Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Buc - Ritual and Interpretation. Early Medieval Case PDF
Buc - Ritual and Interpretation. Early Medieval Case PDF
For the sociologist Emile Durkheim, writing at the very beginning of this
century, for Karl Marx before him, and for many social scientists since
him, religious beliefs and rituals all have a function. This function is most
often hidden to the very natives who entertain these beliefs and perform
these rituals, but it is accessible to the specialist of society:
1
To advance this speci®c argument (the importance of interpretation), I have chosen to employ
the broad and vague term `ritual' even though other lines of inquiry lead me to question the
appropriateness of the concept. For an explanation of this stance, see P. Buc, `Political Ritual:
Medieval and Modern Interpretations', in H.-W. Goetz (ed.), Die AktualitaÈt des Mittelalters
(Bochum, in press); idem, `Political Rituals and Political Imagination in the Medieval West,
4th±11th Centuries', in J. Nelson and P. Linehan (eds.), The Medieval World (London, in
press); idem, The Dangers of Ritual (Princeton, NJ, forthcoming). See as well J. Goody,
`Against Ritual: Loosely Structured Thoughts on a Loosely De®ned Topic', in S.F. Moore and
B.G. Meyerhoff (eds.), Secular Ritual (Assen, 1977), pp. 25±35. The study closest to my current
viewpoint may be D.A. Warner, `Thietmar of Merseburg on Rituals of Kingship', Viator 26
(1995), pp. 56±76. Timothy Reuter discusses with great sensitivity some of the issues analyzed
here in his `Pre-Gregorian Mentalities', Journal of Ecclesiastical History 45:3 (1994), pp. 465±74,
at pp. 470±4.
Early Medieval Europe 2000 9 (2) 183±210 # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2000, 108 Cowley
Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
184 Philippe Buc
write them off to some sort of inborn aberration. But we must know
how to reach beneath the symbol to grasp the true reality it represents
and that gives the symbol its true meaning. The most bizarre and
barbarous rites and the strangest myths translate some human need
and some aspect of life, whether social or individual. The reason the
faithful settle for in justifying those rites and myths may be mistaken,
and most often are; but the true reasons exist nonetheless, and it is the
business of science to uncover them.2
Durkheim was familiar with Marx, who expressed even more strongly
that for the analysis of past societies, their self-conceptions constituted the
worst starting point.3 Marx and his colleague Engels berated earlier
thinkers for having `share[d] the illusion each speci®c era' had enter-
tained about itself. This had led to a radical mistake: `The ``conceit'' or
``self-image'' of these speci®c human beings is transformed into the
sole determining active force that governs and determines the praxis of
these humans'.4 Hence, `To arrive at the ¯esh-and-blood human being,
one shall not start out from what humans say, conceive, represent
themselves, or from the human being spoken about, thought about,
conceived, represented'.5 Social reality lay hidden behind, and obfus-
cated by, native culture, political ideology and religion.
Despite convergences, Durkheim had not borrowed from Marx. Their
common position stood ®rmly rooted in a stratum of European intel-
lectual history deeper than the nineteenth century. Durkheim's state-
ment, especially, can be seen as the social-scienti®c rephrasing and
conceptualization of a basic notion shared by the religious specialists of
2
E. Durkheim, Formes ÂeleÂmentaires de la vie religieuse (Paris, 1912), p. 3, English trans.
K.E. Fields, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (New York, 1995), p. 2.
3
This is axiomatic for twentieth-century Marxist anthropology and the historians who use it,
see, e.g., E. Flaig, `Repenser le politique dans la ReÂpublique romaine', Actes de la recherche en
sciences sociales 105 (1994), pp. 13±25, at pp. 13±14. The analogies between Marxist and
functionalist understandings of religion have been pointed out by many, e.g., R. Firth, `The
Sceptical Anthropologist? Social Anthropology and Marxist Views on Society', in M. Bloch
(ed.), Marxist Analyses and Social Anthropology (London, 1975), pp. 29±60 at pp. 31±2.
4
K. Marx and F. Engels, Die deutsche Ideologie. [Kritik der neuesten deutschen Philosophie] # 1.25
(Marx-Engels Gesamtsausgabe 1.5, Berlin, 1932), pp. 28±9: `... die Geschichtsauffassung ... hat
daher in die Geschichte nur politische Haupt- und Staatsaktionen und religioÈse und
uÈberhaupt theotherische KaÈmpfe sehen koÈnnen, und speziell bei jeder geschichtlichen Epoche
die Illusion dieser Epoche teilen muÈssen ... Die ``Einbildung'', die ``Vorstellung'' dieser
bestimmten Menschen uÈber ihre wirkliche Praxis wird in die einzig bestimmende und aktive
Macht verwandelt, welche die Praxis dieser Menschen beherrscht und bestimmt'. Translation
mine; but cf. K. Marx and F. Engels, Feuerbach. [Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist
Outlooks], 2nd. edn (Moscow, 1976), p. 52.
5
Die deutsche Ideologie # 1.5b, p. 15: `Es wird nicht ausgegangen von dem, was die Menschen
sagen, sich einbilden, sich vorstellen, auch nicht von den gesagten, gedachten, eingebildeten,
vorgestellten Menschen, um davon aus bei den leibhaftigen Menschen anzukommen'. Trans-
lation mine; cf. Feuerbach, p. 31.
