

Also relevant is the political-memorial perspective underlying the document. Through the charter's *narratio*, which we may regard as a genuine account of the history of the episcopal Church given to the emperor with the inclusion of its various *praecepta* and charters, the Church sought to present itself as a stable and constant counterpart to royal power. This narrative of continuity coincides with the beginning of the "new" history of the territory of Modena, a new history launched – after the late-antique break – by Cunipert's reign; indeed, through certain patrimonial elements, it may even be seen to serve as a link between the two phases.

The charter presents another two points of great interest. The first concerns the *curtis* of Cittanova and the parish church of S. Peter, which is said to have been granted by *praeceptum* to Bishop John by King Hildeprand. When defining the location of the building, the text uses the formula «de ecclesia sancti Petri intra muros civitas Geminianae, quae nunc Nova vocatur»47. What is striking here is the assignment of the church of S. Peter – which is known for certain to have been located in the *curtis* – to the *civitas Geminiani*, which, as already noted, would instead appear to have been the new urban centre developed around the cathedral. This *civitas* is further described as *nova*, using the attribute applied to the fiscal estate. The passage is a problematic one, but these difficulties can hardly be due to slips on the

<sup>45</sup> On *massae* as agrarian structures of late and post-Roman Italy see Vera, Massa fundorum, especially pp. 1011-1013.

<sup>46</sup> Ganaceto is now a small village north of Modena. Other assets mentioned are the *villa Puziolo* (Portile, Modena), *Galaniticum* (unidentified), a watermill with a road and canal pertaining to the estate of Cittanova, the chapel of San Donnino near *Cluziam* (modern San Donnino, Modena), the chapel of Sant'Apollinare in Stagnano close to Monteveglio (Bologna), and finally some olive groves close to Monteveglio castle's wall. These latter properties in the Bolognese Apennines and the church of San Donnino had been previously donated to the Church of Modena by two *Romani homines* and their wives. 47 DD LdF, n. 204, p. 504.

scribe's part48. Instead, we may posit an attempt – a successful attempt – by the Modenese episcopal authorities to assert their influence over the *curtis* by altering the geographical description: the bishop thus obtained crucial access to the fiscal core of the area, in which Nonantola had already been operating for almost half a century.

A second point of interest is the formula used in the final section of the charter, which concerns the election of the bishops of Modena. In other words, Louis I granted the right to select the bishops from among the members of the Modenese clergy, as long as they respected the canons governing episcopal dignity and office49. In its tone and meaning, this formula immediately brings to mind the right granted to monastic communities to elect an abbot freely. Its use in relation to an episcopal church poses quite a few puzzling questions. The drafter of the charter himself must have found it at least somewhat obscure, since – when going through the document again – he added *inter se* at the end of the passage for the sake of clarity. This formula could be read as a reassurance in favor of the Modenese chapter given the precarious health conditions of bishop Deusdedit and therefore the imminence of a new election. It may also represent a claim to autonomy with respect to the royal power, which perhaps used to select episcopal candidates without consulting the Modenese50. Alternatively, this may be interpreted as an attempt to obtain the right to elect bishops, which emerged at the local level – although it is unclear what form this competition may have taken and what actors it may have involved. The *MGH* editor Theo Kölzer has acknowledged the peculiarly Italian nature of this formula, whose first occurrence he has identified in a charter issued to the Church of Piacenza in 81951. In this case, although the text has been preserved in a late copy of poor quality, the formula is much broader and more detailed52. In various parts it follows *verbatim* the second regulation in the *Capitulare ecclesiasticum*53, issued by Louis himself not long before. This point is certainly worth exploring in greater detail. For now, I believe it is interesting to note that this particular formula appears in charters granted

<sup>48</sup> Addresses the issue, without however dwelling on the textual analysis of the diploma, also

Golinelli, *Città e culto dei santi*, p. 25. <sup>49</sup> DD LdF, n. 204, p. 505: «Concessimus etiam hoc privilegium memoratae ecclesiae, ut si post decessionem episcoporum ipsius sedis talis in clero inventus fuerit, qui secundum canones episcopatus honorem et officium habere possit, licentiam habeant eligendi inter se».

<sup>50</sup> On bishops' enrollment under the Carolingians see Savigni, *L'episcopato nell'Europa carolingia.*

<sup>51</sup> DD LdF, n. 157, pp. 390-393. <sup>52</sup> *Ibidem*, p. 393: «De pontefice vero per auctoritatem domini et genitoris nostri in eadem ecclesia, si talis inventus ibi fuisset, qui eandem ecclesiam secundum doctrinam evangelicam vel statuta canonum plenissime regere valeret et regibus Francorum fidelis existeret, licentiam inter se eligendi habent, ita nos licentiam pontificem eligendi adtribuimus, sicut autoritas sanctorum canonum sancit et sicut omnibus ecclesiis in imperio deo propitio nostro constitutis concessum habemus, videlicet ut per electionem cleri et populi, remota personarum et munerum aceptione, ob vite meritum et sapientie donum eliguntur, ut exemplo et verbo sibi subiectis prodesse valeant».

<sup>53</sup> MGH, Capit. I, n. 138, pp. 275-280.

to two bishops who necessarily had to engage with the two major royal abbeys of Bobbio and Nonantola54.

To conclude, this charter offers a valuable snapshot of the development of the figure of the bishop of Modena in the early Carolingian period: the bishops of the Church of Saint Geminianus displayed a strong, solid connection with the royal authorities, through which they aspired to achieve a position of pre-eminence within the context of the ancient *territorium civitatis*, and to enjoy complete independence with respect to the other actors operating in this area. Furthermore, they aspired to gain stable access to the kingdom's fiscal patrimony and its management.

#### 4. *Bishop Leodoin and codex O.I.2: episcopal authority and the exercising of law*

Louis II's reign (844-875) witnessed a further increase in the Modenese bishops' participation in the Carolingian system of power. After Bishop Walpertus (865-869), who acted as a royal envoy55, the episcopal see was held by Leodoin, one of the leading bishops on the political stage in the second half of the ninth century.

We have no certain information about his background56. It seems reasonable to assume that he was descended from the gastald named Leodoin – a personal name of Germanic origin that is quite rare in Italy – who in 842, together with his wife Cristeberga, signed an emphyteutic contract with Bishop Jonas (840-856)57. This contract does not provide any detailed information about the gastald's patrimonial area or even the portion of the royal fisc assigned to him. However, the neat and steady handwriting in the subscription suggests the fair writing skills of someone used to dealing with documents. Prior to his election as bishop, Leodoin served in the royal chapel and also held various appointments at Louis II's chancery, for example as *grossator*  and *recognitor* between 869 and 87058. His career in the royal chapel was a swift one, as within a short time he was promoted from *sacerdos* to *archipresbiter palatinus*<sup>59</sup>*.* By August 871 he was already *episcopus*<sup>60</sup>*.* One biographical element which, if confirmed, would further illustrate his connections with the

<sup>54</sup> On Modena-Nonantola relations during the ninth century see Bonacini, *Relazioni e conflitti* and Manarini, *Politiche regie e conflitti*; on Piacenza-Bobbio see Piazza, *Monastero e vescovado di Bobbio*, pp. 12-20. <sup>55</sup> See Manarini, *Politiche regie e attivismo*, p. 49. <sup>56</sup> The hypothesis that Leodoin hailed from Modena and was educated at its cathedral school

is upheld by Golinelli, *La città prima e dopo l'anno Mille*, p. 181 and Al Kalak, *Leodoino*, p. 5. <sup>57</sup> ChLA2, LXXXVIII, n. 11, pp. 50-51. On minor officials' presence and activities in the area see

Santos Salazar, *Ufficiali minori e società*. <sup>58</sup> DD Lu II, n. 49, pp. 161-162; n. 51, pp. 165-167. See Fleckenstein, *Die Hofkapelle*, pp. 129-131. <sup>59</sup> DD Lu II, n. 49, p. 162: «sacerdos iussu imperatorio advice Farimundi»; n. 51, pp. 166: «sacerdos archipresbiter palatinus».

<sup>60</sup> ChLA2, LXXXVIII, n. 18, pp. 69-71.

court milieu and the upper echelons of Italian aristocracy is his role as deacon during the founding of the female monastery of Fontebona by the Count of Siena, Winigis, and the latter's wife Richilda in 86761. The uniqueness of the Germanic name Leodoin/Liutwin in the Italian context makes this identification very likely62. Moreover, the time frame and geographical location – although the latter is not specified in the copy of the cartulary – would appear to be consistent with the presence of Louis II's royal court in central-southern Italy in that period63.

Leodoin's political pre-eminence and cultural standing gave a decisive impulse to the consolidation process launched by the Church of Modena from as early as the eighth century. His twenty-year-long episcopate profoundly shaped the relationship between Modena and the royal authorities, a relationship which remained solid long after Louis II's death. The hallmark of Leodoin's pastoral measures is to be found in the creation and promotion of the Modenese ecclesiastical milieus, where we begin to identify a school, a library, a chapter, and the episcopal chancery64. The manuscripts in the capitular library bear witness to an active, dynamic community that was also prolific from a literary point of view, as is shown by the poetic compositions that constitute the focus of Giorgia Vocino's research65. Among the main codices to have survived from Leodoin's library we find the *Chronicon* and *Etymologies* by Isidore of Seville, a Gregorian missal, and Origen's commentary on the Book of Numbers66.

Also prominent are legal manuscripts, which shed light on the issues addressed by Leodoin, who devoted particular attention to ecclesiastical canons and pontifical decretals in his effort to assert episcopal social pre-eminence67. The library preserves a *Collectio canonum veterum* from the seventh-eighth century68, which the bishop used for his doctrinal reflections, including two important letters to the abbot of Nonantola, Theodoric, and to the abbot of Galeata Ilarus69. It also preserves a collection of decretals by pseudo-Isidorus (O.I.4) from the third-quarter of ninth century70. This codex represents a genuine product of the Modenese school headed by Leodoin: in addition to

<sup>61</sup> *Il cartulario della Berardenga*, n. 53, p. 428. On Count Winigis and the foundation of S. Salvatore at Fontebona see Cammarosano, *La famiglia dei Berardenghi*, pp. 64-70; Cortese,

*L'aristocrazia toscana*, p. 102. <sup>62</sup> On the uniqueness of this anthroponym see Al Kalak, *Leodoino*, p. 3. <sup>63</sup> See Bougard, *Ludovico*. <sup>64</sup> Vocino, Ut hoc flagellum evadamus, pp. 351-358; concerning his patrimonial operations see Al Kalak, *Leodoino*, pp. 28-32. <sup>65</sup> See Vocino, Ut hoc flagellum evadamus; Vocino, *Una comunità minacciata*, pp. 162-171. <sup>66</sup> See Al Kalak, *Leodoino*, pp. 35-36. <sup>67</sup> Heil, *Bishop Leodoin*. <sup>68</sup> See Al Kalak, *Leodoino*, p. 34. <sup>69</sup> Both letters have been published *ibidem*, pp. 11-28; an edition and English translation of the

first is to be found in Heil, *Bishop Leodoin*, pp. 46-54; on its content see also Manarini, *Politiche regie e conflitti*, pp. 130-132. <sup>70</sup> See Al Kalak, *Leodoino*, pp. 36-39.

the collection of decretals, it includes a miscellany of legal and poetic-literary texts that capture the lively cultural milieu of Leodoin's Modena71. Finally, we may add the famous codex of *leges* and Carolingian capitularies (O.I.2)72. Recent studies, particularly – yet not exclusively – on the local context, have suggested a close connection between the bishop and this codex, which according to this hypothesis bears witness to the legal functions he acquired over the course of his lengthy episcopate – functions also attested by the famous charter issued by King Guy I (889-894) in 89173. I therefore wish to devote the last section of the present contribution to exploring this codex, as I believe it represents a significant element in the trajectory I have outlined so far, even though I do not accept its attribution to Leodoin and his teaching74.

The codex is written in a Carolingian minuscule hand dated to the turn of the tenth century75. It comprises three parts; the main one, from f. 9 to f. 205, makes up a legal codex, to which two quires have been added at the beginning and the end. The first has a didactic content and is written in an early tenth-century Carolingian minuscule hand; the second quire is devoted to liturgical and accounting matters, and has been dated to the end of the same century76. The main section of the manuscript preserves the most complete version of the collection of laws called *Liber legum*. This has been traditionally attributed to Lupus of Ferrières (805-862/3), who is believed to have composed it around the 830s77. The collection includes the Salic, Ripuarian, Lombard, Alemannic, and Bavarian laws, along with a series of Carolingian capitularies issued between 779 and 82978, both for the general administration of the empire and for the specific governing of the Kingdom of Italy79. Lupus probably composed this work during the time he spent at

<sup>71</sup> Heil, *Bishop Leodoin*, p. 15; see also Vocino, Ut hoc flagellum evadamus. <sup>72</sup> See Golinelli, *Il codice delle leggi*; a thoroughly new examination of the manuscript is now available online within the project *Capitularia*: *Modena, Archivio Capitolare, O. I. 2*, < https:// capitularia.uni-koeln.de/en/mss/modena-bc-o-i-2/ >. Especially on the Frankish *leges* see the

recent Faulkner, *Law and Authority*. <sup>73</sup> *Ibidem* and Nicolaj, *Il* Liber Legum *di Everardo*. Guy I's charter has been published in *<sup>I</sup>*

*diplomi di Guido*, n. 11, pp. 27-32. <sup>74</sup> On codex O.I.2 within the framework of the circulation of law codes in the Carolingian pe-

riod, see Pohl, *Le leggi longobarde*. <sup>75</sup> Fornasari, *Collectio canonum Mutinensium*, p. 251; *Origo gentis Langobardorum*, pp. 59- 61. Hubert Mordek has erroneously dated the whole manuscript to the late tenth century, based on the last quire, which includes the liturgical calendar for 991: Mordek, Bibliotheca capitularium, p. 256.

<sup>76</sup> Golinelli, *Il codice delle leggi*, pp. 11-13. <sup>77</sup> Münsch, *Der* Liber legum *des Lupus*, pp. 65-69. Nicolaj instead suggests that the author of the Modenese copy of the *Liber legum* might be the *presbiter* Lupus who is the addressee of one of the two letters by Leodoin copied in codex O.I.4: Nicolaj, *Il* Liber Legum *di Everardo*, pp. 291- 292. On Lupus' life and political relations see Ricciardi, *L'epistolario di Lupo*. <sup>78</sup> See the detailed list in Mordek, Bibliotheca capitularium, pp. 257-267; Golinelli, *Il codice* 

*delle leggi*, pp. 13-21. <sup>79</sup> Bonacini, *Le leggi germaniche*, p. 37. On manuscripts preserving collections of laws from

Lombard and Carolingian Italy, and especially on the *Liber legum* by Lupus of Ferrières, see Pohl, *Le leggi longobarde*, pp. 427-437, especially pp. 433-434.

the *scriptorium* of Fulda Abbey, under Hrabanus Maurus' supervision80. The monk then devoted the work to the Unruoching Eberhard, the emperor's son-in-law and a leading figure at the imperial court, who was also marquis of Friuli81. The purpose of the collection is clearly outlined in the introductory poem, where the compiler states that this *collectio* would enable the *prudens* Eberhard – «quisquis amat cunctas legum cognoscere causas arbiter et clarus vult omnibus ipse videri» – to fulfil the role of *arbiter clarus* in the best possible way82. Manuscripts such as this were therefore crucial for running the Carolingian empire, and were even accessible to – and owned by – leading lay officials83.

The hypothesis that the present codex O.I.2 was copied from the original or from another copy in Modena in the second half of the ninth century, which is to say through Leodoin's direct intervention, is certainly intriguing, yet it does not seem to me to be supported by sufficient evidence84. Hubert Mordek more prudently traces it back to northern Italy: indeed, an examination of the manuscript's extrinsic data does not allow us to be more precise85. Upon a first analysis of the contents, it is difficult to identify with any certainty the context of the reception of the manuscript. The impression we get, however, is that it does not coincide with the Modena of Leodoin's day. The general structure of the texts it features makes it impossible to point to any specific milieu as far as its reception is concerned. We may note that specifically episcopal topics, as well as that of the structuring of monastic institutions within dioceses, which we know were dear to Leodoin86, do not emerge in any prominent way from the series of capitularies copied into the codex. On the other hand, to affirm episcopal pre-eminence, Leodoinian texts rely exclusively on ecclesiastical canons, and not on material from the Carolingian imperial tradition. Besides, the impression we get from texts such as the letter addressed to Nonantola, or the collection of canons *De accusatione episcopi*, which Michael Heil has persuasively associated with Leodoin87, suggests a picture quite different from the situation which would emerge from the hypothesis of Leodoin's own-

<sup>80</sup> Münsch, *Der* Liber legum *des Lupus*, pp. 66-67; see also Ricciardi, *L'epistolario di Lupo*, p. 14. <sup>81</sup> On Eberhard's family, life, and will see La Rocca – Provero, *The Dead and Their Gifts*; on his famous library see Riché, *Les bibliothèques de trois aristocrats*; on Lupus' dedication to him

see Münsch, *Der* Liber legum, pp. 57-63. <sup>82</sup> Lupus of Ferrières, *Versus*, p. 1059. <sup>83</sup> We must nonetheless bear in mind that the erudite character of this compilation is a rhetorical element typical of Carolingian poetics and derives from the Latin tradition: see Pohl, *Le leggi longobarde*, p. 433. <sup>84</sup> Golinelli, *Il codice delle leggi*, pp. 23-24; Nicolaj, *Il* Liber Legum *di Everardo*, p. 305. In the

past, the conventional dating of the codex to the mid or late tenth century instead had led to its attribution to Guy, Leodoin's successor as bishop of Modena between 940 and 967: Bonacini, *Le* 

*leggi germaniche*, p. 43. <sup>85</sup> Mordek, Bibliotheca capitularium, p. 256. <sup>86</sup> See Heil, *Bishop Leodoin*, pp. 9-31. <sup>87</sup> Heil, *Bishop Leodoin*, p. 31.

ership of the codex: a situation in which the bishop, seated in a judge's chair, would be exercising jurisdictional duties over the whole Modena area88.

So far as we can tell, before reaching the Chapter library, the manuscript may have been used by lay officials active in that area, who like the marquis of Friuli needed to know what laws to follow in fulfilling their function as judges. This practical context also seems more consistent with the extrinsic features of the manuscript which, notwithstanding its fine illustrations, presents several gaps – as noted by François Bougard89 – and various editorial flaws90. In other words, its overall quality is quite far from the standards of perfection attained by certain codices that stand as genuine gems or monuments, such as the many sacred codices owned by religious institutions. In this respect, I believe it is problematic to identify codex O.I.2 with the actual law book that is depicted as a gift to Saint Geminianus by Emperor Jovian on the bas-relief on the architrave of the *Porta dei Principi* in Lanfranco's cathedral91.

After the sporadic interest shown by Count Autramnus during Lothar's reign92, the Widonid kings made conspicuous public investments in the Modena area in the last decade of the ninth century93. This may be a plausible context for the drafting of the copy of the *Liber legum*, the main section of our Modenese codex. King Guy entrusted a count – probably a nephew of his – also named Guy, with bringing the local societies of eastern Emilia together into a single administrative structure94. To paraphrase Tiziana Lazzari, the creation of this territory established Guy at the head of a polycentric public entity, which in private documents, is referred to as the *iudiciaria Mutinensis* – an entity so large as to include the territories of Reggio, Modena, and partly Bologna, and therefore reminiscent of a March95. The *placitum* of Cinquanta, presided over by Count Guy in 898, enables us to appreciate the royal authorities' action on the territorial level, and also the features of the *iudiciaria* from the point of view of public law96.

In addition to the count – who described himself as *Mutinensis* – the assembly was attended by public officials who were part of his entourage: an imperial *vasso*, the *vicecomes* and some judges from Cittanova, and three gastalds and vassals of the count, along with a throng of notaries, *scabini*, and *boni homines* representing the many local communities that made up the *iudiciaria*. Within this framework, the *civitas Mutine* too was represented by

<sup>88</sup> This situation would indeed appear to have emerged in the Kingdom of Italy, but only towards the end of the tenth century: see Bougard, *La justice dans le royaume*, pp. 296-305, especially

p. 297; see also Bordone, *Vescovi giudici*. <sup>89</sup> Bougard, *Le livre de l'autorité*, p. 103. <sup>90</sup> For instance, the illuminations on *folia* 42r and 111r are incomplete. <sup>91</sup> Golinelli, *Il codice delle leggi*, p. 31. <sup>92</sup> See Bonacini, *Terre d'Emilia*, pp. 99-106; Manarini, *Politiche regie e attivismo*, pp. 40-45. <sup>93</sup> See Lazzari, *La creazione di un territorio*; Manarini, *A Marriage, a battle*, pp. 299-305. <sup>94</sup> Lazzari, *La creazione di un territorio*, p*.* 105. <sup>95</sup> On the *iudiciaria Mutinensis* and its development between ninth and eleventh century see

Manarini, *Struggle for Power.* <sup>96</sup> *I placiti del "Regnum Italiae"*, vol. 1, n. 106, pp. 385-396.

notaries and *scabini*, who, along with all the other representatives, engaged with the public authorities, taking an active part in the judicial assembly. The object of the *placitum* further clarifies the position of the episcopal Church with respect to the count: the assembly had been convened to certify the genuineness of the deeds that the Abbey of Nonantola was submitting to prove its ownership of a fiscal estate against the bishop of Modena, who had not shown up on this occasion97.

