«Credere Virginem in Corde Per Fidem». Images of Mary in the Libri Carolini

Home , Council of Aachen, Council of Frankfurt, Homiliarium

«CREDERE VIRGINEM IN CORDE PER FIDEM». IMAGES OF MARY IN THE LIBRI CAROLINI

Diego Ianiro

References to the Virgin Mary are quite rare in the writings produced at the court of Charlemagne before 794.1 With the doubtful exception of marian sermons gathered in the homiliary of Paul the Deacon, among the works released between the Admonitio generalis (789) and the Council of Frankfurt (794) it is possible to find several mentions of the Mother of God only in the Libri Carolini.2 Paul’s homiliary was in fact commissioned by Charlemagne, as it is clearly stated in its prefatory letter known as Karoli epistola generalis,3 in a period that cannot be determined with precision: in recent scolarship it ranges approximately from 786, the year before Paul’s return to Monte Cassino, to 796/799,4 the alleged date of his death. Moreover, as the homiliary still awaits a

23RD INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF BYZANTINE STUDIES, BELGRADE 23 AUGUST 2016. Thematic Sessions of Free Communications: New Feasts, New Sermons: The Cult of Mary on the Eve of Iconoclasm, in Byzantium and Beyond (Faculty of Philology, Room 11 - 15.30) 1 The amount of bibliography about Latin mariology in Early Middle Ages can be overwhelming; for this reason a reasoned selection of reference works could be useful here. On Carolingian mariology cf. L. SCHEFFCZYK, Das

Mariengeheimnis in Frömmigkeit und Lehre der Karolingerzeit, Leipzig 1959 (Erfurter theologische Studien, 5); I.

SCARAVELLI, Per una mariologia carolingia: autori, opere e linee di ricerca, in Gli studi di mariologia medievale: bilancio storiografico, Atti del I convegno mariologico della Fondazione Ezio Franceschini (Parma, 7-8 November 1997), ed. C. M. Piastra, Firenze 2001 (Millennio medievale, 26), pp. 65-85. For a collection of marian prayers and liturgical texts cf. H. BARRÉ, Prières anciennes de l’Occident a la Mère du Sauveur. Des origines à Saint Anselme,

Paris 1963. For marian feasts cf. A.-K. ANDREWS JOHANSSON, Corpus Troporum, 9, Tropes for the Proper of the Mass, 4, Feasts of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Stockholm 1998 (Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis), pp. 11-20. On chants and antiphons cf. S. DEFRAIA, Antifonari e antifone mariane. Mutuazioni, peculiarità e consistenza, in «Theotokos», 21.2

(2013), pp. 429-490. For a general survey on cult and liturgy cf. E. PALAZZO – A.-K. JOHANSSON, Jalons liturgiques pour une histoire du culte de la Vierge dans l’Occident latin (Ve-XIe siècles), in Marie. Le culte de la Vierge dans la société médiévale, eds. D. Iogna-Prat et Al., Paris 1996, pp. 15-43. 2 It’s important to note that the status of «semper virgo» is specified only once where Mary is mentioned in the Admonitio, cf. Admonitio generalis, 82, ed. A. Boretius in MGH, Leges, 3, Capitularia regum francorum, 1, Hannover 1883, [pp. 53-62], p. 61, 32-33. 3 Cf. Karoli epistola generalis, ed. A. Boretius in MGH, Leges, 3, Capitularia regum francorum, 1 cit., pp. 80- 81.

4 For a study on the liturgical context of the Homiliarium cf. Y. HEN, Paul the Deacon and the Frankish liturgy, in Paolo Diacono. Uno scrittore fra tradizione longobarda e rinnovamento carolingio, Atti del convegno internazionale di studi (Cividale del Friuli, 6-9 May 1999), ed. P. Chiesa, Udine 2000, pp. 205-221. According to

modern critical edition, it is not easy to establish the origin and the authorship of the most interesting marian homilies that are included in Patrologia Latina, namely the pseudo-Augustinian In purificatione sanctae Mariae5 (based on Sermo 370 ‘De nativitate domini’6 and taken from Alan of Farfa’s homiliary7) and the In adsumptione sanctae Mariae.8 The latter is listed in Patrologia Latina as the Homilia 45 of the homiliary’s second book,9 even if it has been certainly added to the original collection at a later time.10 As recently demonstrared by Zachary Giuliano and Christopher Hath,11 the marian material in Paul’s ‘original’ homiliary derives almost entirely from Bede’s writings.12 In the same volume of the Patrologia two more marian homilies are gathered as a product of Paul himself: the In assumptione beatae Mariae virginis,13 and the In evangelium:

Zachary Giuliano «Paul completed his homiliary much later than many have suspected: 797-798» (private communication); as it can be deduced from the following pages, I totally agree with him. 5 Cf. [Homiliarium Pauli], II, 8, in PL 95, 1461-1463.

6 Cf. PS.-AUGUSTINUS HIPPONENSIS, [Sermones], 370, in PL 39, 1657-1659; I. MACHIELSEN, Clavis patristica pseudepigraphorum Medii Aevi, 1, Opera homiletica, 2 voll., Turnhout 1990 (CPPM 1A), I, pp. 99-100, 737.

7 It is the Homilia XLVIII, cf. I DEUG-SU, La festa della purificazione in Occidente (secoli IV-VIII), in «Studi medievali», S. 3, 15 (1974), [pp. 143-216], p. 187, rep. in Un ponte fra le culture. Studi medievistici di e per I Deug-Su, eds. C. Leonardi et Al., Firenze 2009 (Millennio medievale, 81), [pp. 211-284], p. 255. On the subject also cf. M.