Christian Europe. Behind the letter of the Old Testament, and especially
behind its apparently irrational ceremonies there is a spirit ± identified
with the really real, res or veritas. It is the task and duty of the Christian
exegete to decipher this mysterium.6 This notion was widely shared in
late antiquity. Writing at the beginning of the third century, Hippolytus
of Rome inveighed against a Gnostic group, the Naassenes, that they
had `invented a new art of grammar' (teÂchneà grammatikeÂ) allowing them
to see how Greek Poets like Homer and the Christian Holy Scriptures
darkly told of their own Gnostic truth. For the Naassenes, all deeds and
words, even a play at the theatre, presented a truth invisible to the eyes
of the common audience, but endowed with a pneumatic or spiritual
meaning. For this reason, they gladly attended religious solemnities such
as the Great Mysteries of Magna Mater, `thinking that by means of what
is enacted there, they perceive their [own] whole mystery'.7
Hippolytus mocked the Naassenes, but his Christian contemporaries
could watch Roman civic rituals through similar lenses. The late antique
understanding of the relationship between letter and spirit shared by
all factions of the Christian movement allowed the hijacking, actual or
imaginary, of the Ancient World's most potent symbolic practices. The
Acts of the Martyrs can be seen as a Christian appropriation through
interpretation of a Roman civic ritual, the execution of criminals. The
death of a condemned Christian in the arena, a theatre, or an amphi-
theatre, was transformed into a new ritual, speaking of the Christian
mystery, and serving the formation of a Christian community.8
Interpretation, thus, was and is about authority and power, in the
present the authority of the social scientist over the cultures he or she
studies, in late antiquity the power of the marginal religious group, be it
mainstream Christian or gnostic, over the broader community in which
it was embedded. To be able to impose one's reading on a ritual endows
one with power or authority. Hippolytus' polemical description of the
Naassenes shows that the `natives' themselves understood well this rule.9
What does this mean for the student of early medieval political
culture, a culture that emerged from the matrix of late antiquity? First, it
6
G. Caspary, Politics and Exegesis (Berkeley, CA, 1979), pp. 12±19 and 40±71.
7
Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium 5.9.7 and 5.8.1, ed. M. Marcovich, Patristische Texte
und Studien 25 (Berlin, 1986), pp. 154:1±4 and 166:33±9.
8
See P. Buc, `Martyre et ritualite dans l'Antiquite Tardive. Horizons de l'eÂcriture meÂdieÂvale des
rituels', Annales 48:1 (1997), pp. 63±92, as well as J. Salisbury, Perpetua's Passion: the Death and
Memory of a Young Roman Woman (New York, 1997).
9
The link between late antique theology and early sociology will be explored in my Dangers of
Rituals. J. Assmann, `Aegypten als Argument. Rekonstruktion der Vergangenheit und
Religionskritik im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert', Historische Zeitschrift 264 (1997), pp. 561±85, has
already shown the hold of the idea of a double message (with socially stabilizing functions) in
early modern sciences of Religion.
means that there is some validity to what some recent studies have
claimed: that a political ritual can make visibly present an eternal,
invisible order, which in turn legitimizes (in a Durkheimian vein) the
worldly-order.10 But it means much more than that. And what it means
over and above this first consequence effectively renders problematic the
functions of legitimation and social stabilization that this first model
attributes to ritual. It means that medieval political rituals, once per-
formed (or even already at the moment of their performance), were
subjected actively to interpretations. Observer, participant, and audience
of oral or written reports searched behind appearances, asking what kind
of spirit had animated the event, and whether it pointed to a mysterium.
The participants, steeped in a religious universe, believed that a liturgical
or para-liturgical practice (that is, one which called on God and His
saints) would be effective, they also thought that its impact would
depend not so much on performance but on interpretation, and acted
accordingly. Thus, if we consider narrative texts, it means that the rituals
we find in them usually come to us conditioned by, and within, an
interpretative strategy. It means as well that many of these texts owe
their existence to purposeful attempts to guide towards the right
interpretation of a political event that involved a ritual.
Here the criticism of the functionalist and Marxist traditions in
anthropology borrows a leaf from other anthropologists' observation
that societies with religious specialists (including interpreters of rituals)
deal with rituals differently than societies in which this social role does
not exist. Dan Sperber warned us almost a quarter of a century ago that
we should distinguish between three kinds of societies: societies without
exegetical lore concerning their rituals, societies with experts in such
lore, and societies where not only is there a lore but also a tendency for
this lore to be contested. It is critical as well to be aware that some
societies have beliefs concerning, for example, symbolism, and that `this
indigenous theory in turn reacts on symbolic practices'.11
To illustrate the importance of interpretation, and to suggest some of
its effects, I shall look at a number of cases showing ®rstly the ways in
which authors deny the existence of a transcendental meaning to the
10
See G. Koziol, Begging Pardon and Favor. Ritual and Political Order in Early Medieval France
(Ithaca, NY, 1992), and H. Keller, `Die Investitur. Ein Beitrag zum Problem der
``Staatssymbolik'' im Hochmittelalter', FruÈhmittelalterliche Studien 27 (1993), pp. 51±86, both
drawing on the `model of and model for' notion of C. Geertz, `Religion as a Cultural System',
repr. in his The Interpretation of Cultures. Selected Essays (New York, 1973), pp. 87±125, at
pp. 93±4, who in this aspect of his thought is quite Durkheimian. While Koziol, in his
ecclectic ®nal chapter, distances himself from attributing a legitimizing function to ritual, the
bulk of his book presupposes it (see, e.g., pp. 305±7 and 23).
11
D. Sperber, Du symbolisme en geÂneÂral (Paris, 1974), pp. 29±32 and 60±1.
12
I discuss this in ch. 3 of Dangers of Ritual. But see already B. Brennan, `The Image of the
Frankish Kings in the Poetry of Venantius Fortunatus', Journal of Medieval History 10:1 (1984),
pp. 1±11.
13
K.F. Morrison, `Unum ex Multis: Hincmar of Rheims' Medical and Aesthetic Rationales
for Uni®cation', repr. in his Holiness and Politics in Early Medieval Thought (London, 1985),
pp. 583±712, at p. 633: `(...) only in the City of God did events signify something beyond their
own temporal present. Those in the city of man signi®ed nothing beyond themselves'.
Compare J.L. Nelson, `Hincmar of Reims on King-making: The Evidence of the Annals of
St Bertin, 861±882', in J. BaÂk (ed.), Coronations. Medieval and Early Modern Monarchic Ritual
(Berkeley, CA, 1990), pp. 16±34, esp. pp. 22±6. For Hincmar's potential gains, see eadem,
Charles the Bald (London, 1992), p. 218.
14
For the Augustinian understanding of sacred history, see R. A. Markus, ``Saeculum''. History
and Society in the Theology of St. Augustine 2nd. edn. (Cambridge, 1988); for its modi®cations,
see R.W. Hanning, The Vision of History in Early Britain. From Gildas to Geoffrey of Monmouth
(New York, 1966), esp. pp. 1±43.
