The Political Dimension of Liturgical Prayers of Remembrance: Lists of Rulers in the Confraternity Books of the Carolingian Period

Abstract

The confraternity books (Libri vitae) of the Early Middle Ages record the names of individuals to be remembered in liturgical prayer. Since the middle of the 20th century, they have come more sharply into focus as historical source material. The records of rulers were of particular interest even then. In order to understand the lists of rulers in the Liber Vitae, the first subject of study is the development of prayers of remembrance for the living and the dead, and the subsequent emergence and shaping of liturgical commemoration of the ruler from late antiquity to the Carolingian period. These diverse developments merge with those of the liturgical Memoria in the confraternity books, indicating that the monasteries, in particular, were important keepers of monarchical Memoria. Taking as examples the Salzburg Liber Vitae (783) and the Reichenau Confraternity Book (824), the steps and methods are followed through and the lists of rulers interpreted in their historical context. The two confraternity books prove to be a source for the legitimisation of Carolingian sovereignty, particularly in terms of substantiating it historically and securing it liturgically. The regional perspective of each monastic community plays a major role here. Complex reference and interpretative systems are exposed in the confraternity books, whose orderliness, structure and prayer also served as a counterbalance to the disorder and crisis prevalent in the world.

1. Introduction

Recollection and memory are two of the central categories of research in cultural studies (A. Assmann 2002). The researchers who have most influenced research into historical memory are Aby Warburg and Maurice Halbwachs, the archaeologist Jan Assmann and the Anglist Aleida Assmann (Kany 1987; Halbwachs and Maus 1991; J. Assmann 1988). Cultural memory, which is collective and timeless, constitutes the innermost relationship of a society. It encompasses everything within a particular culture that is meaningful and that defines the boundaries of its common experience. The substance is conserved in a diversity of media and institutions. They preserve sense and meaning, pass these on to future generations and are, at the same time, both retrospective and prospective (J. Assmann 1992).

In this regard, Christian Memoria also represents a type of cultural-historical practice. It plays a central societal role in the form of prayers of remembrance in the context of the liturgy. In the Eucharist, the words of the anamnesis recall the presence of Jesus and his salvific mission (Büske 2001, p. 158). At the same time, the worshipping community is a constituent of the communal memory (Nußbaum 1983). The community recalls not only the sacrifice of Jesus, but also commemorates the living and the dead before God on the occasion of offering the communal sacrifice at the eucharistic feast, and within the context of the salvific event (Jungmann 1962, pp. 199–213, 295–308). Through commemorative prayer, they become present members of the community, and through the power of the Eucharist, to recall all to the present time, become participants in the sacrificial celebration and in the fruits of sacrifice (Berger 1965, pp. 228–40).

Despite the saving presence in the consecrated host, an uncertainty of salvation persists in the believer who is presented with the petition “offere pro”. The intercessions benefit, on the one hand, the spiritual health of the living and the dead, and on the other, all current external circumstances. These concerns are reflected in a wide range of books and texts, together with ideas and concepts of society. In this way they can reveal the connection between the societal present and commemorative practice (Fassler 2010, pp. 133–48; Hen 2001, p. 10). The perspective of the liturgical Memoria is both retrospective (the act of salvation) and prospective (redemption), while, at the same time, being closely related to the present moment of those praying (Häußling 1997). Their textuality, thus, bears witness to the conscious and unconscious constructs of the present, the past and perceptions of the future. This makes the diverse liturgical tradition of the Middle Ages especially suitable for posing historical questions

The Carolingian Libri memoriales have a particular significance in this group of texts. They record many thousands of names, originally set out in an ordered system which, in the course of prolonged use, was reworked, reinterpreted or totally abandoned (Geuenich 2004). As a rule, these books were filled in over several hundred years, presenting, in their unique way, a section of society in the Middle Ages. A total of seven of these books are still extant on the Continent: The Salzburg Liber Vitae (Forstner 1974), the Liber Amicorum and the more recent Fraternity Book of St. Gallen (Geuenich and Ludwig 2018); the Liber Memorialis from Remiremont (Hlawitschka et al. 1970); the Reichenau Confraternity Book (Autenrieth et al. 1979); the Liber Viventium from Päfers (Bruckner et al. 1973); and the Memorial and Liturgical codex from San Salvatore/Santa Giulia in Brescia (Geuenich and Ludwig 2000).

Intensive academic engagement with this complex of traditions began in the middle of the 20th century under the leadership of Gerd Tellenbach. In what is known as the “Freiburger Arbeitskreis” the transmission of names was at first used for research into the medieval aristocracy (Schmid 1974a). With the discovery that the names were often recorded in groups, the scope of research expanded to these groups and their interrelated fields (Schmid 1965). The connection between the transmission of names and the liturgical Memoria was first intensified in the 1980s as Otto Gerhard Oexle, based on work by Maurice Mauss, perceived the liturgical concept of Memoria as a “totally social phenomenon” which might serve as a central concept for society in the Middle Ages (Oexle 1982; Mauss and Ritter 1990). Since then, an intensive engagement with the central function of recollection and memory in the Middle Ages could be referred to as a “memorial turn” (Hugener 2014, p. 22).

Gadi Algazi (Algazi 2014, p. 26) has cautioned against unifying widely differing phenomena too categorically under the term Memoria (memory). It therefore makes sense to limit the use of the term Memoria to the liturgical commemoration and to differentiate it from other concepts of recollection, even if there are fluid transitions and references between individual and collective recollections and memories on one hand and liturgical Memoria on the other.