It would therefore not be implausible to assume that the copy of the *Liber legum* was in use as a legal instrument among lay royal officials, possibly even count Guy and his officials, and that it was possibly kept on the fiscal estate of Cittanova, which, at the time, continued to serve as a seat of public power.

#### 5. *Conclusion: Bishop Gotfredus and the* castrum *at Cittanova*

In the current state of research, this hypothesis, which places a copy of the *Liber legum* in the hands of count Guy of Modena, requires further studies. However, I believe that it helps to frame the presence and use of the law code in a broader context than the only episcopal cultural centre of the second half of the ninth century, by setting it within a social network in which the practice of law represented a common element shared by the representatives of many local communities. The pre-eminence achieved by the bishop of Modena in this territory over the course of the tenth century therefore represents the outcome of a process of construction of power which should not be assigned to earlier decades of the ninth century, despite the unquestionable impact of the figure of Leodoin. Possibly the scion of a family of public officials, by virtue of his training and charisma, he crucially contributed to the establishment of a close relationship between the Church of Modena and the royal authorities, not least in the light of the political and ideological changes that occurred at the Carolingian court.

The famous charter that Guy granted to Leodoin in 891 undoubtedly bears witness to a position of strength, which nevertheless does not overshadow the wide range of actors operating in the area in question. The main feature of the concession is the definite recomposition of the episcopal polity, centred on the Lombard cathedral, with the ancient urban centre of *Mutina*: after assigning the Modenese Church immunity in its own lands with respect to public officials' prerogatives, King Guy explicitly granted the Church those *loca* on which the episcopal *civitas* had been built over the course of the previous centuries98. Although Guy invoked what had been done «ab antiquis antecessoribus nostris regibus», it is clear that his action constituted a highly signif-

<sup>97</sup> On this patrimonial dispute see Manarini, *Politiche regie e attivismo*, p. 62. <sup>98</sup> *I diplomi di Guido*, n. 11, p. 30: «concedimus etiam eidem sanctae Motinensi aecclesiae, sicut ei ab antiquis antecessoribus nostris regibus loca, in quibus civitas predicta constructa fuerat».

icant moment of legitimation for the bishops of Saint Geminianus: incapable of independently attaching themselves to the tradition of the Roman *Mutina*, as late as the end of the ninth century the bishops of the *civitas Geminiani*  felt the need to officially assert their authority over the very episcopal buildings that, *de facto*, constituted the heart of the new urban settlement. From that moment onwards, Leodoin was also able legitimately to endow the new *civitas* with the infrastructures and defensive constructions it required99: the material component of the city, the *urbs* of which Isidore of Seville speaks and which *Mutina* had lost over the course of the previous centuries. In the late ninth century, however, episcopal influence was limited within the one-mile circumference around the cathedral100. The bishops' situation must therefore be viewed within the broader territorial framework of Modena, in which royal officials, the Abbey of Nonantola, and even local communities continued to enjoy considerable leeway.

At this point, I believe that we can make new sense of bishop Gotfredus' construction of a castle in the immediate environs of the *curtis* of Cittanova101, as though to recall the other *civitas Geminiani* mentioned in Louis the Pious' landmark charter. Royal recognition was immediately granted by Berengar I in 904 and also entailed the transfer of the market and related tax exemptions from the *curtis* to the castle102. This gave the episcopal Church an advantage over the fiscal estate, and it was to prove permanent. In the tenth century, Cittanova progressively lost its autonomy to the benefit of increasing episcopal and urban influence, so much so that over the course of the eleventh century the ancient settlement was abandoned103. After some time, all that survived was the parish church of San Pietro104. When Cittanova fell under the bishop's control and the Church obtained the fiscal jurisdiction hitherto exercised by the *curtis*' gastalds, this marked the end-point in the process of affirmation of its power at the local level, which the bishops of Modena had begun in the eighth century.

<sup>99</sup> *Ibidem*, p. 31: «liceat ei fossata cavare, molendina construere, portas erigere et super unum miliarium in circuitu aecclesiae civitatis circumquaque firmare ad salvandam et muniendam ipsam sanctam aecclesiam suam constituta canonica et aquam aperire et claudere».

<sup>100</sup> *Ibidem*: «et super unum miliarium in circuitu aecclesiae civitatis». <sup>101</sup> DD B I, n. 46, pp. 132-134. <sup>102</sup> *Ibidem*, p. 134: «et si fortasse iam fatus Gotfredus reverendus episcopus aut quilibet successor eius aliquando inibi mercatum constituerit atque collegerit quicquid regiae aut publicae parti de mercato pertinere videtur, per hoc nostrae inscriptionis statum parti ipsius aeclesiae concedimus vindicandi, omni publica functione summota».

<sup>103</sup> Bonacini, *Terre d'Emilia*, p. 145; Vocino, *Una comunità minacciata*, p. 159. <sup>104</sup> On these further developments based on archaeological excavations see Gelichi, *Castelli vescovili*, pp. 176-179.

1. The Modena area in the 8th century: a polycentric territory.

2. The lands and estates mentioned in Louis I's diploma (822).

3. Places related to the *placitum* of Cinquanta and to the *iudiciaria Mutinensis* (*c*. 890–*c*. 950).

#### **Works cited**


*Chartae Latinae Antiquiores. Facsimile-edition of the Latin Charters*, 2nd series, ed. G. Cavallo – G. Nicolaj, part LXXXVIII, Italy LX, Modena-Nonantola I, publ. G. Feo – M. Modesti – M. Al Kalak – M. Mezzetti, Dietikon-Zürich 2008.

*Codice diplomatico longobardo*, vol. 3, 1, ed. C. Brühl, Roma 1973 (Fonti per la storia d'Italia, 64). M.E. Cortese, *L'aristocrazia toscana. Sette secoli (VI-XII)*, Spoleto 2017.


*I diplomi di Guido e Lamberto*, ed. L. Schiaparelli, Roma 1906 (FSI, 36).


Lupus of Ferrières, *Versus*, ed. K. Strecker, Berlin 1923 (MGH, Poetae, 4.3), p. 1059.


A. Ricciardi, *L'epistolario di Lupo di Ferrières: intellettuali, relazioni culturali e politica nell'età di Carlo il Calvo*, Spoleto 2005.


Edoardo Manarini Università di Torino emanarini@icloud.com

### **Writing, textuality, politics in the Lucca of Bishops Berengar and Ambrose (837-852)**

by Paolo Tomei

The article consists of two intertwined sections. In the first one, I intend to reconstruct the processes of political and social transformation that took place in Lucca under the actions of Bishops Berengar (837-843) and Ambrose (843-852): foreigners appointed in succession by the Court. In order to do this, I will take the viewpoint offered by the numerous private charters preserved in the Archivio Storico Diocesano of Lucca. Secondly, I will present the first results of a study on the manuscripts of the same period preserved there – a heritage not yet fully explored and appreciated. I will focus in particular on the most-recently entered text in ms 490: the so-called *Dicta Gelasii papae*. It was written in a Carolingian hand that Armando Petrucci has compared to that of Bishop Berengar. The text constitutes an exceptional insight into the turmoil that animated the sacred palace after the «penitential reform» of 813, and which spread throughout the Empire within a general movement of *correctio*.

Middle Ages; 9th century; Italy; Lucca; Carolingians; Gelasius I; Lothar I; *correctio*; penitential reform

Paolo Tomei, University of Pisa, Italy, paolotom@hotmail.it, 0000-0002-3358-8336

Referee List (DOI 10.36253/fup\_referee\_list)

FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

Paolo Tomei, *Writing, Textuality, Politics in the Lucca of Bishops Berengar and Ambrose (837-852)*, © Author(s), CC BY 4.0, DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-623-0.09, 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. 157-180, 2022, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 978-88-5518-623-0, DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-623-0

Abbreviations

ASDL = Archivio Storico Diocesano di Lucca

AAL, D = Archivio Arcivescovile di Lucca, Diplomatico

BA = Biblioteca Arcivescovile di Lucca

BCF = Archivio Storico Diocesano di Lucca, Biblioteca Capitolare Feliniana

ChLA2, LVIII = *Chartae Latinae Antiquiores. Facsimile-edition of the Latin Charters,* 2nd series, ed. G. Cavallo – G. Nicolaj, part LVIII, Italy XXX, publ. N. Mastruzzo, Dietikon-Zürich 2001.

ChLA2, LXXV = *Chartae Latinae Antiquiores. Facsimile-edition of the Latin Charters,* 2nd series, ed. G. Cavallo – G. Nicolaj, part LXXV, Italy XLVII, publ. F. Magistrale, P. Cordasco, C. Drago, Dietikon-Zürich 2005.

ChLA2, LXXVI = *Chartae Latinae Antiquiores. Facsimile-edition of the Latin Charters,* 2nd series, ed. G. Cavallo – G. Nicolaj, part LXXVI, Italy XLVIII, publ. F. Magistrale, C. Gattagrisi, Dietikon-Zürich 2007.

ChLA2, LXXVII = *Chartae Latinae Antiquiores. Facsimile-edition of the Latin Charters,* 2nd series, ed. G. Cavallo – G. Nicolaj, part LXXVII, Italy XLIX, publ. F. Magistrale, C. Gattagrisi, P. Fioretti, Dietikon-Zürich 2008.

ChLA2, LXXVIII = *Chartae Latinae Antiquiores. Facsimile-edition of the Latin Charters,* 2nd series, ed. G. Cavallo – G. Nicolaj, part LXXVIII, Italy L, publ. M. Palma, Dietikon-Zürich 2009. ChLA2, LXXIX = *Chartae Latinae Antiquiores. Facsimile-edition of the Latin Charters,* 2nd series, ed. G. Cavallo – G. Nicolaj, part LXXIX, Italy LI, publ. F. Magistrale, Dietikon-Zürich 2010. ChLA2, LXXX = *Chartae Latinae Antiquiores. Facsimile-edition of the Latin Charters,* 2nd series, ed. G. Cavallo – G. Nicolaj, part LXXX, Italy LII, publ. F. Magistrale, C. Gattagrisi, Dietikon-Zürich 2010.

ChLA2, LXXXI = *Chartae Latinae Antiquiores. Facsimile-edition of the Latin Charters,* 2nd series, ed. G. Cavallo – G. Nicolaj, part LXXXI, Italy LIII, publ. A. Mastruzzo, Dietikon-Zürich 2011. ChLA2, LXXXII = *Chartae Latinae Antiquiores. Facsimile-edition of the Latin Charters,* 2nd series, ed. G. Cavallo – G. Nicolaj, part LXXXII, Italy LIV, publ. C. Gattagrisi, P. Cordasco, C. Drago, Dietikon-Zürich 2013.

ChLA2, LXXXIII = *Chartae Latinae Antiquiores. Facsimile-edition of the Latin Charters,* 2nd series, ed. G. Cavallo – G. Nicolaj, part LXXXIII, Italy LV, publ. N. Mastruzzo, Dietikon-Zürich 2013.

ChLA2, LXXXV = *Chartae Latinae Antiquiores. Facsimile-edition of the Latin Charters,* 2nd series, ed. G. Cavallo – G. Nicolaj, part LXXXV, Italy LVII, publ. N. Mastruzzo, Dietikon-Zürich 2015.

ChLA2, XC = *Chartae Latinae Antiquiores. Facsimile-edition of the Latin Charters,* 2nd series, ed. G. Cavallo – G. Nicolaj, part XC, Italy LXII, publ. G. Feo, G. Nicolaj, M. Calleri, C. Tristano, Dietikon-Zürich 2011.

ChLA2, CXVII = *Chartae Latinae Antiquiores. Facsimile-edition of the Latin Charters,* 2nd series, ed. G. Cavallo – G. Nicolaj, part CXVII, Addenda I, Dietikon-Zürich 2019.

EOMIA = *Ecclesiae Occidentalis Monumenta Iuris Antiquissima*, 2 voll., ed. C.H. Turner, Oxford 1899-1939.

MDL = *Memorie e documenti per servire all'istoria del Ducato di Lucca*, ed. D. Bertini – D. Barsocchini, Lucca 1818-1841.

MGH, Capit. I = *Capitularia regum Francorum*, I, ed. A. Boretius, Hannover 1883.

MGH, Conc. II = *Concilia aevi Karolini*, ed. A. Werminghoff, Leipzig-Hannover 1906-1908.

MGH, Conc. III = *Die Konzilien der karolingischen Teilreiche*, ed. W. Hartmann, Hannover 1984.

MGH, DD L II = *Die Urkunden Ludwigs II.*, ed. K. Wanner, München 1994 (Diplomata Karolinorum, 4).

The article will be organised into two complementary parts. First of all, I will present the context, a sort of fresco in movement: the processes of transformation in the social and political structures of the city of Lucca, the centre of early medieval Tuscany, which were triggered by the successive election and actions of two bishops of foreign origin and Carolingian educational training, notably in terms of writing, Berengar (837-843) and Ambrose (843- 852). Their arrival should be seen in the context of a profound and global reorganisation of the structure and balance of power in the region, carried out by Lothar I and, in his wake, by Louis II1 . I will trace the main outlines of these dynamics from the angle of the charters, which are exceptionally numerous in Lucca, illustrating them also through the changes discernible in the graphic and documentary forms.

I will then present the first results of an investigation into the manuscripts of the same period preserved in Lucca, helped in this by the cataloguing work carried out by the *Codex project*2. The Archivio Storico Diocesano of Lucca has a definite supremacy in this respect as well: it contains 11 of the 18 codicological units dating back to the ninth century preserved in Tuscany and listed in the project. After an overview, highlighting possible research directions, I will focus on the only codex of this group that has received targeted and constant attention, ms 490, expanding on a suggestion by Armando Petrucci. I intend to offer a new edition of the most-recently entered text in the codex, otherwise unknown, and hitherto somewhat neglected, written by a Carolingian hand that Petrucci has compared to that of Bishop Berengar3. These are the so-called *Dicta Gelasii papae* (cc. 272*v*-273*r*). Focusing on the theme of public penance, the text helps us to understand the instruments available to Berengar and his immediate successors to carry out their political activities. It also offers an exemplary insight into the turmoil that animated the sacred palace after the «penitential reform» of 813 and that spread from the Court, as part of a general movement of *correctio*, throughout the Empire4.

<sup>1</sup> In addition to the classic Schwarzmaier, *Lucca*, see now Tomei, *Milites elegantes*, and the large number of articles published in the last fifteen years by Andrea Castagnetti, Simone Collavini, Marco Stoffella (punctual references in the following footnotes). For a general outline, Bougard, *La cour*; Bougard, *Italia infirma*. <sup>2</sup> < http://www406.regione.toscana.it/bancadati/codex/ >, [06/09/2021]. See *Conoscere il ma-*

*noscritto*, *In margine*, and the issues of «Codex Studies». <sup>3</sup> Petrucci, *Scriptores*, p. 96. <sup>4</sup> De Jong, *What was Public*; De Jong, *Sacrum palatium*.

#### 1. *The context*

After making peace with his father Louis the Pious and moving to Italy, Lothar succeeded in asserting in Lucca the Court's control over the highest offices, ecclesiastical and secular. In terms of the city's history, this was a real break. Bishop Peter I, the last to be recruited into the canonical body of the mother church, had already died on 10 July 834. Berengar was only in office from 10 November 837, after a long vacancy, which can be interpreted as a sign of some resistance to the attempt from outside to assert control over the episcopal succession5 . From then on, the succession was rapid and apparently painless: with Ambrose in 8436, like Berengar, probably of foreign origin, and then Jeremiah Aldobrandeschi in 852, a man belonging to the Court though of local extraction, chosen by Louis II7 .

Berengar's pontificate corresponded approximately to the period when, after the expulsion from Lucca of Count Boniface II, directly involved in the conflict on the side of Louis the Pious, the comital office was taken away from the Bavarian kin of the Adalberti and given to Hagano son of Guntram – count between April 838 and 17 January 8448. He was perhaps preceded by Matfrid, recorded by a numismatic source, who has been associated with the Count of Orléans of the same name, a loyal follower of Lothar, who died in Italy in the first of the two epidemics that decimated the circle of his close advisors between 836 and 8379. Just like Hagano, Matfrid was an exponent of a solidarity network opposite to that of the Adalberti. In short, there were the supporters of the Empress Judith, in Alemannia and Bavaria on the one hand, and on the other those of her stepdaughter-in-law Queen Ermengarde, based in Alsace10.

During the same period, a plan initiated after Lothar's first journey to Italy, when he had taken possession of the Kingdom, came to fruition. The ordination of Count Boniface II's sister Richilde as rectrix and abbess of the monastery of S. Benedict on 5 October 823 can be seen as the start of the construction of a new monumental seat of public power in Lucca: the suburban palace with *laubiae*, of which S. Benedict became the ecclesiastical cornerstone11. The initiative was carried out independently of the presence of the Adalberti in the city and ended when they returned to Lucca, after Adalbert

<sup>5</sup> ChLA2, LXXVI, n. 43, pp. 152-155 (834 X 7, Lucca), LXXVII, n. 7, pp. 32-33 (837 XI 10, Lucca). <sup>6</sup> ChLA2, LXXVIII, nn. 10, pp. 36-37 (843 VI 12, Lucca), 16, pp. 48-49 (843 XII 15, Lucca). <sup>7</sup> ChLA2, LXXX, n. 18, pp. 72-73 (852 II 29, Lucca); MGH, DD, L II, n. 6, pp. 76-77 (852 X 3,

*curte Auriola*). <sup>8</sup> ChLA2, LXXVII, n. 12, pp. 45-47 (838 IV), LXXVIII, n. 17, pp. 50-51 (844 I 17, Lucca). He is

then called *olim comes*: ASDL, AAL, D, \* D 21; ed. MDL, V/2, n. 628, p. 375 (845 XII 12, Lucca). <sup>9</sup> Depreux, *Le comte Matfrid*; Kasten, *Königssöhne*, pp. 328-330. <sup>10</sup> Hummer, *Politics and Power*; Hammer, *From Ducatus*; Stoffella, *Le relazioni*; Veronese, *In* 

*Venetiarum partibus*. <sup>11</sup> ChLA2, LXXV, n. 20, pp. 79-81 (823 X 5, Lucca). For the identification of the church, see the eleventh-twelfth century dorsal note. On the palace, Tomei, *The Power*.

I had established and consolidated his ties with Lothar and Louis II. In 25 June 847, a *placitum* was held «civitate Luca, curte videlicet docalis»12. The neighbouring city of Pisa must have followed a similar path, as on 23 March 858, a *placitum* was held in «sala olim Haganoni comiti»13.

The numerous series of *placita* and *inquisitiones* carried out under Lothair and Louis II not only sheds light on a new topography of power, but also clearly shows a new set-up given to Tuscany by the Court14. The region experienced the establishment of a «polyphonic balance». An articulated power system took shape, harmonised by an overarching superior imperial control15. Alongside the counts of Lucca, who now assumed the title of marquis, the role played by the *missi* from the Court is striking. The protagonists on the public scene stand out as follows. We see *a)* bishops from neighbouring cities, who were formerly chaplains, or who had a close relationship with the sacred palace (such as Rodingus of Florence, who attended the Council of Ingelheim in August 840 together with Joseph of Ivrea and Hagano of Bergamo)16; *b)*  notaries and judges of the sacred palace, a group of professionals that was progressively structured during these decades17; *c)* imperial vassals of foreign origin (such as John, formerly successively count in Seprio and count palatine), or local, such as the Aldobrandeschi18; *d)* transalpine immigrants who, thanks to their links with the palace, put down roots in certain parts of the region (the Ripuarian Hucpoldingi in the Florentine area, the Salian Berardenghi in the Sienese one)19.

The transformations in the social fabric and in the power structures are also evident when one looks at private charters. There was a formalisation and diffusion of *livelli*. In Tuscany, this type of charter remained, like the *placitum* record, a main feature of the documentary system for the whole period, a period during which the region was embedded in the political framework headed by the marquis, until the death of Countess Matilda (1076-1115)20. In the second quarter of the ninth century, there was an increase in the number of *livelli*, by now set in their formula. For the first time, these reached over



*Il vescovo Giuseppe*. <sup>17</sup> Bougard, *La justice*; Castagnetti, *Note e documenti*. <sup>18</sup> Castagnetti, *La società milanese*; Collavini, *Honorabilis domus*. <sup>19</sup> Cammarosano, *La famiglia*; Manarini, *I due volti*. <sup>20</sup> Tomei, *Censum et iustitia*.

50% of the total number of parchments preserved. It never fell below this threshold again. The peak, over 80%, was reached in the last twenty years of the tenth century21.