CLAYTON, The Cult of the Virgin Mary in Anglo-Saxon England, Cambridge 1990 (Cambridge studies in Anglo-Saxon England, 2), p. 212. 8 Cf. [Homiliarium Pauli], II, 45, PL 95, 1490-1497. 9 In in a single manuscript it is also entitled as Sermo beati Augustini episcopi de assumptione gloriosissime virginis Mariae, cf. M. T. WIESER, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung der Werke des Heiligen Augustinus, 8, Belgien, Luxemburg und Niederlande, Wien 2000, p. 290.

10 It’s absent in both reconstructions by Wiegand and Grégoire, cf. F. WIEGAND, Das Homiliarium Karls des

Grossen auf seine ursprüngliche Gestalt hin untersucht, Leipzig 1897, p. 51; R. GRÉGOIRE, Les Homeliaires du Moyen- Age: Inventaire et Analyse des Manuscrits, Roma 1966. In a private communication Zachary Giuliano wrote me that «Carolingian compilers began including material for the Assumption in copies of Paul’s homiliary from at least the second quarter of the ninth century». 11 Organisers (with Eduardo Fabbro) of the session Paul the Diacon: Reform and Renewal at the 21st

International Medieval Congress (Leeds, 6-9 July 2015). See also V. ALLAN, Theological Works of the Venerable Bede and their Literary and Manuscript Presentation, with Special Reference to the Gospel Homilies, University of Oxford 2006 (MLitt thesis).

12 On the importance of Bede for the history of Western Mariology cf., among others, G. D’ONOFRIO, Il mysterium Mariae nella teologia e nella pietà dell’Alto Medioevo latino (secoli V-XI), in Storia della mariologia, 1, Dal modello biblico al modello letterario, eds. E. Dal Covolo – A. Serra, Roma 2009, [pp. 505-566], pp. 520-521. 13 An homily that is also falsely attributed to Maximus of Turin as De nativitate beatae Mariae, cf.

MACHIELSEN, Clavis patristica cit., II, p. 888, 5910.17.

‘Intravit Jesus in quoddam castellum’.14 But Paul’s authorship, even if usually accepted,15 has never been critically verified as it has been done, instead, for the hymn In assumptione sanctae Mariae ad vesperam,16 excluded by Karl Neff from Paul’s corpus of carmina17. Since presently it is not possible to ascertain when, where and by whom these homilies have been written, and moreover there is no reference to them in coeval Carolingian works, they cannot be used as witness to an arising interest in marian theology at the Frankish court in the last decade of the eighth century. The most significant fact about the topics related to the Virgin in the Homiliarium Pauli is that they do not seem to derive directly from, or even allude to Greek sources or translations. This is the reason why it is not possible to agree with Reynold’s statement that Paul the Deacon «like Autpert, was well versed in Greek Mariology». Autpert, a Frankish monk living in central Italy that was known

14 Cf. PS.-PAULUS DIACONUS, Homiliae, I-II, in PL 95, 1565-1569 and 1569-1574. The latter is made of Bede’s quotes as for the marian sermons in the Homiliary, e.g. the passage in 1571B-C is taken from Bede’s In Lucam, cf.

BEDA VENERABILIS, In Lucae evangelium, III, ed. D. Hurst in Opera exegetica, 3, In Lucae evangelium expositio. In Marci evangelium expositio, Turnhout 1960 (CCSL 120), [pp. 5–425], p. 225, 2315-2330, whose source in its turn is

Gregory the Great, cf. GREGORIUS MAGNUS, Homiliae in Hiezechihelem prophetam, II, ii, 8, ed. M. Adriaen, Turnhout 1971 (CCSL 142), p. 230, 187-199. A better version of the sermon In evangelium is found in the Florilegium Casinense, cf. Omelia venerabilis Pauli Diaconi de eadem lectione, in Bibliotheca Casinensis, 2, ed. L. Tosti, Cassino 1875, pp. 52-55.

15 Cf. F. BRUNHÖLZL, Histoire de la littérature latine du moyen âge, I, De Cassiodore à la fin de la renaissance carolingienne, 2, L’époque carolingienne, Turnhout 1991 (RWSMC I, 2), p. 267; A. J. CHUPUNGCO,

Handbook for Liturgical Studies, 5, Liturgical time and space, Collegeville, MN 2000, p. 281; T. GALLO, De cultu mariano apud Paulum Winfridum. (+ 799), in De cultu mariano saeculis VI-XI, 5 voll., Acts of the Mariological congress (SR Hrvatska 1971), Roma 1972, III, pp. 319-328; G. BRAGA, Testimonianze di vita monastica italiana fra nord e sud nell’VIII secolo: Ambrogio Autperto e Paolo Diacono fra S. Vincenzo al Volturno e Montecassino, in Il monachesimo italiano dall’età longobarda all’età ottoniana (secc. VIII-X), Atti del VII Convegno di Studi Storici sull’Italia Benedettina (Nonantola, 10-13 September 2003), ed. G. Spinelli, Cesena 2006, [pp. 509-534], pp. 531-532, and cf. Testi mariani del primo millennio, 3, Padri e altri autori latini, eds. G. Gharib et Al., Roma 1990, pp. 745-756 (with a bibliography on p. 746 and a partial Italian translation of the pseudo-Augustinian In purificatione sanctae Mariae, the Homilia XLV – here oddly called «Omelia 2» – and Paul’s Homilia I). For the manuscript/autorship tradition cf. G. QUADRIO, Il trattato «De assumptione B. Mariae Virginis» dello pseudo-Agostino e il suo influsso nella teologia assunzionistica latina, Roma 1951 (Analecta Gregoriana, 52), pp. 79-82. The homilies are not included in a recent survey on Paul’s works, cf. B. VALTORTA, Clavis scriptorum latinorum Medii Aevi. Auctores Italiae (700-1000), Firenze 2006 (Edizione nazionale dei testi mediolatini 17), pp. 196-219.