Our lord Otto, his father's namesake, is made to share in the paternal
kingship, and is given the sevenfold grace of the Holy Spirit in the
palace of Aachen, seven weeks from Easter, on the day of Pentecost
and at the hour on which the Holy Spirit descended upon the
disciples, on the seventh of the Calends of June, and on the seventh
moon, when Otto was in his seventh year of age.17
Here the link is to the Apostolic age ± perhaps owing to the Ottonian
kings' self-understanding as bringers of Christianity to the gentes.18 The
numerology hammers in the presence of the Holy Spirit at the
coronation. That such a vertical axis linking up a ritual and the Heavens
was critical is attested in another contemporary text bearing on a
princely accession. In southern Italy, the anonymous author of the
Chronicon Salernitanum told how Duke Arichis, founder of Salerno,
had been pre-elected by the Spirit. When still a young man, he had
15
See, e.g., Erchempert, Ystoriola 50, 53, 57, ed. G. Waitz, MGH Scriptores Rerum
Langobardicarum (Hanover, 1878), pp. 256: ll. 3±14, 257: ll. 32±11, 257: ll. 42±258: l. 4.
16
16Cf. the Translatio Athanasii episcopi [primi], MGH SRL, pp. 449±452, especially
p. 451: ll. 24±38. See N. Cilento, `La storiogra®a nell'Italia meridionale', in La storiogra®a
altomedievale, Settimane di studio 17, 2 vols. (Spoleto, 1970), II, pp. 521±56, at p. 545.
17
Annales Lobienses ad an. 961, in MGH, SS 13 (Hanover, 1881), pp. 234: ll. 26±9: Dominus noster
Otto, aequivocus patris, consors paterni regni asciscitur, et septiforma gratia Spiritus sancti
donatur in palatio Aquensi, septem hebdomatibus a pascha transactis, die pentecosten et hora qua
Spiritus sanctus super discipulos venit 7. Kalend. Iun., luna 7, anno aetatis suae 7 [26 May 961].
The general tone of these Annals is highly pro monarchic, see ad an. 924, MGH, SS 13,
p. 233: ll. 28±9, where Charles the Simple is made a merkwuÈrdiger Martyr, or ad an. 901,
MGH SS 13, p. 233: ll. 6±9, where Zwentibold's death, even if owed to his dissolute habits, is
miraculously avenged. Remark as well from 969 to 982 the yearly mention of where the king
celebrates Christmas and Easter. See H. Seibert, `Lobbes', Lexikon des Mittelalters (Munich±
Zurich, 1991), V, cols. 2061±2, and Wilhelm Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen,
vol. 1 (Berlin, 1893), p. 381.
18
The Continuatio Reginonis ad an. 961, ed. F. Kurze, MGH, SRG, 50 (Hanover, 1890), p. 70,
places the occasion close to the anointing of Adalbert (the author?), a monk of St Maximin, to
be missionary bishop to the Rugi ± but this is weak evidence. For the Ottonians and `mission',
see H. Beumann and H. Buttner's twinned essays, re-edited in Beumann and BuÈttner, Das
Kaisertum Ottos des Grossen. Zwei VortraÈge (VortraÈge und Forschungen Sonderband 1,
Sigmaringen 1963).
In these days the apostolic lord Leo, pope of the city of Rome,
departed from this world. Lord Stephen succeeded him in the
ponti®cate, and this very year this apostolic Stephen came to the lord
emperor Louis in Francia. He found him in the city of Reims and
19
Chronicon Salernitanum 19, ed. G. Pertz, MGH SS 3 (Hanover, 1839), pp. 481±2, or ed.
U. Westerbergh, Studia Latina Stockholmiensia 3 (Stockholm-Lund, 1956), pp. 23±4: `Cunctis
uno agmine coactis, licet non a se set ab illo qui dixit, Ubi duo vel tres congregati fuerint, ibi
sum in medio illorum, illum principem sublimarunt '. I translate in medio as it was understood
in exegesis; see P. Buc, L'ambiguõÈte du Livre: Prince, pouvoir, et peuple dans les commentaires de
la Bible au Moyen Age, TheÂologie historique 95 (Paris, 1994), pp. 335±8.
20
I discuss this text as well in `Political Rituals and Political Imagination'.
21
Chronicle of Moissac ad an. 813 and 817, ed. G. Pertz (based on two rather different
manuscripts), MGH, SS 1 (Hanover, 1826), pp. 280±313, at pp. 310±12, which probably does
not postdate by much 818. The Solomonic parallels were already noticed by B. de Simson,
JahrbuÈcher des fraÈnkischen Reichs unter LuÈdwig dem Frommen, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1874±6),
I, pp. 3±5. See the appendix for the exact text of the Moissac chronicle unencumbered by
corrections taken from the Aniane version.
brought him a gold crown. The emperor received him with great
honor. Stephen blessed the emperor and put on his head the gold
crown he had brought. The lord emperor gave him in return many
presents, and thus he returned to Rome and his see.22
If these diplomata are authentic, they may indicate that Louis agreed to
publicize the version that necessity had forced his partisans to weave. Yet
one does not have to know what actually happened to extract political
information from our Chronicle of Moissac. The text was composed well
before the Field of Lies or even Attigny ± the inception of troubles for
the emperor. Its author seems to have wanted to highlight a non-Roman
conception of empire and downplay the papal role in Frankish politics.
This hypothesis finds confirmation in the Chronicle's account of the
754 meeting between Stephen II and Pippin at Ponthion. The Liber
Pontificalis puts most demonstrations of abeisance (especially prostra-
tions but also honorific reception within the ceremony of the adventus)
on the Frankish side; the Moissac narrative on the papal side.25 The
different degrees to which the liturgy was emphasized or even simply
made present in 816 and 813/17 respectively point to a continuing
struggle, in 818-19, over the nature of the imperial office.
The examples just discussed show how, when authors considered that
a king (or kingship) belonged to the ecclesia, they insisted on rituals'
providential meaning; when they wanted to keep a king (or kingship)
within the mundus, they removed all reference to sacred meaning or
sacred history.26 They employed the same technique to give (or deny)
meaning and authority to an event, such as 813/17 (or 816). In exegetical
terms, authors either connected rituals to a spirit or mysterium, or kept
them to the realm of pure ¯esh, carnality without spirit. One sees this
very clearly in Liudprand's Antapodosis, a tenth-century text that
combines a strategy of denial of mysterium (for enemies) and strategy of
emphasis on mysterium (for patrons).27 Here, rituals centering on Otto
the Great's rivals for the Italian crown lose all sacrality and become
instead ideological shams; on the other hand, Ottonian rituals are
systematically tied to a mysterium through references to the Scriptures.