In the years of Berengar and Ambrose, *livelli* and charters of exchange display new elements, some of which are of lasting influence. *a)* The period is the window of greatest visibility and activism of the transalpine immigrants – Franks, Alamanni and a few Bavarians – generally close to the major fiscal estates, for which they are not infrequently employed as *gastaldi* (for example, the Franks Roderic and Balderic son of Aderic)22. *b)* A flow of charters linked to the reorganisation of the public land base is set in motion, to which the first transactions in land bordering on that of the king or the queen, and the attestation of *curtes novae,* refer23. *c)* From these same documents it is possible to grasp a long-lasting process: the affirmation of the Aldobrandeschi, imperial vassals of local origin, who succeeded in achieving the comital *honor* and in obtaining the bishop's chair in Lucca24. In their wake, the first and decisive period of formation of the aristocratic fabric of Lucca began. A second group of individuals of local extraction emerged, who followed a similar course, though one generation later than the Aldobrandeschi, by entering imperial vassalage and by gaining access to the court's redistributive flow during the years of Louis II. The turning point came with the election of Jeremiah Aldobrandeschi as bishop. He acquired by diploma the power to annul the *livelli* of his predecessors, and through this also the ability to shape clienteles. A network of power was thus formed that prevented the transalpine immigrants from establishing themselves in Lucca. It was made up of three major kin groups, that I have called Figli di Rodilando, Cunimundinghi, and Figli di Huscit25. *d)* There is another transitory factor: only in the cases of Berengar, Ambrose and Jeremiah are there mentions of the bishop's vassals, usually transalpine men such as the Franks Hebrohac son of Ildecherius and Warin son of Odulf26.

Scripts with marked chancery overtones (such as the hands of the deacon and *missus* Cristianus, Abbot Macedo and the *gastaldus* Dodo) can be found in the circle related to the Court, and are visible both in the *placita* and in private charters that throw light on the areas bordering on the fiscal estates. The Carolingian script is widespread here too27. Thus, for example, the sub-

<sup>21</sup> Mailloux, *Modalités*; Ghignoli, *Libellario nomine*. <sup>22</sup> Hlawitschka, *Franken*, pp. 310-328; Schwarzmaier, *Lucca*, pp. 173-181; Castagnetti, *L'*inquisitio, pp. 127, 187-192.

<sup>23</sup> ChLA2, LXXVII, nn. 43, pp. 130-132 (840 V 28, Lucca), 50, pp. 152-155 (842 I 4, Lucca), LXX-VIII, n. 19, pp. 56-59 (844 I 24, Lucca), LXXIX, n. 49, pp. 154-157 (850 I 20, *Curte Nova finibus Maritimense*), LXXX, nn. 3, pp. 20-22 (850 III 7, Lucca), 34, pp. 114-117 (853 XII 22, Lucca). <sup>24</sup> Collavini, *Honorabilis domus*. <sup>25</sup> Tomei, *Milites elegantes*. <sup>26</sup> ChLA2, LXXVII, n. 50, pp. 152-155 (842 I 4, Lucca), LXXIX, n. 19, pp. 73-75 (847 V 7, Lucca),

LXXX, n. 31, pp. 108-109 (853 X 21, Lucca), LXXXI, n. 38, pp. 114-117 (862 X 9, Lucca).

<sup>27</sup> I draw these considerations from the portrait gallery provided by Castagnetti, *I vassalli imperiali*; Castagnetti, *L'*inquisitio; Bassetti-Ciaralli, *Sui rapporti*; Mastruzzo-Unfer Verre, *Pub-*

scriptions of, respectively, Bishops Berengar (of refined layout and closed with a sign of tachigraphic inspiration; which indeed keeps some cursive elements, such as the coexistence between the open *a* and the uncial *a*)28; and of Ambrose of Lucca (still linked to cursive models)29; of Rodingus of Florence (a pure, set and elegant Caroline)30; of the Frank Ratgaud son of Ermenric31; of the Archpriest Osprandus (a mixture of culture and elementary graphic education); and of the others who signed with him the *inquisitio* about the church of S. Fredianus in Lucca belonging to the fisc in April 838 – otherwise completely unknown figures in the albeit rich documentation32. The Aldobrandeschi family, with the imperial vassal Eriprand, played a pioneering role in this respect too among the local elites. His Carolingian script, which shows some cursive reminiscences, underwent a progressive solemnisation by lengthening the letters and enlarging the module under Louis II33.

Episcopal action, carried out by men close to the Court, moved on from this phase in Lucca along two lines, which were then pursued with some continuity at least until the second quarter of the eleventh century34. On the one hand, by taking advantage of the imperial legislation that emphasised the compulsory nature of tithes and the subordination of the *pievi* to the mother church35, the bishopric controlled more firmly centres which became the political-patrimonial coordination *foci* in the diocesan territory, which were then fortified at the beginning of the tenth century: in the Media Valle del Serchio, S. Mary of Sesto di Moriano, whose assets were directly managed by the bishop after having been governed for three generations by the same offspring36; in the Medio Valdarno, S. Hippolytus of *Anniano*, together with Santa Maria a Monte, where the bishop took over the management by choosing the rector, after the church had been governed for four generations by the same offspring37, and S. Gervasius of *Verriana*38.

*blici uffici*. On the spread and characteristics of the Early Carolingian script see now Gavinelli,

*Early Carolingian*. <sup>28</sup> ChLA2, LXXVII, nn. 18, pp. 54-55 (838 XII 16, Lucca), 26, pp. 84-85 (839 VI 14, Lucca), 38,

pp. 116-119 (840 III 24, Lucca). See Petrucci, *Scriptores*, p. 96. <sup>29</sup> ChLA2, LXXVIII, n. 21, pp. 62-64 (844 I, Lucca), LXXIX, nn. 6, pp. 31-35 (846 IV 1, Lucca), 17, pp. 66-69 (847 V 6, Lucca), LXXX, n. 5, pp. 27-29 (850 VI 22, Lucca).

<sup>30</sup> ChLA2, LXXVII, n. 35, pp. 107-111 (840 II, Lucca). See Petrucci, *Scriptores*, p. 216. <sup>31</sup> ChLA2, LXXVII, nn. 41, pp. 125-127 (840 V 16, Lucca), 43, pp. 130-132 (840 V 28, Lucca), 47, pp. 143-145 (841 VI 9, Lucca), LXXVIII, n. 10, pp. 36-37 (843 VI 12, Lucca), LXXX, n. 40, pp. 131-133 (854 XII 31, Lucca).

<sup>32</sup> Castagnetti, *L'*inquisitio. ChLA2, LXXVII, n. 12, pp. 45-47 (838 IV). <sup>33</sup> ChLA2, LXXVII, n. 27, pp. 86-87 (839 VI 14, Lucca). See Collavini, *Aristocrazia d'ufficio*. See also the deacon Gisulf son of Romuald, brother of the imperial vassal Cunipert: ChLA2, LXX-VIII, n. 12, pp. 40-41 (843 VII 13, Lucca).

<sup>34</sup> Tomei, *Milites elegantes.* <sup>35</sup> The reference point still remains Violante, *Ricerche*. <sup>36</sup> ChLA2, LXXVIII, n. 31, pp. 86-87 (844 VII 28, Lucca). See Stoffella, *L'episcopato*; Tomei, *Locus*, pp. 33-35. <sup>37</sup> ChLA2, LXXVIII, n. 41, pp. 108-109 (845 III 21, Lucca). See Mailloux, *L'évêque*; Stoffella,

*Élites*; Tomei, *Locus*, pp. 39-40. <sup>38</sup> ChLA2, LXXIX, n. 19, pp. 73-75 (847 V 7, Lucca). See Giglioli, *Una pieve*.

On the other hand, profiting from the *Königsnähe*, the bishops drew from the Court's redistributive flow landed estates now structured as *curtes*, without, however, generally succeeding in keeping them for a long time. The first mentions of *curtes domnicatae*, attested as places of collection of *census et iustitia* in the *livelli*, are at this date: Capannoli and S. Quiricus of *Aniciano*, not far away from the *pievi* of S. Gervasius and Sesto di Moriano respectively; *Asilacto*, in the Maremma39. On the whole, there is a diminution of the bishop's power compared to the early Carolingian period40. This is clearly shown by the history of the prestigious suburban church of S. Fredianus. Despite Berengar's closeness to the Court, the bishop's attempt to reassert episcopal control over S. Fredianus, in 838, did not achieve the desired results41. This ambition was fulfilled immediately after the death of Louis II by the will of Marquis Adalbert I, who took centre stage in the political arena of Lucca. In the tenth century, S. Fredianus became a pool from which the bishops drew in order to assign *beneficia* and/or *livelli* to relatives and friends who, like themselves, were essentially components of the marquis' clientele42.

With Lothar, therefore, we see a turning point. Several elements came into play, which, in various combinations and, interacting with the pre-existing structures, activated a process of transformation. This led to an overall reorganisation of the spaces and forms of power – which were directly reflected in the forms of the documentation<sup>43</sup>. Some of the configurations that took shape at this time characterised the political game and the social body until the middle of the eleventh century. In particular, the field of action of the bishop, the producer and/or keeper of the vast majority of sources on Lucca, was defined then.

#### 2. *A text*

The Archivio Storico Diocesano of Lucca is a shrine that preserves an exceptional heritage from the early Middle Ages, not only in terms of charters, but also in terms of manuscripts. Gabriella Pomaro spoke of «gelosa stabilità». The extent of the work to be completed is still considerable. For a long time, the manuscript collection remained unexplored and lacking

<sup>39</sup> ChLA2, LXXVIII, nn. 38, pp. 102-103 (844 XII 17, *Atriana*), 50, pp. 126-127 (845 VIII 12, *in finibus Castronovo ad plevem Sancti Casciani*), LXXIX, n. 49, pp. 154-157 (850 I 20, *Curte Nova finibus Maritimense*). <sup>40</sup> Collavini, *Da società rurale*; Collavini, *Spazi politici*. <sup>41</sup> Castagnetti, *L'*inquisitio. In April 838, the *inquisitio* promoted by Lothar's *missi*, the count

Hagano and the deacon Christianus, ascertained the thirty-year holding of S. Fredianus by the bishops of Lucca, until the death of Jacob, in 818. During that time it had been claimed by a royal vassal on behalf of the *pars palatii*, without success. Nevertheless, in the thirty years following the *inquisitio*, the church and its possessions do not appear in the bishop's availability. <sup>42</sup> Tomei, *Chiese*. Common fate for another suburban *Reichskloster*: S. Sylvester. <sup>43</sup> An interesting parallel is with the Bergamo of Bishop Hagano studied by De Angelis, *Poteri* 

*cittadini*.

in scientific exploration with the appropriate tools. Its reference point was Bernardino Baroni's inventory of 1757 until, in 2015, the cataloguing work, conducted by Pomaro herself in the framework of the *Codex project*, was completed. The internal composition and history of the collection were thus clarified. It consists of two main blocks: the Chapter book collection, a not very large and stable corpus, marked in the twelfth century by a note of possession with an anathema formula, was merged in the eighteenth century with the collection donated by Bishop Felino Sandei, a jurist from Ferrara who died in 150344.

As stated in the introduction, 11 of the 18 ninth-century codicological units from Tuscany are preserved here: 10 are in the Biblioteca Capitolare Feliniana (mss 8, 13, 14, 19, 21, 23, 65, 123, 12545, and 490); one (ms 27)46 in the Biblioteca Arcivescovile. Two comments need making on this number: it includes three manuscripts from the Biblioteca Statale of Lucca (mss 96, 1382 and 1389) of definite external and late provenance, but does not take into account the manuscripts in the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale and the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana in Florence, which were not catalogued by the project. I will focus on the oldest codex of the group, which needs no introduction: this is the well-known ms 490, attributable to the pontificates of John (783- 800) and Jacob (800-818)47. In fact, I will focus on a particular section of this codex, which Schiaparelli called «a library in a small volume», and Petrucci called a proper «anti-book»48.

Other research directions, which I cannot take here, would be worthy of further in-depth study of which I will mention only two49. The most elusive codex of the group awaits close scrutiny: ms 27 of the Biblioteca Ar-

<sup>44</sup> *I manoscritti* (the quote is from p. 4: the archive has jealously preserved its heritance, hence its stability).

<sup>45</sup> ASDL, BCF, mss 8 (ninth century, last quarter; evangeliary; northern Italy); 13 (ninth century, second quarter; Ambrose, *De fide* and *De spiritu sancto*; northern Italy); 14 (ninth century, end; Ambrose's corpus; northern Italy); 19 (ninth century, third quarter; Augustine, *De civitate Dei*; local production); 21 (ninth century, middle; Augustine, *Tractatus in evangelium Iohannis*; local product); 23 (ninth century, first quarter; Augustine, *De Trinitate*; from Beauvais); 65 (ninth century, last quarter; Life of saint Martin; from Tours); 123 (ninth century, last quarter; catalogue of popes – interrupted with Benedict III and on two erased lines a later hand continues up to Agapitus II – and pseudo-Isidore's decretals; local production); 125 (ninth century, last quarter; canonical collection; northern Italy or more likely local production).

<sup>46</sup> ASDL, BA, ms 27 (ninth century; Paul the Deacon, *Historia romana* and catalogue of emperors up to Justin I; northern Italy?). It was stolen, passed into the hands of Giuseppe Martini and was sold to the Biblioteca Casanatense. The affair, which ended with a conviction in 1901, can be inferred from the letters between Pietro Guidi and Giovanni Mercati. See Bandini, *Gio-*

*vanni Mercati*. <sup>47</sup> For its performative use in judgement by Bishop Jacob, see Michael Heil's contribution in this volume.

<sup>48</sup> Schiaparelli, *Il codice*; Petrucci, *Il codice*. For the *status quaestionis* see Pomaro, *Materiali*; Unfer Verre, *Ancora*. <sup>49</sup> Mastruzzo, *Un'epistola*, p. 1447, recommended, for example, a more careful consideration of

the relationship between the documentary evidence and two Lucchese codices in Carolingian script with many hands: ASDL, BCF, mss 21, 19.

civescovile, also not included in the catalogue. Of central importance for the transmission of Paul the Deacon's *Historia Romana*, it presents marginal annotations of great interest50. Furthermore, by looking at the manuscripts, one could identify the traces of the origin and/or education of Berengar and Ambrose. Amongst the ninth-century manuscripts today in Lucca, two were certainly there in the twelfth century, but were produced elsewhere: ms 23 is from Beauvais; ms 14 is one of the rare codices containing the works of Ambrose that comes from Milan51. These two bishops have been considered Frankish on account of their Carolingian script and their absence in Lucca in the period prior to their episcopal election. Moreover, their anthroponymy, with all due caution, would suggest a transalpine origin for Berengar (perhaps a link with the Unrochings?)52, and a Milanese origin for Ambrose. Therefore, a more detailed analysis of the manuscripts could shed further light on the matter53.

I return to the focus of my investigation. On cc. 272*v*-273*r* the only Carolingian hand of ms 490 (DD for Schiaparelli) adds the so-called *Dicta Gelasii papae*. The text, of which the Lucchese manuscript is the only witness, is written in the blank space at the end of an independent block: the *Italica*, a canonical collection formerly called *Sanblasiana* (for Schiaparelli by scribe AA, who writes only here). It follows another addition, the *Decretum Gelasianum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis* on cc. 272*r*-272*v* (for Schiaparelli by scribe CC, who writes only here), and ends before the middle of c. 273*r*54.

The script is, according to Petrucci, a «pure Carolingian minuscule», which would correspond in many ways to the signature of Bishop Berengar55. Nino Mastruzzo described it as follows: «diritta e di modulo piccolo, con *a* aperte che si alternano ad *a* onciali, rare legature corsive (*ri*, *rt*), nesso *nt* finale di parola (…), nesso *et* poco più grande delle altre lettere, poche abbreviazioni (…) una certa tendenza ad accostare le lettere con sporadica separazione delle parole»56. It presents numerous points of contact with the *epistola formata*, dated between 1 September 827 and 31 August 828 and signed by the bishop of Lucca Peter I (819-834), which is kept in the Roncioni collection of the Archivio di Stato in Pisa57. The letter is the only surviving original of its type,

<sup>50</sup> Crivellucci, *Per l'edizione*; Mortensen, *The Diffusion*. <sup>51</sup> Gerzaguet, *Le De fuga*. <sup>52</sup> Castagnetti, *L'*inquisitio, pp. 35-36. On the name stock of the Unrochings, Le Jan, *Famille*, pp. 183-184; La Rocca – Provero, *The Dead*, pp. 238-239. <sup>53</sup> I would like to thank François Bougard and Miriam Tessera for the insights they gave me

during the discussion.

<sup>54</sup> For a photo-reproduction see tables LXIX-LXX of Schiaparelli, *Il codice*. After a few blank lines there is a reference mark with an addition by a later hand to the previous text, the *Decretum*. On c. 273*v* are then copied cc. 1-8 of the Council of Orange of 529. <sup>55</sup> Petrucci, *Scriptores*, p. 96. <sup>56</sup> Mastruzzo, *Un'epistola*, pp. 1447-1448. <sup>57</sup> ChLA2, LVIII, n. 14, pp. 75-77 (827 IX 1-828 VIII 31, Lucca). < https://www.archiviodigitale.

icar.beniculturali.it/it/185/ricerca/detail/477765 >, [20/09/2021].

mentioned in Carolingian formularies, and can be traced back to northern France for its graphic features. According to Mastruzzo, who studied and edited the *epistola formata*, the script of its writer is even closer to Bishop Berengar's Carolingian minuscule, shown by his subscriptions.

The hands of the *Dicta* and that of the *epistola formata* betray a Frankish origin or education and are probably attributable to clerics close to the Court circles who came to Lucca at the time of Lothar, and during the pontificate of Peter I. Both remain anonymous. The two authors exist within the area of shadow on which the *inquisitio* of S. Fredianus also throws some light: like the subscribers in Carolingian script who intervene here, they do not appear elsewhere. They are complete outsiders with respect to those who, in the urban social body, gravitated around the mother church of S. Martinus, gaining visibility as writers or witnesses of the charters kept in its archive. An immediate comparison comes from the letter itself. See the signatures, opened by Bishop Peter I's uncertain elementary minuscule.

A final element from the graphic point of view: this is one of Pomaro's statements, which needs to be reconsidered, or more clearly discussed. The short text of the *Dicta* presents two *e*'s with a prolongation at the top: according to that scholar, they would be a very particular graphic trait, that would certainly lead back to the North, possibly to France. It can be followed throughout the ninth century and, by the middle of the eleventh century, it would become an identifying mark of Lucca's writing production58. If this were the case, this would be another important clue to the profile of the anonymous scribe of the *Dicta*. Nevertheless, it is precisely the *e* with apex that has been taken by Filippo Di Benedetto as an exemplary case of irrational habits and signs, found not in a single specific context, but in writings belonging to different systems, distant in time and space59.

From a textual point of view, the *Dicta* have received very limited attention. Until now, the reference edition, incorrect in several passages, has been the one by Giovanni Domenico Mansi of 1762, followed almost to the letter by Jacques Paul Migne in 1847 and by Andreas Thiel in 186760. The latter had already expressed doubts about its authenticity. The attribution to Pope Gelasius was undoubtedly influenced by the pseudo-Gelasian text, the *Decretum*, to which the *Dicta* are attached without a break, and is based on the heading in uncial *Incipiunt dicta Gelasii pape,* in which *Gelasii pape* is washed out. With all this evidence, even in the distant past, it appeared questionable and problematic. In spite of the questions raised, the issue has no longer been addressed, and the Gelasian authorship is still commonly accepted. The need for a new edition has therefore arisen, which I provide in the appendix. From

<sup>58</sup> Pomaro, *Materiali*, pp. 165, 183; *I manoscritti*, p. 26. <sup>59</sup> Di Benedetto, *Sulla irrazionalità*. <sup>60</sup> *Sacrorum conciliorum*, vol. 8, coll. 124-126; PL, 59, coll. 140-142 (in Gelasius papa, *Varia fragmenta*); *Epistulae Romanorum pontificum*, pp. 509-510 (as *Fragmentum* 49). See also Maassen, *Geschichte*, p. 285.

this starting point, I would like to present the first lineaments within which the source can be set and valued.

The structure of the *Dicta* consists of three main sections. First, the definitions of catechumens, otherwise called *audientes*, and penitents are given61. Then, their position within the *ecclesia* is specified. A division of the ecclesiastical space is drawn up, to which corresponds a scansion of the liturgical action, between the following categories: *audientes*, *paenitentes*, *fideles laici* and *clerici*62. This constitutes the underlying backbone on which the nodal discourse is built at the conclusion of the *Dicta*, namely to specify the forms and times of public penance, through which men who have committed crimes, the most serious sins, can fully re-enter the *ecclesia*, in communion with other *fideles* participating in the sacrament of the Eucharist63. Constant in every passage is the reference to the legitimising authority of the ancient discipline, expressed in a generic way: «in canone»; «secundum preceptum canonis»; «antiquitus»; «in quolibet capitulo canonis».

In short, it is a sort of compendium, a brief handbook, that seeks to take up, systematise and provide the correct interpretation of sources, primarily canonical, on a subject that was highly topical in the years in which it was copied in ms 490. In terms of tension, themes and lexicon, the *Dicta* can in fact be compared to the sources that allowed Mayke de Jong to study the «penitential reform» of 813 and the Carolingian «penitential state»64, in particular the canons of the Councils of Arles (c. 26, later merged in *Karoli Magni capitula e canonibus excerpta*, c. 25)65, Rheims (cc. 12, 16, 31)66, Chalon-sur-Saône (cc. 25, 32-35, 38)67, and Tours (c. 22)68 of 813. The pattern continued after Verdun in all three *regna* of the Carolingian galaxy at the same time, the protagonists being, for Charles the Bald, Hincmar of Rheims (synod of Meaux-Paris, 845- 846, c. 61)69; for Louis the German, Hrabanus Maurus (synod of Mainz, 847,

<sup>61</sup> «Cathecumini (…) publicae penitentiam». <sup>62</sup> «Et sciendum est (…) a clerici».