These references are also apparent in the Carolingian Libri memoriales. Although these books are so different in their internal form and composition they do all exhibit the same central elements: a monastery listing, a list of bishops, a register of regional and/or interregional office bearers, and a list of Carolingian rulers. These diptychs are located at the centre of the confraternity books and, together with the list of rulers, indicate a political dimension to the liturgical prayers of remembrance. They are the outcome of the prayers of remembrance and prayers for the ruler, which had been evolving since late antiquity.

2. The Development of Liturgical Prayers for the Ruler

Prayer for the emperor and the realm had been part of the Christian cult from the time of the apostles. Paul called for prayer for heathen rulers so that Christians could lead a peaceful and quiet life, as the rulers’ power had been given to them by God (Tim 2,1–3; Rom. 13,1–7). Clement I (50–97/101) included this concept in his first letter to the Corinthians (Clem I. 60,4; 61, 1–2). In the context of an intercession, he prayed for health, peace, harmony and longevity for the ruler in order for the realm to remain stable. In the 3rd century AD, the apologist Tertullian († 230) emphasised to Christians the importance of stability within the earthly kingdom. Christians must obey the emperor because his power was a gift from God. The practice of praying pro salute imperatorem as part of the intercession, and thus, for an unthreatened realm, is well documented in numerous written sources. In his edict of tolerance of 311 AD, Galerius finally requested that Christians, on their part, pray for him and for the empire. In this way, intercession for the ruling emperor and for the stability of the realm attained its fixed place in the liturgy (Biehl 1937, pp. 30–35).

Diptychs can be found in the Byzantine church from the 4th/5th century onwards. In them, petitioners are listed whose names were read aloud and were included in the prayers of the congregation. Both the living and the dead could be included (Bishop 1909, p. 103; Taft 1991, pp. 30–32; Bishop 1910). From these lists, which were originally intended for a particular purpose, official lists of successions of bishops and other ecclesiastical dignitaries, hierarchically arranged, were created in the 6th century. The emperor was also included in these diptychs, and a distinction was made between diptychs for the living and for the dead (Bishop 1909, pp. 104–7; Taft 1991, p. 182). The object of the diptychs was to bring to God, in prayer, the petitions of those inscribed in the diptych, and to achieve their acceptance into the heavenly Liber Vitae. Remembrance of the living developed in a similar fashion in the Latin church, as the names of the petitioners were spoken aloud (Angenendt 2014). Their names were inscribed on wax tablets for this purpose. Emperors, popes and diocesan bishops were mentioned repeatedly. It is assumed that the names were noted down permanently in diptychs, although there are no contemporary records of this kind. In the western church the commemoration of the dead developed independently of that of the living and was, as a rule, carried out in summary form (Merk 1926, p. 10). According to tradition, in the 7th century the names of petitioners and of the dead were recited (Eizenhöfer 1958, pp. 77, 83, 85, 87).

Certainly, several ivory diptychs have been handed down which, from the 6th century onwards, used consular diptychs as material for permanent records of names (Leclercq 1920; Stegmüller 1957, p. 1143). The most famous of these is the Barberini diptych (Vezin 1971; Thomas 1969; Cutler 1998). It hands down an Austrasian list of rulers and may have originated in a religious institution, which was closely connected to the Austrasian kings. The Barberini diptych constitutes singular evidence of a list of rulers for liturgical use during the Merovingian period. The tradition of lists of rulers compiled specifically for liturgical prayers of remembrance first appears in the Carolingian Libri memoriales. It must be assumed that master copies for these lists existed in the form of diptychs, although this cannot be proven.

The rise of the Carolingians as Frankish kings was associated with a heightened sense of Christian mission and history, which can be found in widely diversified texts (Ewig 1956, p. 52). This is most apparent in the Laudes Regiae, which originated with the accession of Pippin to the Frankish throne in 751 (Kantorowicz 1958). They formed a fixed component of the formulation of the sacralisation which legitimised monarchy in the Carolingian period. The Laudes repeatedly called to mind the legitimisation of the ruler in the Frankish churches and empowered his claim to sovereignty (Drews 2009, p. 169). As early as the Merovingian period, monastic communities prayed for the ruler and the realm (McCormick 1990). Prayers for the ruler were particularly strengthened during attempts by Charlemagne to reform the liturgy. These applied to unity of belief and the correct performance of liturgical actions (Hen 2001, pp. 69–71). In addition to this, prayers for the ruler and the well-being of the realm were intensified. This led to an expansion of the commemoration of the ruler in which all ordines were included (Mordek et al. 2012). A certain unity resulted from these prayers for the king and the realm, inasmuch as every individual was responsible for the well-being of the ruler and the empire. This was intended to achieve a Christian society under Carolingian rule, whose deliverance by God and the eternal salvation of the king would be guaranteed (Butz 2015).

A particular role fell to the monasteries which made a significant contribution to the stability of the Carolingian realm (Le Jan 2006, p. 194). The various forms of prayer obligation resulted in widely diverse written forms, from Laudes Regiae (Krüger 2007); necrologies, such as those at Fulda (Oexle 1978); necrological notes, such as those in Remiremont and Verona (Butz and Zettler 2012); and lists of confraternity monasteries whose members prayed for each other. These traditions were amalgamated, rearranged, and supplemented with additional lists in the Carolingian Libri vitae. The confraternity books had their place on the altar, creating the impression of their being an earthly counterpart to the heavenly Liber Vitae (Koep 1952). The individuals entered in the books were commended to God in order that they might attain entry in the heavenly book of life. It is unclear whether, initially, the names of some of those to be commemorated were read aloud. As the book began to fill up, a summary commemoration was permitted. The particular design of the books and their inner structure indicate, however, that the intended purpose of the Libri vitae was more than the spiritual well-being of the individual. The message of the books is considerably more complex than the long lists of names would, at first glance, suggest (Butz forthcoming).