16 Cf. PS.-PAULUS DIACONUS, Carmina, LV, ed. E. Dümmler in MGH, Antiquitates, 1, Poetae, 1, Poetae Latini aevi Carolini (I), Berlin 1881, pp. 84-85.

17 Cf. K. NEFF, Die Gedichte des Paulus Diaconus. Kritische und Erklärende ausgabe, München 1908 (Quellen und Untersuchungen zur lateinischen Philologie des Mittelalters 3, 4).

and respected by Paul the Deacon, is in fact acknowledged as the earliest Latin medieval mariologist to have been well aware of the eastern Mariology.18 Perhaps the first steps in a deeper approach to the marian tradition were taken by Charlemagne’s theologians after the so-called Synod of Regensburg in 792.19 During the final redaction of the Libri Carolini, conceived as an official response to the Second Council of Nicea, the new struggle against the Spanish Adoptionism forced the Carolingians to face the Christological question in a wider perspective. In order to defend the orthodox definition of the nature of the Son from the thesis of the archbishop of Toledo, and especially against the writings of a fine theologian such as Felix of Urgell, a further research on patristic and conciliar writings was needed. Such a research inevitably led the Carolingian court scholars to examine in depth the problem of Christ’s human mother.20 Among them, Paulinus of Aquileia was probably the first to understand the relevance of Mary in the economy of the mysterium incarnationis, as it can be inferred from his Libellus sacrosyllabus presented at the Council of Frankfurt.21 But undoubtedly the main promoter of a mariological revival during and soon after the Concil of Frankfurt was Alcuin. In complying with Pope Hadrian’s deep devotion towards Mary,22 the magister of York was the first at

18 B. K. REYNOLDS, Gateway to Heaven: Doctrine and devotion. Image and Typology in the Patristic and Medieval Periods, New York 2012, p. 194 (on this topic see also a specific forthcoming study by Francesca Dell’Acqua). However, Paul was probably aware of Autpert’s works as he considered the abbot of San Vincenzo al

Volturno a «vir eruditissimus», PAULUS DIACONUS, Historia Langobardorum, VI, 40, eds. G. Waitz - E. Bethmann in MGH, Scriptores, 3, SS rer. Lang., 1, Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum saec. VI-IX, Hannover 1878, [pp. 12-219], p. 179, 8.

19 On the synod cf. W. HARTMANN, Die Synoden der Karolingerzeit im Frankenreich und in Italien, Paderborn

1989, pp. 104-105; M. E. MOORE, A Sacred Kingdom: Bishops and the Rise of Frankish Kingship, 300-850, Washington, DC 2011 (Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Canon Law, 8), p. 265. 20 This is the same consideration that moves an intelligent work on the relationship between Felicianism and the renewed cult of Mary in the Frankish kingdom on the eve of the 9th century, cf. J. B. WILLIAMS, The adoptive son of God, the pregnant virgin, and the fortification of the true faith: Heterodoxy, the cult of the Virgin Mary, and Benedict of Aniane in the Carolingian age, Purdue University of West Lafayette, IN 2009 (Ph.D. thesis), esp. pp. 58-71 and 169- 195.

21 Cf. PAULINUS AQUILEIENSIS, Libellus sacrosyllabus episcoporum Italiae, ed. A. Werminghoff in MGH, Leges, 3, Concilia, 2, Concilia aevi Karolini 742-842, 1, 742-817, Hannover 1906, [pp. 130-142], p. 133. 22 In his Epistola ad episcopos Hispaniae Hadrian emphasized, through a quotation from De incarnatione Dei verbi attributed to Athanasius of Alexandria, the role of Mary in giving a human body to the Word of God, cf.

HADRIANUS I PAPA, Epistola ad episcopos Hispaniae, ed. Werminghoff in MGH, Leges, 3, Concilia, 2, Concilia aevi Karolini 742-842, 1, cit., [pp. 122-130], p. 124, 29-40; eight years before, the same passage was used by the Pope in his first letter addressed to the Spanish bishops, cf. Codex Carolinus, 95, ed. W. Gundlach in MGH, Epistolae, 3, Epistolae

Merowingici et Karolini aevi (I), 8, Berlin 1892, [pp. 469-657], p. 638, 8-17; also cf. D. DALES, Alcuin. Theology and

Charlemagne’s court to use extensively marian themes in his works. While in 797 at the Council of Friuli Paulinus reiterated a vision of Mary as wholly and only functional to the true humanity of Christ (naturaliter matri secundum humanitatem),23 Alcuin refined his mariological lexicon and knowledge through a Latin translation of the acts of the Council of Ephesus (431) that he found in a manuscript preserved at Tours (the Collectio Turonensis24, ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Lat. 1572).25 After Autpert, who never belonged to the circle of the court scholars of Charlemagne, Alcuin was the first Carolingian author to emphasize the ever-virginity of Mary. For this purpose he adopted both the three-part formulas: «as a virgin she conceived, as a virgin she gave birth, she remained virgin» (virgo concepit, virgo peperit, virgo permansit),26 and «a virgin before birth, a virgin during birth, a virgin after birth» (virgo ante partum, virgo in partu, virgo post

thought, Cambridge 2013, pp. 76-77. At the Council of Frankfurt the Epistola episcoporum Franciae, of which Alcuin was the leading author (Cf. O. M. PHELAN, The Formation of Christian Europe: The Carolingians, Baptism, and the Imperium Christianum, Oxford 2014, p. 53 and note 20), echoed the same theme through the words of Jerome, cf. Epistola episcoporum Franciae, ed. Werminghoff in MGH, Leges, 3, Concilia, 2, Concilia aevi Karolini 742-842, 1, cit., [pp. 142-157], p. 147, 1-3. Hadrian was the first pope to introduce the tradition of donating textiles depicting the

Assumption, cf. Liber Pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne in Le ‘Liber pontificalis’, 3 voll., Paris 19572, I, p. 500, 1-2; M.