Many of the preceding examples have concerned coronations. In the
Antapodosis, the Saxon dynasty's accessions are liturgi®ed; those of their
rivals rejected in the realm of violence, naked power, or manipulation.28
25
Chronicle of Moissac ad an. 754, ed. G. Pertz, MGH, SS 1 (Hanover, 1826), pp. 292: ll. 43±293:
l. 9. See T.F.-X. Noble, The Republic of Saint Peter. The Birth of the Papal State, 680±825
(Philadelphia, 1984), p. 80, who notes the contrast with the Liber Ponti®calis, ed.
L. Duchesne, 3 vols. (re-ed. Paris, 1955), I, p. 447: ll. 10±15. Admittedly this information
comes from the Chronicle of Aniane, a text closely related to the Chronicle of Moissac. The
Moissac manuscript lost the folios covering the years 717±77.
26
On ecclesia and mundus, see the key study by G.B. Ladner, `The Concepts of Ecclesia and
Christianitas and their Relation to the Idea of Papal plenitudo potestatis from Gregory VII to
Boniface VIII', Miscellanea historiae Ponti®ciae 18 (1954), pp. 49±77.
27
For this and the following, see P. Buc, `Writing Ottonian Hegemony: Good Rituals and Bad
Rituals in Liutprand of Cremona', Maiestas 4 (1996), pp. 3±38.
28
See as well G. Gandino, Il vocabolario politico e sociale di Liutprando di Cremona (Rome,
1995), pp. 72±6.
29
See the catalogue Bernward von Hildesheim und das Zeitalter der Ottonen, 2 vols. (Hildesheim,
1993), # IV±35, II, pp. 191±3; see Paul, II Cor. III.3±8.
30
Hincmar of Reims, De divortio Lotharii regis et Theutbergae reginae, ed. L. BoÈhringer, MGH
Concilia 4, suppl. 1 (Berlin, 1992), p. 159: ll. 20±8, excerpted in idem, Letter 25 to Hildegar of
Meaux, PL 126, cols. 161c±71d, drawing on Gregory the Great, Homiliae in Evangelia 2.6.9,
PL 76, col. 1202a. I see however no direct connection between Hincmar and Liudprand, and
as far as I can count, all the formulas for the ordeal collected in K. Zeumer, Formulae
merowingici et karolini aevi, MGH, Leges 5 (Hanover, 1886), invoke Thomas only once.
31
One should distinguish as well between `new' rituals, as the royal anointing in 751±4 or the
imperial coronation in 800±17, and rituals once routinized.
conveys that a struggle over meaning could be imagined and how such a
struggle might be fought out. The tentative conclusions of this naive
reading are confirmed by other evidence; as we shall see later, one can
find texts which depict a single historical solemnity but disagree over its
interpretation.
Ekkehard IV of St Gall's imaginative narrative may have been based
on actual fact. In an entry redacted between 912 and 918, the Annales
Alamannici report polemically an event, which other annalistic sources
also mention, but often more neutrally. Anno domini 916: `Erchanger,
Berthold and Liutfrid are killed by treachery' (Erchanger, Peratholt et
Liutfrid occiduntur dolose).32 Two brothers, Counts Erchampert and
Berthold, in charge of the royal ®sc in Swabia, had come into con¯ict
with King Conrad I and his Chancellor Salomo III, Bishop of Constance
and Abbot of St Gall.33 They were backed by their nephew Liutfrid. One
mid-eleventh-century Reichenau source develops the treachery so lacon-
ically mentioned in the Annales Alamannici.34 Hoping to achieve a
reconciliation, the counts agreed to undergo a ritual of surrender
(deditio), but were beheaded at the king's orders.35
For Gerd Althoff and Timothy Reuter, this story is an exception that
tellingly reveals the rigid `rules' of the ritual of surrender.36 We owe to
32
Annales Alamanici ad an. 916, MGH, SS 1, p. 56, or ed. W. Lendi, Untersuchungen zur
fruÈhalemannischen Annalistik (Freiburg, 1971), p. 190 (see also ad. ann. 913±14, noting a
discordia between King Conrad and Erchanger, Salomo's capture by Erchanger, and the king's
capture of Erchanger who is then exiled). The Annales Alamannici were produced in or
around St Gall (see W. Wattenbach, R. Holtzmann and F.J.Schmale, Deutschlands
Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter. Die Zeit der Sachsen und Salier 1.1 (Darmstadt, 1967),
pp. 226±7, and Lendi, Untersuchungen, for the date of the scribal strata).
33
All the sources are gathered by U. Zeller, Bischof Salomo III von Konstanz, Abt von St. Gallen
(Leipzig, 1910), p. 93, n. 3 (whose speculations about the actual guilty party we don't need to
follow). To wit, Annales Alamannici ad an. 916 (as in the preceding note); Annals of Reichenau
ad an. 917, MGH, SS 1, p. 68, Erchanger et Perahtolt decollati sunt; Annals of St Gall ad an.
916, MGH, SS 1, p. 77, Erchanger et frater eius Perehtold et Liutfrid capti et occisi sunt. On this,
see T. Reuter, `Unruhestiftung, Fehde, Rebellion, Widerstand: Gewalt und Frieden in der
Politik der Salierzeit', in S. Weinfurter et al., Die Salier und das Reich, 3 vols. (Sigmaringen,
1991), III, pp. 297±325, at pp. 320±1.
34
The Annales Sangallenses maiores ad an. 925 (of one hand until 956), MGH, SS 1, p. 78, also
laconically attribute to dolus the death of Duke Burchard of Swabia in Italy: Burchardus dux
in Italia dolo occiditur. In Liudprand of Cremona's no doubt much romanced narrative, it
consisted as well in a manipulation of rituals, this time of friendship, and this by an
archbishop. See Antapodosis 3.14±15, ed. P. Chiesa, Liudprandi Cremonensis Opera Omnia,
CCCM 156 (Turnhout, 1998), p. 74, with Buc, `Writing Ottonian Hegemony', pp. 12±13.