3. Libri Vitae as an Historical Source

Fundamental to the understanding of a confraternity book is its basic structure, which can be deduced from the demarcation of its entries and an analysis of their chronological sequencing. As a rule, the compilation of a book systematically followed specific criteria whether compiled by one or several hands. The addenda must be differentiated from this original compilation. These partially follow the prescribed system, however. As a rule, they align themselves to the system for a time before abandoning it completely, instead inserting names, and groups of names, in empty spaces, irrespective of the structure around them. It is nevertheless apparent that spaces for inserting names were selected associatively, as associations between existing names and new entries could be established.

A fundamental problem for the transmission of early medieval tradition is mononymy, which makes it difficult to identify the individual holder of that identity, the actual person. Persons and groups of persons can be successfully identified only if the relevant personal history, handed down and drawn upon for comparison in the form of documents and narrative sources, is as comprehensive and complete as possible. Without such comparisons it would not be possible to categorise the groups of persons within an historical context. In particular, additions to names such as official or professional titles or details of kinship are extremely helpful in identifying persons and groups of persons.

Both the dating and categorisation of liturgical confraternity books within the historical context of the time and place they came into existence is a fundamental key to understanding them. The Libri Vitae were adapted to the individual circumstances of each monastery. These circumstances were defined by the time at which they came into existence, the political structure of that time, the internal structure of the monastery, one’s own historical perception, and the perspective of the writer(s). This means that liturgical confraternity books are suited in a very special way as resources for the perception of the present in a monastery, as well as for its historical image (Althoff 1998), as the two following examples from Salzburg and Reichenau are intended to demonstrate.

3.1. The Salzburg Liber Vitae

The Salzburg confraternity book is the oldest Liber Vitae to have been handed down on the Continent (https://manuscripta.at/diglit/AT7290-HsA1/1/thumbs, accessed on 6 February 2022). It was commissioned by Bishop Virgil who died on the 27th November 784, shortly after the book was compiled. His own name was included in the list of the living. A valid terminus ante for the compilation of the Liber Vitae may well be the marriage of Charlemagne and Fastrada in the autumn of 783, as Fastrada was already listed as Queen in the Salzburg Liber Vitae.

The present form of the early medieval section of Codex A1, stored in the Salzburg monastery archive, is surrounded by later additions. Its twelve leaves, which date from the 8th and 9th centuries, were supplemented in 1004 by an additional layer, referred to as the ‘later confraternity book’. The two layers were prefixed by a bifolium, which includes documents from the 11th and 12th centuries pertaining to the Salzburg churches. Finally, in the 15th century, a six-layered comprehensive section (layers 4–9) containing the Salzburg documents was added. (Forstner 2003) The compilation of the oldest section is by one single writer, who leaves no further traces of writing in the Salzburg scriptorium. The conception and structure of the compilation reveal a well-thought-out conception of the form of the confraternity book. With the apparent help of an older original, a strictly structured diptych was created, which is defined by the ordine coordinates “by a vertical chronology and horizontal time sequence” (Forstner 2003, p. 174).

The liturgical prayers of remembrance were extensively embedded in a biblical–historical context, and this manifests itself in a unique way on the first page of names in the Salzburg Liber Vitae. On the left-hand side we find a record of the Old Testament patriarchs and prophets, while on the right-hand side, personalities of the New Testament are recorded; these start with John the Baptist and Mary, followed by the Apostles, Evangelists, Popes and Catholic saints (fol. 5). In this way the book points towards the past, uniting itself with the Old and New Testaments and thus with the history of Christianity. The Salzburg book assumes a medial function in the earthly kingdom in terms of the history of salvation and how it has already unfolded and been made manifest in the Old and New Testaments, and is now directed towards the future of the heavenly kingdom. It stands on the threshold between the temporal and the eternal and is intended to ensure the intercession of the saints mentioned at the beginning. The lists of names from the Old and New Testaments serve in theological literature as proof of the succession of the generations and, in the Salzburg Liber Vitae, also illustrate the concept of the divine world order. The Liber Vitae here demonstrates its historical access and can take its place as one of a series of historical texts. The counterpart of the heavenly world order reveals itself in the presentation of the earthly world. The name of those to be commemorated were recorded strictly according to their respective ordo. Each has its appointed place, thus reflecting society. This historic access is apparent in the division of names in a register of the living (fol. 6ff) and one of the dead (fol. 14ff) (Niederkorn-Bruck 2015, pp. 60–61).

The register of the living (Figure 1) includes not only the bishops of Salzburg but also the abbots and monks of Salzburg; the ordines of the Carolingian royal family; and the Bavarian ducal family (fol. 10,

Table 1. Salzburg Liber Vitae fol. 10 (extract).

