Transaction Number: 476446 Username: abouel Name: Barbara Abou-EI-Haj ISSN/ISBN: NotWantedAfter: 08/31/2011 Accept Non English: No Accept Alternate Edition: No Request Type: Article - Article



LoanAuthor: LoanTitle: LoanPublisher: LoanPlace: LoanDate: LoanEdition: NotWantedAfter:




PhotoJournalTitle: Word and Image PhotoJournalVolume: 8 PhotoJournalIssue: Month: Year: 1992 Pages: 333-43 (and any notes) Article Author: Appleby, David E Article Title: "Holy Relic and Holy




in the Western


over Images

Cited In: Cited Title: Cited Date: Cited Volume: Cited Pages:




ILL Number: OCLC Number: Lending String: bng Original Loan Author: Original Loan Title: Old Journal Title: Call Number: Location:

7/21/2010 7/17/2010 12:37:59 PM hp bart Ie v.8 (1992) 4:26:22 PM abouel Please include notes

space of a projected picture - what Roland calls 'the last of me' (1. 200).26 Nor is it absolutely clear where this picture is situated. Bloom reads the 'living frame' (1. 200) as the enclosing line of the 'lost adventurers' (1. 195) who hem in the picture - which could be the scene of Roland's failure or the figure of Roland himself, his imagined version of himself at the very end.27 But the 'living frame', if we hear the pun on 'frame', can also be the actual body of Roland, so that blank space of the as-yet unpictured is closer identified with the focal energy associated with bodily persona which underlies and gives impact to portraiture. And if the lost adventurers look at Roland as picture, he also pictures them: 'in a sheet offlame/l saw them and I knew them all' (II. 201-202) - the sheet of flame becomes the imaginative canvas on which the former questers appear. In all cases the picturings are obscure; they are depicted with great force and assurance but no precise delineation, and they merge into one another as the reader tries to establish quite what is frame and what is design. 'Childe Roland' is a notoriously difficult and resistant poem and what I have said does not solve or lessen its enigma. But it does show that by complicating the notion of representation in the image of painting and the human figure, Browning once more finds a means of communicating an infinite, an expression of his characteristic imaginative power, and, in this instance, the panorama of his predecessors, telescoped into his own poetic moment. A similar concentration of ideas occurs in a very different poem, the 'Epilogue' to Dramatis Persone, where spiritual belief and Browning's <esthetics of poetry fuse in a strange and moving Christie image. The rejection of the versions of religious truth, expressed by, first, King David and then Renan, leads the third speaker to found his infinite moment on the contemplation of a face, whose abstract and unspecified contours, continually evolving and taking shape, provide the basis for a lasting and eternal vision:
The one Face, far from vanish, rather grows, Or decomposes, but to recompose, Become my universe that feels and knows. (II.

26 - Robert Browning:

The Poems, I, p. 592.

27 - Following a reference to the book The Art oj Painting in all its Branches bv Gerard de Lairesse, a book which . Browning read in its second English edition (London, 1778), and which influenced 'Childe Roland', Bloom writes with great appeal: 'Childe Roland, like Browning, is painter as well as poet, and dies as a living picture, framed by "all the lost adventurers my peers", who like him found all things deformed and broken.' Harold Bloom, 'Browning's Childe Roland: All Things Deformed and Broken': The Ringers in the Tower (Chicago and London, 1971), pp. 165-166.

Holy relic and holy image: saints' relics In the western controversy over images in the eighth and ninth centuries


28 - Robert Browning:

The Poems, I, p. 865.

Pictorialism, descriptive verisimilitude, a loving itemization of detail which can transpose itself into the cohesive portrayal of psychological types, have all been identified as typical visual trends and patterns in Victorian verse. But while these patterns undoubtedly exist, noting them may entail a set of reflex reading assumptions which risks limiting their interpretation and the perception of other divergent visual modes. I would maintain that Browning's real moments of creative energy are lodged in <esthetic devices that transcend straight presentation. He fixes on what is most focal- the human face - recalling our most cherished and enduring iconography. We see again the visage of the beloved, the dead, the heroic self, the saviour, but all are brilliantly disfigured and decomposed, becoming. instead images of an unpicturable sublime. Rejecting the high finish of the realist picture, indeed implying both the failure and impossibility of a throughgoing realism, Browning's images of faces offer glimpses of the weave of creativity and the evolving imaginative forces that underlie and inform our most powerful poetry-making.

This article addresses one aspect of the controversy over the use of religious images in Italy and Francia in the later eighth and ninth centuries. The point of departure is my conviction that so far the scholarship has not drawn enough attention to the role of saints' relics in that dispute. Some theologians in Charlemagne's court circle insisted that Greek icons were idols and that their use in worship amounted to a violation of the Mosaic prohibition of idolatry. Other western writers evidently thought this view of icons was at odds with the widespread and officially endorsed western practice of venerating the saints and their relics. Arguments about the proposed comparison between religious images and saints' relics show that there was no single attitude toward religious art in the West and that at least a few western authors understood some of the difficulties raised by the concept of holy things. I explore these issues by examining the place of holy relics in relation to religious art in the thought offour of the leading western participants in the controversy over religious art in the eighth and ninth centuries: Theodulf of Orleans, Claudius of Turin, Dungal, and Jonas of Orleans. A survey of modern discussions of the controversy over religious art in the eighth- and ninth-century West reveals two important tendencies that have guided our treatment of the matter. The first is a tendency to view the Roman and Frankish debate as an adjunct to the iconoclastic controversy in the East. The second is a tendency to focus either on the early stage, during the reign of Charlemagne (r. 768-814), or the later stage, during the reign of Louis the Pious (r. 814-840), of the debate in the West without trying to understand the interconnections between the two. Certainly, developments in the Greek East influenced western concerns. For one thing, it was the transactions of the church council of II Nicaea (787) and later the revival of iconoclasm under the Byzantine emperor Michael II that sparked the initial Frankish response in the late eighth century, and western authors often framed their ideas about religious art on the basis of their understanding of the arguments and

positions of their eastern counterparts. As for the second tendency, some scholars have been greatly impressed with the breadth and intellectual vigor of the long treatise on images written at Charlemagne's request, the Libri Carolini (LC). Sources from the reign of Louis the Pious have suffered by comparison to it.' Scholars have not interpreted them as distinct contributions to the debate independent of the Libri Carolini. These tendencies have obscured several important features of the western debate over religious art in the early Middle Ages. Focusing on the role of saints' relics and other holy objects as a factor in the debate offers one means of gaining a different perspective on the matter at hand, and, I shall argue, yields four conclusions.f First, such a perspective allows us to keep sight of the western controversy's own momentum and inner dynamic even though it was touched offby developments in the eastern Mediterranean. The eighth- and ninth-century debate was a western phenomenon, not simply a crude version of the iconoclastic controversy of the East. Because saints' relics never became a source of contention between eastern iconoclasts and iconodules, we should look to saints' relics and holy objects for one peculiarly western feature of the debate.f Second, emphasizing the importance of holy objects allows us to trace the relationship between the later eighth- and ninth-century phases of the western controversy. Once they were introduced as a part of the debate, saints' relics and holy objects became as important as religious art in motivating the participants. Third, the perspective adopted in this essay provides a means of assessing the ninth-century phase of the debate in the West on its own terms and as something other than a footnote to the Libri Carolini. Finally, I shall suggest that a common ideological substratum is discernible in the works ofTheodulf of Orleans, Claudius of Turin, Dungal, and Jonas of Orleans, however divergent in application this ideological element may have been. A concern to maintain the ecclesiastical hierarchy's control over religious practice informs the thought of all four writers on the question of religious images and saints' relics, and