CLAYTON, The Apocryphal Gospels of Mary in Anglo-Saxon England, Cambridge 2004, p. 106.

23 Cf. G. D’ONOFRIO, Il mysterium Mariae cit., p. 524.

24 Cf. E. SCHWARTZ, Praefatio, in ACO 1, Concilium Universale Ephesenum, 3, Collectionis Casinensis sive Synodici a Rustico Diacono compositi, Berlin – Leipzig 1929, pp. ix ff. and p. 2.

25 Cf. J. CAVADINI, The Sources and Theology of Alcuin’s ‘De Fide Santae et Individuae trinitatis’, in

«Traditio», 46 (1991), [pp. 123-146], p. 126 note 11; L. WALLACH, Diplomatic studies in Latin and Greek documents from the Carolingian Age, Ithaca, NY 1977, pp. 343-344; D. DALES, Alcuin cit., p. 67 and p. 150. A mariological quotation from the Epistola ad Epictetum (II, 5) of Athanasius, used repeatedly by the magister (in the Epistola ad Felicem and in both treatises Liber contra Felicis haeresim and Adversus Felicem), comes from this translation, cf. Concilium Universale Ephesenum, ed. Schwartz in ACO 1, 3 cit., pp. 122, 35 – 123, 7. Alcuin’s notations are still visible on the codex, cf. B. BISCHOFF, Aus Alkuins Erdentagen, in «Medievalia et Humanistica», 14 (1962), pp. 31-37, rep. in ID., Mittelalterliche Studien: Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur Schriftkunde und Literaturgeschichte, Bd. II, Stuttgart 1981, pp. 12-19.

26 Cf. ALCUINUS EBORACENSIS, Adversus Felicem, VI, 9, in PL 101, [cols. 119-230], col. 211A, taken from

Sermo 51, cf. AUGUSTINUS HIPPONENSIS, Sermones, LI, 18, ed. F. Dolbeau in Aurelii Augustini opera, XI, 2, Sermones in Matthaeum (LI-LXX), Turnhout 2008 (CCSL 41Aa), [pp. 4-50], p. 30, 525-526. This formula is also present in the Gellone Sacramentary, cf. Liber sacramentorum Gellonensis, ed. A. Dumas, Turnhout 1981 (CCSL 159), cf. p. 95, 22, and in Autpert, cf. AMBROSIUS AUTPERTUS, Sermo in Purificatione sanctae Mariae, 3, CCCM, 27 B, p. 986, ll. 7-10: «sine humana concupiscentia, sine humano concubitu, Virgo concepit, sine aliqua carnis corruptione Virgo peperit et sine fine Virgo permansit, ac per hoc nec masculus ex ea natus uuluam eius aperuit.».

partum).27 Furthermore, quoting from Arnobius the Younger’s Conflictus de Deo Trino et Uno,28 Alcuin introduced in the Carolingian vocabulary the Greek terms Theotokos and Christotokos along with the theological meaning of their difference.29 The well-known Liber sacramentorum Gellonensis belongs to the same period of Alcuin’s antiadoptionist writings.30 With its initial miniature of Mary (Fig. 1), that is one of the earliest Carolingian depictions of the Virgin, this

27 Cf. ALCUINUS EBORACENSIS, De Fide sanctae et individuae Trinitatis, III, 14, eds. E. Knibbs – E. A. Matter in Alcuinus. De fide Sanctae Trinitatis et de incarnatione Christi. Quaestiones de Sancta Trinitate, Turnhout 2012

(CCCM 249), p. 113, perhaps taken from the pseudo-Augustinan De annuntiatione Dominica III, cf. PS.-AUGUSTINUS,

Sermo 195, in PL 39, [cols. 2107-2110], col. 2107; for the proposed attributions cf. MACHIELSEN, Clavis patristica cit.,

I, pp. 191-192, 980. This formula is also present in the hymn Beata dei genitrix et semper virgo Maria, cf. PS.-BEDA,

Homilia 71, PL 94, [cols. 452-453], col. 453A, and in the later sermon Fratres cum aliquid (10th century), cf. PS.-

ILDEFONSUS TOLETANUM, De assumptione beatae Mariae quartus, PL 96, [cols. 258-259], col. 258C; A.-E. URFELS-

CAPOT, Le sanctoral de l’office dominicain (1254-1256), Paris 2007 (Mémoires et documents de l’École des chartes, 84), p. 645. Perhaps such a famous dictum might have originated from an eastern tradition; a very similar sentence in a greek marian laude attributed to Ephrem of Nisibis seems to confirm this hypothesis, cf. PS.-EPHRAEM SYRUS,

Precationes ad Dei Matrem, ed. K. G. PHRANTZOLES in Ὁσίου Ἐφραίμ τοῦ Σύρου, Ἔργα, 6, Thessaloniki 1995, pp. 354-

413, and cf. W. F. BAKKER, The origin of the S. Patris Ephraem Syri Sermo de Sanctissimae Dei Genitricis Virginis Mariae Laudibus (Assemani III: 575-577), in «Byzantion», 74 (2004), [pp. 147-197], p. 159, 16: «Σὺ κατὰ σάρκα τὸν

Θεὸν ἐγέννησας καὶ Λόγον, πρὶν τόκου παρθενεύουσα, παρθένος μετὰ τόκον». Cf. also a passage in AMBROSIUS

AUTPERTUS, Sermo de adsumptione sanctae Mariae, 4, ed. Weber, CCCM 27 B, p. 1029, ll. 11-20.