ORDO REGUM UIUORUM CUM CONIUGIBUS ET LIBERIS		ORDO DUCUM UIUORUM CUM CONIUGIBUS ET LIBERIS
(1) Charlus rex	(2) Fastraat	(1) Tassilo	(2) Liutpirga
(3) Pippinus		(3) Deoto
(4) Charlus		(4) Cotani
(5) Luduih		(5) Hrodrud
(6) Pippinus
(7) Adalgisus
	(8) Ansa

) of priests, bishops and abbots, including their monastic communities. The diptychon of deceased rulers (Figure 2,

Table 2. Salzburg Liber Vitae fol. 20 (extract).

ORDO REGUM DEFUNCTORUM CUM CONIUGIBUS ET LIBERIS
Charlus	Suanhilt
Pippinus	Perht
Charlmannus
ORDO DUCUM DEFUNCTORUM CUM CONIUGIBUS ET LIBERIS
Theoto	Folchaid
Theotperht
Crimolt	Pilidruth
Theodolt	Uualtrat
Tassilo
Hucperht	Rattrud
Otilo

) includes a short list of the Carolingians from Charles Martell, a comprehensive list of dukes and a list of bishops and abbots.

The design of the two rulers’ diptychs is particularly noteworthy. The names can vary and largely be allocated with little or no difficulty. The sequence of living kings opens with Charlemagne and his fourth wife Fastrada. He is followed by his sons, Pippin, Charles the Younger, Louis the Pious and another Pippin. It is not immediately apparent which of the named Pippins is Pippin the Hunchback and which is Pippin of Italy. As Pippin the Hunchback was Charlemagne’s eldest son, it could be assumed that he would be named as the first on the list of Charlemagne’s four sons. However, Karlmann/Pippin was the third son, and therefore, older than Louis the Pious. The positioning of one of the Pippins in last place indicates that the list is not categorised by age. Pippin of Italy was baptised in Rome by Pope Hadrian in 781, at which time he was also anointed and crowned as sub-king of Italy (Angenendt 1980). In this context the former name of Karlmann was relinquished. At the same time, Pippin the Hunchback, who was Charlemagne’s son from his marriage to Himiltrud, lost his entitlement to share the sovereignty of the Frankish kingdom (Schieffer 2000, p. 81). Although Louis received similar honours from Pope Hadrian to those of his brother, Pippin, and was installed in Aquitaine, he is named in the Salzburg list only in third place, after Charles the Younger. It can, therefore, be assumed that the Pippin named right after Charlemagne must be the young king of Italy. This special emphasis is an indicator of the particular significance of Italy in the Agilolfing–Carolingian relationship, as will be shown later. The Carolingian entry names only the sons of Charlemagne, whereas the daughters born of his union with Hildegard—(† 30.4.783), Rotrud (*775), Berta (*779) and Gisela (* ca. 781)—are missing.

The ordo regum vivorum was, however, not restricted to the Carolingian royal family alone. Duke Tassilo was married to Liutberga, the daughter of Desiderius, King of Lombardy. Surprisingly, the writer likewise created an entry for Adelgis and Ansa, the son and the wife of the Lombard deposed by Charlemagne in 774, and entrusted them to the prayers of remembrance of the monks of Salzburg. The Annales regni Francorum record that, in the year 774, Adelgis went into exile in Byzantium following the overthrow of the Lombards, while his parents were taken to Franconia and confined to a monastery (Reichsannalen 1993, ad 774). The entry of two members of the Lombardic royal family among the names of the ruling Carolingians is even more surprising when one considers that the Salzburg confraternity book was created in 783/784, about ten years after Charlemagne’s victory in Italy. Researchers interpret the inclusion of Ansa and Adelgis among the living kings as provocatively anti-Carolingian (Schmid 1983, p. 187). The Ordo Ducum, which opens the second column of the sheet, should also be counted as a record of rulers. Tassilo and his wife Liutberga are named in the first line. In the first sub-division of the column, after Tassilo’s name, the children of the duke and duchess are listed: Theodo, the son and co-regent, and his two sisters, Cotani and Rotrud.

In contrast to the Carolingian entries, both daughters of the duke are also recorded—in the first sub-division, in fact, below the names of their brothers. Within the spatial structure of the entries of the living, the Carolingian monarchy is listed before the duchy of the Agilolfings, although both are at the same level. Their unmistakable classification indicates consent in Bavaria to Carolingian kingship and subordinate Agilolfing dukedom (Jahn 1991).

The record of deceased Carolingians and Agilolfings presents rather differently. The first column was reserved for deceased kings and dukes. The page is, again, opened with the Carolingian family. The list of Bavarian dukes begins towards the bottom half of the second sheet. The remaining three columns of the sheet are reserved for the names of deceased bishops and abbots. As in the register of the living, the columns for kings and dukes are sub-divided, whereby the first sub-division is reserved for male rulers and the second for their wives.

Significantly, the list of Carolingian kings opens with the major domo Charles Martell and his Bavarian-born wife, Swanahild. He is followed by his son, Pippin the Younger, with his wife, Bertrada. Presumably, the Charlmannus listed in third place is Pippin’s brother († 754). The name Hiltigart has been appended in the same line as Karlmann. This can be taken as a reference to the wife of Charlemagne, who died in 783. Another Lombardic name also appears in the necrology: The name of Desiderius, who was deposed by Charlemagne, has been inserted directly below Karlmann. Forstner has rightly suggested that this entry cannot be attributed to the hand of the original compiler, H1.