<sup>63</sup> «Cumque autem (…) sanguinis Christi». <sup>64</sup> De Jong, *What was Public*; De Jong, *Transformations*; De Jong, *The Penitential State*. <sup>65</sup> MGH, Conc. II, n. 34, pp. 248-253: 253 (813 V 10-11, Arles) = Capit. I, n. 78, pp. 173-175: 175 (813): «Ut qui publico crimine convicti sunt rei publice iudicentur et publicam paenitentiam agant secundum canones».

<sup>66</sup> MGH, Conc. II, n. 35, pp. 253-258 (813 V, Rheims). <sup>67</sup> MGH, Conc. II, n. 37, pp. 273-285: 278 (813, Chalon-sur-Saône): «Paenitentiam agere iuxta antiquam canonum constitutionem in plerisque locis ab usu recessit, et neque excommunicandi neque reconciliandi antiqui moris ordo servatur. Ut a domno imperatore adiutorium, qualiter, si qui publice peccat, publica multetur paenitentia et secundum ordinem canonum pro merito suo et excommunicetur et reconcilietur».

<sup>68</sup> MGH, Conc. II, n. 38, pp. 286-306 (813, Tours). <sup>69</sup> MGH, Conc. III, n. 11, pp. 61-132: 113 (845 VI, Meaux; 846 II, Paris): «Ut pervasores rerum ecclesiasticarum, qui easdem res vel contra auctoritatem non solum retinere, verum et crudeliter depopulari noscuntur, quidam etiam et facultates ecclesiae in diversa conlaboratione et reditibus eas expoliant, sed et pauperes atque vicinos et circummanentes inmisericorditer expoliant, devastant et opprimunt, ut rapaces, qui secundum apostolum a regno Dei excluduntur, ex criminali et publico peccato publica penitentia satisfaciant».

c. 31)70; and for Lothar, Angilbert II of Milan and Joseph of Ivrea (synod of Pavia, 845-850, cc. 12, 1771; synod in *Francia*, 846, c. 672; synod of Pavia, 850, cc. 7-1273).

Incidentally, the *epistolae formatae* share not only the graphic layout, but also their origin, with the Pseudo-Gelasian *Dicta*, following the same direction. It was at that time that in the environment of the sacred palace a concern for the placement of the individual within society and its discipline gradually started to develop. According to the provisions insisted upon by the capitularies and pronounced by the Councils of Chalon-sur-Saône (c. 41) and Tours (c. 13) in 813, letters must accompany *clerici peregrini*, the ecclesiastics who wanted to move to another diocese, taking up the ancient practice of the κανονικαί έπιστολαί74. If the *epistola formata* certifies and legitimises such move, a change of position in the *ecclesia*, the *Dicta* are concerned with the path to reunite those who have been temporarily excluded from the consortium of the faithful.

Public penance was the spearhead of this general movement of *correctio* promoted by the *sacrum palatium*: the central core of the political community, and the point of reference for liturgy and doctrine. In an original experiment aimed at the symbolic "liturgisation" of power and the organisation of consensus and domination, the king was placed at the head of an Empire that was also an *ecclesia*. With the help of his *ministri*, he took charge of the salvation of the Christian people and of the remission of their sins before God. A direct relationship was therefore established between the public nature of the *ministerium* and *scandalum* in the *ecclesia* and the public nature of penance.

<sup>74</sup> MGH, Conc. II, n. 37, pp. 273-285: 282 (813, Chalon-sur-Saône); n. 38, pp. 286-306: 288 (813, Tours). See Mastruzzo, *Un'epistola*, pp. 1448-1449.

<sup>70</sup> MGH, Conc. III, n. 14, pp. 150-177 (847 X, Mainz). <sup>71</sup> MGH, Conc. III, n. 21, pp. 207-215: 214 (845-850, Pavia): «Sacra docet auctoritas, ut publice peccantes publicę penitentię subiciantur (…); quos ut episcopi publicę possint penitentię subiugare, petimus, ut comitum vestrorum auxilio fulciantur».

<sup>72</sup> MGH, Conc. III, n. 12, pp. 133-139: 136 (846 X, *Francia*): «Volumus eciam et diligentissime praecipimus observandum, ut episcopi singuli in suis parroechiis diligenter examinent et sollicite investigent, quicunque publicis sint inretiti flagitiis, hoc est incestos, adulteros, sanctimonialium stupratores vel qui eas eciam in coniugium acceperunt, homicidas, sacrilegos, alienarum rerum pervasores atque praedones; et hoc per omne regnum nostrum sollicite examinetur, ut, quicunque tales fuerint inventi, penitentię puplicę subdantur, aut, si hoc noluerint, ab ęcclesia separentur, donec a suis flagitiis corrigantur».

<sup>73</sup> MGH, Conc. III, n. 23, pp. 217-229: 225 (850, Pavia): clarifications concerning owners of assets in several dioceses and holders of public office. «Inveniuntur nonnulli per diversas provincias et civitates habentes possessiones, qui, cum aliquod publice scelus perpetraverint (…). Talis ergo ab episcopo civitatis, in cuius parrochia scelus commissum est, statim communione privati ad agendam penitentiam cogantur. Scribat autem, qui eum communione privaverit, aliis quoque episcopis, in quorum parrochiarum territoriis huiusmodi predia possidet, ut et ipsi rem scientes a sua illum communione removeant» (c. 11). «Hoc autem omnibus Christianis intimandum est, quia hi, qui sacri altaris communione privati et pro suis sceleribus reverendis aditibus exclusi publicę penitentię subiugati sunt, nullo militię secularis uti cingulo nullamque rei publicę debent administrare dignitatem; quia nec popularis conventibus eos misceri oportet nec vacare salutationibus nec quorumlibet causas iudicare, cum sunt ipsi divino addicti iuditio; domesticas autem necessitates curare non prohibentur» (c. 12).

A «synergic-binary structure» took shape in which the royal and ecclesiastical spheres were in a reciprocal and complementary relationship. The political body coincided with the people of God who followed the correct doctrine emanating from the sacred palace75.

The «penitential reform» was carried out, according to the intention of its ideologists, *secundum canones*: it promoted the pseudo-restoration of an old discipline through the study and updating of the conciliar texts76. On the path of successive penitential stages, passing first through the *audientes* and then through a *paenitentiae locus*, of reference were the Councils of Ancyra of 314 (cc. 4-9, 16, 20-25)77, Neocaesarea of 314-320 (cc. 1-2, 5)78, Nicaea of 325 (cc. 11, 13)79, and then Epaone of 517 (c. 29)80. With respect to the Carolingian revival, they differ in their particular insistence on the theme of the *lapsi*, by now obsolete at the beginning of the ninth century – and, as a matter of fact, totally absent from the *Dicta*. On the necessity of a public penance for the crimes that upset the *ecclesia*, the starting point is the *breviarium Hipponense* of 393 (c. 30), later ratified at the Council of Carthage in 397 (c. 43)81.

The relationship between the *Dicta* and these texts is also evident on the material front. It is worth remembering that the former can be found in the block that contains the *Collectio Italica olim Sanblasiana*. It actually begins with Nicaea, Ancyra e Neocaesarea in the *Isidoriana vulgata* recension and closes with two letters of Pope Gelasius that make reference to penance (*Necessaria rerum dispositione*, cc. 2, 18, 20; *Probabilibus desideriis*, c. 1)82. The *Italica* is one of the collections formed at the turn of the fifth and sixth centuries, by assembling conciliar canons and episcopal letters, especially papal ones, up to the pontificate of Gelasius. They were compiled during the Acacian schism and its political-religious consequence in Rome, the schism between Symmachus and Laurentius. Specifically, the *Italica* was composed in Rome and revised under Pope Hormisdas to provide a Gelasian-Symmachian version of the events83. Their redaction marks the strengthening of the ecclesial community as an institutional body with-

<sup>75</sup> De Jong, *Sacrum palatium*. <sup>76</sup> De Jong, *What was Public*; De Jong, *Transformations*. Law was one of the fields in which Italy's generous contribution to Carolingian renewal is particularly evident. See Bougard, *Was* 

*There a Carolingian*. <sup>77</sup> EOMIA, 2, pp. 64-79, 92-99, 106-115. <sup>78</sup> EOMIA, 2, pp. 118-121, 124-125. <sup>79</sup> EOMIA, 1, pp. 211-221. <sup>80</sup> *Concilia Galliae a. 511-695*, pp. 20-37: 31 = *Concilia Galliae a. 314-506*, pp. 189-228: 227. <sup>81</sup> *Concilia Africae a. 345-525*, pp. 22-53, 173-247: 41-42, 185. <sup>82</sup> *Epistulae Romanorum pontificum*, nn. 14-15, pp. 360-380. <sup>83</sup> Wirbelauer, *Zwei Päpste*; Lizzi Testa, *La Collectio* (on *Italica* in particular pp. 158-163 of the

Appendice edited by Giulia Marconi and Silvia Margutti). For a *stemma codicum* see Elliot, *Collectio*, which prefers the old title *Sanblasiana*. The Lucchese witness would belong to a branch descended from a Roman autograph, which remained confined to central and northern Italy until much of the eighth century.

in the imperial structure as well as showing the pope's wish to build a more solid foundation for his authority and assert a juridical-theological primacy. More generally, together with the *Variae* and the *Liber Pontificalis*, they have been seen as the expression of a project aimed at maintaining *civilitas* under Theodoric84.

The subsequent fortune of Gelasius is determined by the selection of his letters: both because they are the *terminus ante quem* of the collections, which coagulated at the time of the schism, and because they are the bearers of an ecclesiology that claims Roman primacy and discusses the relationship between *regnum* and *sacerdotium*85. The use of his legitimising authority was mainly implemented in Gaul. The *Sacramentarium Gelasianum* was composed here at the turn of the seventh and the eighth centuries, containing a first *ordo agentibus publicam paenitentiam*, and perhaps also the *Decretum Gelasianum*<sup>86</sup>. Once again, ms 490 provides a concrete reflection of this diachronic and textual itinerary, on a trail that stretches, so to speak, from Constantine to Charlemagne. In the codex the *Decretum* follows the *Collectio Italica*, with a prologue to which it is the only witness87. Without a break, then, come the *Dicta*, borrowing initially the attribution to Gelasius. As I have tried to demonstrate, they represent a clear and distinct reverberation of the Carolingian *correctio* in Lucca.

In conclusion, I propose to link the two sections of my contribution as warp and weft. A common thread to these is the effort to observe, in practice and in a specific context, dynamics and concepts of a more general scope. In Lucca, the age of Lothar marks the arrival of men, texts, knowledge and practices from or linked to the sacred palace, which spring from a vast program of reorganisation of the forms and spaces of power. Decisive, however, is the interaction with pre-existing local structures. This triggered a process of reshaping of the social body, and produced a new order, at first multifocal and then, after the death of Louis II, coordinated by the public authority of the marquis, who set himself up as head of the political community in Tuscany. The interpenetration between *regnum*, in its regional dimension, and *sacerdotium* took place in that form. From Berengar onwards, the bishops were men who came from the Court circle; at first they were foreigners, then they could also be members of the urban elite who were on the way up thanks to the resources redistributed at the marquis' public palace. The instrument of excommunication, and subsequent reconciliation through public penance, was employed within this sphere. In Lucca it was not claimed in the first person by the bishop, but rather by the marquis, in the solemn

<sup>84</sup> *The Collectio*. <sup>85</sup> Toubert, *La doctrine*. <sup>86</sup> De Jong, *Transformations*, pp. 194-195; McKitterick, *The Carolingians*, pp. 202-204. <sup>87</sup> *Das Decretum*, p. 17.

documents with which he exerted and displayed his public *ministerium*, *gratia Dei*88.

<sup>88</sup> Tomei, *Una nuova categoria*, p. 143 (see also p. 147): «Unde ego in Dei nomine (…) gratia Dei marchio (…). Si quis hanc paginam nostrȩ offersionis seu investitionis per quolibet modo frangere vel violare temptaverit, sciat se excommunicatum et anathematizatum a Deo patre omnipotente et a beatissima virgine Maria et a beato Iohanne Baptista et a beato Petro apostolorum principe et a sede sancta apostolicȩ catholica, quod nec vivus penitentiam agat, nec mortuus sepultura capiat, sed cum Iuda proditore nostri creatoris portionem habeat». I have defined this type of documents donations in mandate form. On the formula *gratia Dei*, see Le Jan, *Famille*, pp. 136-141.

*Writing, textuality, politics in the Lucca of Bishops Berengar and Ambrose (837-852)*

#### **Appendix**

Pseudo-Gelasius papa, Dicta

ASDL, BCF, ms 490, cc. 272*v*-273*r*. Editions: *Sacrorum conciliorum*, vol. 8, coll. 124-126 [Mansi]; PL, 59, coll. 140-142 [Migne]; *Epistulae Romanorum pontificum*, pp. 509-510 [Thiel]. For the latter two, I will only mention in the apparatus the points at which they diverge. When not specified, they follow the former.

Incipiunt dicta Gelasii papea). Cathecuminib), latine dicuntur instructi vel au|dientes, hiic) sunt qui fidem Christi instructi audiunt Christi preceptad) et recte credunt, | etiame) a sacerdote consignati sunt et per exorcisma purgati et sepe purganturf), sed | necdum sacro baptismate sunt abluti. Penitentes hiig) dicuntur in canone qui proh) crimi|nibus, idesti) maioribus culpis, agunt publicae penitentiamj).

Et sciendum est quia secundum preceptumk) | canonis non licet fidelibus, idest iam baptizatis, mixtil) in ecclesia cum audientibus, idest caticumi|nism), stare tempore orationis et canonicae laudis et simul cum eis orare autn) psallere. | Neque clericis aut aliis laicis licet cum penitentibuso) simul mixti orare aut psallere. | Proindep) antiquitus propriaeq) statutus locus aut extra ecclesiam aut in initio introitus || aecclesiaer) ubi ad orandum et audiendum divinum officium stabant cathecuminis), idest instructi | vel audientes. Et infra aecclesiamt) super istos erat similiter propriaeu) locus statutus ubi | stabantv) penitentesw), ut omnes in ecclesiaex) introeuntes scirent eos de criminalibusy) culpis peni|terez) et orarent pro eis et illi per hocaa) humiliati magisbb) reciperent veniam delictorum suorum. | Et super hos in alio ecclesiae spatio stabant cetericc) fideles laici segregati tamen a clericidd). |

Cumqueee) autem in quolibet capituloff) canonis dicatur ut pro quacumquegg) criminali, idest graviori, culpa | eiciaturhh) ab ecclesia quicumqueii), non est intellegendumjj) ut funditus prebeturkk) ab omni con|ventu et auditione divinae laudisll) et preceptorum Deimm); quod nimis absurdum est et contra | preceptumnn) divinae clementiae, ut aeger ad divina excludatur medicina Dei, qui pro salute | peccatorum est incarnatus et passus, et abiectus ab omni conventu et consolatione fidelium | diabulo tradatur. Sed predicta ratiooo) intelligendum est ut eiciaturpp) a communione, | idest consortio aliorum fidelium quiqq) infrarr) ecclesiam stant tempore orationis et laudis | Dei, et stet per statutos annos ad orandum et laudes Dei audiendum extra ecclesiam inter | audientes, idest cathecuminisss), et expletis his annistt) secundum iudicium commissae cul|peuu) intret in ecclesiam in communionem, idest consortiovv) orationis cum penitentibusww). | Inter quos expletis iterum annis secundum iudicium culpae suae redeat plenius a com|munionexx), idest consortium ceterorumyy) fidelium, et perceptionis sacri corporis et | sanguinis Christi.

a) heading in uncial; *Gelasii pape* washed out b) Mansi *Catechumeni* c) Mansi

*ii* d) Mansi *praecepta* e) Mansi *et etiam* f) the first *r* added above the line; Mansi

*et resipiscunt* g) Mansi *poenitentes hi* h) Mansi *de* i) Mansi *de* j) *m* corrected from *e*; Mansi *publice poenitentiam* k) Mansi *praeceptum* l) Mansi *missas* m) Mansi *catechumenis* n) Mansi *et* o) Mansi *poenitentibus* p) Mansi *(…)* q) Mansi *proprius* r) Mansi *ecclesiae* s) Mansi *catechumeni* t) Mansi *ecclesiam* u) Mansi *proprie* v) *sta* written over three letters w) Mansi *poenitentes* x) Mansi *ecclesiam* y) *a* corrected from *ib* z) Mansi *poenitere* aa) Mansi *haec* bb) *m* corrected from *re* cc) Mansi, Migne *caeteri*; Thiel, *ceteri* dd) Mansi *clericis* ee) Mansi, Migne *Cumque*; Thiel, *Quumque* ff) Mansi *aliquibus capitulis* gg) Mansi *quacumque*; Migne, Thiel *quacunque* hh) Mansi *eiiciatur* ii) Mansi *quicumque*; Migne, Thiel *quicunque* jj) Mansi *intelligendum* kk) Mansi *prohibeatur* ll) *i* added above the line mm) Mansi *praeceptorum Domini* nn) Mansi *praeceptum* oo) Mansi, Migne *praedicta rationabiliter*; Thiel, *praedictum rationabiliter* pp) Mansi *eiiciatur* qq) *qui* added above the line rr) Mansi *intra* ss) Mansi *catechumenos* tt) Mansi *omnibus* uu) Mansi *culpa* vv) Mansi, Migne *consortio*; Thiel *consortium* ww) Mansi *poenitentibus* xx) Mansi, Migne *a communione*; Thiel *ad communionem* yy) Mansi, Migne *caeterorum*; Thiel *ceterorum*

*Writing, textuality, politics in the Lucca of Bishops Berengar and Ambrose (837-852)*

Fig. 1. Pseudo-Gelasius papa, *Dicta* (Archivio Storico Diocesano di Lucca, Biblioteca Capitolare Feliniana, ms 490, c. 272*v*).

Fig. 2. Pseudo-Gelasius papa, *Dicta* (Archivio Storico Diocesano di Lucca, Biblioteca Capitolare Feliniana, ms 490, c. 273*r*).

#### **Works cited**


*Concilia Galliae a. 314-506*, ed. C. Munier, Turnhout 1963 (CCSL, 148).


R. McKitterick, *The Carolingians and the Written Word*, Cambridge 1989.


Paolo Tomei Università degli Studi di Pisa paolotom@hotmail.it

### **The two versions of the life of Pope Sergius II in the** *Liber pontificalis***. Anti-Frankish feeling in Rome after Louis II's expedition of 844**

by Maddalena Betti

The analysis of the two versions of the life of Pope Sergius II (844-847) published by Louis Duchesne in his edition of the *Liber pontificalis* aims at identifying and discussing the tools developed by the Lateran to illustrate the relationship between the Apostolic See and Carolingian power at the time of the Emperor Lothar. I will first present the two versions of the life of Sergius and their circulation, then highlight the rhetorical strategies employed by the author to diminish the political significance of Louis II's journey to Rome (844). Secondly, I will refer to the second part of the so-called Farnesianus version of the life of Sergius II. In this particular section, the author, before the incomplete report of the Saracen raid on the mouth of the Tiber and the sack of S. Peter's Basilica (846), critically describes the pontificate of Sergius II, dominated by the negative figure of the pontiff's brother, Benedict, who imposed his tyranny over Rome and its territory on behalf of the emperor (most likely as a *missus* on the imperial side). In this regard, it is interesting to evaluate which are the concealed arguments introduced here to represent the alleged effects of the application of the *Constitutio Roman*a (824) on the socio-political structures of the city and on the history of the Roman Church, to offer a hypothesis on the context of the composition of this version of the life of Sergius II. In particular, I will dwell on the denouncing of the simoniacal heresy, shown to have been triumphant during the pontificate of Sergius II, as sign of the re-emergence in Rome of a theme particularly strongly felt among the Carolingian reformers, and one which can perhaps be most associated with the pontificate of Sergius' successor Leo IV (847-855).

Middle Ages; 9th century; Carolingian Italy; Rome; Pope Sergius II; Pope Leo IV; Saracens; *Liber pontificalis*; Codex Farnesianus; simony.

Maddalena Betti, University of Venice Ca' Foscari, Italy, marlenebetti@hotmail.com, 0000-0003-3666-598X Referee List (DOI 10.36253/fup\_referee\_list)

FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

Maddalena Betti, *The two versions of the life of Pope Sergius II in the* Liber pontificalis*. Anti-Frankish feeling in Rome after Louis II's expedition of 844*, © Author(s), CC BY 4.0, DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-623-0.10, 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. 181-198, 2022, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 978-88-5518-623-0, DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-623-0

Abbreviations

LP = L. Duchesne, *Le Liber Pontificalis. Texte, introduction et commentaire*, 2 voll., Paris 1892. MGH, Capit. I = MGH, *Capitularia regum Francorum*, I, ed. A. Boretius, Hannover 1883 (Legum sectio, II/1).

MGH, Capit. II = MGH, *Capitularia regum Francorum*, II, ed. A. Boretius – V. Krause, Hannover 1897 (Legum sectio, II/2).

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

MGH, Epp. V = MGH, *Epistolarum Tomus V*, ed. E. Dümmler *et al.*, Berlin 1899 (Epistolae Karolini aevi, 3).