28 Cf. ARNOBIUS IUNIOR, Conflictus de Deo Trino et Uno, I, 21, ed. K.D. Daur in Arnobius Iunior. Opera minora, Turnhout 1992 (CCSL 25A), pp. 146-147.

29 Cf. ALCUINUS, Adversus Felicem, VI, 9, cit,, cols. 210D-211A; the same text was later re-elaborated in the marian chapter of De fide, cf. ID., De Fide sanctae et individuae Trinitatis, III, 14, cit., p. 113. It’s important to note that the title of Theotokos appears also in Bede, cf. BEDA, In Lucae evangelium, I, i, 35, ed. Hurst cit., p. 34. The use of this term made by Paulinus in his Contra Felicem is less specific than that of Alcuin, cf. PAULINUS AQUILEIENSIS, Contra novellos improbae Felicianae sectae errores, I, 15, ed. D. Norberg in Paulini Aquileiensis Opera Omnia, 1, Contra Felicem Libri Tres, Turnhout 1990 (CCCM 95). Moreover – and despite Norberg’s opinion – the Contra Felicem might have been written even after the Adversus Felicem: the date proposed for the latter is the later part of 798, while the approximate range for Paulinus’s work is 798/800, cf. D. DALES, Alcuin cit., p. 68 (for Adversus Felicem, even if Dales believes that Alcuin made use of the Contra Felicem) and cf. VALTORTA, Clavis scriptorum cit., p. 192 (for Contra Felicem). After the synod of Aachen of 799 also Benedict of Aniane referred to Mary as Theotokos, but he insert the term in a quotation from the Council of Chalcedon, cf. BENEDICTUS ANIANENSIS, Adversus Felicianam impietate, PL

103, [cols. 1399-1411], col. 1406A-C. On the relevance of the use of Theotokos in the Adoptionist controversy cf. J.

PELIKAN, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, 3, The growth of Medieval theology (600- 1300), Chicago 1978, pp. 68-69. The marian passage of De fide was the turning point from which, in latin mariology, the dogma of virginity became as relevant as that of maternity. 30 This illuminated manuscript (ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Lat. 12048) contains a version of the Gelasian sacramentary with some borrowings from the Gregorianum-Hadrianum that the Pope sent to Charlemagne in 784, cf. C. CHAZELLE, The crucified God in the Carolingian era, Cambridge 2001, p. 79.

manuscript proves that the marian theme was fostered in view of the ultimate triumph of Frankish orthodoxy over the Iberian heresy ratified at the Council of Aachen in 799.31 As remarkably demonstrated by Celia Chazelle, even if this depiction of the Virgin responded to the standard canon of Maria regina developed in Rome already in the early sixth century, its solemn appearance embodies Mary’s royal lineage coherently with her acclamations gathered in Alcuin’s De laude Dei.32 The theological research led by Alcuin in accordance with the Papal liturgy, determined the

31 Mary forms the I-initial of the incipit «IN NOM. DNI» on fol. 1v (cf. Liber sacramentorum Gellonensis, ed.

Dumas cit., p. 1), and is the largest image of the codex along with the crucified Christ in fol. 143v, cf. CHAZELLE, The crucified God cit., p. 82. Its leading position in such a valuable liturgical artifact also witnesses a marian renewal in Carolingian liturgy and cult that was complementary to the stilted development of a theology of the Virgin: even if it could seem that Gellone’s Mary represents the Mother of God as the Ecclesiae typus, according to the words of

Ambrose (cf. AMBROSIUS MEDIOLANENSIS, Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam, II, 7, ed. M. Adriaen in Ambrosii Opera, 4, Turnhout 1957 [CCSL 14], p. 33, 104), the concept of the Virgin as archetype and/or ‘mother’ of the Church was unknown to the first generation of Carolingians, cf. K. MEDARD, Mutter Kirke, in Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, 7, eds. W. Kasper et Al., Freiburg 1998, pp. 561-562. So, while the cross she holds resembles the same of the Madonna della Clemenza in Santa Maria in Trastevere (Rome), the censer evokes directly a liturgical practice that perfectly fits with the image of Mary as a mediatrix, in accordance with the clause «intercede pro nobis» that is found in

Alcuin’s marian antiphons (see the following note). For a different interpretation cf. F. LIFSHITZ, Priestly Women, Virginal Men, in Gender and Christianity in Medieval Europe: New Perspectives, eds. L. M. Bitel – F. Lifshitz, Philadelphia, PA 2008, [pp. 87-102], pp. 91-93.

32 Cf. ibid., pp. 81-86; on the same theme also cf. D. RUSSO, Les représentations mariales dans l'art d'Occident: essai sur la formation d'une tradition iconographique, in Marie. Le culte cit., [pp. 173-291], p. 220. Even if the De laude Dei still lacks of a critical edition, the section of its fourth book that contains ninety-tree antiphons (De antiphonario) has been published by Radu Constantinescu from one of the two known complete manuscripts; for the fourteen antiphons to the Virgin cf. R. CONSTANTINESCU, Alcuin et les «Libelli precum» de l’époque carolingienne, in