The list of ducal families is an important source for the genealogy of the Bavarian ducal house from Theodo onwards (Jahn 1991, pp. 25–29; Reindel 1967, pp 189–61) (Figure 3). The entry opens with Theodo († ca. 716) and his wife, Folchaid, who only appears here. His entry is followed by that of his three sons, Thedobert († ca.719), Grimoald († 728) and Theodolt († ca.719). Hugbert, the penultimate name on the list, was Theodo’s grandson. Together with his uncle Grimold, he gave himself to an embittered conflict over the dukedom and called on Charles Martell for help. In 725 Charles marched on Bavaria, carried Grimoald and his family to Franconia, and took Grimoald’s relative, Swanahilt, as his wife (Reindel 1967, p. 162). Apparently, Grimoald could have fled but was murdered in 728, which left the autocracy open to Hugbert. He married Rattrud, the daughter of Ratchis, king of Lombardy, and died in 736. Tassilo, of whom there is no other record and whose name preceded Hugbert’s in the list, was presumably a son or grandson of Theodo. Jarnut assumes, that he was married to Imma, the daughter of the Alemannic duke Gottfried. (Jarnut 1980, p. 18). Following Hugbert’s death, the dukedom passed to Odilo of the Alemannic line of the Agilolfings. (Jahn 1991, p. 123) (Figure 4). With his entry, the ducal list closes. His wife Hiltrud, the daughter of Charles Martell, is missing from the ducal family group (Herzberg-Fränkel 1887, p. 77). The Salzburg ducal list is an impressive witness to Bavarian historical awareness.

The lists of both the Carolingians and the Agilolfings document the diverse family connections and political relationships between them: Odilo was married to Hiltrud, a daughter of Charles Martell, and Hildgerad, the wife of Charlemagne, was related to Tassilo. What is particularly striking is the register of deceased Bavarian dukes which, with its seven office bearers, indicates an older tradition of rule, unlike the Carolingian register with three names. In this regard the Salzburg confraternity book demonstrates a determined Bavarian remembrance and interpretation of the past, which fed Tassilo’s self-image and claims with regard to the Frankish king.

The political relationship between Tassilo and Charlemagne revolved not only around Bavaria’s independence, but also around the acknowledgement of Carolingian regality and the sole capability of this branch of the family to rule. Through his mother, Hiltrud, Tassilo was both a grandson of Charles Martell and a cousin of Charlemagne. As a blood relative he was, however, also a potential rival of the Carolingians. Between 748 and 786, the year of Tassilo’s disempowerment, the political relationship between the Carolingian kings and Tassilo was extremely unstable. In 748, while still a minor, he was appointed as Dux of Bavaria by Pippin the Younger, and in the years that followed, the young duke became emancipated. A testimony to his growing independence from the Carolingians is his marriage to the daughter of Desiderius, king of Lombardy by the year 765 at the latest (Jahn 1991, p. 374). In 770, Charlemagne also took one of Desiderius’ daughters as his wife, separating from her the following year (Codex Carolinus 1892, pp. 566–67). Apparently, there was another rapprochement between Tassilo and his cousin Charlemagne as in 771, Sturmi, the Abbot of Fulda, mediated an amicitia between the duke and the king (Jarnut 1991, pp. 18–21). In 771 the king married the Alemannic Agilolfing, Hildegard. This marriage was seen as the culmination of the alliance between Charlemagne and Tassilo. At Pentecost in 772 the Pope, with the assistance of Charlemagne, anointed Theodo, the son of Duke Tassilo, in Rome (Classen 1978, pp. 176–77). This sacralisation legitimised the claim of the Agilolfing dynasty to the Bavarian dukedom and gave papal recognition to Bavaria in its position as regnum.

Although in the years 773/774 Tassilo remained inactive while Charlemagne fought against the Lombards, sent Desiderius and Ansa into exile, and crowned himself king of Lombardy, the following years saw a steady decline in Franco–Bavarian relations. The objective of Charlemagne’s policy was to limit Bavarian independence and to integrate the dukedom more firmly into the Carolingian kingdom. Internal politics appear also to have made this period increasingly difficult for Tassilo. No further monasteries were founded after 781, which is all the more remarkable since in the preceding years, Tassilo had personally founded several monasteries and sponsored numerous aristocratic foundations (Diepolder 1989, p. 73). There is disagreement among researchers as to whether Tassilo had to deal with an opposition movement from the ranks of the bishops or even with a pro-Frankish faction (Freund 2004, pp. 141–43). It is, however, not disputed that after 781, even in Bavaria, Tassilo’s dukedom was considered to be at risk (Diesenberger 2006).

The two ruler diptychs in the Salzburg confraternity book include several interrelated temporal strands. In both lists of the dead, the familial relationships that reached back into the past and the Carolingian connection to Bavaria were made clear. Tassilo’s resulting claim to royal dukedom gathers force from the presentation of a deeper past concerning the Bavarian tradition of rule. The present dissent, which was fed by a more recent past and which is clear from the Lombardic lists of rulers, can be balanced out by the orderly juxtaposition of Carolingian kingship and Agilolfing dukedom alongside the most important bishops and abbots. At the same time this strict orderliness expresses the desire for political stability and order in the dukedom and in relationship to Fraconia. This order and stability were re-invoked with every prayer and offered up to the saints whose names open the confraternity book. With their aid and, thus, also with God’s help, the sovereignty of Tassilo and his family would be granted stability now and in the future, despite all hostility, and the crisis concerning the Bavarian dukedom would be overcome.

