Paige Richmond Communities Empowered: Developing Institutional Identities at Quedlinburg and Gandersheim under the Ottonians MA Thesis in Comparative History, with a specialization in Interdisciplinary Medieval Studies. Central European University Budapest CEU eTD Collection May 2016 Communities Empowered: Developing Institutional Identities at Quedlinburg and Gandersheim under the Ottonians by Paige A. Richmond (USA) Thesis submitted to the Department of Medieval Studies, Central European University, Budapest, in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Arts degree in Comparative History, with a specialization in Interdisciplinary Medieval Studies. Accepted in conformance with the standards of the CEU. ____________________________________________ Chair, Examination Committee ____________________________________________ Thesis Supervisor ____________________________________________ CEU eTD Collection Examiner ____________________________________________ Examiner Budapest May 2016 Communities Empowered: Developing Institutional Identities at Quedlinburg and Gandersheim under the Ottonians by Paige A. Richmond (USA) Thesis submitted to the Department of Medieval Studies, Central European University, Budapest, in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Arts degree in Comparative History, with a specialization in Interdisciplinary Medieval Studies. Accepted in conformance with the standards of the CEU. ____________________________________________ External Reader CEU eTD Collection Budapest May 2016 Communities Empowered: Developing Institutional Identities at Quedlinburg and Gandersheim under the Ottonians by Paige A. Richmond (USA) Thesis submitted to the Department of Medieval Studies, Central European University, Budapest, in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Arts degree in Comparative History, with a specialization in Interdisciplinary Medieval Studies. Accepted in conformance with the standards of the CEU. ____________________________________________ External Supervisor CEU eTD Collection Budapest May 2016 I, the undersigned, Paige Richmond, candidate for the MA degree in Comparative History, with a specialization in Interdisciplinary Medieval Studies declare herewith that the present thesis is exclusively my own work, based on my research and only such external information as properly credited in notes and bibliography. I declare that no unidentified and illegitimate use was made of the work of others, and no part of the thesis infringes on any person’s or institution’s copyright. I also declare that no part of the thesis has been submitted in this form to any other institution of higher education for an academic degree. Budapest, 19 May 2016 __________________________ Signature CEU eTD Collection Abstract Quedlinburg and Gandersheim Abbeys were two of the most important monastic institutions throughout the Ottonian period; that they were female houses paradoxically enhanced their prestige. While an immense number of focused studies on Quedlinburg and Gandersheim have been produced, none have dealt with the overarching characters of the institutions themselves. This study unites several distinct but tangentially related components of activity in order to identify consistent elements of their respective institutional identities. It is broken down into three primary categories: intellectual activity, memorial responsibility, and the joint but distinct political and monastic characteristics of each institution. These three elements are treated separately in the main body, but are in reality inextricably intertwined with one another. The conclusion unites them, allowing for a final assessment of identity relevant activity at Quedlinburg and Gandersheim. This has been accomplished primarily by identifying self-perception in relation to institutional identity; this refers to the circumstantially possible and internally cultivated expressions of duty, responsibility, and function. Inherent in these expressions was a perception of specialness, which was arguably utilized for self-preservation but belied the consistent and lasting identity of the institution itself, rather than that of the individual women therein. By combining the specific modes and expressions of the outlined categories of self-perception and CEU eTD Collection identity creation, a great deal can be said about the important characteristics at each institution. The attempt to assess these institutional identities likewise provides a first comprehensive comparison of these institutions based upon their self-perception and institutional identities. i Acknowledgements I would first like to thank Gerhard Jaritz and Marianne Sághy for their unending help with this thesis. The eagle eye of Zsuzsa Reed has likewise been indispensible throughout this process. I also thank John Bernhardt for his continuous encouragement and his help in avoiding several pitfalls, as well as Daniel Ziemann and Cristian Gaspar for their understanding and assistance. Additionally, I would like to thank Emma McGhan, without whom not only this but any of my work would be impossible, and Amie Carpenter, who constantly gives me a reason to keep going. Amongst my colleagues I would especially like to acknowledge Robert Sharp, Petar Parvanov, Matea Laginja, Dan-Alexandru Săvoaia, Mišo Petrović, and Maya Babayeva for their help and patience with me, which have been instrumental in this process. Finally, I would like to recognize my mother, father, and extended family for all of the support they have shown me throughout my life. CEU eTD Collection ii Table of contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Research Focus ..................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Previous Scholarship ............................................................................................................. 4 1.3 Sources .................................................................................................................................. 7 1.4 Theoretical Framework & Methodology .............................................................................. 8 1.4.1 Thesis Structure ........................................................................................................... 11 2. Location, Tradition, and Demographics: Background Factors to Institutional Identity ........... 12 2.1 Location .............................................................................................................................. 14 2.2 Monastic Network: Carolingian Tradition, Ottonian Adaptation ....................................... 16 2.3 Demographics ..................................................................................................................... 20 3. Intellectual Activity and Identity Construction at Quedlinburg and Gandersheim .................. 26 3.1 Educational Institutions: Girls, Women and the Exception of Thietmar ............................ 28 3.1.1 The Saxon Monastic Literary Network ........................................................................ 31 CEU eTD Collection 3.2 Literary Works and Implications ........................................................................................ 33 3.2.1 Hrotsvit of Gandersheim and Her Works in Constructing Institutional Identity ......... 35 3.2.2 Quedlinburg and History-Writing: The Annales Quedlinburgenses ........................... 38 4. Liturgy & Literature: the Implications of Memorial Activity .................................................. 43 iii 4.1 The Function of Memoria ................................................................................................... 47 4.2 Kinship and Memory: Women, Family, and Memorial Tradition ...................................... 49 4.3 Memorialization Activity and Political Agenda ................................................................. 53 4.3.1 Glorification of the Ottonian Line ............................................................................... 54 4.3.2 Celebration of Female Rulership ................................................................................. 58 5. Both Monastic and Imperial - Agreements, Collisions, and Balancing Dual Identities ........... 62 5.1 Monastic Identity ................................................................................................................ 64 5.1.1 Not Nuns, but Secular Canonesses .............................................................................. 64 5.1.2 Spiritual Obligations and Monastic Duties .................................................................. 67 5.2 Imperial Identity.................................................................................................................. 70 5.3 Identity Disagreements: Where Imperial and Monastic Clash ........................................... 74 5.3.1 The Gandersheim Conflict ........................................................................................... 76 5.4 Balancing Act: Imperial, Monastic, Female ....................................................................... 79 5.4.1 The Easter Palace ......................................................................................................... 81 5.4.2 Women’s Abbeys – Permissive of Politics? ................................................................ 82 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................