MGH, Epp. VIII = MGH, *Epistolarum Tomus VIII/1*, ed. E. Perels, Berlin 1939 (Epistolae Karolini aevi, 6).

#### 1. *Introduction*

The *Liber pontificalis* consists of a sequence of biographies of the bishops of Rome, composed either step by step when the pontiff was still alive, or immediately after his death1 , with the exception of those biographies included in the first writing stage dating back to the first half of the sixth century. These lives follow a predetermined form and are characterized by clear parallelisms in structure and content. However, each of them stands out for its peculiarities. Identifying and studying these peculiarities in the sections reserved for the narration of historical events, allows us to grasp the point of view put forward in the Lateran *palatium*. In practice, this meant the group of clerics and high-ranking lay people who held the most prestigious positions of the articulated and complex Roman pontifical administrative machine2. Nevertheless, it is necessary to keep in mind that each single life is also an individual part of a book which, despite its complex genesis, was indeed conceived as a whole, with its own precise internal logic. The *Liber pontificalis*, out together by the officers employed at the *scrinium* and the *vestararius*, was in fact tasked with establishing the official memory of the papal party3, represented a multifunctional memory provided for both internal purposes in the *palatium* and also intended for the external public4. It was therefore a text aimed at those wishing to know the history of the papacy itself as an institution over time, that of the prestigious Roman churches which were the destination of pilgrimages, and finally that of the city of Rome, proud of its past, and its protagonists, the latter included the popes, but also the clergy, the aristocrats and the Roman people. It is difficult to establish whether the authors of the individual lives were all equally aware of the value of the work they were contributing to

<sup>1</sup> For all the issues related to the genesis, composition and dissemination of *Liber pontificalis*: Bertolini, *Il «Liber pontificalis»*; Noble, *A new look*; Capo, *The «Liber pontificalis»*; Verardi, *La memoria legittimante*; McKitterick, *Rome and the invention of the papacy* and the miscellaneous volume, fresh off the press, *Das Buch der Päpste - Liber Pontificalis*. <sup>2</sup> For the papal administration, see Toubert, *Scrinium et palatium.* <sup>3</sup> The problems of the authorship of papal biographies are not easy to solve, nor is the rela-

tionship of the authors of the lives with the popes – both the protagonists of the biography and their successors – clear. There is also no reliable information on how the suitability of a life was established for copying and dissemination outside the Lateran and who was responsible for it. <sup>4</sup> The unitary nature of the *Liber Pontificalis* is highlighted, for example, by Herbers, *Das Buch der Päpste*.

augment – to produce not only administrative information but also a coherent attempt to interpret events in a long-term historical perspective. What is certain is that they consciously followed a precise path, traced by their predecessors through the elaboration and repetition of the same format, which was rigid but allowed for variations.

The contents analysis of a single life is therefore appropriate, though it is also necessary to consider the whole series of biographies among which it is situated5 . Thus, my investigation of the life of Sergius II starts from a comparison with the papal biographies belonging to the last editorial phase of the *Liber Pontificalis,* that devoted to the ninth-century popes, with particular attention being paid to the lives preceding it and the ones immediately following it6.

#### 2. *The life of Sergius II in context*

The life of Sergius II sets itself clearly apart from those which precede it. For the first time, in fact, its author(s) do(es) not avoid recounting the relationships between the pontiff, the Emperor Lothar and his son Louis. It is because of this that the life of Sergius II is a rich object of study for reflecting upon the Franco-papal relationship and, in particular, on the representation of this relationship from the Roman side.

Discussion of the relationship between the Apostolic See and the heirs of Charlemagne is largely absent from the lives of Sergius II's predecessors7 . From the life of Hadrian I (772-795) onwards, which starts with the narration of historical events, and even more decisively in the life of Leo III (795-816), papal biographers begin to show an almost exclusive interest in news concerning the actions of the pontiffs in terms of building work, and the gifts they offered to the Roman churches8. The life of Paschal I (817-824) attracted the attention of scholars because it reported in detail on a wide-ranging programme of a highly symbolic value, which included, on the one hand, the restoration and re-construction of the city's places of worship and, on the other, the recovery of the martyrs' relics and their translation within the city9. Conversely, the life of Paschal I doesn't make reference to the success of the *Pac-*

<sup>5</sup> This necessity is also well explained in Verardi, *Il Liber Pontificalis Romano*, p. 181. <sup>6</sup> On the lives of the ninth-century popes see Herbers, *Agir et écrire*; Bougard, *Composition, diffusion et réception*; Unger, *Der «Liber pontificalis»*; Bon – Bougard, *Le «Liber pontificalis» et ses auteurs*. <sup>7</sup> On the representation of the Carolingians in the sources produced in Italy, see Noble, *Talking* 

*about the Carolingians.*

<sup>8</sup> On this change in the redaction of the lives of the *Liber* (the ensuing study, however, aims exclusively at dating the report on building activities and donations), Geertman, *More veterum*,

p. 2 and *passim*. <sup>9</sup> See Goodson, *The Rome of Pope Paschal I*. An interesting reading of the biography of Paschal I in Verardi, *Spunti di riflessione*.

*tum Ludovicianum*, a privilege that Louis the Pious sent to the newly-elected pope to confirm his exclusive prerogatives over Rome and its Duchy, the Roman *Campagna* and Tuscia, and to renew the donations relating to the Exarchate, the Pentapolis, Sabina and the cities of Lombard Tuscia, and of the Duchy of Benevento10. We do not find in it any mention of Lothar's coronation as emperor, which took place in S. Peter's in 823; nor any account of the tensions that followed the papal condemnation of some Roman high judges for being too close to Lothar11. Such an absence of historical narration also characterises the life of Gregory IV (828-844). Building campaigns and donations are mentioned in it almost exclusively without reference to his disputed election and his journey to France to try to restore peace between Louis and his sons. The choice made by the biographers to eliminate any explicit reference to the relations of the Apostolic See with the Carolingian authorities was strategic and aimed at not disturbing such relations. These were still in the process of being defined, with an increasingly present Carolingian power, with which it was necessary for the popes to come to terms. The life of Eugene II (824-827) is also anomalous and remains incomplete, perhaps at the stage of a mere draft12. It is no coincidence, in my opinion, that the unfinished form concerns precisely the life of the pontiff who accepted the *Constitutio Romana*, a pact which mainly regulated the imperial intervention in papal elections and established its supervision of justice and administration in the territories under papal jurisdiction. The difficulties of this biography – already evident in its genesis, and even more so in its transmission – were probably due to its author's attempt to veer away from such "neutral" lives as that of Eugene's predecessor Paschal I, and to provide an account of this tricky episode from a Roman point of view instead. The evidence which suggests that such an attempt was made lies in a passage, totally out of context, found at the end of this very short life. This passage was originally a wide-ranging narrative section dealing with the context in which the *Constitutio Romana* came into being, namely the tension between some Roman aristocrats, accused of acting on behalf of Lothar, and Pope Paschal. In fact, Eugene II is said to have granted economic reparations to certain Roman *iudices* who had returned to Rome after their exile in France13. This information has parallels in the Frankish sources (the *Annales regni Francorum* and the *Vita Ludovici* by the Astronomer) and in the prologue of the *Constitutio Romana* in which, in addition to establishing the inviolability of those who were *sub speciali defensione* on the

<sup>10</sup> For the *Pactum Ludovicianum*, Noble, *The Republic of St. Peter*, pp. 148-153, 299-308; see the edition in MGH, DD LdF, n. 125, pp. 312-320.

<sup>11</sup> Such information is provided instead by the Frankish sources, mainly the *Annales regni Francorum* and the two biographies of the Emperor Louis, written respectively by Thegan and the anonymous Astronomer.

<sup>12</sup> On the Life of Eugene II, see Verardi, *Il papato alla prova dell'impero*, pp. 30-31. <sup>13</sup> LP, II, p. 69: «Huius diebus, Romani iudices qui Francia tenebantur captivi reversi sunt, quos

in parentum propria ingredi permisit et eis non modicas res de patriarchio Lateranensi praebuit, quia erant pene omnibus facultatibus destituti».

papal or imperial side, the entire first chapter of the capitulary is dedicated to the widows and orphans of the Roman *iudices* executed in Rome in the very last year of the Paschal's pontificate14. The attempt to narrate the genesis of the *Constitutio* from the Roman point of view evidently failed; the subject matter must have been deeply divisive. My hypothesis is, therefore, that it was precisely this reason that compromised the writing of Eugene II's life, and marked the return to the model of the "neutral" life of Paschal I, a model followed both for the very short pontificate of Valentinus and then, more clearly, for that of Gregory IV.

The life of Sergius II, which abandoned the tradition of strategic silence, and addressed the issue of the relationship with the Franks, seems to have met with a singular fate. Unlike the life of Eugene II, which survived the draft stage, the life of Sergius II has instead been duplicated: there are, in fact, two official versions written in Rome at the Lateran, which were copied, and circulated regularly beyond the Alps15. The existence of two distinct narratives from the papal milieu suggests that the drafting of the life of Sergius II provoked some debate in the Lateran about the content it was supposed to include, and that it then underwent a process of rewriting to suit changing historical contexts and political concerns.

### 3. *The two biographies of Sergius II: the life and the life with its continuation*

The first version of the life of Sergius II was transmitted through very few surviving codices containing the lives of ninth-century popes16. The author(s) of the text begin(s) with Sergius' origin; they then discuss his education, his ecclesiastical career and, finally, his election as pontiff, which was disputed, and took place without imperial approval, as was by then required by the *Constitutio Romana*. There follows a wide-ranging excursus dedicated, in turn, to the expedition of Louis II and the Archbishop Drogo of Metz's to Rome on behalf of the Emperor Lothar, in which we have an account of Louis II's coronation as *rex Langobardorum*; to the synod presided over by Drogo, to assess the legitimacy of the election of Pope Sergius II; and, finally, to the Romans' oath of fealty to Emperor Lothar. After the historical section, information on the pope's euergetic activity in favour of the Roman churches abounds, followed by the canonical information on the duration of the pontificate and the ordinations performed. Why does the life of Sergius, compared to previous

<sup>14</sup> MGH, Capit. I, p. 323: «Constitutum habemus, ut omnes qui sub speciali defensione domni apostolici seu nostra fuerint suscepti impetrata inviolabiliter iusta utantur defensione; quod si quis in quocumque hoc contemptive violare praesumpserit, sciat se periculum vitae suae esse incursurum… In hoc capitulo fiat commemoratum de viduis et orfanis Theodori, Floronis et Sergii».

<sup>15</sup> LP, p. IV. <sup>16</sup> LP, pp. 86-101.

lives, include an extensive narrative of historical events related to the relationship between the Apostolic See and the emperor? The aim of providing a Roman version of events, perhaps at the instigation of the still-living Sergius himself, seems obvious. But it is an ambiguous Roman version of events – not entirely comprehensible without the help of the Frankish sources – which, in fact, distorts the meaning of these events. Louis II's punitive expedition to restore the terms of the *Constitutio Romana*, which had clearly been disregarded on the occasion of Sergius' election, became an opportunity to reaffirm the centrality of the Apostolic See in the *regnum Italiae*. In this version, the Italian bishops and the counts – agents of the Frankish power in Italy – who flanked Drogo of Metz to judge Sergius, and who are explicitly named in the text, are forced to acknowledge their mistake at having claimed to judge the pontiff. Secondly, this version also suggests a Roman primacy over the Frankish Church, represented by Drogo of Metz, but omits to say that Sergius II was forced to grant Drogo the title of vicar of the Frankish Churches North of the Alps, as we read in the *Annales Bertiniani*17, and instead reports on the pope's judgement on two deposed Frankish archbishops, Ebbo of Rheims and Bartholomew of Narbonne. Lastly, the text uses this opportunity first to highlight the idea of a pope who guides and corrects a still young and inexperienced Louis II18. Secondly, it presents an image of a resolute pope, who endorses the decision of the Romans not to swear allegiance to Louis II, who had just been appointed king of the Lombards, despite threats and violence19. This interpretation of the events, which masks the profound discomfort caused at the apex of Roman society by the intrusion of Louis II and Drogo of Metz in Roman affairs, is corroborated by the remarkable conclusion, according to which the departure of Louis II to Pavia was embraced by the Romans with great pleasure, while Pope Sergius II was celebrated as the saviour of the Romans and the restorer of peace20. It is precisely because it took the form of a historical narrative that the life of Sergius II aroused great interest in the *Liber pontificalis* beyond the Alps. Proof of this is the letter from Hincmar of Rheims, in which he begged Egilo, the bishop of Sens, to obtain a copy of the lives of the popes in Rome, starting specifically with that of Sergius II. The reasons for Hincmar's keenness to obtain the life of Sergius II in 866 are suggested in the letter itself, in which references were made to the condemnation of Ebbo,

<sup>17</sup> *Annales Bertiniani*, p. 30. This information is also confirmed in MGH, Epp. V, n. 1, pp. 583- 584.

<sup>18</sup> For the papal version of Louis II's expedition to Rome, see Gantner, *A king in training?*. <sup>19</sup> On the Romans refusing to swear an oath to Lothar's son and on the subject of the Romans'

oath to the emperor, Delogu, *I Romani e l'impero*, pp. 219-221; see also Capo, *Il «Liber pontificalis», la Chiesa Romana*, p. 259 (more generally on Sergius II's relationship with Carolingian power).

<sup>20</sup> LP, p. 91: «Tunc vero leti omnes cum coniugibus ac liberis senatus populusque Romanus ingenti peste liberati et iugo tirannicae inmanitatis redempti, sanctissimus Sergium praesulem velut salutis auctorem ac restitutorem pacis venerabant».

the archbishop of Rheims21. The life of Sergius II, a copy of which was sought in Rome, was to be used as further evidence at the synod of Soissons in 866, when the legitimacy of the clerics ordained by Ebbo after his excommunication was being challenged.

The second version of the life of Sergius II is called "Farnesian" because it was transmitted by the codex Farnesianus, a now lost manuscript, identified by Louis Duchesne as E5 (class E is that intended for codices containing the lives of ninth-century popes)22. The codex Farnesianus was discovered by the German humanist Lucas Holste (1596-1661) in the ducal library of the Farnese Palace in Rome, and transcribed by him in parts. In Holste's time, the codex began with the life of Pope Silverius (536-537), and ended with an unfinished life of Sergius II that was different from the other manuscripts. Holste transcribed the variants and the original part of the newly-discovered life in his printed copy of the *editio princeps* of the *Liber pontificalis* (Mainz 1602)23. A few years later, the codex Farnesianus was lost24. It was later found again in the ducal library in Parma, thanks to the research carried out by Francesco Bianchini (1662-1729), as part of his work to prepare a new edition of the *Liber pontificalis* under the patronage of Pope Clement XI. Bianchini described the codex's material appearance, dwelling on the use of the capital uncial letter, and was entrusted with the transcription of some pages reproduced later in volume II of his edition. The Farnesianus studied by Bianchini was probably already missing the life of Sergius II. After Bianchini, all traces of the Farnesianus were definitively lost. This is a serious loss because it would have been one of the oldest manuscripts of the *Liber Pontificalis,* as already confirmed by Mommsen, Duchesne and Lehmann. Moreover, it would have been, not only the oldest manuscript in Group E, dating from the second half of the ninth century, but – as Vircillo Franklin convincingly argues – the oldest known copy of the *Liber Pontificalis* made in Rome25. This would therefore confirm that the "Farnesian" version of the life of Sergius II is also a Roman version of the life of this pope, in the same way as the version known through the other surviving manuscripts is. The text we have of the "Farnesian" life of Sergius II is the one we know thanks to Holste's transcription, which was not included in the Bianchini edition, but went into the edition of the *Liber pontificalis* by Giovanni Vignoli (1667-1733)26, and was finally included in Louis

<sup>21</sup> MGH, Epp. VIII/1, p. 194. On the condemnation of Ebbo of Rheims, Knibbs, *Ebo of Reims*. <sup>22</sup> For the Codex Farnesianus, Vircillo Franklin, *The lost Farnesianus manuscript*. <sup>23</sup> The specimen annotated by Holste is Vat. Reg. lat. 2081. <sup>24</sup> The information on the history of the manuscript is found in Vircillo Franklin, *Reading the* 

*Popes*, pp. 620-629. <sup>25</sup> It should be noted here that there is no surviving manuscript of the *Liber pontificalis* made

in Rome before the late eleventh century.

<sup>26</sup> The Farnesianus continuation of the life of Sergius II can be read in the third volume of the Vignoli edition, published posthumously in 1755, on pp. 59-63.

Duchesne's edition27. The first part of the Farnesianus version of the life of Sergius corresponds to the life found in all the other manuscripts of the *Liber Pontificalis,* with a number of variations in the section dedicated to the gifts to Roman churches and commissioned restorations28. However, the Farnesianus version, instead of ending with the announcement of the foundation of a monastery next to the church of Ss. Sylvester and Martinus, continues with a harsh disapproval of the pontificate of Sergius II. The core issues of the continuation are twofold. In the first place comes the alleged misrule of Sergius, flanked by his greedy brother Benedict, which is denounced. The second point is a detailed though incomplete report of the Saracen invasion of 846, which involved the coast of Latium, and directly affected the basilicas outside the Roman walls29. However, the negative section of the life should not lead to the conclusion that the text is an interpolation produced outside the Lateran. The writing process of papal lives was very complex and layered over the years; it could therefore also include voices from outside the fold, dissatisfied with the choices made by the popes, with possible additions at their death30.

The Farnesianus edition of the life of Sergius did not remain locked in the archives in Rome, but was copied and circulated across the Alps in the same way as the first life did. It was certainly at the base of the abbreviated life of Sergius, contained in the *Opusculum de vitis Romanorum pontificum*, also known as the history of the popes by the pseudo-Liutprand (according to the false attribution proposed by the editors of the *Patrologia Latina*)31. The work, a collection of the lives of the popes, supplemented with material on canon law (especially the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals), has been associated with the figure of bishop Benno II of Osnabrück (1068-1088), although his role in the compilation has not yet been clarified32. The Farnesianus version was particularly attractive because its continuation denounced the scandal of simony that characterised the pontificate of Sergius II: such an example from the past could not fail to arouse the curiosity of Benno's circle, decidedly pro-imperial, and committed to the fight against simony in the context of the eleventh century Church reform.

<sup>27</sup> The Farnesianus variants of the life of Sergius II and its original parts are edited by Duchesne in a synoptic manner with respect to the first version of the life, in the left column on pp. 91-101. <sup>28</sup> For example, the names of the saints transferred from the Roman cemeteries to the restored church of S. Martinus are different. Furthermore, the author of the Farnesianus version used the passage of the translation of the relics to S. Praxedes from the life of Pope Paschal I: this aspect is analysed by Herbers, *Le Liber Pontificalis*, pp. 93-94, but already highlighted in LP, II, p. IV. <sup>29</sup> The basilicas of S. Peter and S. Paul were sacked, as can be seen from the life of his successor,

Leo IV. The life of Sergius II, unfinished, describes only the sack of S. Peter's.

<sup>30</sup> Another example of a negative life is that of Pope John VII (705-707) examined in McKitterick, *The papacy and Byzantium*, pp. 241-242 and 261. See also Verardi, *Ricostruire dalle fondamenta*, pp. 44-45. <sup>31</sup> *Opusculum de vitis Romanorum pontificum*, coll. 1244-1245. For the relations between the

Codex Farnesianus, Levison, *Die Papstgeschichte des Pseudo-Liudprand*. <sup>32</sup> On the work in general, Jasper, *Die Papstgeschichte*. See also Orth, *Papstgeschichte im 11.* 

*Jahrhundert*, pp. 267-268 e 271-272.

#### 4. *The continuation of the life of Sergius II and the life of Leo IV: a comparison*

As mentioned above, two main successive narrative sections compose the continuation of the life of Sergius in the so-called Farnesianus version. The first, a description of the misrule of Sergius and his brother Benedict, provides a justification for the second, the unfortunately incomplete report of the Saracen sack of S. Peter's Basilica, explicitly interpreted as God's punishment. In some ways, the reading of the author mirrors that of the capitulary, issued in the spring of 847 by Lothar to deal with the Saracen emergency in southern Italy, but the first suggests a different focus in terms of responsibility33. The capitulary states that God allowed the Saracens to desecrate the Church of Rome, expressly *caput Christianitatis*, in order to punish the sins *in ecclesia Christi* in an exemplary manner. For this reason, the organisation of the military expedition entrusted to Louis II is accompanied by an exhortation to the bishops and abbots of the empire duly to exercise the *correctio* in their dioceses and monasteries34. Rome, therefore, is invaded by the Saracens because the Christians of the entire *ecclesia* have sinned, and those who are supposed to supervise and correct them have not done so. In the continuation of the life of Sergius, the Saracen sack of Rome has a more local dimension instead: God does not punish Rome for the sins of all Christians, but rather in order to overturn the degenerate and intolerable situation in which Rome and its territory found themselves in. The foremost person responsible for the situation was Sergius, who was portrayed again in a bad light at the beginning of the continuation. From being a pontiff with good qualities, according to the ritual rubric introduced after the report of the election in the first part of his life, he had become unfit as a pope due to obvious physical and moral limitations. Benedict was responsible for taking the place of the pontiff, imposing his tyranny, and corrupting both State and Church. All the bishops and churchmen who failed to denounce to the emperor and the king what was happening in Rome were also responsible. Finally, the emperor and the king were responsible – here the accusation is less explicit but implied – for failing to intervene, but instead for legitimising Benedict's tyrannical regime.