3.2. The Reichenau Confraternity Book

A close connection between crisis and compilation can also be discerned for the Reichenau Confraternity Book (Zettler 2010). The imperial order of Louis the Pious in 817, which was unable to achieve consensus and peace in the realm; the uprising of Bernhard of Italy who was blinded by Louis and died as a result; the admission of Louis’ half-brothers Drogo, Hugo and Theoderich into monasteries, which meant exclusion from participation in political life; together with, Louis’ “conversion”, which climaxed in 821 with his public act of penance, are all key moments of political crisis in the first years of Louis’ rule (Patzold 2006, pp. 60–68). There were also natural catastrophes and epidemics, viewed as visible signs for all to see and interpreted as portents of a bleak future (Dutton 1994, p. 87). The annals hand on a record of extraordinary calamities, such as an earthquake in Aachen, extremely cold temperatures and thunderstorms, famine, and a devastating epidemic which was rife in Franconia. In the context of his monastic reform edicts in 819 in the Notitia de servitio monasteriorum, the emperor had already emphatically commanded the monasteries to fulfil their commitment to prayer (Kettemann 2000, p. 537). Furthermore, in subsequent years, he repeatedly called for fasting and prayer, as in the Admonitio ad omnes regni ordines of 825 (MGH Capit. 1, No. 150), for example. The monastery in Reichenau, under the leadership of Abbot Heito, who was already gravely ill and who had retired in 823, yielded to the pressure and decided to put its accumulated prayer obligations in order. The undertaking was permanently shaken by Wetti’s death in 823. His vision, which he was able to hand on before his death, reminded the brothers of the urgency of intercessory prayer (Walahfrid and Hatto 2009).

The confraternity book, which is now in the central library in Zurich, (Ms. Rh. Hist. 27; https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/de/list/one/zbz/Ms-Rh-hist0027, accessed on 6 February 2022) was bound into a codex together with other items at the end of the 17th/beginning of the 18th century. The present section II forms the core, which contains the actual confraternity book (fol. 1–134). After its compilation, addenda were made to it until the late Middle Ages. It originally consisted of twelve quaternions, which are currently only partially extant. Section III (fol. 135–64) contains, in irregular layers, the list of professions of Reichenau, forms of profession, addenda to the confraternity book, and transcripts of documents. The core was compiled in the 10th century and addenda were made up until the 13th century. Both sections were paginated in the 17th century, at which time the missing parchment pages were replaced with paper leaves. Section I comprises nine paper leaves and preserves, for posterity, confraternity agreements and obits from the 14th to the 16th century (Autenrieth et al. 1979).

The confraternity book of Reichenau Abbey of 823/824, compiled 40 years after the Salzburg confraternity book, was considerably more comprehensive and more nuanced than the Salzburg Liber Vitae, even at the time of its compilation (Geuenich 2015). It has a defined list of contents which reflects the structure of the book in capitula. These list, in the original compilation, the names of 53 monasteries whose communities the monks of Reichenau had an obligation to pray for. The list of monasteries inscribed on pages 4–87/88 reached Reichenau between 762 and 824. The lists of monks in the original compilation document the tradition of prayer fraternity, which had existed for over half a century at Reichenau. Their renewed and orderly transcription bears witness to the chronological depth through which the monks at prayer were part of a timeless monastic community.

The second section of the book was dedicated to the laity. Several pages from fol. 98 onwards were reserved for the benefactors of the monastery, under the heading NOMINA AMICORUM UIUENTIUM (Figure 5a,b). The pages from fol. 114/115 onwards have the names of the deceased patrons and benefactors. Both registers are prefaced by ruler diptychs in the narrowest sense. The attachment layer of the living amici extends to fol. 100, of which the first section includes fol. 98–fol. 99 A and the diptychon. The second section includes a collective entry of 209 names which are inscribed in two sub-divisions per column (Figure 5).

The list of living benefactors is in the form of a diptychon, compiled according to the ordines (

Table 3. Reichenau Confraternity Book, pp. 98–99 (first lay-out).

fol. 98–A	fol. 98–B	fol. 98–C	fol. 98–D	fol. 99–A
Hludouuicus impr.	Ratoldus eps.	Hilduinus abba	Mahtrat prb.	Huc com.
Hludharius impr.	Adalhelmus eps.	Einhardus abb.	Salamon prb.	Mahtfridus com.
Pippinus rex	Uuolfleoz eps.	Elisachar abb.	Peratker prb	Richuinus com.
Hluduuuicus rex	Notingus eps.	Fredegisus abb.	Oto prb.	Erchanker com.
Iudith regina	Uictor eps.	Grimoldus abb.		Albker com.
	Petrus eps.	Apollenarius abb.		Cotafrid com.
Pertha	Aldabertus eps.	Uigilius		Theotricus com.
	Benedictus eps.	Uualah		Lantfrid com.
	Ebo eps.	Odalrichus abb.		Tiso com.
	Berto eps.			Karaman com.
	Deotbertus eps.			Baldrich com.
Truago eps
Huc
Theotrich

). It opens with Emperor Louis the Pious and his family, the second column records eleven bishops, and the third sub-division contains a list of the names of nine abbots, of which two have no abbatial title. The fourth list, with only four clerics, is the shortest, and finally, in the first column on fol. 99, the names of eleven counts are inscribed. It appears that on fol. 98 of the attachment entry, three names might belong, which were not taken note of by Schmid and Autenrieth and which are inscribed in the lower half of the first column, clearly separated from the Carolingian ruling family: Truago eps–Huc–Theotrich (Schmid 1974b, pp. 58–59).