helps make sense of the posmons they took in the controversy. Let me turn now to examine the primary texts within which the debate emerged. As the first surviving Frankish writing on the question of religious images and as the great contribution to the debate during the reign of Charlemagne, the Libri Carolini demands our attention. This work reflects the rich diplomatic and political environment of the years immediately preceding 793, when it was completed, and in particular has implications for the complex relationships among the Frankish monarchy, the papacy and the Byzantine empire." Its explicit purpose, however, is to respond to the acta of the Second Nicene Council. This council was held in 787 and, as a part of the Byzantine effort during the reign of the Empress Irene to end the iconoclastic movement, had reinstituted the use of holy images in worship.f Although the Frankish church sent no representatives to the council, papal envoys did participate in the proceedings. This led to an exchange of letters between the disgruntled Frankish court and Pope Hadrian I from which the Libri Carolini itself eventually emerged." The Franks were outraged at the prospect of worshipping pictures and indignant that papal representatives had approved the acta of the Second Nicene Council. Charlemagne, as God's chosen supervisor of the Frankish church, must defend the tradition of the faith against divisive innovation. His ministerial duty in the face of II Nicaea included commissioning a doctrinal expert, Theodulf of Orleans, to write the Libri Carolini refuting Greek errors and defining the proper object of religious adoration." Theodulf defends the high ground of God's utter transcendence. God alone is entitled to the highest form of worship and devotion. No other person or object, especially not a manufactured image, may be worshipped. Biblical passages that seem to support another view in fact show that images and objects may allegorically refer to divine truth but in themselves do not partake of divinity.f Yet the Franks were not iconophobes: the iconoclastic Council of Constantinople in 754 seemed to have erred by condemning images altogether. Theodulf adopts what has been described as a middle position between the extremes of image worship and iconoclasm. Theodulf identifies two and perhaps three legitimate uses for religious images. They may be hung in churches as fitting decorations and ornaments for consecrated places; they may commemorate the events of the Bible and memorialize biblical prophesies not yet fulfilled; and it is possible that Theodulfthought they might be used in teaching and indoctrination.P Doubt surrounds this third use because Theodulf nowhere in his own words endorses the pedagogic or didactic use of images. Instead, he quotes with apparent 334 approval the letter of Gregory I to Bishop Serenus of Marseilles which, among other things, recommends employing images as a means of instructing and edifying illiterate parishioners for whom the Bible is a closed book. 10Elsewhere, (LC 2.22) Theodulfstresses the difference between representing in images what one already believes and depending on images because of spiritual sloth or to avoid forgetting God. II Those who use images properly know that in the end no material thing should separate the believer's love from its immaterial object. In general, this passage condemns the use in worship of material objects of any sort, and as a result the passage may lend some support to the contention that Theodulf does not approve of the didactic use of images, for, as he says, those who require material images to stimulate their memory before they can adore God and venerate his saints have weak memories. It is worth remembering, however, that Theodulf is responding to what he understands to be the views of the eastern bishops and the Byzantine rulers; that is, he has in mind an educated and spiritually sophisticated audience, and for that reason the passage may be intended to apply to the practice of those 'advanced in the faith' rather than to those who might learn something from images. In any event, there is no explicit condemnation of the pedagogic and didactic use of images here. A search for positive indications that Theodulf approved of using images for teaching yields some evidence, though admittedly not enough to constitute final proof. Aside from the quotation from the letter of Pope Gregory I to Serenus already mentioned, in Libri Carolini 2. 13 Theodulf discusses a story about Bishop Silvester and the Emperor Constantine and expresses his doubt that the bishop had in fact urged Constantine to worship images of the apostles. But if he did, Theodulf continues, he would have done so to bring the worshipper of visible things (cultor visibilium) to the worship of invisible things through the use of images. Theodulf compares this process to St Paul's use of 'milk' for spiritual infants in preparation for the 'solid meat' of the faith. 12 Whether or not he thinks images are a useful tool in the hands of a wise teacher, Theodulf makes it clear that their abuse can be disastrous, and this is one of the work's central complaints about the acta of II Nicaea. Nevertheless, the Libri Carolini identifies two main uses for religious pictures, decorative and commemorative, and perhaps a third one, namely didactic, all of which fall between what Theodulf understands to be the illicit extremes of idolatry and image destruction adopted by the two Greek councils. Such a tirade against the use of images in worship was risky, however, because in the end it had implications that were difficult to reconcile with the western cult of the saints. The Greeks and Franks agreed that the highest : Religious images were known in western churches but never achieved the centrality in devotional practice and doctrine enjoyed by representations of Christ, Mary and the saints in the Greek church.22 While the causes of this difference between eastern and western religious practice remain controversial, one of its corollaries was that, unlike their eastern counterparts, western bishops in general took little interest in regulating the production of religious images. In other words, because the veneration of religious images did not establish itselfin the West, the question of determining which images were in some sense holy and which were not never arose as a problem requiring the attention of church authorities. Saints' relics, on the other hand, did have an important role in religious devotion in the West and therefore became a subject of interest to the clerical hierarchy. Theodulfs view of holy relics mirrors the practice of the western church. Since late antiquity western usage had slowly enhanced the authority of bishops to determine which objects would be regarded as holy relics within their dioceses. Before the early thirteenth century, when a formal, uniform process of canonization emerged, the church 'discovered' new saints through a customary and imprecise means usually involving popular acclamation and subsequent official recognition, the clearest expression of which was the ritual elevation and public veneration of the saint's body.23 Although lay parishioners often initiated the veneration of a new saint through spontaneous celebrations held at the saint's burial place, ultimately bishops decided whether or not the names of popularly acclaimed 'saints' would be entered in the official calendar of recognized saints. After the sixth century, western bishops exerted increasing power over the cult simply by controlling the disposition of saints' relics.f" Eventually, custom and church law allowed bishops to decide whether or not relics would be deposited in places of honor within the churches of their dioceses and hence gave bishops considerable defacto control of whom the church regarded as a saint. Frankish prelates of Theodulfs generation enhanced their status within the church and realm by regulating the veneration of saints' relics. Civil and ecclesiastical legislation issued during the reign of Charlemagne emphasized the authority of prelates to determine which popularly acclaimed 'saints' were in fact worthy of veneration and, by extension, which objects might be regarded as holy relics.25 Thus, one implication of Theodulfs distinction between manufactured images, which had no legitimate place within religious devotion, and holy relics, which had the sanction of tradition, was to underline the authority of bishops to decide which objects were holy and which were not. While this distinction between images and relics served the immediate purpose of highlighting Frankish ortho335

form of religious adoration was due only to God, and that to worship any material object in the same way was idolatrous. But II Nicaea acknowledged that a lesser degree of worship, often identified in Greek as proskynesis, should be accorded certain holy objects, including images, which are mysteriously sanctified as tangible indications of the greatness of God.13 The Franks, perceiving this as a dangerous move towards idolatry, eagerly underlined western orthodoxy by disavowing all worship of material objects. In practice, however, they had their own holy objects, saints' relics, which were considered worthy of a lesser sort of worship, often identified in Latin as veneratio. Thus, to sustain the attack on images while upholding the cult of the saints, Theodulf had to formulate a distinction between images and relics. The tradition of the western church provided what he needed. According to Theodulf, relics, unlike images, are consecrated objects because of their intimate association with the saints and martyrs. As such they have a mysterious connection with God, a sacred aura that manufactured pictures lack. At the end of time the bodies of the saints will be reconstituted and willjoin the souls of those who even now dwell with Christ.l" Holy relics are like the vases and utensils of the altar that are essential in the divine service; they too are consecrated and have a place in Scripture and tradition. Images lack these attributes.P Relics are like the Cross and its sign, which are made sacred by association with Christ.l? Relics are also like the elements of the Eucharist, on which consecration confers mystery, a mystery in which images, .. which are not consecrated, cannot parncipate. 17 Nor d0 miracles give images a special status: signs and wonders have sometimes occurred through pictures and other objects just as they often do through relics, but such miracles are not inherently good or evil. 18Consecration is determined by the norms of church custom laid down by the prophets, apostles and Christ himself. 19 Theodulf's understanding of the relationship between holy relics and religious images reflects the official doctrine and mainstream practice of the early medieval western church. Carolingian churchmen had at their disposal a rich tradition of accepted practice and officially prescribed norms concerning the cult of saints. But in the West, there was no comparable tradition concerning the manufacture and use of religious images.F" By the later eighth century, western prelates assumed that a church should possess relics of at least one saint, and that the relics should be placed near the altar, perhaps even within it. Although this was a matter of custom rather than law, the practice of depositing relics in altars during the consecration of churches became so common in the West that it eventually found a place in the liturgical rites associated with the dedication of new churches.v'