«Revue d’Histoire de la Spiritualité», 50 (1974), [pp. 17-56], pp. 49-51; for a contextualization cf. CLAYTON, The Cult of the Virgin cit., pp. 55-56 (with an english translation on note 14). According to Mary Clayton the place of origin of these antiphons is Rome, cf. ibid., pp. 56-61. For a more complete analysis of De antiphonario cf. S. RANKIN, Beyond the Boundaries of Roman-Frankish Chant: Alcuin’s De laude Dei and Other Early Medieval Sources of Office Chants, in City, Chant, and the Topography of Early Music, eds. M.S. Cuthbert et Al., Harvard, MA 2013 (Harvard Publications in Music 23), pp. 229-262. The alleged date of composition of the whole florilegium is ca. 790, but actually it cannot be estabilished with precision. For Donald Bullough it is a witness of Alcuin’s York years, even if «it could well belong to the time when Alcuin was already in Francia», D. BULLOUGH, Alcuin: Achievement and Reputation, Leiden 2004 (Education and society in the Middle Ages and Reinassence 16), p. 178. For a description of De laude’s content and context,, cf. ibid., pp. 177-180 and 193-204; ID., Alcuin and the Kingdom of Heaven: liturgy, theology, and the Carolingian age, in Carolingian essays: Andrew W. Mellon lectures in early Christian studies, ed. U.-R. Blumenthal,

Washington, DC 1983, [pp. 1-70], p. 2-8, rep. in ID., Carolingian Renewal. Sources and heritage, Manchester 1991, pp.

161-240; D. GANZ, Le De laude Dei d’Alcuin in Alcuin de York à Tours, «Annales de Bretagne et des pays de l’Ouest», 111.3 (2004), pp. 387-392. For the Tours libellus precum (ms. Troyes, Bibliothèque municipale, 1742) associated to De

official acknowledgement of Roman marian masses throughout the territories under Frankish rule. Shortly before Charlemagne’s imperial coronation, the Archbishop Arno of Salzburg (one of Alcuin’s closest friends) held the ‘triple’ council of Reisbach-Freising-Salzburg during which it was established that four annual missae should be celebrated in honour of Mary (Purificatio, Conceptio, Assumptio and Nativitas)33. Ten years later, the feasts of the Purificatio and the Adsumptio were prescribed to be observed by everyone (per omnia venerari debent).34 Along with poems, prayers, and hymns to the Virgin produced and disseminated in the first decade of the newborn Carolingian empire,35 this last conciliar resolution was the accomplishment of a theological project achieved, at this stage, through the Roman mediation of the eastern marian tradition, but without the direct assimilation of the Greek literature on the subject.36 None of the marian themes examined and developed by the Carolingians in the aftermath of the Council of Frankfurt, were taken into account for the redaction of the Libri Carolini, completed

laude Dei cf. Libellus Trecensis, ed. A. Wilmart in Precum libelli quattuor Aevi karolini, 1, Roma 1940, pp. 7-30. The libellus, probably composed at the beginning of the 9th century, contains the oldest known version of the marian prayer

Singularis meriti, cf. ibid., 12, Oratio eiusdem ad Sanctam Mariam, p. 16; J.C. HIRSH, The Boundaries of Faith: The Development and Transmission of Medieval Spirituality, Leiden – New York 1996, pp. 23-24. 33 Cf. Statuta Rispacensia, Frisingensia, Salisburgensia, 41, ed. Werminghoff in MGH, Leges, 3, Concilia, 2, Concilia aevi Karolini 742-842, 1, cit., [pp. 205-2013], p. 212, 13-16. 34 Collectio Capitularium Ansegisi, I, 158, ed. G. Schmitz in MGH, Leges, 4, Capitularia regum francorum NS, 1, Die Kapitulariensammlung des Ansegis, Hannover 1996, p. 515, 1-4; also cf. Concilium Moguntinense, 36, ed. Werminghoff in MGH, Leges, 3, Concilia, 2, Concilia aevi Karolini 742-842, 1, cit., [pp. 258-272], p. 270, 3-6. 35 Paulinus’s In purificatione sancte Marie, Alcuin’s Carmina ad Mariam and perhaps also the anonymus Ave maris stella belong to these years. According to a report by Angilbert, abbot of Saint-Riquier and son-in-law of Charles, in this period four marian relics were gathered in two altars, placed respectively in a church in honore Salvatoris and in another one in honore Mariae, cf. HARIULFUS ALDENBURGENSIS, Chronicon Centulense, II, 8-9, ed. F. Lot in Hariulf. Chronique de l’abbaye de Saint-Riquier (Ve siècle - 1104), Paris 1894, pp. 58-6 and p. 64 36 The oldest known latin translation of the Akathistos hymn (a fragment entitled Ymnus sanctae dei genetricis

Mariae in ms. Zürich, Zentralbibliothek, C 78, fols. 47v-48v, discovered and edited by Paul von Winterfeld, cf. P. VON

WINTERFELD, Rhythmen- und Sequenzenstudien, in «Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur», 47 [1904], pp. 73-100, pp. 82-83) could be probably considered as «the first great translation from the Greek in Medieval

Europe north of the Alps», cf. W. BERSCHIN, Griechisch-lateinisches Mittelalter. Von Hieronymus zu Nikolaus von Kues, Bern – München 1980, p. 164 (trans. mine). This fragment, originating probably from St. Denis at the time of Louis the Pious, might confirm that the Carolingian interest in translating directly from greek sources the marian texts of the Eastern tradition began after the foundation of an autonomous Imperial mariology. For a different and more learned interpretation, see the speech The Akathist Hymn in the Early Medieval West by Beatrice Daskas in the same session of 23rd ICBS.