At the head of the Carolingian family was Emperor Louis the Pious, followed by his sons Lothar (who also has the added title imp.), Pippin and Louis the German (each identified by the title rex). The sequence closes with Queen Judith, who was the second wife of the emperor from 819. Between her name and the name Berta, the writer has left a blank line. The identity of Berta is uncertain. It can, however, be assumed that a sister of Louis the Pious is concealed behind the name (Werner 1967, p. 444). The three names Drogo, Hugo and Theoderich in the lower half of the first column refer to Charlemagne’s three illegitimate sons, whom Louis tonsured and sent into monasteries in 818 in connection with the insurrection of his nephew, Bernard. Drogo was reconciled with Louis in 822, and in 823 was ordained priest and became Bishop of Metz. He was one of the emperor’s closest advisers. In 822/823, Hugo was installed as Abbot of the monastery of St Quentin. It seems that Theoderich was still alive in 824 when the book was compiled. There is no news of him after 818, which suggests to researchers that he died shortly after 818. A Theoderich does, however, appear in Remiremont in 821/822, who concerned himself intensively with reforming the monastery and the compilation of the local confraternity book. There is reason to suppose that the youngest of Louis’ half-brothers might have been in Remiremont (Butz 2010, pp. 105–6). The entry of Louis’ three half-brothers is an indicator of the unanimity acquired by the Carolingian family around 823. Drogo, Hugo and Theoderich were not recorded under their respective ordines but were clearly set apart, although recognisable as Carolingians, as their names were inscribed in the first column.

The realm is represented both by the ruler and by the influential persons in the ruling class, particularly by the lists of abbots and earls. The list, which is headed by Hilduin of St Denis, comprises the names of the most important advisers to the court of the emperor, who were also, to the greatest possible extent, supporters of the imperial monastic reforms (Geuenich 1989). The list of counts opens with the names of Hugo of Tours and Matfrid of Orleans, two of the most important secular advisers to the emperor. Hugo was closely connected to the ruling family, not least because of the marriage of his daughter to Lothar I, and this is obvious from the leading position of his name (Vollmer 1957, pp. 163–66). The list of bishops, however, indicates, in particular, the monastery’s Italian connection. Only Ratold of Verona, whose name comes first in the list of bishops, is known to have had a close relationship with the imperial court (Hlawitschka 1997, pp. 8–9).

The underlying principles of classification of the ruler diptychon in the Reichenau Confraternity Book are the result of deliberate editing. Its objective was to present the Frankish realm as a consensual entity of all persons directly or indirectly involved with sovereignty under the leadership of the Carolingian dynasty. The ruler diptychon, which had been conceived for the purpose of praying for the ruler, his family and the realm, also represents the objective of monastic prayer efforts: the stability of the realm. The further objective was more than simply achieving political peace, but ensuring the sovereignty of the Carolingian dynasty itself. This future-oriented perspective is expressed in the integration of the ruling family in the diptychon, including the addition, at a slightly later date, of Louis’ two children, Gisela and Karl, in the space between Judith and Berta.

The diptychon of the dead serves the same purpose that was evident in the Salzburg Liber Vitae: the creation of a deep past by means of genealogically founded lines of tradition (Figure 6,

Table 4. Reichenau Confraternity book, p. 114.

	fol. 114–A	fol. 114–B	fol. 114–C	fol. 114–D
1	Karolus maior domus			Cerolt comis
2	Pippinus rex			Odalrich comis
3	Karlomannus maior domus			Bertolt comis
4	Karolus impr.			Pirihtilo comis
5	Karlomannus
6	Karolus rex
7	Pippinus rex
8	Bernardus rex
9	Ruadtrud
10	Ruadheid
11	Suanahil regina
12	Bertha regina
13	Hiltikart regina
14	Fastrat regina
15	Liutkart regina
16	Ruadheid
17	Hirminkar regina
18	Lantfrid
19	Hildrud
20	Ruadhilt
21	Adaltrud
22	Deotdrat
23/24	Hata Hemhilt

).

The first section of the list of deceased rulers in fol. 114 presents as a list of rulers. The sequence of names is headed by Charles Martell, followed by his two sons, King Pippin and majordomo Karlmann. The sequence continues with Pippin’s sons, Charlemagne and Karlmann. Next come the sons of Charlemagne who were capable of ruling: Charles the Younger († 811) and his brother, Pippin (Karlmann) (†810) of Italy. The list of rulers closes with Bernard, Pippin’s son, who was blinded by his uncle Louis after his rebellion and died in 818. In every generation, the brother who was granted the longest term of office and was most successful was in first place.

A list of Carolingian wives was appended to the list of rulers. In the last group, the name of Lantfrid (position 18) is particularly noticeable. This is almost certainly the last Alemannic duke, whose year of death is probably 730. This Agilolfing was related to the Carolingians through the marriage of his brother, Odilo, to Hiltrud, the daughter of Charlesl Martell. Certainly, the name Hiltrud (position 19) follows that of Lantfrid in the Reichenau diptychon of the dead. From the point of view of Reichenau, at the beginning of the 9th century, Duke Lantfrid, the last Alemannic duke, whose death was followed by the incorporation of Alemannia into Franconia, was considered to be the interface between the old Alemannic dukedom and the Frankish empire. With the inclusion of Lantfrid in the list of Carolingian rulers, the integration of Alemannia into Franconia is presented as a causal necessity.