doxy, there was no escaping broader Latin tradition: the Franks indeed recognized degrees of worship. Yet in the Libri Carolini this fact is scarcely acknowledged. Theodulf distinguishes between adoratio, which is due only to God, and veneratio, which is due to the saints and their relics but not to images.26 But it seems not to have occurred to him that the cult of the saints was in some ways comparable to the Byzantine use of images in worship. Although the material objects involved in each were different, Latin ueneratio and Greek proskynesis were similar practices. Apprehension of Greek idolatry discouraged the author from exploring the nature and practical importance of the saints' cult even to the limited extent possible in a treatise devoted to the question of images. In turn, this disjunction between images and relics tended to obscure the cult's pastoral and didactic significance. Theodulf said that images might be useful as decorations, memorials and perhaps as instruments of teaching and indoctrination; but since images and relics were seen as two very different sorts of things, he did not reflect on the possibility of using relics in the same way. Ann Freeman has recently argued that, although Theodulfhad completed the Libri Carolini in 793, the work did not circulate widely in Francia and may not have reached Rome at all until much later.27 It was not entirely unknown, however, for with several significant changes some of the main doctrines articulated in the Libri Carolini appeared again in the Libellus synodalis of the council held at Paris in 825 under Louis the Pious.28 Once again, this council met to determine the appropriate Frankish response to events in Byzantium. In April 824, the Emperor Michael II had written to Louis the Pious asking him to persuade the pope to expel some Greek refugees from Italy. These easterners seem to have been iconodule clerics and laymen who fled west because Italy offered a comparatively safe haven during the revival of iconoclasm under Michael. 29In response to the emperor's request, Louis called together a select group of advisers in Paris in November of 825 to consider the matter and draft a letter to the pope. Although this meeting was not an official church council, several later Frankish authors understood the transactions of the meeting in Paris to be an authoritative pronouncement on the Frankish church's attitude towards religious art.30 In December of825 Louis received the Libellus synodalis of the Paris meeting and arranged to have its contents revised by Archbishop Jeremy of Sens and Bishop Jonas of Orleans, who later conveyed it to Pope Eugenius 11.31 What reception the Frankish envoys received in Rome is unclear. But the important point of interest here is that the Frankish churchmen at Paris reiterated the sharp distinction between images and relics expressed in the Libri Carolini and agreed with Theodulfs view that while images may be used as decorations and memorials, they 336 may not be worshipped.F The Libellus synodalis of Paris also stipulated unambiguously that images might be used as instruments of education.P" On the issues most relevant to the present topic, the Council of Paris echoed the Libri Carolini. This is important because ninthcentury participants in the debate, for instance Jonas of Orleans and Dungal, often had access to the Libellus synodalis of 825 rather than to the Libri Carolini.34 But it was the ideas of another contemporary rather than the doctrine of the Libellus synodalis that prompted Dungal and Jonas to write. The next major contributor to the controversy, Claudius, bishop of Turin, apparently knew neither the Libri Carolini nor the Libellus synodalis. Instead, he drew conclusions from the traditional Christian prohibition of the worship of parts of creation in the place of the creator, conclusions that struck some contemporaries as extreme and heterodox. Noting his parishioners' superstitious attachment to religious images and to the relics of the saints, Claudius began removing pictures from the churches of his diocese and verbally attacking the cult of relics. This led to a quarrel with Abbot Theutmir of the monastery of Psalmody in Nimes in about 825. In this dispute Claudius condemned not only religious images in general but challenged the legitimacy of images of the Cross, the practice of pilgrimage and the intercessions of the saints.35 In the surviving excerpts of his treatise answering accusations made by Theutmir, he insists that only God and nothing else should be worshipped, an orthodox rallying cry also favored by Theodulf and the authors of the Libellus of Paris.36 Although this had the desired result of ruling out the religious veneration of images, Claudius went much farther than the authors of those earlier documents. His adversaries understood him to mean that what applies to images applies to relics as well, for both tempt simple Christians to mistake creature for creator. Besides, the true faith is spiritual: even if those devoted to images of the Cross and pilgrimages to St Peter's tomb in Rome are not in fact pagans, they are guilty nonetheless of a form of Judaizing because they accept Christ only after the flesh (secundum carnem).37 It also seemed that Claudius meant that there is nothing more sacred about relics than the bones of animals. 38The same reasoning applies to the Cross: what entitles it to veneration but does not so entitle other objects Christ came into contact with during the Incarnationi=" For pastors to recommend pilgrimage and prayers for the intercession of saints struck Claudius as a flagrant abuse of authority, not only _because those activities could confer no spiritual benefits but also because they encourage superstitious beliefs. Thus Claudius was perceived as having taken two important steps that the authors of the Libri Carolini and the Paris Libellus had not. First, on theological grounds he associated images and relics, thereby transforming the Frankish controversy over religious pictures into a controversy over the saints' cult as well, and he rejected both as objects worthy of veneration. Second, apparently on pastoral grounds, he denied images and relics a place in the church as decorations and memorials, but also as implements of instruction and edification. If doctrinal or theological reasons prompted his objection to the use of images and relics in teaching and for decoration and memorials, Claudius either did not say so or failed to impress the fact on his adversaries. It seems more likely that the objection stemmed from his pastoral experience as bishop: if parishioners become devoted to objects, then the objects must be removed from churches regardless of any didactic, aesthetic or commemorative function they may have. While even in outline his ideas seem impressive, the full importance of Claudius' contribution becomes apparent only in view of the debate it sparked. Soon after 825, Louis the Pious asked Dungal, the head teacher at Pavia, to respond to the writings of Claudius. In his Responsa contra peroersas Claudii Taurinensis episcopi sententias, completed in 827, Dungal argues at length aganst Claudius' views and cites biblical, patristic and early medieval sources to support his own. He does not, however, adhere to the position expressed in the Libri Carolini and in the Libellus synodalis of Paris, in particular the sharp distinction between images and relics. Like Claudius, Dungal recognizes that both images and relics are material objects and therefore are not entitled to the highest form of worship. Although they draw opposite conclusions, both agree that the image question cannot be dealt with in isolation from that of the cult.40 Dungal does not rely on the earlier assertion that relics are consecrated and images not, because he envisages a greater religious importance for images than the Libri Carolini allowed."! Images and relics should be honored and venerated in a manner that reflects the adoration due to God, for the Mosaic law only forbids worshipping images that refer to themselves and not to God. Images may be used in worship if the faithful venerate them in order to honor God. This is the same sort of worship that the saints should receive because '[w]e do not worship (adoramus) pictures of the saints on walls nor their bodies lying in sepulchers in the same way we worship (adoramus) God .... '42 To justify the devotional use of images and relics, Dungal discusses the various meanings of the words 'veneration' and 'worship': strictly speaking we may worship only God; but in a different, looser sense of the word we may also worship creatures.f ' Emphasizing the similarities between images and relics has implications for the practical significance of the saints' cult as well as for the devotional use of images, and Dungal makes these clear. Aside from their use in worship, relics and images share a didactic [unction. As had the author of the Libri Carolini, Dungal cites with approval the letter of Pope Gregory I to Bishop Serenus of Marseilles recommending the use of religious pictures as a means of instructing illiterate parishioners.l? Dungal goes farther than Theodulf, however, in identifying a pastoral and didactic use for relics. He quotes extensively from works by Augustine and Ambrose in defense of the cult in general and the importance of miracles in particular. He cites almost all of Augustine's City of God XXII.8. There Augustine records numerous contemporary miracles as parallels to those of Christ and the apostles and as visible confirmation, especially for nonbelievers, of the truth of Christ's Resurrection and mankind's. Augustine states explicitly that such miracles should be recorded and read publicly.t" Quoting from Augustine's On the Proper Treatment of the Dead, Dungal notes that such miracles are meant to strengthen (ad aedificandam) the faith.46 Passages culled from Ambrose's works reflect a similar conception of the didactic significance of saints' miracles. Dungal cites Ambrose's letter to his sister describing the translation and miracles of SS. Gervase and Protase and paraphrasing his sermon to the people of Milan on that occasion. Ambrose says that the miracles of the saints show that grace operates in the world today, just as it had at the time of Christ's first advent.V Dungal also quotes from Jerome's Against Vigilantius in defense of the saints' cult.48 As his reliance on patristic authors shows, Dungal's treatment of relics and miracles was not novel in the broad sweep of western doctrinal history. In the ninthcentury Frankish world, however, his conception of the didactic and pastoral use of relics was important. His rejection of the distinction between relics and images articulated in the Libri Carolini and echoed in the Libellus synodalis of Paris enabled him to stress the value of both as instruments of instruction and edification. Although he did not completely equate the two, he did see common ground between them where the author of the Libri Carolini had not. Dungal's conception of relics and the veneration of the saints was in some ways pragmatic and based on his observation of the actual treatment of saints' relics at that time. His view of the cult was less normative than that expressed in the Libri Carolini and the Libellus synodalis of Paris, though this should not be confused with the overall purpose of the- Responsa, which certainly was normative.t" Thus, Claudius' writings had a thawing effect on Frankish discussions of religious images in relation to the cult of relics. Dungal's work was the first sign of this. Although drawing opposite conclusions from Claudius, Dungal nevertheless found himself on common ground with his adversary in one important respect: both saw that the image question could not be dealt with separately






from that of the cult of saints' relics. This recogrunon colored Dungal's entire approach to images and the cult of relics and, along with certain other of his ideas, sharply distinguished his views from those expressed by Theodulf in the Libri Carolini and the Libellus synodalis of Paris. Bishop Jonas of Orleans also felt the heat generated by Claudius' work. In some ways his own ideas about the cult of relics and religious images became more fluid between 825 and 840, the years marking his work as an epitomizer of the Libellus synodalis of Paris and the completion of his De cultu imaginum, a tract written against Claudius and his followers.i''' In 840 Jonas insisted that diligent pastors could encourage simple Christians to participate in the saints' cult without simultaneously encouraging superstitious practices. While his expectations of bishops may have seemed fantastically high to men such as Claudius, from a different vantage point they seemed to grow from a realistic and balanced pastoral outlook. Jonas shuns western iconophobia for practical reasons. The abuse of images should be ended without curtailing their use completely, because illiterate Christians learn from pictures and are inspired by their beauty.j" Similarly, Jonas defends the cult against Claudius' attack on practical grounds: simple Christians focus their devotion on the saints because their grasp of higher spiritual truth 52 is weak. In the bishop's pastoral sphere of activity, then, images and relics share similar instructional and edifying functions. For Jonas, acknowledging this similarity meant departing from the spirit of the Libellus synodalis of Paris. The Libellus synodalis reiterated Theodulf's sharp distinction between images, which may be used for decoration and commemoration and perhaps also teaching, and relics, which are sacred and venerable. As a bishop responsible for instructing and caring for parishioners of diverse spiritual and intellectual capacities, it is not surprising that Jonas eventually recognized the cult's significance as a pastoral tool comparable to religious pictures. The views about the relationship between images and relics expressed in the Libri Carolini and Libellus synodalis of Paris required modification in light of Claudius' work. Before 840, Dungal adequately defended the saints' cult but endorsed images in extreme terms, or so it appeared to adherents of the views expressed in the Libri Carolini and in the Paris Libellus synodalis. In De cultu imaginum Jonas addresses the issue of the pastoral significance of relics and images in a framework established by Claudius and Dungal. Experience indicated to all three writers that relics and images share a didactic and edifying function. On this pastoral level, Jonas sides with Dungal against Claudius: images, like relics, can and should be used to teach and edify without encouraging superstitious worship. 338
vr n