no later than the year 793.37 Even if long-established in Rome, the cult of Mary was perceived as a matter too close to eastern theology and devotion which the Libri were targeting. Nevertheless, Charlemagne’s theologians involved in the reaction against the iconodule Synod of Nicea had a particular consideration and respect towards the Virgin. On the subject, they were mostly influenced by the works prescribed in the Decretum Gelasianum (even if their primary source was perhaps Bede38) and, obviously, by a first-hand exegesis of the Gospel of Luke. Although their approach might seem a ‘homespun attempt’ if compared to the deeply theological one of the antiadoptionist era, it produced some concepts and textual images of Mary far more original than those of five years later. In this sense, the most famous passage of the Libri shows how the question of depicting the Virgin could be used to unveil the ambiguitas of images, and then the senseless and useless practice of their veneration. In fact, without a proper titulus accompanying the image of a beautiful woman, holding or not a child on her lap,39 it is impossible for a believer to discern whether she is the Mother of God or Sarah or Rebecca or even a pagan goddess such as Venus.40 As it can be seen in the Gellone miniature, a titulus was placed close to Mary’s head along this line of thinking (Fig. 2). A different, ingenious reasoning that involves Mary’s virginal conception and her status as mother is in OC III, 13: this chapter, written to explain why a woman (i.e. the basilissa Irene) should not «docere in synodo»,41 ends with an original consideration about God’s decision to send the «mediator Dei et hominum» through a woman. It reads as follows:

37 Perhaps a draft copy of the Libri was already completed by the end of 792. For the quotes from the text the acronym OC (Opus Caroli) is used; the references are from the standard critical edition, cf. Opus Caroli regis contra synodum, ed. A. Freeman (with P. Meyvaert), in MGH, Leges, 3, Concilia, 2, Supplementum, 1, Hannover 1998. 38 In order to obtain a sure approval from Rome, the authors of the Libri tried to arrange an argumentation as much ‘orthodox’ as possible compared to that of Irene’s theologians. For this reason they decided to use the Decretum’s list of recipiendi works as a canon (cf. OC I, 6, pp. 132-133), as well as texts of trustworthy orthodoxy such as those of Pope Gregory the Great. However a lot of other latin sources were used, such as Cassiodorus, Isidore, and Bede, though not directly declared; marian topics and episodes also comes from this kind of sources. E.g. in OC II, 25 (p. 457, 2-6) the interpretation of Aaron’s rod as a prophecy of Mary’s childbearing (because it flowered without seed and water, cf. Nm 17, 17-23), was taken from Isidore’s Quaestiones in Vetus Testamentum (In Numeros, 15). As seen before for the Homiliarium Pauli, the best systematization of marian material available to Charlemagne’s scholars was in Bede’s Commentary on Luke and in his Homilies. 39 In OC IV, 16, one of the most quoted chapters in the literature, the presence of a child in Mary/Venus picture is not specifed, while in the analogous passage of OC IV, 21 (p. 540, 15-36) this detail is explicitly mentioned with a longer list of biblical and pagan examples.

40 The theme is also taken up by Miri Rubin in her successful monograph, cf. M. RUBIN, Mother of God. A history of the Virgin Mary, London 2010 (1th ed. 2009), pp. 78-79. 41 OC III, 13, p. 385, 27.

The Mediator between God and man was not born of woman in order to prefer the female sex to that of the male, but to redeem through the mistery of his incarnation both sexes which had fallen in sin. (...) He deigned to be born of a woman undefiled by the male sex in order to remain the true founder as well as the true restorer of both sexes.42

So Mary was chosen not because the feminine sex is more suitable or even ‘greater’ than the male, but to fulfill the redeeming mistery of an impossible birth. Confrontations with the eastern marian tradition were carried out exclusively through the Latin translation of the acta of the Second Nicene council that was available at Charlemagne’s court. The tale by Dionysius of Ascalon about a miracolous icon of the Virgin, reported in John Moschus’s Leimonarion (CLXXX) and mentioned during the fifth session of Nicea II,43 was rejected by the Carolingians calling into question the impossibility to verify its truthfulness.44 A solid reply to Irene’s theologians concerning the cult of the Virgin is only developed in the Libri by commenting a passage of the sixth and penultimate session of the Greek council. The Romaioi stated that the image of Mary holding Christ child was a visual evidence of the fulfillment of the famous prophecy of Isaiah: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son (Is 7, 14).45 According to the Greeks, such a depicted prophecy could be misunderstood only by ignorant people; the

42 OC III, 13, p. 391, 9-17: «Qui Mediator Dei et hominum non idcirco de femina natus esse perhibetur, ut femineum sexum viris praeferret, sed ut utrumque sexum in culpam lapsum suae incarnationis mysterio redimeret; (...) quia de femina sine ullo masculini sexus contagio nasci dignatus est, et utriusque sexus, sicut verus conditor, ita etiam verus permanet restaurator», Eng. trans. (partially modified) by Albert Demyttenaere, cf. A. DEMYTTENAERE, The cleric, women and the stain: Some beliefs and ritual practices concerning women in early middle ages, in Frauen in Spätantike und Frühmittelalter. Lebensbedingungen - Lebensnormen - Lebensformen. Beiträge zu einer internationalen Tagung am Fachbereich Geschichtswissenschaft der Freien Universität Berlin (Berlin, 18-21 February 1987), eds. U. Vorwerk – W. Affeldt, Sigmaringen 1990, [pp. 141-165], pp. 159-162. . 43 Cf. Synodus Nicaena Secunda Generalis Septima, Actio V, ed. E. Lamberz in ACO s. II, 3, Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum, 2, Concilii Actiones IV-V, Berlin 2012, [pp. 532-600], pp. 585-588. 44 Cf. OC IV, 12, p. 514, 14-24: «Legitur denique in eiusdem synodi lectione Dionisius, presbiter ecclaesiae Ascalonitanae, in saepe memorata synodo retulisse quendam monachum coram imagine beatae Dei genetricis Mariae lucernam concinnasse et post quartum vel quintum nec non et sextum mensem inextinctam reperisse. Qui relatus dum, sicut et caetera, quae ibidem relata sunt, non ob aliud fuerit adlatus nisi ob imaginum stabiliendam adorationem, nec de eo, sicut nec de ceteris, eadem imaginum adoratio quendam poterit obtinere vigorem, quippe cum et de eius fide, qui id retulerit, et de facto, utrum factum sit, et de tempore, quando factum sit, et de loco, ubi factum sit, et de modo, quemadmodum factum sit, penitus dubitetur». 45 This well-known passage from the Old Testament is strangely uncommon within the works of the first generation of Carolingians. It occurs once in Alcuin’s Adversus Elipandum, cf. ALCUINUS EBORACENSIS, Adversus Elipandum, III, 9, in PL 101, [cols. 243-300], col. 276D.