35
Hermann Contractus (Reichenau, c. 1049±54) ad an. 917, MGH, SS 5 (Hanover, 1844), p. 110,
`Erchanger, qui ducatum Alamanniae invaserat, cum fratre Bertholdo regi Counrado
rebellantes, eique tandem ad deditionem spe pactionis venientes, ipso iubente apud villam
Aldingam decollantur 12 Kal. Febr' [21 Jan. 917].
36
See Reuter, `Unruhestiftung', p. 321 (an exception that highlights the rule), and G. Althoff,
Spielregeln [der Politik. Kommunikation in Frieden und Fehde] (Darmstadt, 1997), pp. 16±17
(a case representing practices that antedate the Ottonian rules for deditio).
these two historians, and to Janet Nelson, Geoffrey Koziol, Hagen Keller
and Karl Leyser,37 a wonderful mapping of rituals in early medieval
political culture, but their notion of Spielregeln is problematic. There are
just too many manipulated, failed, or broken rituals in the sources to
categorize them as revealing exceptions to a rule. Any rule has to
encompass, and account for, phenomena which were this frequent (and
therefore non-exceptional). If one is willing to employ medieval
narratives of rituals as trustworthy summaries of what actually
happened, as Althoff does, it is tempting to call on Bourdieu's `logic
of practice' or `praxeology' to explicate frequent deviations from (what
seem to be) norms, as Stephen D. White has in his analysis of the ordeal.
The `rules of the game' then can be understood as one among several
strategic resources that social agents call upon and manipulate to reach
their ends.38 But this approach ultimately leads to another, very different
stumbling block. Simply put, one cannot apply a praxeological approach
to a medieval narrative. For Bourdieu, texts systematically obfuscate the
practices they claim to depict, as well as their micro-local context.
Praxeological analysis, while taking into account the social agents'
subjective renditions of reality as an integral component of `the logic of
practice' (and indeed as a practice itself ), necessitates direct ethnological
observation that can uncover the unspoken and often unconsciously
dissimulated reasons why they act as they do.39
Yet let us accept, provisionally and for a heuristic purpose, the false
premise that an early medieval narrative is not too different from an
ethnographer's log. It will still lead to conclusions that complicate
Althoff's model. Even read as `what actually happened', the Casus Sancti
Galli version of the 916 events suggests that there was constant conten-
tion over the meaning of a given ritual, with two consequences. Firstly,
there must have been enormous tension when a ritual was performed,
and the constant fear that the opposing party would not play by `the
rules'. Secondly, contention over meaning expressed itself both when
acting out the ceremony and later on when recounting it. Althoff rightly
underlines that when some participants disagreed too much with the
37
See most recently Althoff, Spielregeln; T. Reuter, `Ottonian Ruler Representation in
Synchronic and Diachronic Comparison', in G. Althoff and E. Schubert (eds.),
HerrschaftsrepraÈsentation im ottonischen Sachsen, VortraÈge und Forschungen 46 (Sigmaringen,
1998), pp. 366±80; H. Keller, `Die Investitur'; G. Koziol, `England, France, and the Problem
of Sacrality in Twelfth-Century Ritual', in T.N. Bisson (ed.), Cultures of Power: Lordship,
Status and Process in Twelfth-Century Europe, (Philadelphia, 1995), pp. 124±48; J.L. Nelson,
Politics and Ritual in Early Medieval Europe (London, 1986); K.J. Leyser, `Ritual, Ceremony
and Gesture: Ottonian Germany', ed. and trans. T. Reuter in Leyser, Communications and
Power in Medieval Europe, 2 vols. (London, 1994), I, pp. 189±213.
38
S.D. White, `Proposing the Ordeal and Avoiding It: Strategy and Power in Western French
Litigation, 1050±1110', in T.N. Bisson (ed.), Cultures of Power (Philadelphia, 1995), pp. 89±123.
39
See P. Bourdieu, Le sens pratique (Paris, 1980), pp. 34±5, 135±42 and 162±3.
40
Althoff, Spielregeln, pp. 291±2 and passim; as already noticed by A. Borst, Lebensformen im
Mittelalter (Frankfurt, 1973), p. 486: `Jeder meint was er tut [in rituals], und wer es nicht tun
will, bleibt fern'.
41
Under the year 911, they note that the comes et princeps Alamannorum Burchard was executed
iniusto iudicio, and that his brother Adalbert nutu episcopi Salomonis et quorundam aliorum
interemptus. They do not however attribute directly Erchempert's death to Salomo.
he said, `but you should have sold them and given the product to the
poor for your soul's salvation'. Erchempert and Berthold retorted with a
proverb: `One gives gifts of glass to friends made of glass. Since we are
not men of glass, we could not accept them'.
What happened here? The Casus presents what we may want to call
an aggressive ritual, capped with a gift. The two counts sought to
demonstrate disagreement by breaking the offerings. Salomo then
changed the cultural register with a reference to the vertical, providential
axis of salvation, and tried to impose his interpretation of the ritual and
therefore win. The two counts countered with another change of register
and another interpretation.
The Casus Sancti Galli is not an ethnographer's log. The actual events
remain clouded in the distance separating Ekkehard's days, in the late
eleventh century, from the second decade of the tenth century, clouded
as well in the distance separating St Gall's understanding of its dif®cult,
but ultimately accepted, abbot, from the Annales Alamannici's negative
portrait of the same man. In fact, the incident's own meaning for
Ekkehard is to be sought by mapping the full episode. It pairs this
disrupted ritual with a good ritual, also a banquet, which projects an
image of harmony between the highest aristocrat ± the king ± and the
monastic community. Here as often the role of ritual in the economy of
the text is to dramatize (literally) bad and good relationships, placed in
the past but exemplary for the eleventh-century interaction between the
monastery of St Gall and its lay aristocratic neighbours.42
Yet the narrower incident itself demonstrates the cultural possibility,
at least in the eleventh century when Ekkehard wrote, of a struggle over
a ritual's meaning. At the very least, Ekkehard imagines such a con¯ict
over interpretation. However, such struggles do not belong merely to
the realm of the imaginary, as a ninth-century case shows. Here, an
42
The rituals have their function, a narrative function, to underline the age-old bond between
the kings and the monastery and hallow the latter's property and judicial rights. Conrad visits
St Gall, is greeted with new laudes, con®rms the monastery's immunity, showers it with gifts,
acknowledges his ancestors' guilt (and those of eleventh-century Welfs) in persecuting
St Otmar, establishes a commemorative meal for himself, and obtains to be made frater
conscriptus (on which see K. Schmid, `Von den fratres conscripti in Ekkeharts St. Gallen
Klostergeschichte', FruÈhmittelalterliche Studien 25 [1991], pp. 109±22). The contrast between
the counts and the king revolves around contrasting banquets, the one just described marked
by competition, the king's marked by gentle joking and brotherhood. Cf. Casus c. 14, ed.