Although Jonas departs from the views of the Paris Libellus synodalis of825 on a pastoral level, in doctrine his position is fairly consistent between 825 and 840.53 In De cultu imaginum, his doctrinal steadfastness is most apparent in the defense of the cult against Claudius' charges, and it also casts into relief the gulfseparatingJonas from Dungal. Jonas insists that Catholic tradition prescribes the saints' cult for all Christians, not only for the simple; the intercessions of the saints are as real for one as for another. 54Even those who cannot·understand the details of the economy of grace or who may lapse into a superstitious reverence for relics are not, as Claudius had asserted, like Jews and pagans; that is, they are not guilty of understanding Christ only after the flesh. Belief in the Trinity and Christ's Resurrection always distinguishes such Christians fromJews and pagans, who might regard certain objects as magical or endowed with supernatural power, but whose holy objects have no connection with the true God.55 While practical concerns may make the pastoral use of images and relics desirable for instructing simple Christians, this must not be allowed to obscure the cult's grounding in traditional doctrine, a grounding that images lack. At this point, Jonas parts company with Dungal, who had maintained that, in addition to their shared pastoral function, both relics and images are entitled to veneration. InsteadJonas adheres on the level of doctrine to the views expressed in the Libri Carolini and the Libellus synodalis of Paris: relics are sanctified but images are not. For Jonas the deeper issue at stake in the image controversy is God's ability to sanctify matter. Relics and saints' miracles are not merely symbols. They are holy objects and events, which reflect un mediated divine power much as do the church's regular channels of grace, the sacraments.P" The remains of saints are no more entitled to the highest form of worship than the bones of other human beings or animals. Yet tradition shows that relics, like the Cross, are not merely arbitrarily chosen symbols of a purely transcendent reality.V Affirming the goodness of God's creation includes acknowledging the real power of the sacraments and the actual sacredness of relics and the Cross. InJonas' eyes, praying to saints and venerating their relics are pious and fitting activities for all Christians, quite the opposite of understanding Christ only after the flesh. As a result, Claudius' attack on the saints' cult impressed Jonas as an alarmingly misguided effort to make the faith purely 'spiritual' by purging it of what Claudius considered superstitious contaminants. Jonas' defense of the cult rested on two pillars, one pastoral and applicable to images as well as relics, the other doctrinal and encompassing only relics and not images. Jonas' understanding of the doctrinal status of relics and images preserved the episcopal authority to control

the process of identifying holy objects. Jonas was certain not only that some objects are sanctified and therefore worthy of veneration but that man has at his disposal the means of identifying those objects. He regarded the identification of relics and the propagation of the cult of saints as parts of the bishop's supervisory duty within Christian society.P" On Jonas' view, the question of how to determine whether or not this or that religious image was in some way holy simply did not arise and therefore could not threaten episcopal authority in matters of devotional practice. As the first extensive treatment in the West of the question of religious images since the time of Gregory I, the Libri Carolini has had a great if not determining influence on modern discussion of the image controversy in the West in the later eighth and ninth centuries. Recent commentators have largely accepted the agenda of issues addressed in that document as the important questions in the image controversy in the period. One consequence of this has been to distract attention from the interest in holy relics expressed by several Frankish authors after the time of the Libri Carolini, thus obscuring relics as a motivating concern of the ongoing debate.i'" In fact, thanks to Claudius of Turin the question of relics became an important and even decisive force in the ninth-century phase of the controversy. By associating images and relics, and rejecting their use in religion, Claudius raised an issue of immediate practical concern to many westerners. Other ninth-century authors, especially Dungal and Jonas of Orleans, treated the question in a context established by Claudius. Furthermore, this development should be interpreted as one sign among several during the reign of Louis the Pious of an increasing awareness of the pastoral and didactic importance of the veneration of the saints. The appearance of Einhard's Translation and miracles of saints Marcellinus and Peter in c. 830 marked the beginning of a sudden growth of the translation narrative as a subgenre of hagiography.P" While these changes in the reign of Louis the Pious may have had more to do with the perception than practice of the saints' cult, nevertheless they provide yet another indication of the interest in- church reform known from other sources from Louis' reign.51 The coincidence of this development during the reign of Louis the Pious with the shift in the debate over religious art outlined in this essay is worth noting. Just beneath the surface of the western debate over the role of religious images and saints' relics in Christian devotion was the problem of the means of determining which objects and symbols would be considered sacred and which would not. As we have seen, the participants in the debate shared a concern to safeguard the authority of the ecclesiastical hierarchy to regulate devotional practice. Since the sixth century, western bishops had for the

most part secured their claim to control the physical disposition of holy relics and to ratify or reject popularly acclaimed 'saints.' Clearly in the case of the veneration of images a gap existed between official doctrine and popular practice in some dioceses, and the strident tone of the western debate over religious images suggests that clerical authors were aware of the gap. There was general agreement that the clergy should determine what could and could not be regarded as venerable and holy. Priests and bishops already wielded considerable power in the dispensation of their sacramental duties in baptism, the Eucharist, confession, and the rest, and it seemed that consecration should also allow bishops to grant or withhold the church's approval in the matter of using religious images in worship. Disagreement arose in the West because western church tradition was an imperfect guide to the use of images for devotional purposes, but also because the prospect of venerating religious images threatened the authority of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. To acknowledge that a class of objects was worthy of veneration not merely as symbols but as holy things was to raise the question of how to identify these venerable objects. Who would determine which images were holy and which were not? Would it be the artisans who made them, and ifso, where did the clergy fit in? Couldjust anyone make holy images? Disturbing questions of this sort lie behind the repeated objections of Theodulf and Jonas of Orleans that, as manufactured or man-made objects, images are somehow tainted and that much farther from being worthy of veneration.P'' But when Claudius of Turin introduced the question of other sacred or venerable objects, in particular holy relics, the tone of the debate over images shifted significantly. Once again, Frankish churchmen were eager to assert the authority of the church hierarchy to regulate popular religious practice. During the reigns of Charlemagne and Louis the Pious, church canons and royal capitularies established guidelines for the authentication of reputed relics, sought to curb traffic in false relics, and warned against the unauthorized veneration of new saints.63 These measures did not, as has often been maintained, signify incipient rationalism or an enlightened attitude toward divine worship among the higher clergy and secular leaders.P" Instead, these measures coincided with an effort sponsored by reforming clerics and ambitious Carolingian princes to regulate religious practice and thereby to enhance their control of church and society.65 As far back as the reign of King Pepin (r. 751-768), for example, the patronage of Roman saints and the possession of relics from Rome had been a source of strength to the new ruling dynasty. Holy relics became emblems of the diplomatic and spiritual bonds linking Pepin and his immediate Frankish adherents to the







bishop of Rome. Acquiring Roman relics was one way of demonstrating that Pepin's rule enjoyed divine favour.66 Legislation from the reign of Charlemagne and Louis the Pious also reflects the social and political importance of identifying and controlling holy relics. Because it was a means of reenforcing their own power, Charlemagne and Louis the Pious cooperated with the Frankish episcopacy in its ongoing effort to regulate the devotional use of holy objects. This discussion, though presented in fairly broad terms and treating only the most important primary sources, has suggested that consideration of the western controversy over religious art in the later eighth and ninth centuries should be set in the wider context of western Christian attitudes towards sanctified matter and holy objects rather than within limits defined by eastern Mediterranean iconoclast or iconodule authors. As recent work by Gert Haendler, Celia Chazelle and Alba Maria Orselli has shown, the subject should be treated as an eighth- and ninth-century controversy and not forced into a conceptual framework dating from the time of St Augustine or even of Pope Gregory I. One approach that seems to hold promise for continued progress in understanding the western debate over images involves interpreting the ideas of the participants in ligh t of contemporary attitudes towards material objects that westerners regarded simultaneously as holy in themselves and as symbolic of transcendent sanctity, for example the Cross, the Eucharist and also saints' relics. Such an approach illuminates the various phases of the conflict in the West. But it also helps clarify a common ideological substratum of the debate, namely the importance of regulating which objects would be recognized as holy and which would not.