learned ones, instead, should venerate and kiss it in order to be worthy of it.46 The response to this assumption is developed in the Libri by referring to another passage from the same chapter of Isaiah. Since the Prophet also says: if you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all (Is 7, 9), without mentioning pictures, a believer must be faithful even without the support of material depictions. So the prophecy of Mary’s virginal conception cannot be searched in uncertain pictures, but it has to be preserved in one’s own hearth (in pectore retinenda est) as well as its hidden mysteries cannot be seen in pictures by the physical eye, but only investigated by faith in divinis litteris.47 The instruments a true christian must have in order to reach the eternal reward (aeterna remuneratio) are not on wooden boards, painted walls, or in whatever visible things; they have to be found in the hearth through faith (in corde per fidem), in the mouth through confession, and in good deeds through their exhibition.48 The Virgin, as Mother of the Saviour, could be and must be believed to be in Heaven solely by using these instruments; for this reason, a devout follower who wishes to adore (adorare) her, firstly needs to address his thoughts to the ineffable place where she stands with Christ, reigning along with him.49 While confirming an image of the Virgin fully coherent with the Roman typus of Maria Regina,50 the aforesaid passage in the Libri Carolini shows how an orthodox cult of Mary was conceived by the theologians of Charlemagne before the antiadoptionist struggle. Their approach to

46 Cf. Synodus Nicaena Secunda Generalis Septima, Actio VI, ed. E. Lamberz in ACO s. II, 3, Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum, 3, Concilii Actiones VI-VII, Berlin 2016 (forthcoming, cf. Mansi XIII, 364); OC IV, 21, p. 539, 22-26. 47 Cf. OC IV, 21, p. 539, 27-33: «Prophetia, quae virginem concepturam et filium parituram intonat, non iam in incertis et ambiguis est quaerenda, sed in pectore retinenda, nec eius archana mysteria sunt in picturis, sed in divinis litteris earumque explanatoribus, apostolis videlicet eorumque successoribus, investiganda et fide potius quam oculis intuenda. Non enim idem nobilissimus vates Esaias evangelii nobis potius quam prophetiae referens saporem ait: Nisi pinxeritis et adoraveritis imagines, non permanebitis; sed ait: Si non credideritis, non permanebitis». 48 A complete study on this formula is needed! 49 Cf. ibid., pp. 539, 34 – 540, 6: «Manifestum itaque est eum, qui in mandatis divinis fidei integritate vult permanere et ad aeternam remunerationem venire, instrumenta, per quae ad haec veniat, non in parietibus, non in tabulis, non in picturis, non in quibuslibet visibilibus rebus, sed in corde per fidem, in ore per confessionem, in opere per bonorum actuum exhibitionem habere debere et credere virginem, quae Salvatorem protulit mundi, non in mundanorum artificum operibus, sed in aeterni et inenarrabilis artificis opere, id est in caelestibus sedibus esse. Unde necesse est, ut quisquis eam adorare desiderat, non in colorum fucis, non in materialibus opificiis, non in quibuslibet officinis, sed illo mentis aciem figat, quo eam cum Christo regnare (Apoc 20, 4) constat». On the last sentence concerning the evidence of Mary’s ‘regency’ cf. H. BARRÉ, La Royauté de Marie pendant les neuf premiers Siècles (suite et fin), in «Recherches de science religieuse», 29.3 (1939), [pp. 303-334], p. 323.

50 On the peculiarity of the Roman typus cf. B. V. PENTCHEVA, Icons and Power: The Mother of God in Byzantium, University Park, PA 2006, pp. 21-31.

the Mother of God is defined as a private and personal practice of faith, a form of devotion that required no officers or objects as intermediaries – differently from the coeval cult of the empire, perceived by the Carolingians only in its public and encomiastic form.51 Echoes of such an intimate approach are also recognisable in later Carolingian prayers, such as the so-called Singularis meriti. In the last part of this popular oratio Mary is asked to intercede in favour of the faithful to let him/her reach the regnum perenne, that means the same as the aeterna remuneratio mentioned in OC IV, 21:

I beg You, most merciful one, through whom the entire world has been saved, intercede for me, that I (...) may obtain the everlasting kingdom, saved by your merits, most glorious Virgin52.

51 Despite its strong relation with the practice of icon’s veneration, the public cult of Mary was perhaps fortified during the first iconoclasm, among others cf. H. CHADWICK, East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church, Oxford 2003, p. 79.

52 Oratio eiusdem ad Sanctam Mariam, ed. J. Hirsh in HIRSH, The Boundaries of Faith cit., p. 24 (with Eng. trans.): «(...) obsecro te, misericordissima, per quam totus salutatus est mundus, intercede pro me (...) ut qui (...) tuis, virgo splendidissima, salvatus meritis perenne consequar regnum».

Fig. 1. Sancta Maria in the Gellone Sacramentary; ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Lat. 12048, fol. 1v. Meaux (?), c. 794-804.

Fig. 2. Detail of the titulus «S C A MA RI A» (Sancta Maria).