H.F. Haefele (Darmstadt, 1980), p. 42: Rediit igitur ad suos, Salomoni et omnibus nunquam se
laetius convivatum gloriatus, and c. 16, p. 44, where the joyful feast is characterized as `love ...
lawfully spurning [monastic] discipline'. The two stories are made to be contrasted: they
intertwine since Conrad meets the two counts, disgruntled at Salomo's latest joke, during his
visit, and since the king's gift to the monastery of ®scal goods heretofore under the counts'
management triggers a renewal of hostilities between them and Salomo. Cf. G. Althoff,
Verwandte, Freunde und Getreue (Darmstadt, 1990), p. 207.
43
This paragraph duplicates a segment in ch. 2 of my Dangers of Ritual, at nn. 91±5.
44
Annales Fuldenses ad an. 878, ed. F. Kurze, MGH, SRG 7 (Hanover, 1891), pp. 91±2,
translation mine ± see as well T. Reuter's, The Annals of Fulda (Manchester, 1992), p. 84.
Cf. the master narrative in E. DuÈmmler, Geschichte des OstfraÈnkischen Reiches, 3 vols. (Leipzig,
1887±8), III, pp. 72f.
45
Ep. 83, ed. E. Caspar in P. Kehr, MGH Epistolae Karolingici Aevi 5 (Berlin, 1928), p. 79,
ll. 2±4, 7±10 and 16±18.
John leaves unclear whether the stripping of the altar and the cessation
of offices directly resulted from the marquesses' blockade or (as in the
Annals of Fulda ) were elements in a liturgical protest.46 By May 878, he
may even have decided that it was better to claim that the cessation of
offices was owed to the evil marquesses' blockade rather than admit the
failure of his clamor: `(...) They did not fear to surround in arms (...)
blessed Peter's church (...) for thirty days, with the result that no one was
allowed to light any lamp or give praise to God'.47
Note here the importance of written propaganda in the struggle
against Adalbert and Lambert. Litanies would reach God, Who would
react according to His hidden purposes. But given Rome's excentric
geographical position vis-aÁ-vis the human audience that mattered
(Carolingian princes situated North of the Alp) the pope could not rely
on the performance of liturgy alone to in¯uence key players on this
earth. Some of the letters John wrote to inform princes and prelates of
the marquesses' behaviour mention `another little work directed to the
attention of all Christians' that recounted in full the misdeeds.48
Further, the pope informed the 878 Synod of Troyes that Lambert and
Adalbert's excommunication was written on the walls of St Peter `so that
those who come in and out may read it and grieve, and consider them
under sentence of anathema'. The text presumably detailed the
sanction's causes, including lack of respect for the litanies and the
liturgy of protest. Clearly, John hoped to inform visitors, gain their
backing, and pro®t from their spreading the news.49
John's ritual, and the propaganda work that went along with it, may
have failed even in the West Frankish kingdom, where at the time the
46
Cf. Epp. 73±4, 87±8, 96 and 107, esp. Ep. 73, pp. 67±9, at p. 68: ll. 15±22: `... venerabiles item
episcopos, presbyteros atque diaconos et religiosos monachos cum ymnis et canticis
spiritalibus sacrisque letaniis ad ecclesiam principis apostolorum venientes, heu pro dolor!
more paganorum conturbaverunt et fustibus cedentes nequiter disperserunt, non sinentes illos
exire debitumque deo sacri®cium offerre'. Further, pp. 68: ll. 30±69: ll. 1: `... ut nequaquam
nobis aliud agere nisi ¯ere liceret; nam ipsis diebus nec vestis fuit super altare sancti Petri nec
aliquod ibi nocturnum vel diurnum of®cium ex more celebratum'. Ep. 74, p. 70: ll. 13±17
reports the same misdeeds and complains that Lambert's blockade resulted in the pope's loss
of urbis Romae potestatem. Like the Annales Fuldenses, John's Ep. 87, pp. 82:39±83:1, to Louis
the Stammerer, mentions forced oaths.
47
Ep. 107, p. 99: ll. 30±3: `... beati Petri... ecclesiam ... armis triginta diebus circumdatam tenere
non formidaverint, ita ut nec ibi aliquam alicui lucernam illuminare nec laudes deo conferre
liceret...'
48
Ep. 87 (to Louis the Stammerer), ed. Caspar, p. 83: ll. 4±7; cf. Ep. 89, p. 85: ll. 23±9.
49
Mansi, vol. 17, col. 348ab: `Quodque decretum in praedicta beati Petri ecclesia scriptum, ut
ingredientes et exeuntes legant et doleant, eosque [Lambert, Adalbert, and their followers]
anathematizatos teneant, posuimus.' On this practice, see, e.g., A. Grabar, L'iconoclasme
byzantin (Paris, 1957), pp. 55±8. For pilgrims as agents in the publicization of a clamor, see
P.J. Geary, `Humiliation of Saints' (1983), repr. in his Living with the Dead in Medieval Europe
(Ithaca, NY, 1994), p. 106.