the Age before Iconoclasm', Dumbarton Oaks Papers 8 (1954), pp. 83150, reprinted in his The Art of Byzantium and the Medieval West. Selected Studies (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1976), pp. 90- 156, especially pp. I 15ff, of the original edi tion; more recently, see David Freedberg, The Power of Images. Studies in the History and Theory of Response (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), pp. 92--g8; Hans Belting, Bild und Kult. Eine Geschichte des Bildes vor dem Zeitalter der Kunst (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1990), pp, 60f, 72fT, 33 Iff. 4 - G. Alberigo and Alberto Melloni, 'La questione politico-religiosa dei Libri Carolini: Oriente e occidente a confronto sulle icone', Nicolaus 15 (1988): 253-264; for further references, Alberto Melloni, 'L'Opus Caroli regis contra synodum 0 Libri Carolini', Studi medieoali 29.2 (1988): 873-886. 5 - The acta of II Nicaea are printed in Mansi, Concilia 12, cols. 9851154 and 13, cols. 1-758; for an annotated English translation of the sixt~ session of the council, which deals with the question of images, Damel J. Sahas, Icon and Logos: Sources in Eighth-Century Iconoclasm (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986). 6 - For the latest reconstruction of the sequence of events, see Freeman, 'Carolingian Orthodoxy'. 7 - The text of the LC is available as Libri Carolini sive Caroli Magni Capitulare de imaginibus, ed. Hubert Bastgen, :HGH, Legum sectio 3, Concilia tomi 2, Supplementum (Hanover, 1924). On 793 as the date of completion, Freeman, 'Carolingian Orthodoxy'; on the question of the author of the LC, Ann Freeman, 'Theodulf of Orleans and the Libri Caralini', Speculum 32 (1957): 663-705; and her 'Further Studies in the Libri Carolini', Speculum 40 (1965): 203-289; Paul Mevvaert 'The Authorship of the Libri Carolini. Observations Prompt~d by 'a Recent Book', Revue benedictine 79.1-2 (1979): 29-57. On Charlemagne's duty to defend, LC, Praefatio, pp. 2.26-3.5; on divisive innovation, p. 3. 10-14; on defining the proper object of worship, pp. 3.36-4-.27. 8 - LC, 1.5PP. 18f, covers this point, and much of the rest of Liber I is given over to critical remarks about the biblical exegesis underlying the acta of II Nicaea; see especially, 1.9, pp. 26ff; 1.11-12, PP·30ff; 1.14, pp. 33f; 1.l6-17, pp. 37-42; 1.19-27, pp. 44-56. 9 - LC,. Praefatio, p. 3.15ff, on the Council of 754- in Constantinople; Praefatio, p. 3. 16f; 2.9, p. 70.18-22; 2.21, p. 80.29[, on the use of images as decorations; Praefatio, p. 3. 16f; 1.10, p. 29.3-14; 2.9, p. 70.18-22; 2.21, p. 80.29[, on the use of images as memorials. 2.9, p. 70.18-22, states Theodulf's view concisely: 'Non igitur nos effigies ob memoriam rerum gestarum et venustatem conditas basilicarum quodammodo abdicamus, cum per Movsen et Salomonem quamquam in typicis figuris, eas factas' fuisse sciamus, sed' earum insolent iss imam vel potius superstitiosissimam adorationem cohibemus, quam neque per patriarch as neque per propheras neque per apostolos neque per apostolicos viros uspiam institutam esse repererimus'. 2.23, p. 82 ,30fT, on the use of images in teaching; see also 2.13, p. 73.18-20, which provides at least a hypothetical case in which an image was used to teach. 10 - LC, 2.23, p. 82, especially lines 19fand 30fT: 'Frangi ergo non debuit, quod non ad adorandum in ecclesiis, sed ad instruendas solummodo mentes fuit nescientium conlocatum ... quia picturae imaginum, quae ad aedificationem inperiti populi factae fuerant, ut nescientes litteras ipsam historiam intendentes, quod dictum sit, discerent ... .' These are quotations from a letter of Pope Gregory I to Bishop Serenus of Marseilles, Gregory I, Registrum, 11.10, Norberg, ed. CCSL J4oA, pp. 873-876. In relation to this question, Celia Chazelle, The Cross, the Image and the Passion in Carolingian Thought and Art (PhD dissertation, Yale University, 1985), especially pp. 106ff; and her 'Matter, Spirit and Image in the Libri Carolini', especially at 179, for her argument that, despite the use Theodulf makes of the letter of Gregory I, he did not mean to endorse the idea that religious art might be used for didactic purposes.



p. 73,1 B-2}, in which Theodulf discusses the slOty about Bishop Silvester and Emperor C,ll1staIHine; d. U;;, '1-01;), p. 20J. ~9-:H, Ior another example of Theodull's awareness of the implications of the Pauline,aliment<\<y metaphors lor the didactic lise of images. Certainly Theodulf's tone in rela tion to the didactic use of Images is ar best c_oncessive, hutsome. of what he says does 'seem to fa II. within a tradition of WeSleITL pastoral Lho~lght 0.11 teaching all d indoctrination. Bede, for example, had laid special emphasis on the slow progress of the gentiles in the faith: Glenn W. Olsen, 'Bede as Historian: The Evidence from his Observations on the Life of the First Christian Community at Jerusalem', journal of Ecclesiastical
L2 -


I.e, 2.13,

2.22. PP' 80r.

History 33 (,g8,;»: S '9-530. especially al 523-526 and 5.3°; and his 'From Bede to !11('~ Anglo-Saxon Presence in the Carolingian 'Empire', in Angli t Sassoniai tli qua C (11til l?J riel man, ';l vols. Seuimon« di sWdi tld centro italian» di studi sl,liJ'allo mediowa 32, 1985 (Spoleto; Presso la sedc del entre, (986) vol I, pp. 3'1lfr"1l82,especially at pp. 35+1'and 368ff. '3 - Gert H a endler, )<'PPCiltH !r,a/,h/i,lgisduJ' TI!eQ/ogie. Eine Unlusucfmng iJb6rdi~ karollllgucJl"" Olltl!dt!~'1 ~m!lilJiscMn Bi/elmMdl (BCTlil1: Ev~.ngelische Verlagsanstalt, 1958), pp. ,()7~73, on the q uearion the Latin. unnslation of [J Nicaca's 'Iaueia' arid 'proskYllcsis'; sec also, Stephen Gero, 'The Libri Carolini and the Image Controversy', The


,vIIOG 57 ([949): 83-122; Heinrich Flchuena:u 'Z R' . im fruheren Mittelalter', JIIlOO 60 (19~~)' 6~ .u~, e11quICIl\"es.~1 . . ~ . . 9, uecrm"nn. Mascard, Les reliques des saints, pp. 8q.-87 arid I"S- 10 " n, ", , F'L / 2, Palrlck J G earl', urta sacra. Thefts of Relics in Ihe C.n!rut ,IIIid.lI" ,,' e diti Ilion (P'nnceton, N ew Jersev: Princeton UnlV .' ate ) get.' revised . _ .' . (:lSlty Prc!;s, 19"0) pp. 40-:JO. '" , 26 - On the distinction between 'adorailo' which' d and 'veneratio' which is due to the saints and tl I!. lJ1 only to God ..e '. , terr I'e ies but /;) images, see LC, Praefatio, pp. 5.27-13.3:', .. nos via .". n. t to . . .. . . . m regl<Ull teller' msutuit, Imagmes in ornamentis ecclesiarum et '." .~ nreTll0l1a n:.rwn gestarum habentes et solum Deum adoranles el -' . . ..' . ems san<:t1s opportunam veneration em exhibente .,.! S~ also '2~ • 'Quia igitur sol us Deus adorandus sit mart\"'eo4. t r p. 2~6.18m . ... • I' " Veto vel qullil sancti verierandi POtlUS smt quam adorandl .... ' S ee'a1 so 4 p. 217.14f: 'Adoratur enim Deus ... l!enCrantu _ . ' .. 23, · . .. . . .r ~a[[cti., '1m C sec I cum triumphis mentorum mlgravenmt., sed nee ado" . Ll 0 divino ... .' On the similarities between Laun ' ta~ de.bent culiu , k ., H ' ". veneralJ(j' and Gr<l<:l" pros ynesis see, aendler, Epochen, pp, 67-73'1" ~ .. . '" . ' a so ~'$elUJ.for background information IS Pelikan, Cluirliall. Traditi \,' , . MOIl, .01 2 TI Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-/7(/0) (C'hic'a.g"· U· ..,. ie ~" 11iVerllItyof Chicago Press, 1974), pp. 91-145. ..
27 - Freeman, 'Carollngian Orthodoxy' especiall . , . ' y pp. 106ff: W den Stemen, Entst hungsgesehichre der Libri C I'" ,. von . ... aro tn, , Quellen und Forschungeti aus • Itatun!1Ch~li· ilrdlivl!'/l und Bibliotheke n 21 ( 1929 3 ) ' 93,atp.87. ' -0:128 - The decrees of the Council of Paris in 82,. a _'. .' . , ib II ' hat was carri .... Ie recordc-d In a It e us t at was carried to Louis the Pious for hl . ,.,. IS approval and . an epitome that was written for Pope Eugenius [I Al ~ 111 several other associated documents, the two 'ill' "d: d ollg WIth .. . C cite as COlltil' Pnrisiense. 825 .• Hense novembri, JtfGH tllm . . ," " pp. 473~551. Tw Important studies that treat the acla ofPa·I··I·S < ~acn d Itt h.'po I are H . . pp. 43-55 and 102-138, and Chazelle, TI!~ Cros; II 1 ,- C "'n, Passion, pp. 210-227. . " ie. lJIaRd m14 1m:.
A . •


Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 18 (1973): 7-34, at p. 10. 14 - I.C, 3.24, pp. J 53.36-154.11 and p. 155· 10-19: 'Sicut igitur sacra tis rebus - sive quae per legislatorem sive quae per Dei et hominum Mediatorem sacratae sunt, sive etiam que quotidie a sacerdotibus divini hominis invocatione sacrantur et in mysterium nOSITC redemptionis surnuntur - imagines nequll.quanl coaequa,nde sunt ita etiarn nee siLllctOf'wn martvrum seu confessorurn reliquiis, quae apud fideles ipsorum amore vene rationi habentur, coacquancle credumer. QUIll> quidem iIIi, qui in earum adorationern flxarsenmt 'ClJ]]1 omnibns sacraris rebus et mysteriis plenis aequiperare nitantur, reliquiis etiam sanctorum marty rum insolenter atque absurde aequiperare nituntur.' 15 - LC, 2.29, pp. 91f. 16 - LC, 2.28, pp. 89ff; see Chazelle,

The Cross, the Image and the

Passion, pp. 107-115, 17 - LC, 2.27, pp. 87ff. 18 - LC, 3.21, p. 146.3Iff, p. 148.11 fT;3.25, p. 155·35f; 4.12, p. 193· 18, on miracles. 19 11.'25, p. 84-.3-7, on 'Ecclcsiastica '20 - The symbol of the Cross was in some Jaroslav Pelikan, Th« ChristioJl Trndiunn: I DQ(:lrI:nc, Vol. 3, Growt!! q/ .~hd;.uat Theology

29 - The letter survives .and is edited as .IIichaee IS et Tli eophili . . 1, imperaiorum constantinopoliianorum epistola ad Hludo' . W'cum lmperalorem directa, MGH, ConcAK 1.2, pp. 475-480. 30 - Dungal, Rt.tponsa contm. /JI:iversas Clo;urfii Tour' . . . . 0," IJUIn,I'1S epacopi seni.m!t1af. " u 10.5; col. 45BC:; W:alafrid Strabo • L 'd us d e exordiis t 'b'll incrtm~rui; rerum. ecdesiasticarum; 8 MOH C~p 2 n e 31 - The letter to Jon"8 and Jexemy survives and is . .. HI h ... prillted as Iii u d ow!a et 01 am imperatorum episiola ad Hierem' S .. . lam enonensem archiepiscopum et Ionam Aurelzanensem episcopum dire cta, .v, f/ Con AK LIG 1.2, pp. 532f. ' c 3"2- On [he relationship between imagesand reli L'" I Lf C _." ~ _ ...... les, '"~ II" i)il/belillis J,fG''", .• nlJ11'>. -, c. :J3·2Q--1t9·em [h~ pP'''}er use r' o ' · ". .' ' .~I 0 nuages, Ralib p. 52(5.5-12; see also the references ro the letters of G. ". ' Bishop Serenus, c. I I, C. 12, Auctcruas: PI) .,87' BB,~gC)ry, to I "T ,·f ;;)27 1-_ respecuveb . ' '.) < I, 33 - In addition to the endorsem nt given '" til e . J .,. .. ~ '(Ieas or Gr '0 '1 on this su bject, see Libellus synodalis, Ratio, ]). -.~6, 9"' , .. eg l') . · ib .d :J " .. " [r1I'lll.O'lnesl nescienti us vcro pro erus em pietaris dOttrina .lc P , , SIC '1' _ ;. p. rae vel ficla.e SUlIt . ... ce a so, onci rum, p. :)3 J.32~· lllIl~ ~[ ] . . . .. .' ... sClcntibu8 pro pia memona, nesCienubus vero pro doctina lltiks [oranl ' 3+ - Freeman, 'Carolingian OrthOdoxy' p 106 " ' .. note f 54... 3::> There are senous problems U1. <yu,k_tl:Q\vledgc01' , I ',. . b I. .. audlU~ VICI an d actIOns ecause liS wntmgs 011.. this suhiect ".1 . " . ate lIn v known in the form of excerpts made by his adversaMi$' The '.. . . .' text, pTlJ~Led a~ A po Logetlcum atque resmptum ClaUl!i! ~jii.'0!Pi od_sa TI .. ". ....f "~lltm!rum'llbbalel!! .HGH, EKA 3, pp. 610-613, IS a t"O,npllatlon . ... ' . Pass<lg<:stiled by Dungal, Respon,a contra peruersas CIQudu TauTillensis ',J,' ," • _I __ ,~1'1St;J}1i! Sl!nt'lZ1ias Pl [0:>, co s. 46:)-:>30, and Jonas ofOrie'ans D. ".III" ,' 11 lmagmllln PL 106 cols. 305-388. J onas of Orleans dicl nOt haVe aG~ '1' ' . . , . yess 10 tIe . L!h.l1lJs " that Claudius sent to Theutmir but knew onlY ' , .:' '" quoddll,ln ,. ex eo excerptum ... apparently produc~d hy· the 'sarna '. prudentissimis viris ... ' at the court of Louis th P' .. e 10USwho had
_ • • .' I ' ).




p, cj.o3·


norma institutioni •... .' ways c:>,co;prionaL.Se Hi~tory of the D'V6Iol"'ltmt of (6()(F"f300) (Chi cago:

NOTES I - Ann Freeman, 'Carolingian Orthodoxy and the Fate of the Libri Carolini', Viator 16 (1986): 65-108, at 1042 - Although the present essay focuses narrowly on saints' relics, the treatment owes much to the ground breaking work of two recent authors who have begun to explore the role of holy objects in the image controversy. Celia Chazelle, 'Matter, Spirit and Image in the Libri Carolini', Recherches augustiniennes 2 I (1986): 163-184; and Alba Maria Orselli, 'Controversia iconoclastica e crisi del simbolismo in occidente fra VIII e IX seeolo', in Culto delle immagini e crisi iconoclasta. Atti del Convegno di studi Catania /6-'7 ,'v/aggio /984. (Palermo: Edizioni dell' Opera Universitaria per la Facolta Teologica de Sicilia'S. Giovanni Evangelista', 1986), pp. 93-116. 3 - The resemblance between the devotional use of holy relics in the West and the devotional use of holy images in Byzantium has of course been noted in the past. Yet the awareness of that resemblance has not prompted a sustained discussion of the western texts treated here. See the classic studies of Andre Grabar, },Jartyrium. Recherches sur Ie culte des reliques et I'art chretien antique, 2 vols. (Paris: 1946; Reprint edition, London: Variorum Reprints, 1972), II, pp, 343-357, especially at pp. 356f; and Ernst Kitzinger, 'The Cult of Images in

University of Chicago Press, 1978), pp. I 29ff. 2 I _ Nicole Herrmann-Mascard, Les reliques des saints: formation anuumiere d'un droit (Paris: Klincksieck, 1975), pp. 143-168. 22 - Robert A. Markus, 'The Cult of Icons in Sixth Century Gaul', jaumal of Tlualugical: S!lidias, 2'9 (1978): 151-1.57; LCOJl.idOusp",ns~y, leon and Art', Iraml~tted by Larissa Pavear, in Bernard MeG·lnn, John lvleyendorff and] eari Leclerq, eds. Ck1"i!lu!!Jo SpirilMlibr. Origin" 10 I/iA TII;~lfi" Cl!inlw")'(N'ew York: Crossroad, Ig8S), pp. 382-'393; Kilzinger, 'The Cult of 1mages .ifl tf1.e A.g:cbefore. [conocia!lm'. 23 - Eric 'N, Kemp, Cli.7101iiVllilHl alld AltllwrilJl in,lild VI'e.ri(tII Churdl (,London: Oxford LJflivers~ty Press., [91.8) reprim editioll (W'stporr Conn.: Hypcrioll Books, 1979); Andre Vauchcz, La sainleteen occW."t dJiX' dRrrtiers si&l~s du mtry"" ag~ d'~/Jt~s les pm.;'s de c(Yw]JJsa~um Itt /is documents hagiographiques (Rome, 1981) Bibliotheque des ecoles franc;ais d'ALHI:.ns el cle Rome, 241. 24 - Peter Brown, 'Reli.cs and Social Status in the Age of Gregory of Tours', 1976 Slert1'on Li:.cLtl-re,Reading University, 1977; reprinted in his Society .awi the Ho!J i'l LlIle,Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982), pp. 222-250. 25 - For discussions of, and references to this legislation, see Leo Mikoletzky, 'Sinn und Art der Heiligung im frilhen Mittelalter',

or' . ....