The start of the list of counts also points in the same direction. The following four names are particularly exposed: Cerolt comis–Odalrich comis–Bertolt comis–Pirihtilo comis in the fourth sub-division of the page. This presumably refers to Gerold (II), who was incorporated into the prayers of the Reichenau monks in a particular way (Borgolte 1986, p. 124). After Tassilo’s overthrow, he was sent by Charlemagne to Bavaria as vice-regent. He was a patron of Reichenau Abbey and was the only lay person to be represented not only positively but as a martyr in the Visio Wettini of Walafrid Strabo (Walahfrid and Hatto 2009, lines 802–26). Udalrich follows him in the list of counts. Notker the Stammler presents him as the brother of Queen Hildegard and, therefore, also of Gerold (II) (Notker Balbulus 1960, cap. 17). Pirchtilo was among the representatives of the hard Alemannic policies pursued by Charles Martell. He was the royal administrator in Rottweil and is documented as being in office until the late 880s. An Earl Bertold can finally be documented up to the beginning of the 9th century in the area of Bertoldsbaar and Alaholfsbaar (Borgolte 1986, pp. 71–75).

The four counts were particularly highlighted in terms of the diptychon of the dead, in that they are all recorded on the same page as the deceased Carolingian family members, and are not named in the context of the remaining lists of counts in fol. 15. For one thing, Gerold and Udalrich were siblings of Charlemagne’s wife, and for another, they represented—together with Bertold as descendent of the Frankish imperial aristocracy and Pirchtilo as administrator of the Carolingian monarchy—the integration of Alemannia into the Frankish Empire. As supporters of Frankish rule, they belonged to the post-ducal era. Lastly, the names which follow on fol. 115 point to the time of the Alemannic dukedom, which again, are led by Duke Lantfrid (Butz, forthcoming).

The two ruler diptychs in the Reichenau confraternity book also show, as was already evident in the Salzburg Liber Vitae, various interrelated chronological layers. One aspect of the connection between the various chronological layers is that it creates a deep historical past. The monastery of Reichenau Abbey is part of not only a spatial but also a temporal extensive confraternity network. As well as being a custodian of decades-old lists of names, it also achieves a special validity, which is emphasised with the compilation of the confraternity book (Melville 2000). In this way, the monks demonstrate their ability to permanently fulfil the necessary prayer obligations demanded by the emperor. In compiling the record of the deceased, the Carolingian dynasty also achieves a deep sense of the past, in that the Alemannic kinship references give causal legitimacy to the history of the integration of Alemannia into Franconia. The transformation of the Agilolfings into Carolingians is concentrated in the person of Duke Lantfrid. It is especially clear, at this point, which role corresponds to the positioning of a name within the ordering of the book and, thus, within the world order. This precise location also aids the creation of a meaningful chronology. It also gives the diptychon of deceased benefactors an historiographical character.

The list of living benefactors projects contemporary Franconia as a political entity of all forces across the different ordines. At the head of this realm is Louis the Pious, to whom sovereignty had been handed over by his forebears and who would, in turn, hand over sovereignty to his sons. Although the function of the confraternity book as a threshold in written form between time and eternity is no longer obvious, it transfers the ordered circumstances of Louis’ sovereignty to Reichenau as intermediary between humankind and God. The causal-genealogically constructed diptychon of the dead affirms the sacral sovereignty of Louis, which exists in the orderly passage of time and which is practised consensually in the present. The political concept of the unity of the realm under the leadership of the sacral ruler was to be imparted to God with the aid of the prayers of remembrance practised in the monastery, and with God’s help, re-created and stabilised (Hen 2001, 2007). The specific goal of prayers of remembrance was not only to assist the salvation of the emperor’s soul in God’s eternal heavenly realm, but also to give medium-term support in maintaining Carolingian sovereignty. In addition, the focus for the immediate future was the restoration of stability in the crisis-torn realm of Louis the Pious.

4. Conclusions

The liturgical confraternity books of the Carolingian era reveal, in their form, a complex system of reference and interpretation. At the time in which the confraternity books were compiled, the originator conceived a principle of classification which was the result of deliberate editing. By grouping together the Carolingian rulers, their families, ancestors and advisers—as well as regional office bearers, bishops and abbots—the composition of the central ruler diptychs portrays the realm as a whole from the perspective of the particular monastery, and at the point in time that the book itself was compiled. By its inclusion in the liturgy, the unity expressed in the diptychs is, on the one hand, presented to God, and on the other, is a means of asking God to perpetuate this unity now and in eternity.

The Libri Vitae stand on the threshold between the temporal and transcendental realms, between time and eternity. They embody the coalescence of the past, the present and the future. The entries in the confraternity books record these complex temporal structures in the snapshot of the time of their compilation. The unity of christianitas should not only be created in the present time, but should also be effective from the past; moreover, the rise of the Carolingians through the integration of independent dukedoms such as Alemannia and Bavaria should present as a conflict-free and consensual process. The old leadership elite become the basis of Carolingian leadership, and this appears in the lists as a seamless progression, documenting the legitimisation of the Carolingians in all parts of the Frankish realm (McKitterick 2004; Schneidmüller 2003). The lists of deceased rulers bear witness to a deep historic past, which verifies the legitimacy of the claim to sovereignty (Ewig 1995). The acceptance of the sons of the ruler who were entitled to rule points, once more, to the future, and supports both the stability of the realm and the security of sovereignty in the hands of the Carolingian dynasty.