The continuation of the life of Sergius clearly has a Roman origin, because it expresses a "Roman" point of view on events35. It was probably written immediately after the Saracen sack, as a reaction to the shock, most likely already at the beginning of Leo IV's pontificate (Sergius II died at the beginning of 847, a few months after the Roman sack). The officials of the Lateran, confirmed, or rather appointed, by the newly-elected pontiff might have been

<sup>33</sup> The comparison between the two sources is already suggested in Duchesne, *I primi tempi dello stato pontificio*, p. 93. <sup>34</sup> MGH, Capit. II, pp. 65-66. <sup>35</sup> See also Vircillo Franklin, *The lost Farnesianus manuscript*, pp. 150-151. For the scholar,

this would be a further confirmation of the Roman origin of the Codex Farnesianus.

therefore responsible for the revision of the life of Sergius II and its continuation. It is in fact highly probable that the Saracen invasion of the Latium and the sack of the Roman basilicas might have altered the power relationship between the various groups of Roman aristocrats, who competed for institutional positions in the service of the popes, and that, as a result, Leo IV did not maintain in favour the family groups selected by his predecessor, but preferred to renew his entourage by distributing the highest *honores* to his own trusted men.

In order to test this hypothesis, I propose first of all to identify possible connections between the continuation of the life of Sergius II and the biography of Leo IV in the *Liber pontificalis*, which could therefore be attributed to the same redactional context36. The interpretation of the Saracen sack as given in the continuation of the life of Sergius II appears not to have been accepted in the life of Leo IV; however, the latter is clearly related to the continuation in terms of content. It is precisely the subject of the Saracen sack of 846, described in great detail only in the Farnesianus continuation, which is central to the first part of Leo IV's biography. The pontiff is presented as the one who contributed, with his prayer, towards the shipwreck of the Saracen ships on their way to Africa with the stolen Roman treasures, and who compensated the basilicas of S. Peter's and S. Paul's with valuable gifts, to mitigate the spoliations they had suffered. It is he who, above all, provided for the defence of the city, restoring its walls, and collaborating to the construction of the *civitas leonina*, the city walls protecting S. Peter's. In other words, the continuation of the life of Sergius II constitutes the necessary premise to understand fully the action of Leo IV.

In the life of Leo, Sergius II is only remembered as the pontiff who ordained Leo presbyter of the *titulus* of the Ss. Quattro Coronati. When reporting his death at the same time as the Saracen incursion, the authors of Leo's life absolve Sergius from all responsibility. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, in the life of Leo IV, the pontiff is associated several times with the memory of Leo III, and is thus clearly distinguished from his immediate predecessors. It is in this sense that the information about Leo IV's valuable processional cross donated to the Lateran Basilica, which was supposed to replace the one given by Charlemagne to Leo III, should be interpreted. It is stated in the text that the cross of Charles had been stolen at the time of Paschal I, and that neither Paschal I nor Eugene II nor Valentinus nor Gregory IV nor Sergius II had replaced it37. The list of popes who did not replace the stolen Charlemagne cross casts a shadow over their pontificates. On the other hand, the gift of the new cross seems symbolically to convey the message of a new alliance

<sup>36</sup> Edition in LP, pp. 106-134. On the Life of Leo IV in the *Liber pontificalis*, Herbers, *Leo IV.*, pp. 18-48. The close relation between the life of Pope Leo IV and the last part of the life of Sergius II is confirmed by stylometric analysis of the two texts: see Bon – Bougard, *Le Liber pontificalis*. <sup>37</sup> LP, p. 110.

with the empire, re-founded by Leo IV and the Emperor Lothar, portrayed together in the new frescoes decorating S. Peter's Basilica38. In the life of Leo IV, the new alliance is expressed especially in the section dedicated to the construction of the walls intended to secure S. Peter's Basilica. The initiative came from Leo IV, who decided to complete a project of Leo III (again, the two pontificates are associated). Lothar contributed to the realisation of the pontiff's idea by offering, together with his brothers, great riches (*non modicas argenti libras*)39. In general, it seems that the life of Leo IV alludes to the reestablishment of a relationship with the empire based on mutual respect40.

In the life of Leo IV, the pontiff is represented as the true defender of Rome, of its basilicas outside the walls, and of its territory; this characterisation seems to me a further manifestation of a dialogue between the life of Leo IV and the continuation of the life of Sergius II. Leo IV was actually the anti Sergius II *par excellence* in his defence of the city and its territory. While Sergius (together with his brother Benedict) did not give enough importance to the imminent Arab incursion, and did not bother to organise the defence of the territory41, Leo IV was ready to face new Saracen attacks because he was vigilant and also because, thanks to his prestige, he was able to coordinate the joint efforts of the Romans, Neapolitans, Amalfitans and Gaetans against the Saracens, thus avoiding even having to depend on the Carolingian military force42.

In conclusion, I suggest that the continuation of the life of Sergius II seems to be intrinsically linked to the life of Leo IV: it offers an account of the historical events preceding Leo's election, and allows Leo's actions to be appreciated by contrast with those of his predecessor.

#### 5. *The consequences of the* Constitutio Romana*: analysis of the first narrative core of the continuation of the Life of Sergius*

The analysis of the first narrative core of the continuation of the life of Sergius II, that is, the one dedicated to the misrule of the pontiff and his brother, throws further light on the context of the writing of the text, which I have previously associated with the advent of the new hegemonic aristocratic group that imposed itself on the Roman scene alongside Pope Leo IV. Above all, in the first narrative core, Sergius II was harshly criticised: his inability to govern was not only due to his suffering from gout (however true this may have been) but – it is stressed – was also a consequence of his moral inade-


imminent arrival of the Saracens, to no avail: LP, p. 99. <sup>42</sup> LP, p. 117.

quacy. Because of the political weakness of the pontiff, the Roman *optimates*  acted without any control (which is a not so veiled criticism of Sergius II's entourage)43. Among them was the pope's brother, Benedict, who had already usurped the bishopric of Albano. Moreover, he had unrestricted access to the papal coffers, and unashamedly squandered the resources needed to govern the Church and the State on useless building projects. According to the continuation, he strengthened his position of pre-eminence over the city and its territory thanks to the emperor, whom he bribed with numerous gifts.

The person of Benedict is only known through the Farnesianus life of Sergius II and is difficult to interpret. The only certain fact is that Benedict's authority was actually recognised by the emperor in some way, though it is not clear exactly what position Benedict held on behalf of the emperor, or what his duties were. In the continuation, Benedict is said to have been granted primacy and dominion over Rome by the emperor and to have created a *monarchia*  in Rome44. This statement is obscure, and could have reflected an exceptional political situation that was not reported at all in the Frankish sources. For this reason, it seems more plausible that it was a hyperbolic description of a supposed hegemonic title that Benedict would have assumed while holding a legitimate position, presumably in accordance with the *Constitutio Romana*. The most compelling hypothesis is the one proposed by Duchesne, according to which Benedict is to be identified with the *missus* named by the emperor who, according to the fourth provision of the *Constitutio Romana*, had the task of supervising the *iudices*' and *duces*' activities, and who exercised justice in Rome and its territory, assisted by a papal emissary. In case of proven negligence on the part of the judges, the *missi* were obliged to report first to the pope: at that point, the case could be submitted either to the pontiff or directly to the two supervising *missi*; finally, it could be reported by the imperial *missus* to the emperor, who would intervene by sending his delegates to Rome45. Duchesne's suggestion is supported by some passages in the continuation of the life of Sergius II. In particular, we read that Benedict exercised his dominion over Rome: «deinceps vero nullum dedit cuiquam adsensum ut dare aut accipere sive ledi aut iuvare potuisset, nisi per ipsum»46. This passage evidently alludes to Benedict's ability to influence the outcome of judicial disputes in Rome and its territory, which would be perfectly compatible with

<sup>43</sup> LP, p. 97: «Cum enim esset idem pontifex imbecillis membris ob humorem podagricum, incessu pedum et pene manuum officio carebat; attamen animosus, ore incomptus et convitiis deditus, actu et sermonibus instabilis, leviter omnia faciens. Unde et adnullabant ipsum optimates Romanorum».

<sup>44</sup> LP, pp. 97-98: «Qui etiam ad domnum imperatorem cum multis munerum copiis adiens, primatum et dominium Romae ab eo petiit et concessisse sibi gloriabatur. Post reversionem vero suam ad tantam perrupit contumaciam et vesaniam, transcensis omnibus, ut monarchiam obtineret Romae».

<sup>45</sup> MGH, Capit. I, p. 323. On the fourth provision, Bertolini, *Osservazioni sulla "Constitutio* 

*Romana"*, p. 735. See also Bougard, *Les Francs à Venise*, pp. 242-243. <sup>46</sup> Quotation from LP, p. 98 («only with his assent was it determined whether someone should give or rather receive, could be harmed or rather helped»).

the position of the *missus* supervising Roman justice on behalf of the emperor. In addition, Benedict is said to have misappropriated wealth from the monasteries and from the Romans, using imperial *cartulae* and *praecepta*47.

The person of Benedict would therefore embody the successful application of the fourth provision of the *Constitutio Romana*, once it was no longer just a written provision, but an effective one, probably after the synod of 844. Those responsible for writing the continuation of the life of Sergius II did not openly contest the rule, but rather they denounced the harmful effects of its application, through the "construction" of the figure of Benedict and his alleged actions. They thus indirectly expressed the strong Roman resentment towards the imperial intervention in the field of justice in the papal territory48. Benedict is portrayed as being responsible for the ruin of the State and the Church, the prelude to the divine punishment in the form of the Saracen incursion. His position seems to have granted him unlimited power, even as far as the opportunity of compromising the integrity of the assets of monasteries or of the Romans with impunity. It also gave him the authority to impose unjustified forced levies that deprived churches, monasteries and individuals, undermining the stability of the city and of its entire territory. In this regard, the passage in the continuation concerning the renovation of the church of Ss. Sylvester and Martinus is emblematic. While in the first part of the life of Sergius the church is described as being in a precarious state, and Sergius II had it rebuilt ex novo near the original site, in the continuation we are told that the church, built with wondrous skill in antiquity, was only destroyed by Benedict in order to plunder churches, monasteries and citizens of their possessions under the pretext of its reconstruction49.

Benedict was also said to be responsible for the ruin of the Church together with his inept brother. The ruin of the Church is shown through the denunciation of the triumph of simony, the *simoniaca haeresis*, and we are told that the price of an episcopate was set at the astounding price of 2,000 mancuses50. The introduction of the simony issue, as previously mentioned,

Emerick, *The early sixth century frescoes*, pp. 3-21. <sup>50</sup> LP, p. 98: «Vigebat autem in istius pontificis tempore et fratris eius, idest per triennium, haeresis nefandissima Simoniaca, et in tantum viguit ut publice venundarentur episcopia, et qui plus daret ille susciperet episcopatum. Et ad tantam aviditatem deducti sunt ut duo milia mancusos venundaretur episcopium et eo amplius, si possint dantis invenire copiam. Et nullum onus ecclesiasticum ab illis sine pretio dabatur».

<sup>47</sup> LP, p. 98: «Et haec omnia sive in monasteriis sive in populis radicitus cum cartulis et praeceptis imperialibus aut molibus aut rebus exterus».

<sup>48</sup> Capo, *Iura regni et consuetudines illius*, p. 186. <sup>49</sup> LP, p. 98: «Destruxerat namque initio suae exaltationis ecclesiam iamdictam beati Martini, quae fuerat opere mirabili antiquitatis constructa, ut sub praetextu istius deiectionis et reaedificationis liberius valeret depraedationes in ecclesiis et in populis peragere». Built on ruins from the second and third centuries, the complex of Ss. Sylvester and Martinus comprised several buildings and churches founded by popes Sylvester and Symmachus and was profoundly modified in the ninth century. Such radical operations could cause disappointment among the faithful. The authors of the continuation thus seem to report on possible local tensions, which arose within the community of the faithful of S. Martino ai Monti. About the structure Davis-Weyer -

contributed to the success of the Farnesianus version of the life of Sergius II in the eleventh century, when it was summarised and included in the *Opusculum de vitis Romanorum pontificum*. To be using simony in Rome to represent the ruin of the Roman *ordo ecclesiasticus*, however, is of great relevance for the mid-ninth century. The censuring of simony re-emerged in Rome as a topical issue at the Roman Council of 826: the second canon on simony is derived directly from the Carolingian capitularies, as are most of the canons of that Roman Council. Indeed, the entire council is to be interpreted as an attempt to revive the pope's image – immediately after the promulgation of the *Constitutio Romana* – as a leader in promoting Church reform, in competition with Louis the Pious and his reformist collaborators51. Simony was a recurring issue for the Carolingian reformers, as part of a broader proposal to reconfigure the episcopal office52, and, as a result, the theme made a comeback at the Apostolic See, which aimed to play the role of supreme judge in judicial matters concerning ecclesiastics. In this regard, it is worth remembering that in 847 the newly-elected Pope Leo IV was involved in the lawsuit brought against five Breton bishops accused of simony by Duke Nominoe, who wanted to remove them53. The actions of Nominoe, denounced to the pontiff by a delegation of Breton bishops, were stigmatised in a letter written in the name of Leo IV, which has been preserved along with 40 other letters from the pontiff, for its high legal value<sup>54</sup>. What is relevant here is that the pontiff and his collaborators were presented with the issue of simony as a way of obtaining a Roman answer to the problem. It is therefore reasonable to assume that, at the beginning of the pontificate of Leo IV, when the continuation of the life of Sergius II is supposed to have been written, simony was the subject of study and debate in the *scrinium* of the Lateran.

Finally, it is possible to reflect further on the choice of using simony to denounce the ruin of the Roman Church as a consequence of Benedict's interference, which was thus perceived to be the practical result of the Frankish imperial authority in Rome. Besides the censure against simony expressed by the Fathers and in the Councils, the natural authority on the subject was certainly – and especially in Rome – Gregory the Great. It was Gregory the Great who had developed and articulated the problem of the simoniacal heresy by applying it to the practice of selling and buying the sacraments and the three degrees of ecclesiastical ordination55. As well as preaching to the bishops about the importance of fighting against simony, Gregory had made a personal commitment to eradicate the practice where it was most scandalous. What

<sup>51</sup> For the council Noble, *The place in papal history of the Roman synod*. <sup>52</sup> Patzold, *Redéfinir l'office épiscopal*. On simony in the Carolingian age, the fundamental and isolated research by Schieffer, *Zum Umgang der Karolingerzeit mit Simonie*. <sup>53</sup> For the context of the event, Herbers, *Leo IV*, pp. 320-336. See also Flechner, *Aspects of the* 

*Breton Transmission of the «Hibernensis».*

<sup>54</sup> MGH, Epp. V, n. 16, p. 75. <sup>55</sup> See Rizzo, *Papa Gregorio Magno*. See also Markus, *Gregory the Great*, pp. 171-174.

is interesting here is that among the 54 letters written to eradicate simony, 17 concern Gaul, the simoniac context *par excellence* that Gregory knew and monitored. The recovery of Gregory the Great's letters on simony – certainly helpful in dealing with the scandal of the Breton church – helped to revive, during Leo IV's pontificate, the image of a Gallic Church affected by simony from the beginning. For all these reasons, the choice of simony in the continuation of the life of Sergius II is not as neutral as it seems. First, it served to return the weighty accusation that simony was also lurking in Rome, as expressed on several occasions by Alcuin in order to strike at the credibility of Pope Leo III56. Instead, simony, it was suggested, was a highly contagious form of Frankish practice, afflicting the episcopates of Gaul, associated first with Merovingian, and then with Carolingian power. This view was held, in his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, by Paschasius Radbertus, for instance, when he wrote about simony having never been defeated *in Gallis*57. To show the Roman ecclesiastical *ordo* as being subverted by simony was therefore not only a specific indictment of Sergius and Benedict's misrule, but also a denunciation of the transmission to Rome of corrupt and particularly contagious practices especially characteristic of the Frankish Church. Such a transmission of corrupt practices would then be a further, utterly reprehensible, consequence of Benedict's regime, and through him, of the impact of Frankish imperial authority in Rome.

<sup>56</sup> Schieffer, *Zum Umgang der Karolingerzeit mit Simonie*, pp. 118-120; see also Costambeys, *Alcuin, Rome*. <sup>57</sup> Pascasius Radbertus, *Expositio in Matheo*, p. 1026.

#### **Works cited**

*Annales Bertiniani*, ed. G. Waitz, Hannover 1883 (MGH, SS rer. Germ., 5).


F. Bougard, *Les Francs à Venise, à Ravenne et à Rome: un facteur d'identité urbaine?*, in *Three Empires, Three Cities. Identity, Material Culture and Legitimacy in Venice, Ravenna and Rome*, *750-1000*, ed. V. West-Harling, Turnhout 2015, pp. 227-254.


Maddalena Betti Università Ca' Foscari Venezia marlenebetti@hotmail.com

### **Conclusions**

by Steffen Patzold

The summary highlights the extent to which the articles collected in the volume go beyond previous research on bishops and open up new perspectives: The contributions no longer only ask about the "hard power" of bishops. Instead, they focus on episcopal "soft power": they impressively show that bishops knew how to use books, pen and ink to manipulate ideas and convictions and to reframe discourses. A basis for this new approach is provided by the scans of medieval manuscripts, which are now made available by libraries in Europe in large numbers and excellent quality.

Middle Ages; 9th century; Italy; bishops; soft power.

Steffen Patzold, University of Tübingen, Germany, steffen.patzold@unituebingen.de, 0000-0003-0533-4731 Referee List (DOI 10.36253/fup\_referee\_list)

FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

Steffen Patzold, *Conclusions*, © Author(s), CC BY 4.0, DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-623-0.11, 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. 199-208, 2022, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 978-88-5518-623-0, DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-623-0

Networks of bishops – networks of texts: analysing manuscripts and episcopal tools of government in 9th century Italy has been a rewarding enterprise, indeed! The questions asked, and the methods applied, allow us new and more in-depth insights into the social fabric of Italian dioceses, into forms of episcopal government, and the negotiation of power between bishops, the local society and the wider Carolingian world.

It becomes abundantly clear just how fresh these perspectives and methods are when we look back to medieval research on bishops just one generation ago. In the summer semester of 1992, I attended my *Proseminar* on medieval history at the University of Hamburg. It was taught by Hans-Werner Goetz, the topic was *Episcopal Elections in the Middle Ages*. While the episcopate was already a classic subject, the questions and methods of research were rather different from our's today. At least from a German perspective, there were only two major fields of research for the period up to the 11th century. The first was about the emergence of *Bischofsherrschaft* during Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages: How did bishops attain a leading social and political position in their *civitates*? Had they usurped this position or had it been delegated to them, first by emperors, later by kings? What role did their social origins play in this process? And what consequences did episcopal rule have for urban societies in the various regions of the *Imperium Romanum*? Historians who advanced this discussion read imperial laws and royal decrees, episcopal *vitae* and epitaphs (and a great deal of Gregory of Tours). Prosopography was their preferred research method.

The second discussion was about the episcopate of the 10th and 11th century: In 1982, a young British medievalist named Timothy Reuter had questioned the German doctrine of the "imperial church system"1 . The debate he had initiated was still ongoing when I wrote my *Proseminar* paper on the election of St Ulrich as bishop of Augsburg. Those historians who discussed the Ottonian and Salian *Reichskirche* read royal charters for bishops, the colourful episcopal *vitae* (like Gebhard's *Vita Oudalrici*) and historiographical texts, especially the *Gesta episcoporum* of that period. Here, too, prosopographical studies were important: Historians asked how closely bishops and kings cooperated, how particular the German episcopate was in comparison

<sup>1</sup> Reuter, *The «Imperial Church System».*

to the bishops in the rest of Europe – and whether it was methodologically sound to understand bishops primarily as royal officials.

The episcopate of the Carolingian period, however, received rather less attention. The central research questions did not fit for this period: In the 8th and 9th centuries, most cities had lost their social and economic importance and the "Ottonian-Salian imperial church" simply did not yet exist. On the other hand, the questions and methods which structure the eight contributions to this volume were not yet established in medieval research. In fact, they were not even conceivable: "Network" was not yet a central concept in sociological and historical research, as the internet was only known to a small group of nerds and played no major role, neither in everyday life, nor in research. Of course, medieval manuscripts were kept in the libraries and archives of Europe and the USA. But no-one even had dreamed of being able to view high-resolution scans of these manuscripts effortlessly, at the desk at home – let alone to put a scan from Modena next to one from Verona or Lucca to compare scripts, rulings, mis-en-page. If you wanted to see a manuscript, you either had to travel to it, or you had to order a black-and-white microfilm, pay for it, and wait patiently for its arrival…

Therefore, twenty years ago, when I started to work on my habilitation thesis about Carolingian bishops, a collection of articles about bishops during Lothar's reign would have looked different. Prosopography would have been pivotal. Historians would have tried to show how bishops in Northern Italy were integrated in aristocratic families and how aristocratic bonds of friendship, loyalty and *pacta* framed and formed episcopal as well as royal politics. Of course, the papers of this collection deal with individual bishops: They introduce them and closely observe their careers. We learn a lot about such important figures as Ratold of Verona, Maxentius of Aquileia, George of Ravenna, Leodoin of Modena, Berengar of Lucca, or the popes Sergius II and Leo IV. But their family ties and their social relations do not frame and structure the research. Nor does prosopography as a method play a major role.