pope had his friendliest contacts. None of the West Frankish sources
mention this clamor.50 It certainly failed in the East, where Lambert's
allies were. The Annals of Fulda interpreted the pope's stripping of
St Peter's altars as a bad, manipulative ritual. Under a closer reading, the
functionalist model of ritual clamores or humiliations dissolves to reveal
a plurality of strategic moves and re-interpretations.51 Contemporaries
did not deceive themselves. It was understood that liturgical clamores
and humiliations could be instrumentalized for nakedly competitive
urges ± as the Visigothic episcopate already knew when it attempted to
legislate and monopolize them.52
Interpretation was critical for any ritual. It would remain so beyond
the period under study here. In the early modern era, concerns that a
ceremony would be misinterpreted could be voiced, and measures one
hoped to be appropriate, taken.53 Indeed, faster diffusion of writing
owing both to the newer medium of the printing press, and to dense
50
Annals of St Vaast ad an. 878, ed. B. de Simson, Annales Xantenses et Annales Vedastini, MGH,
SRG 12 (Hanover, 1909), p. 43: ll. 1±3: Iohannes papa ab Lamberto duce Spolitanorum iniuriatus
Franciam venit; Hincmar, Annals of St Bertin ad an 878, ed. F. Grat et al. (Paris, 1967),
pp. 222±7, gives in detail the proceedings of the Synod of Troyes which, led by the pope,
con®rmed his excommunication of Lambert and Adalbert (pp. 223±4), but neither his
narrative nor the acts mention the liturgical clamor.
51
I am of course thinking of Patrick Geary's early articles, now re-edited in his Living with
the Dead, a scholar to whom my generation of historians should be grateful for having
brought such phenomena to light, and proposed a model with which later scholars could
build or debate, in the wake of Heinrich Fichtenau's pioneering `Zum Reliquienwesen im
fruÈheren Mittelalter', Mitteilungen des Instituts fuÈr O È sterreichische Geschichtsforschung 60 (1952),
pp. 60±89.
52
Toledo XIII (683), c. 7, ed. J. Vives, Concilios visigoÂticos e hispano-romanos (Barcelona, 1963),
pp. 423±4, condemning to deposition and enslavement `those men who, troubled by their
obstinate mind's deceitfulness, when they feel damaged by some quarrel with their brethrens,
are immediatly seized by an insane temerity, strip the altars, take off the sacred vestments, take
away the luminaries, and impelled by their evil-mindedness withdraw the cult of divine
sacri®ces. Thus, unable to avenge themselves on human beings, they [instead] impinge against
God's rights, which is worse (...)'. The council also condemns those clerics who would `cover
the sacred altar with any other vestment of lugubrious nature'. Compare Carolingian
legislation trying to forbid a strategic, extra-judicial usage of the ordeal, as noticed by
H. Nottarp, Gottesurteilstudien, Bamberger Abhandlungen und Forschungen (Munich, 1956),
p. 110. Charlemagne in a capitulare missorum of 803, c. 11, forbade ut nullus praesumat
hominem in iuditio mittere nisi iudicatum ®at (MGH Capitularia Regum Francorium, eds.
A. Boretius and V. Krause I, p. 115); cf. already the Novella legis Salica 2, c. 4: `Si quis alterum
ad calidam provocaverit preter evisionem dominicam, 600 dinarios qui faciunt solidos 15
culpabilis iudicetur'.
53
See the Recebiemento que la Imperial ciudad de Toledo hizo a ... dona Ysabel .... (Toledo, 1561),
f. 3. The author of this libretto recounting Isabelle of Valois' entry into Toledo (1560) explains
that he writes it to correct the false interpretations that have already been published about
them. Cited by C.A. Mardsen, `EntreÂes et feÃtes espagnoles au XVIe sieÁcle', in J. Jacquot (ed.),
Les feÃtes de la Renaissance, vol. 2: FeÃtes et ceÂreÂmonies au temps de Charles Quint (Paris, 1960),
pp. 389±411, at p. 400. See as well Le double et copie d'unes lettres envoyees d'Orleans a ung abbeÂ
de Picardie contenant ... le triomphe faict audit lieu d'Orleans a l'entree et reception de L'empereur
(Paris, 21/01/1539 [modern 1540]), p. Aiiii (preserved in Paris, BibliotheÁque Nationale, ReÂserve
Lb30 83), cited by J. Jacquot, `Panorama des feÃtes et des ceÂreÂmonies du reÁgne. Evolution des
theÁmes et des styles', in ibid., pp. 413±91, at p. 435. The author explains why there were no
inscriptions on the triumphal arches and portals erected for Charles V's entry into OrleÂans:
`Et est a noter qu'il n'y avoit aulcunes devises, seulement y avoit Antiquailles. Car lesdictz
habitans qui toujours de sont conduitz par prudence, et bonne pollice, ne voulurent y mectre
alcunz escriptz, ne devises, pource que lung ou laultre des Princes, ou de leurs subiectz eussent
peu sur icelles gloser, ou deviner choses, ou lung, ou laultre des Princes neust prins plaisir.
Dont ilz misrent seulement Armoyries de lung, et de laultre desdictz Princes en unions. Qui
signifioit leur amitie simplement, dont ils scavoient sagement user et sans que leurs subiectz en
entrassent en disputes'.
54
See A. Bellany, `Libels in Action: Ritual, Subversion and the English Literary Underground,
1603±1642', in T. Harris (ed.) Politics of the Excluded (New York, forthcoming), as well as
B.S. Gregory, Salvation at Stake: Christian Martyrdom in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge,
MA., 1999).
55
Ed. R.A. Jackson, Ordines coronationis Franciae I: Texts and Ordines for the Coronation of
Frankish and French Kings and Queens in the Middle Ages (Philadelphia, 1995), pp. 217±32.
enshrine in the 1059 ceremony.56 Not only did Gervase and his suffragans
want to make the ritual the medium of a very specific message, they also
wanted to impose the idea that this interpretation had been uncontested
during the ritual performance itself.
Some historians have underlined the iconicity of kingship. By this
they mean that a royal ritual made present an eternal order that in turn
legitimized the this-wordly order.57 This is indeed what rituals (and/or
authors describing them) could seek to attain. But Gervaise of Reims'
memorandum points to the fundamentally contentious nature of this
desire. When we ®nd, then, a text seamlessly structured by the
exemplary mirroring of the heavenly order by the this-worldly order
(which has been called an Urbild-Abbild dialectic),58 we are free to
suspect that it masks a struggle for authority. Conversely, narratives
depicting a disrupted ritual do not necessarily point to a dysfunctional
society. They are ®rst and foremost the product of an author's desire to
attack a precise facet of power arrangements. In other words, because of
the widespread medieval awareness that ritual found its ef®cacy in
interpretation, the medievalist should avoid positing too simple a
relationship between descriptions of ritual and the political order.*
Appendix
Appendix: diplomatic transcription of Paris, BNF, Latin 4886, 52v±54v,
the so-called Chronicle of Moissac for the years AD 913±918.