D A V I D F.




examined and condemned the Libellus, See the letter of dedication for Jonas' De cultu imaginum, ll;fGH, EKA 3, p. 354; see also De cultu imaginum, PL 106, col. 312C, on the size of Claudius' Libellus, which Jonas believed to have been larger than the Psalter, and the title of the excerpted version, which Jonas identifies as Apologeticum a/que rescriptum Claudii episcopi adversus Theodemirum abbatem. Although Paulino Bellet, 'El Liber de imaginibus sane/Drum bajo eI nombre de Agobardo de Lyon obra de Claudio de Turin', Analeeta sacra Tarraconensia 26 (1953): 151-194, at p. 189, rightly emphasizes the limitations of Apologeticum atque rescriptum Claudii episcopi adversus Theutmirum abbatem as a reliable source on Claudius' thought and activities, in the present context the issue is moot, since we do know how Jonas of Orleans, Dungal and others interpreted Claudius' views, and since it was their interpretation of Claudius' ideas that influenced the debate over religious art in the West during the first half of the ninth century. 36 - Apologeticum atque rescriptum Claudii episcopi adversus Theutmirum abbatem, Jl;[GH, EKA 2, p. 61 1.14-18: 'Et ideo sciendum est summopere, quia non solum qui visibilia figmenta atque imagines colit, sed etiam quamlibet sive caelestem sive terrenam, sive spiritalem sive corpoream creaturam vice nominis Dei colit et salutem animae suae quae a solo Deo est, ab iIlis sperat, de illis est, de quibus dicit apostolus: "Et coluerunt et servierunt creaturae potius quam creatori" [Romans 1:25]'. See also, p. 610.36f: 'Adorare est laudare, venerare, rogare, pre care, supplicare, invocare, precem effundere.' 37 - Apologeticum atque rescriptum Claudii episcopi adversus Theutmirum abbatem, MGH, t1<.A 2, p. 611.27-3Y 'De cruce ad locum. Sed dicunt isti falsae religionis atque superstitionis cultores: "Nos ob recordationem salvatoris nostri crucem pictarn atque in eius honore imaginatam colimus, veneramur atque adoramus." Quibus nihil aliud placet in salvatore nostro, nisi quod et impiis placuit: obprobrium passionis et inrisio mortis. Hoc de illo credunt quod et impii homines, sive Iudaei sive pagani, qui eum resurrexisse diffidunt et non noverunt de illo aliud cogitare, nisi eum tortum et mortuum et semper in passione positum in corde suo credunt et retinent, et non attendunt neque intellegunt quod ait apostolus: "Etsi noveramus secundum carnem Christum, sed nunc iam non novimus" [2 Cor. 5:16].' On pilgrimage to Rome, see pp. 612.42-613.8. 38 - Although the surviving excerpts of Claudius' book do not make this point explicit, Jonas of Orleans mentions reports from witnesses he considered reliable that this was Claudius' view, and says that in any case he believes that the surviving excerpts of Claudius' book commit Claudius to such a view: De cultu imaginum, PL 106, col. 31 IBC. Dungal understood Claudius to mean something along the same lines: Responsa contra peroersas Claudii Taurinensis episcopi sententias, ivlGH, EKA 2, p. 584.3-6. Claudius had written, Apologeticum atque rescripta Claudii episcopi adversus Theutmirum abbatem, lvIGH, EKA 2, p. 611 .6ff: 'Certe si adorandi fuissent homines, vivi potius quam mortui adorandi esse debuerunt, id est, ubi similitudinem Dei habent, non ubi pecorum, vel, quod verius est, lapidum vellignorum, vita sensu et ratione carentem.' Jonas understood this statement as a sign of Claudius' contempt for the relics of saints, De cultu imaginum, PL 106, cols. 326CD-329BC, at 326CD. 39 - Apologeticum atque rescriptum, llvfGH, EKA 2, pp. 611.36-612.2 I. 40 - The letter of dedication is printed as Responsa contra peruersas Claudii Taurinensis episcopi sententias, MGH, EKA 2, pp. 583f: c ••• ac diviso in duas partes populo, de observationibus ecclesiasticis, hoc est de imagine dominacae passionis et san eta pictura, murmurantes et contendentes catholici, dicunt bon am et utilem esse picturam et pene tantumdem proficere ad eruditionem, quantum et sacrae litterae, hereticus econtra cum parte a se seducta dicunt: Non, sed seductio est erroris et idolatria. Talis de cruce contentio habetur catholicis dicentibus, quod bona et sancta sit, vexillumque triumphale et signum perpetuae salutis; pars adversa cum suo magistro econtra

respondet: non, sed obprobrium tan tum passionis et inrisio mortis in ea continentur et ostenditur ac memoratur. Pari ratione de memoriis sanctorum causa oration is adeundis et reliquiis eorum venerandis obnituntur, aliis adfirmantibus bonam et religiosam esse consuetudinem basilicas marty rum frequentare, ubi eorum sacri cineres et sancta corpora quasi quaedam uenerabilia vasa a Deo acceptabilia, in quibus omnigena pro fide Christi tormenta sunt usque ad mortem perpessi, cum honors eorum meritis congruo condita ... alii vero resistunt dicentes sanctos post obitum nullum adiuoare nullique posse intercedendo succurrere .. .' (Emphasis added); see also the body of the treatise which is printed as Responsa contra perversas Claudii Taurinensis episcopi sententias, PL 105, cols. 447-532, at col. 472AB, which also shows that both Dungal and Caludius associated the two problems. 41 - On this see Claudio Leonardi, 'Gli irlandesi in Italia. Dungal e la controversia iconoclasta', in Heinz Liiwe, ed., Die Iren und Europa in Jriiheren Mittelalter, 2 vols. (Stuttgart: Klett, (982), Vol. 2, pp. 746757, at pp. 756f. 42 - Responsa, PL 105, col. 472AB: 'Quibus nos et contra respondemus, quia neque sanctorum imagines in parietibus pictas, neque eorum corpora in sepuleris condita sicut Deum adoramus, neque eis sacrificia ponimus, quod est adeo abominabile .... ' 43 - Responsa, PL 105, cols. 481BC and 484CD. 44 - Responsa, PL 105, col. 468; Gregory I, Registrum I I. 10, CCSL 140a, pp. 873-876. 45 - Responsa, PL 105, cols. 502A-506D; on reading, cols. 504CD and 506BC; Augustine, De civitate Dei, XXII.8, CCSL 48, pp. 815-827. 46 - Responsa, PL 105, col. 501CD; Augustine, De cura pro mortuis gerenda 16.19, PL 40, cols. 606f. 47 - Responsa, PL 105, col. 475CD and 476, especially 476C: 'Cognovimus, immo vidistis ipsi multos a daemoniis purgatos, et plurimos etiam ubi vestem sanctorum manibus contigerunt, his quibus laborabant debilitatibus absolutos; reparata vetusti temporis miracula, quo se per adventum Domini Jesu gratia terris maior infunderat umbra quadam sanctorum corporam plerosque sanctos cernitis.' Cf. Ambrose, Ep. 22, PL 16, cols. 1020-1026. 48 - Responsa, PL 105, col. 474BC: ' ... quantum eas aliquando cum maiori ambitione reverentiorique dignitate transtulisse atque honorasse videntur .. .', speaking of the treatment of relics by Christian rulers, bishops and faithful; the quotation from Jerome occurs at 474CD. Cf. Jerome, Liber contra Vigilantium, PL 23, col. 343CD. 49 - It is worth noting that while Dungal's treatment of images in the Responsa was distinctly different from that of the LC, it accorded well with the views expressed in about 790 by Pope Hadrian I in response to the so-called Capitulare adversus synodum, the first Frankish reaction to the acta of II Nicaea. Hadrian's response, lvIGH, EKA 3, pp. 5-57· Hadrian argues that images and relics may be venerated and even adored without engaging in idolatry, c. 12, p. 19.30ff; c. 5, p. 16.2f; c. 26, p. 27.35, among other places. He also anticipated Dungal's view by relying on the various shades of meaning in words such as 'adorari': such is the implication of c. 54, p. 40 and c. 34, p. 31 f. Hadrian does not, however, dwell on the pastoral or didactic implications of this line of thought for the saints' cult, even though he quotes passages from the works of Gregory I and the PseudoDionysius the Areopagite emphasizing the didactic value of images, c. 10, p. 46; c. 36, pp. 32.30-33+ This is because his main purpose is to dispute the Frankish assertion that the only appropriate uses for religious images are aesthetic, commemorative and perhaps didactic; he discusses the cult of saints only incidentallv. Leonardi elaborates the larger issues at stake here at greater length than the present discussion allows; see his, 'Gli irlandesi in Italia', pp. 751-757. For discussions of Hadrian's response see, Von den Steinen, 'Entstehungsgeschichte', pp. 50-59, and Freeman, 'Carolingian Orthodoxy', pp. 87-92. 50 - It is not clear whether Jonas participated in the meeting at Paris in 825. In any event, he must have been familiar with and