Twenty years ago, episcopal charters likely would have been more important for historians: Who enjoyed what kind of royal privileges? And what kind of services did the emperors expect in return from the bishops? How about the organisation of military service, for example, and the role of episcopal contingents in Lothar's army? Edward Schoolman has briefly mentioned the battle of Fontenoy in 841, Maddalena Betti the muslim attack on Rome in 846; but war and the military – Friedrich Prinz' *Klerus und Krieg*<sup>2</sup> – are far from central to the papers of this collection.

The same is true for royal charters and privileges granted to bishops. Edoardo Manarini offers a detailed analysis of Louis the Pious' diploma for the church of Modena from 822. But interestingly enough, Manarini not only

<sup>2</sup> Prinz, *Klerus und Krieg.*

considers the juridical content of this charter, he also reads the document as a narrative source – a text which tells a story reaching back to the late 7th century, a long history of close relations between the bishops of Modena and Lombard as well as Carolingian kings. Paolo Tomei, in his article on Berengar and Ambrose of Lucca, has taken into account the astonishingly rich corpus of original charters from this *sedes* and the changes of the social fabric and the power structures that are reflected in this fascinating material. But Paolo Tomei, too, is not only interested in the juridical content of these documents. He also describes the changes of diplomatic culture, analysing the script, the use of the Caroline minuscule, the signatures of the bishops.

Thus, the papers collected here, are not so much interested in episcopal "hard power" politics. The authors do not focus on juridical privileges and episcopal control of justice, nor on warfare, markets, minting, and the bishops' landed property. Nobody would deny, of course, that bishops in 9th century Italy were powerful players. But to understand how their power worked, the papers rather concentrate on books and saints, on texts and their uses, on narratives and images. They deal with what can be called "soft power": The authors uncover, describe and analyse the means bishops used to convince others – not by coercion, not by violence or money, but by framing and influencing shared ideas, convictions, beliefs, and values. The Italian bishops we come to know in this collection were trained to use parchment and the quill. They were masters in manipulating texts, experts in writing and compiling. (At the very least they knew how to make others write and how to use texts written by others for their own political goals).

Miriam Tessera has shown how the archbishop Angilbert of Milan dealt with the historical legacy of his quite extraordinary *sedes*. Angilbert created a new, Carolingian episcopal culture at Milan. He used his network, which connected Northern Italian and north-alpine bishops, to foster the presence of intellectuals like Hildemar (and their books). Moreover, archbishop Angilbert exploited the translation of Roman relics to Leggiuno, the compilation of a collection of canons – surviving in the Veronese manuscript LXIII (61) –, and the renewal of Saint Ambrose's cult. All this allowed Angilbert to inscribe himself and his Church in the Carolingian project of *correctio*. The new textual, written culture he introduced in Milan, was meant to demonstrate the renewed power of the Milanese *sedes*.

Francesco Veronese points out, that the bishops of Verona who came from north of the Alps first of all had to integrate themselves in their new bishopric before they could integrate their sedes in the power networks of the Carolingian world. To achieve this aim, Ratold of Verona heavily relied on the possibilities the *scriptorium* and the Cathedral library in Verona offered to him – be it hagiographical or liturgical texts (like the *ordines Romani* or the *laudes* for the Carolingian emperor and his *imperatrix*). In this regard, Ratold's person and network made a difference for Verona's history. His training, his political and familial connections to institutions and social groups north of the Alps, his capability to deal with books like the manuscripts XCII and XCV of the Biblioteca Capitolare in Verona: all this helped to make Verona a hub of Carolingian *correctio* in Northern Italy.

Parchment, quills, the production and use of texts and books: All this also played an important role in the field of legal culture. Law – and especially canon law – was based on written texts; it was compiled and collected in books. But canon law was also an intellectual challenge: It survived in a puzzling mass of many different historical or systematic collections, as Michael Heil has pointed out. In the Carolingian world, nobody was able to have a perfect overview over all those canons that had been created and transmitted over the centuries, from Nicea 325 to Toledo 633, from Ankyra 314, or Carthage 419 to Mainz 852. Nevertheless, bishops had to cope with all this dispersed and difficult material. It defined the very basis of their office and their competences, and it was seen as a significant (if not the most important) textual resource of Carolingian *correctio*. Here, in canons and decretals, bishops were to find the holy rules that framed how God wanted the *populus christianus* to live.

No wonder, several papers deal with this highly complex material. Miriam Tessera analyses a Veronese manuscript, a collection of canons which might have been produced under the supervision of archbishop Angilbert of Milan. Moreover she presents us with another interesting text, today at Montpellier: a miscellany of canon law, probably produced at Milan, including Mansuetus' letter to emperor Constantine IV from 679. These books, Miriam Tessera argues, were instruments used by archbishop Angilbert to position and to promote his own see in the larger Carolingian world.

Paolo Tomei analyses the famous ms. 490 of the Biblioteca Capitolare Feliniana in Lucca – yet another canon law book. Tomei focusses on the *Dicta Gelasii papae*, a text exclusively transmitted by this manuscript: The text is written by a hand which closely resembles the one of bishop Berengar of Lucca. Based on a couple of ancient canones, the little text defines, how public penitents (and other groups) are supposed to be positioned within the space of a church. As short as the text might be – it deals with one of the central topics of Mayke de Jong's "Penitential State"3. Once again, therefore, we can observe, how an Italian bishop used a canon law book and a juridical text to inscribe himself in the Carolingian project of *correctio*.

Michael Heil discusses how canon law was being used during the long conflict between the patriarchs of Aquileia and Grado. He concentrates his analysis on the judicial decision at the Council of Mantua in June 827. As Heil underlines, *canones* were texts, but not only texts: The word *canones* could refer to a concrete legal text, but it could also refer rather vaguely to ideas about how clerics should behave in general. Nevertheless, in the conflict between Grado and Aquileia in 827, canon law – as it "lived" in a canon law

<sup>3</sup> De Jong, *The Penitential State.*

book, a *codex canonum* – was at hand and was used for legal practice: Maxentius of Aquileia probably cited the *Epitome Hispana* (or some closely related collection); and the further legal procedure at the synod of Mantua explicitly included a reading of canons.

Finally, Edoardo Manarini has presented us with the library of the bishop Leodoin of Modena. Here, too, canon law played a major role. Leodoin read and used it in form of a centuries old law book. Manarini is more skeptical, however, with regard to the famous manuscript O.I.2 of the Biblioteca Capitolare of Modena and its relation to Leodoin. The codex transmits a massive collection of secular law, the *Liber legum* of a certain Lupus. Hubert Mordek was convinced that this *Liber* had been produced by no other than Lupus of Ferrières, one of the most famous intellectuals north of the Alps. Britta Mischke, however, is currently reviewing this attribution. Her main argument is based on the models the compiler Lupus used to produce his collection. All these models rather seem to point to Italy. Thus it is reasonable to assume that the compilation was made in Italy, not in Eastern Francia, or the monastery of Fulda (i.e. the place where Lupus of Ferrières lived in the first half of the 830s). If this argument holds, we should consider the "Liber legum" to be a product of Italian legal culture.

Another central part of "soft power" is the construction and propagation of images of political leaders: Maddalena Betti has compared the two versions of pope Sergius' life, transmitted in two different *recensiones* of the *Liber pontificalis*. Both versions originated in the Lateran, and both circulated outside of Rome and Italy, even if the second version survives only in an early modern copy. This second version contains an interestingly critical denunciation of simoniac practices during Sergius' pontificate. Maddalena Betti argues that this second version was created in Rome after Sergius' death, in the first years of the following pontificate under pope Leo IV. It is a reactive piece: to the Arab sack of Rome in 846 as well as to the role Sergius' brother Benedict had played during this papacy. In Betti's view, the text cleverly connects Benedict's misdeeds to the political position given to him by the emperor – thus implicitly criticising Lothar's *Constitutio Romana* from 824 and the influence of imperial officials in the city of Rome. Thus, we can observe "soft power" in action: In this case the Lateran clergy using parchment and quill to frame the situation in Rome after 846 and the political discourse in a very specific way to blame Sergius II and imperial interference in Roman affairs.

Edward Schoolman, finally, presents us with the other *Liber pontificalis*, the one from Ravenna: He shows how Agnellus, in this text, constructed a heroic image of Lothar I as a kind of *Carolus magnus redivivus*. This was important, because Agnellus wanted to show off the close relations to the imperial court which his see always had enjoyed from Late Antiquity onwards. These relations were glorious. But they were also dangerous – and expensive: Charlemagne had transferred some of the city's ancient monuments to his palace at Aachen. Lothar made archbishop George of Ravenna pay an incredible sum for the honour to be the godfather of Rotrud, the emperor's daughter. Relations to the emperor were of central importance for Ravenna's identity, they had to be shown and praised, even if they were unpleasant and painful at times. Historiography was a medium of "soft power" that could help explain this tension (and to endure its consequences).

Taken together, the papers collected in this volume show in detail how parchment, ink and quills were used as tools of episcopal "soft power" – that is as instruments to influence and to convince, by creating a set of shared ideas, beliefs, and values. Compared to the historiography about bishops from 20 or 30 years ago this expands our knowledge considerably: It helps us to better understand how bishops were able to legitimate their position within their diocese as well as their city's place in the larger power networks of the Carolingian world.

We are able to do this kind of research because manuscripts have become accessible in an unprecedented scale: Analysing high quality scans of dozens of manuscripts, kept at different libraries from all over Europe has become easy. This deeply changes our way of working and thinking. Laura Pani, however, has impressively shown in her paper how complex it still is to discuss one single group of manuscripts and to link them to the court of Lothar. The so called *Lothar-Gruppe* consists of manuscripts which today are spread over different libraries (in Berlin and the Vatican, in London and Padova). Only two manuscripts of this group (the ones at London and Padova) are explicitly linked to the emperor. The attribution of the others has mainly been based on their initials and decorations, but Laura Pani has demonstrated that these attributions are much less sure than historians thought so far. The picture changes if we take palaeography into account. So the *Lothar-Gruppe* is to be reconsidered (in a similar way, Karl Ubl has demonstrated some years ago that the famous *leges*-scriptorium at the court of Louis the Pious did not exist4 ).

As we have seen, the situation is much better at the library of Verona, where many books from the second quarter of the 9th century are still at its original place. This is linked to one of the characteristics of episcopal power which Timothy Reuter has already pointed out in his seminal article about *Ein Europa der Bischöfe*: Bishops had a capital city; they had one central place where they were supposed to stay most of the time5 . Therefore, an episcopal library had much better chances to survive than a royal one. It is no coincidence that we know somewhat more about the libraries of the emperors Otto III and Henry II6 : This is due to the fact that Henry died without a son and gave his books to the Cathedral church of Bamberg which he had founded himself in 1007. At this place, in an episcopal library, these books stayed together as a group and survived over the centuries.

<sup>4</sup> Ubl, *Gab es das Leges-Skriptorium.* <sup>5</sup> Reuter, *Ein Europa*. <sup>6</sup> See, however, also the critical analysis of older optimistic ascriptions of books to Otto III's library by Hoffmann, *Bamberger Handschriften*, pp. 5–34.

The papers collected in this volume create a solid basis for future research on bishops and manuscript culture. Two questions, however, remain to be answered by future research:


### **Works cited**


Steffen Patzold Eberhard Karls Universitӓt Tübingen steffen.patzold@unituebingen.de

### **Index of names**

In this index names of individuals and places have been included. Where possible and/or helpful, a word of description has been provided, with preference for institutional titles (es. emperor/king, count, bishop, etc.). The same rule has been followed for places (es. monastery, church, *curtis*, etc.). Ecclesiastical institutions located in a city have been recorded under the label of that city, together with crossed references to its counts and bishops or archbishops. Cities' names have been recorded in the Anglo-Saxon form (es. Cologne for Köln) and spelling (Rheims for Reims). While literary works and sources whose authors are known have not been considered (es. Paul the Deacon's *Historia Langobardorum*), anonymous works (es. *Collectio Dionysiana*) are listed. "Carolingians" and "Italy", so frequently recurring all along the volume, have not been indexed.

Aachen, 19, 114n, 118, 139, 205 Adalbert I, *count of Lucca*, 138n, 160-161, 164, 192n Adalberti, 160 Adalgisus, *bishop of Novara*, 38 Aderic, *father of Balderic*, 162 Adriatic, *sea*, 94, 133 Africa, 123, 191 Agapitus II, *pope*, 165n Agilulf, *king of the Lombards*, 99, 101 Agnellus (Andreas) of Ravenna, 113-126, 205 Aistulf, *king of the Lombards*, 124 and n, 138- 139 Alamannia, 69, 71, 77, 80-81, 160 Albano, 193 Albenga, 40 Alcuin of York, 3, 41, 76, 196 Aldobrandeschi, 160-163

Alps, 24, 36-37, 40, 45, 49, 69, 71, 75, 97n, 133, 186-189, 203, 205 Alpulus, *priest*, 106-107 Alsace, 160 Amalfitans, 192 Amalric, *bishop of Como*, 38 Ambrose, *bishop of Lucca*, 159-172, 203 Ambrose, *saint*, *bishop of Milan*, 35, 37, 42- 50, 165n, 166, 203 Ancyra, 170, 204 Andreas, *duke of Naples*, 123 and n Andreas Agnellus, *see* Agnellus of Ravenna Andrew of Bergamo, 37 Andrew, *abbot of Saint Ambrose*, 42 Angelomus of Luxeuil, *monk*, 16, 50n Angilbert I, *archbishop of Milan*, 36n Angilbert II, *archbishop of Milan*, 35-50, 169, 203-204

FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

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*, © 2022 Author(s), CC BY 4.0, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 978-88-5518-623-0, DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-623-0

*Aniciano*, *curtis*, 163 - S. Quiricus, *church*, 163 Anicius, 100n *Annales Bertiniani*, 121, 187 *Annales Fuldenses*, 121 *Annales Mediolanenses Minores*, 44n *Annales regni Francorum*, 185 and n *Anniano*, *curtis*, 163 - S. Hippolytus, *church*, 163 Ansa, *queen of the Lombards*, 138 Anselm, *abbot of Nonantola*, 138 Anselm II, *archbishop of Milan*, 48 Anspert, *archbishop of Milan*, 45 Antioch, 106 Aosta, 133 and n Apennines, 136, 140n Apollinaris, *saint*, *bishop of Ravenna*, 116 and n *Aqualonga*, *harbour*, 137 Aquileia, 80, 93-107, 202, 204-205 - *patriarchs*: *see* John, Helias, Maxentius, Paul, Paulinus, Severus, Viventius Arezzo, 69 Aribert of Intimiano, *archbishop of Milan*, 48 Arles, 168 Arnulf of Carinthia, *king, emperor*, 17n *Asilacto*, *curtis*, 164 Astronomer, 72, 75, 185 and n Augsburg, *bishop of*, *see* Ulrich Augustine, *saint*, 47 Austrasia, 69 Autramnus, *count of Modena*, 146 Badurich, *bishop of Regensburg*, 69, 76 Baggiovara, *curtis*, 138 - San Donato, *monastic cell*, 138 and n Balderic, *gastald*, 162 Bamberg, 206 Bartholomew, *archbishop of Narbonne*, 187 Baturich, *see* Badurich Bavaria, 69, 80, 121n, 160 Beauvais, 165n, 166 Bede, 16, 49, 58 Benedict, *bishop of Albano or Amelia*, 95n, 102n Benedict, *bishop of Cremona*, 38 Benedict, *brother of pope Sergius II*, 189-196, 205 Benedict of Aniane, 7, 37, 77 Benedict III, *pope*, 165n Benevento, 40, 102n, 123, 124n, 185 - *bishops*: *see* Ursus - Duchy, 185 - *princes*: *see* Sicardus - S. Benedict, *monastery*, 102n Benno II, *bishop of Osnabruck*, 189 Berardenghi, 161 Berengar, *bishop of Lucca*, 159-172, 202-204 Berengar I, *king of Italy, emperor*, 114, 148 Berengar II, *king of Italy*, 138n

Bergamo, 8n, 38, 40, 164n - *bishops*: *see* Hagano Bernard, *king of Italy*, 72 Berlin, 206 Billung, *bishop of Verona*, 82 Bobbio, *monastery*, 24n, 142 Bodensee, *see* Lake of Constance Bologna, 133, 136, 140n, 146 Boniface, *saint*, 6, 45 Boniface II, *count of Lucca*, 160 Brescia, 38, 40, 45, 51 - *bishops*: *see* Notting, Rampert - S. Giulia/S. Salvatore, *monastery*, 38, 40, 51, 138 and n - SS. Faustinus and Jovita, *monastery*, 38 Brittany, 76 Burgundy, 69 Calogerus, *saint*, 40 Cambrai, *bishop of*, *see* Halitgar Candidianus, *patriarch of Grado*, 94, 99 and n, 101-105 Capannoli, *curtis*, 164 *Carmen de Aquilegia numquam restauranda*, 105 Carthage, 170, 204 - *bishops*: *see* Ferrandus Cassiodorus, 37 and n, 43, 46 and n Cesarius, *son of duke Sergius of Naples*, 123 Chalcedon, 103-104 and n Chalon-sur-Saône, 168 and n, 169 and n Charlemagne, *emperor*, 5, 15n, 17n, 18, 23, 40, 47, 49, 70, 75-77, 97n, 113-114 and n, 117-119, 122, 124 and n, 126, 133-135, 138- 139, 171, 184, 191, 205 Charles the Younger, *son of Charlemagne*, 133 and n Charles II the Bald, *emperor*, 15n, 17n, 18, 114, 120-121 and n, 168 Charles III the Fat, *emperor*, 17n, 114 Christianus, *deacon*, 162, 164n Chur, 69 *- bishops*: *see* Verendarius Cinquanta, 146 Cittanova, 133-134, 137, 139, 146-148 - S. Peter, *pieve*, 137, 140, 148 Civate, 40-42, 52 - S. Peter, *monastery*, 40 Cividale, 95, 97 and n, 105 Claudius, *bishop of Turin*, 41, 48 Clemens Scottus, 16 Clement XI, *pope*, 188 Clermont, 69 *Collectio canonum veterum*, 143 *Collectio Dionysiana*, 94, 100, 103, 106 *Collectio Dionysiana Bobbiensis*, 94n, 104n *Collectio Dionysio-Hadriana*, 94, 106 *Collectio Grimanica*, 100n *Collectio Hispana*, 103n, 106 *Collectio Italica*, *see Collectio Sanblasiana*

*Collectio Novariensis*, 94, 96, 100 *Collectio Sanblasiana*, 94, 106-107 and n, 166, 170 *Collectio Vaticana*, 94, 100 and n Cologne, 15, 76 Como, 38, 95n - *bishops*: *see* Amalric Constance, *bishop of*, *see* Wolfleoz Constantine I, *emperor*, 44, 171 Constantine IV, *emperor*, 47, 116, 204 Constantinople, 47, 94, 116 *Constitutio Romana*, 125 and n, 185-187, 192- 195, 205 Contardus, *Frankish general*, 123 Corbie, *monastery*, 36, 39, 40 Cormons, 95 Coronatus, *notarius*, 80 Corteolona, 38 - S. Anastasius, *church*, 44 Cremona, *bishop of*, *see* Benedict, Pancoardus Cresconius, 47, 49, 94, 99n, 100n, 103, 104n Cristeberga, *wife of gastald Leodoin*, 142 Cristianus, *deacon*, 162 *Curtis Auriola*, 160n *Curtis Nova*, 162n Cunimundings, 162 Cunipert, *king of the Lombards*, 136, 139-140 Damianus, *bishop of Pavia*, 47 Desiderius, *king of the Lombards*, 138-140 Deusdedit, *bishop of Modena*, 139, 141 Dhuoda, *wife of Bernard of Septimania*, 3 *Dicta Gelasii papae*, 159, 166-167, 173-174, 204 *Divisio regnorum*, 133-134 Dodo, *bishop of Novara*, 38 Dodo, *gastald*, 162 Drogo, *archbishop of Metz*, 125, 186-187 Dungal, 38, 48-49 Ebbo, *archbishop of Rheims*, 69, 187-188 and n Eberhard, *duke of Friuli*, 145 and n Ecclesius, *bishop of Ravenna*, 115 and n Egilo, *bishop of Sens*, 187 Egino, *bishop of Verona*, 71, 78, 81 Eigil, *abbot of Fulda*, 45 Einhard, 118 Einsiedeln, 40 and n Eldrad of Novalesa, *monk*, 41 Emilia, 133-134, 138n, 146 Engelberg, 40 and n Epaone, 170 *Epitome Hispana*, 94, 100 and n, 101, 103n, 106, 205 Ercambertus, *bishop of Lodi*, 38 Erembertus, *vassal*, 39, 54 Eriprand, *vassal*, 163 Ermenfredus, *bishop of Tortona*, 38 Ermengard, *empress, wife of Lothar I*, 16n, 18, 36-37, 74, 120, 160