For an authoritative discussion, see W. Levison and H. LoÈwe,
Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter. Vorzeit und Karolinger 2
(Weimar, 1953), pp. 265±6. G. H. Pertz edited the so-called Chronicle of
56
SteÂphane Lebecq reminds me that contradictio could mean a `legal challenge'. The af®nity
between ritual challenges and legal challenges is the obverse of that observed between
liturgical and legal sanctions, and a general consequence of the coinherence of religion and
law in the societies that emerged from the matrix of Roman culture; cf. J. Bowman, `Do Neo-
Romans Curse?', Viator 28 (1997), pp. 1±32, at pp. 6±7 and passim.
57
Keller, `Die Investitur'; Koziol, Begging. The notion of `iconicity' derives from C. Geertz,
Negara. The Theatre State in Nineteenth-Century Bali. (Princeton, NJ, 1980), pp. 130, 131 and
136.
58
Cf. H. Hofmann, RepraÈsentation. Studien zur Wort- und Begriffsgeschichte von der Antike bis in
19. Jahrhundert, Schriften zur Verfassungsgeschichte 22 (Berlin, 1974).
* I presented versions of this text to audiences in MuÈnster, Wassenaar and Nice during 1997±8. My
thanks to them for suggestions and comments, and especially to Gerd Althoff, Arnold Angenendt, Rosa
Maria DessõÁ, Luc Ferrier, Igor Gorevich, Mayke de Jong, Hagen Keller, Michel Lauwers, Stephane
Lebecq, ReÂgine Le Jan, Kathryn A. Miller, Janet Nelson, Danuta Shanzer and Patricia, most of whom
disagree with me on this or that theory or textual interpretation. I thank as well the Netherlands Institute
for Advanced Studies, under whose generous auspices this article was conceived and written.
indicate that the two texts were copied from the same exemplar or that
one is derived from the other. An, however, does not seem to be simply
a corrected copy of M, even though An often has grammatically correct
readings against evident errors in M. There is an omission in M, sub
A.D. 815, starting at Clotarium: M has et constituit duos ®lios suos reges
Pipinum et Clotarium super Bagoaria against An's more complete et
constituit duos ®lios suos reges . Pipinum . et Clotarium . Pipinum super
Aquitaniam et Uuasconiam . Clotarium super Baioariam. This informa-
tion, missing in M but present in An, shows that An is not a pure apo-
graph. Although the interpolation is in conformity with the substance of
the Annales Regni Francorum ad an. 814, it is not identical to it (the
Annales Regni Francorum does not mention Gascony); hence An cannot
have simply borrowed from the Annales in a hypothetical rewriting of
M. Finally, it is unlikely that M copied An or An's exemplar. First, M's
format as a continuation of Bede's Chronica, is more archaic than An's.
It is unlikely that M recast An's information into this characteristically
late Merovingian and Carolingian genre. Second, M's chronology is
more in conformity to what one can reconstruct of the 810s than An's.
An's dates are off by a few years. The author possibly wanted to ®t into
the historical materials available to him, which ended in 818, data on
Benedict of Aniane from the year 821, the attested year of Benedict's
death (see historical note l).
This is merely a diplomatic transcription of years 813±18 in the
Moissac manuscript. A full analysis of the relationship between Paris,
BNF, Latin 4886 (`Moissac') and 5941 (Aniane) remains to be done;
it may lead to the reconstruction of their common archetype. Yet I
indicate in the footnotes the apparently correct reading when the
Chronicle of Aniane gives it. This is meant only as an admittedly
imperfect help to the modern reader. Furthermore, I have avoided
giving a historical apparatus, which can easily be drawn from
J.F. BoÈhmer and E. MuÈhlbacher, Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs ... 751±918,
2nd edn (Innsbruck, 1899). Finally, I have capitalized proper names,
Deus, Dominus, as well as place-names, and letters highlighted in red in
the manuscript (they usually come after a punctuation mark).
80
Lege: Aquisgrani.
81
Cf. III Reg. II.12: Salomon autem sedit super thronum David patris sui.
82
An: patre.
83
An: de utilitate.
84
An: ac.
85
An: ipsa eËstate.
86
An: exercitu.
87
An: Baioariorum . introvit in Saxoniam.
88
An: Brunna [for Paderborn; an accusative is in order here].
89
An: exercitu.
90
An: scarras (German: Scharen).
91
An: Clotarium . Pipinum super Aquitaniam et Vuasconiam . Clotarium super Baioariam.
92
An: auctoritatem.
93
Add. interl. An: m. etiam.
94
An: iniuste.
95
An: cupiditate. Lege: cupiditatem.
131
An: consilii socii fuerant.
132
An: Drogonem Theodericum et Ugonem. Mpc: HugoneË.
133
An: singulos monasterios corr. singula m. monasteria.
134
An: imperatoris.
135
An: estivo.
136
An: introivit cum exercitu.
137
An: rege.
138
An: Britaniorum.
139
This sentence is missing from An. Lege: itinere pro iter.
140
An: imperatorem.
141
Word struck out ± the wrong one. Lege: exercitus.
142
This sentence is missing in An, 37r, which closes by jumping to Louis' death: `Anno dcccoxlo .
Imperii vero prephati imperatoris anno xxoviio obiit Ludovicus piissimus imperator . xiio .
Kalendis Iulii . indictione tercia . Regnaveruntque filii sui post eum cum magna gloria . Amen.'
143
The Moissac manuscript returns to the text of Bede's Chronica, PL 90, cols. 571d±3d, or ed.
Mommsen, pp. 321±3. Bede's last sections were not copied, i.e., 69±71, `De temporibus
Antichristi, De die Iudicii, De septima et octava aetate saeculi futuri.' The text is glossed
between the lines with simple word explanations (not reproduced here).
144
Moissac: Tempor corrected into temporeË with addition of final eË.