sympathetic to the contents of the Libellus synodalis, because Louis the Pious entrusted him and Jeremy of Sens with the task of revising it and presenting the Epitome to Pope Eugenius II. On this see above, note 3 I. De cultu imaginum is printed in PL 106, cols. 305-388. The dedicatory letter addressed to Charles the Bald is printed in .I1GH, EKA 3, pp. 353-355, which includes Jonas' account of the circumstances of the work's composition. Unfortunately, the surviving sources provide little information on Claudius' followers. In his dedicatory letter, ,UGH, EKA 3, p. 354.31-37, Jonas writes that he put the work aside when news of Claudius' death reached him but took it up again when he heard a report that ' ... non modo error, de quo agitur, in discipulorum suorum mentibus reviviscit .. .'. 51 - De cultu imginum, PL 106, col. 3JOD: 'Unde imrnoderato et indiscreto zelo succensus, non solum picturas sanctarum rerum gestarum, quae non ad adorandum, sed solummodo (teste beato Gregorio) ad instruendas nescientium mentes, in ecclesiis suis antiquitas fieri perrnisae sunt ... '; see also col. 326AB. 52 - De cultu imaginum, PL 106, cols. 375D-376A: 'Novimus namque et ab initio nascentis Ecclesiae, et usque ad ejus terminum perseveraturum non dubitamus, ut paucos habeat qui doctrina praefulgeant, plures autem qui simplicitate contenti, ea quae operanda agnoscunt, sibi sufficere ad salutem, solummodo credant. Quorum simplicitas hostium sanctae Ecclesiae semper patet derisioni, ut quia minoris fortitudinis ad repugnandum creduntur, primum in eis veluti fragilia proterantur antemuralia, ut liberior patcat via ad concutienda sanctae civitatis Ecclesiae moenia. Ideoque tu, 0 Claudi, tanquam hostis reliquiarum apostolicarum, primum ab earum dilectione revocare animos quaeris simplicium, ut, paulatim cessante ineruditorum frequentia, veneni tui frigus extinguere queat ignem amoris in eorum etiam cordi bus qui caeteris praestare cernuntur. Hoc est enim quod agere conaris, dicens cum arrogantiae fastu, imperitum hominum genus pro acquirenda vita aeterna postponere omnem spiritalem intelligentiam verbis Dominicis, et velie pergere Romam.' Cf. Claudius, Apologeticum atque rescriptum Claudii episcopi adversus Theutmirum abbatem, MGH, EKA 2, p.612·42-46. 53 - Between 825 and 840, the main shift in Jonas' doctrinal commitment is one of emphasis rather than content. In light of the works of Claudius and Dungal, by 840 Jonas was forced to emphasize the various shades of meaning implicit in the concepts of 'adoratio' and 'cultus'. See De cultu imaginum, PL 106, cols. 319, 322DF, 329, for instance. This amounts to a departure from the spirit of the Le and the Libellus synodalis of Paris in 825, or at least their rhetoric, which highlighted Frankish orthodoxy by insisting that God alone and no part of his creation is worthy of human worship. This earlier rhetoric had been aimed at Greek and western image worshippers who, some Frankish theorists felt, either themselves engaged in idolatry or encouraged others to do so. After Claudius pointed out that relics, like images, are a part of God's creation and thus also not worthy of the highest form of religious worship, even the Frankish advocates of the doctrine of the LC had to rely on a more generous notion of 'worship' in order to account for the western church's traditional veneration of the saints. This shift in emphasis, however, weakened the rhetorical thrust of the views expressed in the LC and the Libellus synodalis of Paris in 825 even if it did not actually entail a shift in underlying doctrinal principle. 54 - De cultu imaginum, PL 106, col. 328BC: ' ... sanctorum corpora pretiosa sint, et a cunctis fidelibus veneranda et honoranda ... .' 55 - De cultu imaginum, PL ro6, cols. 334C-335B, on Christ according to the flesh and the vindicating belief in the Trinity. 56 - This may help explain why Jonas labels Claudius an Arian and associates him with the Spanish Adoptionists: kIGH, EKA 3, p. 354f, on Arianism; De cultu imaginum, PL 106, cols. 309f, for Adoptionism.

On the relationship between Trinitarian and Christological questions and the debate over religious images, Haendler, Epochen. An excellen t account of some of the implications of De cultu imaginum in relation to Jonas' ecdesiology and the ninth-century controversy over the Eucharist is Orselli, 'Controvcrsia iconoclastica e crisi del simbolismo' . 57 - De cultu imaginum, PL 106, cols. 341f. 58 - Jonas of Orleans, Translatio saneti Huberti, Acta sanetorum 64, 3 November, p. 81 7C; and his Vita sancti Huberti, Acta sanciorum 64·, 3 November, pp. 80SE-S09. Jonas was aware of the pastoral and didactic function of the saints' cult and the solemn transferal of saints' relics. See Vita sancti Huberti, pp. 809CE and 809E-SIOC. 59 - Despite his remark that, 'When once controversy had been artificially aroused it found the question of relics as vital as that of pictures', Edward James Martin, .It History of the Iconoclastic Controuersy (London: Macmillan, (930), p. 226, Martin gives priority in his discussion of the ninth-century phase of the controversy in the West to images and not relics. Martin's approach is typical of many modern studies of the western controversy. See also Stephan Beissel, Die Verehrung der Heiligen und ihrer Reliquien in Deutschland im .Hillelalter (Fribourg, (890); reprint edition (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1976), pp. 49-62. See note 3 above for further references. 60 - Martin Heinzelmann, Translationsberichte und andere Quellen des Reliquienkultes (Turnhout: Brepols, (979), pp. 94-99. Though in some respects dated, Mikoletzky, 'Sinn und Art der Heiligung im Iruhen Minelaltcr', especially pp. 97-102, for a list of some Carolingian era translations. Einhard's translation narrative is edited as Translatio et miracula sanctorum Marcellini et Petri auctore Einhardo, G. Waitz, ed., IHGH, SS 15. I, pp. 238-264. 61 - For a recent discussion of one aspect of the issue, and for further references, see Alain Dierkens, 'La christianisation des campagnes de I'empire de Louis Ie Pieux: L'example du diocese de Liege sous l'episcopat de Walcaud (c. 80g-c. 831)', in Peter Godman and Roger Collins, eds. Charlemagne's Heir: New Perspectives on the Reign oj Louis the Pious (814-840) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), pp. 30g-329· 62 - LC 2.27, p. S7f, arguing that 'artificum industria' cannot change the material of which images are made in a way comparable to the transformation of the elements of the Eucharist; LC 3.24, p. 154, rejecting any equation of contact relics, such as clothing and objects owned by saints, and images: although both are man-made, contact relics are holy because of their physical proximity to holy people, not because of the artisan's labor in producing them. See also, Jonas, De cultu imaginum, PL 106, col. 329CD, agreeing with Claudius that no 'opera manuum hominum' are entitled to worship. For a recent discussion of the question of 'acheiropoictai', or 'images not made by human hands', see Hans Belting, BUd und Kult, pp. 60-91. 63 - For full references to these legal measures, see Geary, Furta Sacra, pp. 40-50; Herrmann-Mascard, Les reliques des saints, pp. 84-87. 64 - See, for example, Klaus Guth, Guibert von Nogent und die hochmiuelalterliche Kritik an der Reliquienoerehrung (Ottobeuren: Kommissionsverlag Winfried-Werk GmbH Augsburg, (970), pp. 14-35· 65 - Rosamond McKitterick, The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms,78g-895 (London: Royal Historical Society, (977); Hans Liebeschiitz, 'Wesen und Grenzen der karolingischen Rationalismus', Archiv fur Kulturgeschichte, 33. I (1971): 17-44; Walter Ullmann, The Carolingian Renaissance and the Idea oj Kingship (London: Methuen, (969), pp. 1-20. 66 - Friedrich Prinz, 'Stadtromisch-italische frankischer Reichsadel im Maas-Moselraurn', (1967): 1-25. Martyrerreliquien und Historische f ahrbuch, 87