Ermengard, *empress, wife of Louis the Pious*, 74 Ermenric, *father of Ratgaud*, 163 Etichonids, 37 Eugene II, *pope*, 76, 95, 185-186, 191 - *Life of*, 185-186 Europe, 202, 206 Exarchate, 133, 135, 185 Ezekiel, *prophet*, 16 Farimundus, *palatine priest*, 142n Felicianus, *saint*, 39 Felix, *saint*, 46 Ferrandus, *bishop of Carthage*, 47, 49 Ferrara, 165 Flacius Ylliricus, Matthias, 45 Florence, 165 - *bishops*: *see* Rodingus Florus of Lyon, 41 *Fontanetum*, *see* Fontenoy Fontebona, 143 and n - S. Salvatore, *monastery*, 143n Fontenoy, 117-118, 120-121, 124-125, 202 Formosus, *pope*, 114 Fridugise, *abbot of St. Martin of Tours*, 45 Friuli, 95, 99, 146 Fulda, *monastery*, 36, 41, 45, 145, 205 - *abbots*: *see* Eigil, Hatto, Thioto Gaeta, 123 and n, 192 *Galaniticum*, *curtis*, 140n Galeata, *monastery*, 143 - *abbots*: *see* Ilarus Ganaceto, *curtis*, 140 - S. Thomas, *pieve*, 140 Gaudentius, *abbot of S. Ambrose*, 37, 46n Gaul, 171, 196 Gavello, 140 Gebhard, 201 Gelasius, *pope*, 167, 170-171 Geminianus, *bishop of Modena*, 139 Geminianus, *saint*, 137 and n, 146 Gena, *curtis*, 138, 139n Genoa, 47, 105 George, *archbishop of Ravenna*, 113-115, 117- 122, 202, 205 Gervasius, *martyr*, 35, 44, 46, 50, 58, 163-164 *Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum*, 114, 122-124, 201 Gisulfus, *duke of Friuli*, 99 Gorze, *monastery*, 42 Gotfredus, *bishop of Modena*, 134n, 147-148 and n Grado, 93-95, 98-99, 101-102, 104-105, 204 - *patriarchs*: *see* Candidianus, Venerius Gratian, 94n Gregory I the Great, *pope*, 3, 16, 25, 41, 45, 48-49, 195-196 Gregory IV, *pope*, 104n, 117-118, 119n, 121n, 125, 185-186, 191 *- Life of*, 125, 185-186

Gregory of Tour*s*, 45, 201 Guntram, *father of Hagano of Lucca*, 160 Gunzo, *Aleman man*, 42 Guy, *bishop of Modena*, 145n Guy, *count*, 146-147 Guy I of Spoleto, *emperor*, 114, 144, 146-147 Hadrian I, *pope*, 49, 77, 118-119, 184 - *Life of*, 184 Hagano, *bishop of Bergamo*, 8n, 38, 40, 161, 164n Hagano, *count of Lucca*, 160-161, 164n Halitgar, *bishop of Cambrai*, 43 Hamburg, 201 Hatto, *abbot of Fulda*, 45 Hebrohac, *vassal*, 162 Heito, *abbot of Reichenau*, 77 Helias, *patriarch of Aquileia*, 104n Henry II, *emperor*, 206 Heraclius, *brother of Constantine IV*, 116 Hermagoras, *saint*, 98 and n Hildegard, *queen of the Franks*, 75, 119n Hildemar of Corbie, *monk*, 38-43, 49, 203 Hildeprand, *king of the Lombards*, 139-140 Hincmar of Rheims, 168, 187 Holste Lucas, *humanist*, 188 and n Hormisdas, *pope*, 170 Hrabanus Maurus, 15-16, 41, 44 and n, 145, 168 Hubert, *abbot of Leno*, 138 Hucpoldings, 161 Hugh, *count of Tours*, 36 Huscit, 162 Ilarus, *abbot of Galeata*, 143 Ildecherius, *vassal*, 162 Ingelheim, 161 and n Innocent I, *pope*, 103n Irmingard, *see* Ermengard Isaac, *exarch*, 136 Isidore of Seville, 28, 137, 143, 148 Israel, 105n Istria, 95, 98, 101-105


Jacob, *bishop of Lucca*, 164n, 165 and n James, *bishop of Lucca*, 106-107 Jeremiah, *prophet*, 16 Jeremiah Aldobrandeschi, *bishop of Lucca*, 160, 162 Jeroboam, *king of Israel*, 105n Jerome, *saint*, 16, 19 John, *bishop of Lucca*, 165 John, *bishop of Modena*, 140 John, *count of Seprio*, 161 John, *patriarch of Aquileia*, 94, 99, 100-101 and n, 105 John VII, *pope*, *life of*, 189n Jonas, *bishop of Modena*, 142

Jonas, *bishop of Orléans*, 3, 7 Joseph, *bishop of Ivrea and abbot of Novalesa*, 124 and n, 161, 169 Jovian, *emperor*, 146 Judith, *empress*, 72, 74, 160 Justin I, *emperor*, 165n Justinian, *emperor*, 115 Lake of Constance, 17, 69 Lake Maggiore, 39 Lambert of Spoleto, *emperor*, 114 Lambert II, *count of Nantes*, 118n, 120 Landulf I, *archbishop of Milan*, 48 Lanfrancus, *architect*, 146 Langres, 69 Latium, 189, 191 Laurentius, *pope*, 170 Leggiuno, 203 - S. Siro/SS. Primo e Feliciano, *church*, 39, 54 Leno, *monastery*, 38, 138 and n - *abbots*: *see* Hubert Leo, *diaconus et bibliothecarius*, 95n, 102n Leo I the Great, *pope*, 48, 100 and n Leo III, *pope*, 184, 191-192, 196 - *Life of*, 184, 190-191 Leo IV, *pope*, 189n, 190-192, 195-196, 202, 205 - *Life of*, 189n, 190-192 Leodegarius, *monk*, 40 Leodoin, *bishop of Modena*, 134-135 and n, 142-148, 202, 205 Leodoin, *gastald*, 142 Letus, *archbishop of Milan*, 43, 53 *Liber glossarum*, 39 Liège, *bishop of*, *see* Walcaud Limonta, 36 Liutprand, *king of the Lombards*, 44, 137, 139-140 Liutwin, *see* Leodoin Lodi, *bishop of*, *see* Ercambertus London, 206 Lopecinus, *bishop of Modena*, 137, 139n Lorsch, *monastery*, 36, 39n, 46n, 48 Lothar I, *emperor*, 15-28, 35-50, 69, 71-72, 74, 93, 95, 97n, 104-105, 113-126, 146, 159- 161, 164 and n, 167, 169, 171, 184-186, 187n, 190, 192, 202, 205-206 Lothar II, *king*, 42-43 Lotharingia, 23n, 45 Louis the German, *king*, 15n, 17n, 120-121 and n, 168 Louis the Pious, *emperor*, 4-5, 15n, 16, 18, 20, 35, 37 and n, 49, 69, 72-76, 95, 104n, 113- 114, 117 and n, 120, 122, 124 and n, 125- 126, 133 and n, 135, 139-141, 148, 160, 185 and n, 195, 202, 206 Louis II, *king*, *emperor*, 20, 37 and n, 39, 105, 122-123, 125, 142-143, 159-164, 171, 184,

186-190, 197

Lucca, 7, 78, 93, 100n, 106-107 and n, 159-172, 202-204


Macedo, *abbot*, 162 Maginarius of Reichenau, *monk*, 38, 40 Mainz, 168, 169n, 188, 204 - *archbishops*: *see* Otgerus Mandello Lario, 40 - S. Peter, *monastery*, 40 Mansuetus, *archbishop of Milan*, 44, 46-47, 49, 56-57, 204 Mantua, 37n, 93-107, 204-205 Marcellina, *saint, sister of Ambrose*, 46, 48- 49, 57 Maremma, 164 Mark, *saint*, 98 and n Marseille, 48, 69 - *bishops*: *see* Serenus Martin of Tours, *saint*, 37, 45-46, 56, 167 Martinus, *bishop of Priverno*, 25 Martinus Corbus, *provost of S. Ambrose*, 43 Maternus, *saint, archbishop of Milan*, 46 Matilda, *countess of Tuscany*, 161 Matfrid, *count of Lucca*, 160 Matthew, *saint*, 196 Maxentius, *patriarch of Aquileia*, 95, 98-106, 202, 205 Maximian, *archbishop of Ravenna*, 115-117 Meaux, 168 and n

Metz, *archbishop of*, *see* Drogo


Modena, 94n, 133-151, 202-203, 205


Monteveglio, 140n Montpellier, 47, 204 Moses, 47 Nabor, *saint*, 46 Nantes, *count of*, *see* Lambert II Naples, 122-125 - *dukes*: *see* Andreas, Sergius Narbonne, *archbishop of*, *see* Bartholomew Nazarius, *saint*, 46 Neocaesarea, 170 Neustria, 69 Nicaea, 49, 170, 204 Nominoe, *duke*, 195 Nonantola, 25-26, 28, 76-77, 138 and n, 141- 143, 145, 147-148 - *abbots*: *see* Anselm, Theodoric Notingus/Notting, *bishop of Verona and Brescia*, 38-39, 82 Novalesa, 124-125 - *abbots*: *see* Joseph Novara, *bishops of*, *see* Adalgisus, Dodo Odulf, *father of Warin*, 162 Optatianus Porphyrius, 44

*Opusculum de vitis Romanorum pontificum*, 195


Pacificus, *archdeacon of Verona*, 26-27, 42, 73


Paschasius Radbertus, 196


Paulinus, *patriarch of Aquileia*, 3, 97 and n




Rheinau, *monastery*, 44n Rhineland, 69, 75 Richilda, *wife of Winigis*, 143 Richilde, *sister of count Boniface II*, 160 Richiprandus, *notary*, 107 Roderic, *gastald*, 162 Rodilandus, 162 Rodingus, *bishop of Florence*, 161, 163 Romanus, *exarch*, 136 Rome, 37 and n, 77, 80, 89, 94-95, 102n, 115, 117-119, 122-123, 125-126, 133 and n, 170, 183-196, 202, 205 - *Campania*, 185 - Duchy, 185 - Farnese Palace, 188 - Lateran, *basilica*, 191 - Lateran, *palace*, 183, 186, 189-190, 195, 205 - S. Maria in Domnica, *church*, 44 - S. Martin, *church*, 189n - S. Martino ai Monti, *church*, 194n - S. Paul*, basilica*, 189n, 191 - S. Peter*, basilica*, 185, 189-192 and n - S. Praxedes, *church*, 44, 189n - SS. Quattro Coronati, *church*, 191 - SS. Sylvester and Martinus, *church*, 189, 194 and n - Walls, 189 Rothari, *king of the Lombards*, 136 Rotrud, *daughter of Lothar*, 118-120, 205 *Rythmus de synodo Ticinense*, 136 Sabina, 185 Saint Gall, 46 Saint-Riquier, *monastery*, 44n, 45 Salerno, 124n San Donnino (*Pradelle*), 138n, 140n San Pietro in Elda (*or* in Sicculo), 139n Sandei Felino, *bishop of Lucca*, 165 Sant'Apollinare in Stagnano, 140n Santa Maria a Monte, 163 Satyrus, *saint*, 46, 48-49 *Scultenna*, *see* Panaro Secchia, *river*, 136-137 Secondinus, *monk*, 48-49 Sedulius Scottus, 42n Sens, *bishop of*, *see* Egilo Seprio, 161 - *counts*: *see* John Serchio, *river*, 163 Serenus, *bishop of Marseille*, 48 Sergius, *duke of Naples*, 123 Sergius II, *pope*, 125, 183-196, 202, 205 *- Life of*, 125, 183-196 Sesto di Moriano, 163-164 - S. Mary, *church*, 163

Severus, *bishop of Ravenna*, 117-118, 120 and n

Severus, *patriarch of Aquileia*, 99

Sicardus, *prince of Benevento*, 123 Sicily, 123

214

Siena, 143, 161n - *counts*: *see* Winigis Sigilaus, *monk*, 18 Sigmarius, *cancellarius*, 73 Silverius, *pope*, *life of*, 188 Simplicianus, *saint*, 46 Soissons, 188 - S. Sebastian, *monastery*, 118 Spoleto, 133n Stephen II, *pope*, 119 Strassbourg, 69 Symmachus, *pope*, 170, 194n Sylvester, *pope*, 102n, 194n Syrus, *bishop of Pavia*, 39

Tado, *archbishop of Milan*, 42, 45, 48n, 52 Thegan, 75, 185n Theodemirus of Psalmodi, *abbot*, 41 Theodoric, *abbot of Nonantola*, 143 Theodoric, *king of the Goths*, 114, 118, 171 Theodosius, *emperor*, 37, 43, 115 Theodulph, *bishop of Orléans*, 7, 76, 78 Thioto, *abbot of Fulda*, 45 Tiberius, *brother of Constantine IV*, 116 Todo, *priest*, 42, 52 Toledo, 96, 100-101, 204 Tortona, 72, 74 - *bishops*: *see* Ermenfredus Tours, 17, 20, 36, 45, 165n, 168-169 and n - *counts*: *see* Hugh - S. Martin, *monastery*, 18, 36 - *abbots*: *see* Fridugise, Vivian *Translatio Marci*, 104n Trento, 95n Turin, *bishop of*, *see* Claudius Tuscany, 159, 161, 165, 171 Tuscia, 185

Ulrich, *bishop of Augsburg*, 201 Unrochings, 166 and n Ursus, *bishop of Benevento*, 40

Valdarno, 163 Valentinus, *pope*, 186, 191 Valerius, *archbishop of Ravenna*, 117 Vatican City, 206 Venerius, *patriarch of Grado*, 95, 104 and n *Venetia*, 104n Vercelli, 43, 69, 97, 133 and n Verdun, 168 Verendarius, *bishop of Chur*, 38 Verona, 25-28, 38, 42-45 and 45n, 50, 69-83, 202-204, 206 - *bishops*: *see* Billung, Egino, Notting, Ratold - S. Maria in Organo, *monastery*, 72-73 - S. Zeno, *basilica*, 72 *Verriana*, 163 - S. Gervasius, *church*, 163-164 *Via Emilia*, 136-137 Victor, *saint*, 48 Vignoli Giovanni, 188 and n *Villa Puziolo*, *see* Portile Viventius, *patriarch of Aquileia*, 105n Vivian, *abbot of S. Martin of Tours*, 20 Volvinus, *magister phaber*, 44 and n Walahfrid Strabo, 75 Walcaud, *bishop of Liège*, 7 Walfericus, *bishop*, 38 Walpertus, *bishop of Modena*, 142 Wandalbert of Prüm, *monk*, 17 and n Warin, *vassal*, 162 Williarius, *priest*, 139 Winigis, *count of Siena*, 143 and n Witbert, 118n Wolfhoz, *see* Wolfleoz Wolfleoz, *bishop of Constance*, 40, 69

Zeno, *saint*, 80 - *Life of*, 80

Wolvene of Rheinau, *Aleman man*, 44n

### **Index of manuscripts**

Bamberg Staatsbibliothek, Class. 30: 16

Basel Stadtarchiv Basel-Stadt, II 12 UU I: 41

Berlin Staatsbibliothek, Hamilton 552: 42n Staatsbibliothek, Theol. Lat. Fol. 3: 18 Staatsbibliothek, Theol. Lat. Fol. 260: 18, 22 Staatsbibliothek, Theol. Lat. Fol. 564: 41 Staatsbibliothek, Theol. Lat. Fol. 733: 20

Bern Burgerbibliothek, 363: 42, 50

Brescia Biblioteca Queriniana, G VI 7: 38, 51

Cesena Biblioteca Malatestiana, S.XXI.5: 28

FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

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*, © 2022 Author(s), CC BY 4.0, published by Firenze University Press, ISBN 978-88-5518-623-0, DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-623-0

Index of manuscripts

Città del Vaticano Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Barb. Lat. 679: 100n Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. Lat. 833, 44: 48 Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. Lat. 899: 49 Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. Lat. 438: 17 Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. Lat. 5359: 25, 28 Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, S. Maria Maggiore, 43: 25 Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Urb. Lat. 3: 18, 23

Dresden Sächsiche Landesbibliothek, A 145b: 50

Einsiedeln Stiftsbibliothek, 253: 40n

Engelberg Stiftsbibliothek 143 (olim 6/23): 40n

Ivrea Biblioteca Capitolare, XXXIV (5): 25, 27

Jena Thüringer Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, El. f. 32: 15

Karlsruhe Badische Landesbibliothek, Aug. 179: 40n Badische Landesbibliothek, Aug. 203: 40n Badische Landesbibliothek, Aug. perg. 32: 80

Köln Dombibliothek, 138: 76, 86

London British Library, Add. 37768: 18-22

Lucca Biblioteca Arcivescovile, 27: 165 Biblioteca Capitolare Feliniana, 8: 165 Biblioteca Capitolare Feliniana, 13: 165 Biblioteca Capitolare Feliniana, 14: 165 Biblioteca Capitolare Feliniana, 19: 165 Biblioteca Capitolare Feliniana, 21: 165 Biblioteca Capitolare Feliniana, 23: 165 Biblioteca Capitolare Feliniana, 65: 165 Biblioteca Capitolare Feliniana, 123: 165 Biblioteca Capitolare Feliniana, 125: 165

Biblioteca Capitolare Feliniana, 490: 106-107, 159, 165-166, 168, 171-176, 204 Biblioteca Statale, 96: 165 Biblioteca Statale, 1382: 165 Biblioteca Statale, 1389: 165

Milano Archivio del Capitolo della Basilica di S. Ambrogio, M 7: 46n Archivio del Capitolo della Basilica di S. Ambrogio, M 15: 49, 50n, 58 Biblioteca Ambrosiana, B 36 inf.: 39 Biblioteca Ambrosiana, I 145 inf.: 43 Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Trotti 440: 43

Modena Biblioteca Capitolare, O.I.2: 142-146, 205 Biblioteca Capitolare, O.I.4: 143, 144n

Montpellier Bibliothèque Interuniversitaire, Faculté de Medicine, H 233: 47-50, 57

München Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 14510: 76

Novara Biblioteca Capitolare, LXXXIV (54): 96n

Padova Biblioteca Capitolare, D 47: 18-22

Paris Bibliothèque nationale de France, Par. Lat. 266: 17 Bibliothèque nationale de France, Par. Lat. 3226: 42 Bibliothèque nationale de France, Par. Lat. 14008: 76

Reims Bibliothèque Municipale, 123: 41

Sankt Gallen Stiftsarchiv (Abtei Pfäfers), Cod. Fab. 1: 52 Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 569: 46

Sankt Paul im Lavanttal Stiftsbibliothek, 4/1: 25-26

Sankt Petersburg Historical Archiv, ms. 625/14: 41 Index of manuscripts

Verona Biblioteca Capitolare, XLVII (45): 27n Biblioteca Capitolare, LXI (59): 78, 100n Biblioteca Capitolare, LXIII (61): 42-43, 50, 53, 203 Biblioteca Capitolare, LXXXVI: 79 Biblioteca Capitolare, XCI (86): 77-79 Biblioteca Capitolare, XCII (87): 73-76, 82, 84-85, 203 Biblioteca Capitolare, XCV (90): 79-81, 204

Zürich Zentralbibliothek, Car C 102: 76

#### **Reti Medievali E-Book1**


<sup>1</sup> La collana "Reti Medievali E-book" riunisce le precedenti collane "E-book Monografie", "E-book Quaderni", "E-book Reading" e "Quaderni di RM Rivista" recuperandone la numerazione complessiva.


# NETWORKS OF BISHOPS, NETWORKS OF TEXTS

Manuscripts, legal cultures, tools of government in Carolingian Italy at the time of Lothar I

This volume is the first one in a collection connected to the PRIN project on *Ruling in hard times. Patterns of Power and practices of government in the making of Carolingian Italy*. Its focus lays on bishops and their networks of relationships in late-8th and 9th-century Italy. The episcopal contribution to the inclusion of the Lombard kingdom in the Carolingian social and political landscape is especially analyzed from the perspective of the cultural exchanges (of ideas, texts, and manuscripts) that bishops created or used to carry out their public and pastoral duties. Each paper focuses on a specific episcopal figure or area, reconstructing the scope and extent of the relationships of which they were the pivot. The aim is to provide as comprehensive a picture as possible of the cultural networks that crossed Carolingian Italy and the ways in which bishops shaped and made use of them.

**Gianmarco De Angelis** is Associate Professor of Medieval History at the University of Padova, where he teaches Sources and methods for Medieval History and Documentary cultures of Medieval Europe. His researches are focused on juridical pluralismus and practices of government in Early Medieval Italy and on social, cultural and political aspects of notaries' activity from Lombard age to the emergence of city-communes. He also deals with the history of historiography and edition of documentary sources.

**Francesco Veronese** teaches Gender History and Food History at the University of Padova. His research interests firstly focused on the cult of saints, the mobility of relics and hagiographical production in Carolingian times. More recently he also worked on family and gender representations in the same chronological span.

> ISSN 2704-6362 (print) ISSN 2704-6079 (online) ISBN 978-88-5518-243-0 (print) ISBN 978-88-5518-244-7 (PDF) ISBN 978-88-5518-245-4 (ePUB) ISBN 978-88-5518-246-1 (XML) DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-244-7 www.fupress.com

Gianmarco De Angelis,

Francesco Veronese

NETWORKS OF BISHOPS, NETWORKS OF TEXTS

**FUP**