Fragmentum de Arnulfo duce Bavariae

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The so-called Fragmentum de Arnulfo duce Bavariae (about "fragment over the Bavarian Duke Arnulf") is a historiographical fragment of around 919 / 20 written essay to the Duke of Bavaria Arnulf I. It originated in the monastery of St. Emmeram in Regensburg. The fragment is part of a series of undefined conflicts that Arnulf I fought with the East Franconian kings Konrad I and Heinrich I in the first quarter of the tenth century .

Content and form of the Fragmentum de Arnulfo duce Bavariae

Table of contents

The text of the fragment begins abruptly with a half-sentence. It is described that Heinrich I ( Saxo Heimricus ) invaded the Bavarian kingdom ( regnum Baioariae ) hostile on the advice of an unnamed bishop . The unlawfulness of this advance is specifically pointed out, namely that Bavaria is a territory in which none of Heinrich's ancestors owned even an inch of land ( gressum pedis ). This is also the reason why he was defeated on his first incursion ( primo ingressu ) by a decree of God ( Dei nutu ). This can be seen as proof that Heinrich took to the field not only once against Bayern or Arnulf.

In the second section, the unknown chronicler points out that Heinrich's predecessor to the throne, Konrad I, also invaded Bavaria illegally and hostilely ( non regaliter sed hostiliter ): Konrad had gone through Bavaria murdering and pillaging and had many children orphaned ( orphanos ) and widows ( viduas ) women . Regensburg was set on fire and looted. After Konrad had committed these crimes ( peccatis ), he was forced by divine disposition ( divino nutu ) to withdraw ( exierunt coacti ). The reason for the withdrawal is not mentioned.

The last paragraph is an eulogy for Duke Arnulf, who is glorified as a glorious leader ( gloriosus dux ): He was blessed by heaven ( ex alto ) with all sorts of advantages, brave and energetic. He alone saved his people from the scourge of the Saxons ( de sevienti gladio paganorum ) and given them freedom back. This eulogy for the Bavarian duke is unprecedented for its time and underlines his position of power in the south-east of the East Franconia threatened by dissolution, so that "Arnulf [...] in the sparse historiography of his time [found] almost the same response as King Heinrich".

Date of origin, tradition, type of text

Research unanimously assumes that the place of origin of the Fragmentum de Arnulfo duce Bavariae is the Regensburg Abbey of St. Emmeram. The years 919 and 920 are given as the period of origin largely congruent. What is certain is that it was written while Duke Arnulf I of Bavaria († 937 ) was still alive . The hostile tone of the Fragmentum rules out the fact that the two conflicting parties had already reached an agreement at the time of its creation. So if one assumes - as has often been advocated - 921 as the year of the conclusion of peace, then the fragment between a presumed first failed campaign of Heinrich I and the second successful one must have arisen. In contrast to this, Andreas Kraus gives the year 935 as the date of origin.

The Fragmentum de Arnulfo duce Bavariae is the only surviving fragment of a historiographical text of unknown length, unknown content and unknown intention. Ludwig Holzfurtner assumes that it is the final part of a longer text. The little that has survived from this text looks like a price font on Arnulf I. Therefore, some historians believe that this passage was deliberately delivered while the rest of the text was forgotten. As a contemporary text, the Fragmentum paints a thoroughly positive image of Arnulf and thus contrasts with the predominantly negative assessment of the Bavarian Duke, v. a. in the history of the king, which earned him the nickname "the bad one". Other writings that were written in close proximity to Arnulf also characterize him as an ideal ruler and allow some unpopular political decisions by the Bavarian Duke, such as: B. the extensive secularization of the Bavarian Church, not mentioned. The fragment has survived in a single, non-contemporary manuscript , which contains the first parts of the philosophical treatise De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii ("The marriage of philology with Mercury") by the early medieval scholar Martianus Capella , and is listed under the signature clm 14729 in the Bavarian State Library in Munich. The text was based on fol. 70 added in the 12th century.

The conflict between Arnulf and Heinrich I.

Chronology of events

Heinrich I faced numerous problems when he took office: preventing a division of the empire had the same relevance as defending against the Hungarians and Normans . The (re) conquest of Lorraine was also an important, prestigious item on his agenda. The Bavarian Duke Arnulf I had no contact with the East Franconian monarchy since he took office in 907 , so it is reasonable to assume that he and that of considered territory he ruled as not belonging to the empire. The fact that he saw himself as a king is therefore not far off, although he may not have applied this dignity to the entire Eastern Franconian Empire, but to his territory as an independent regnum - a name for the Bavarian tribal duchy, which the chronicler of the Fragmentum also chose, and an idea that was by no means alien to the early Middle Ages : it was common practice among the Merovingians and later also among the Carolingians to divide up the tribal area, although as a rule only among relatives from their own clan.

In any case, Arnulf obviously failed to pay Heinrich I the due respect in the form of homage . Structurally, however, the problem goes back even further: Arnulf already got into a conflict that could not be further classified with Heinrich's predecessor, Konrad I. This and other similar conflicts that Konrad and Heinrich had to deal with can be traced back to v. a. on the fact that the contemporary potentates of the East Franconian parts of the empire lacked the feeling of togetherness of the individual parts, which already expired after the death of the last Carolingian emperor Arnulf of Carinthia in 899 . The Bavarian dukes enjoyed an exempte position in the ruling structure in the (late) Carolingian period. Due to their closeness to the king, they succeeded the 'fallen' Bavarian Duke Tassilo III. largely free hand. Arnulf also proved to be an energetic ruler at home, but he also had successes in foreign policy: In contrast to Conrad I and Heinrich I, he succeeded in repelling the Hungarians in 913 .

To reconstruct the exact sequence of actions of confrontation between Arnulf and King Henry, is due to the fragmentary tradition of the events of 920/ 21 hardly possible. It is therefore not possible to determine whether it was Arnulf's general attitude that prompted Heinrich I to take punitive action, or whether it was a single event that annoyed the Ottonian king. It is possible that Heinrich I took offense when Arnulf reached out to Bohemia and Italy on his own initiative. It is generally assumed that 920 is the year of Henry I's first unsuccessful campaign against Arnulf and 921 the year of the conclusion of peace. What is certain is that the public order of the empire was at stake - a situation in which a medieval king had to act, because only in consensus with the greats of the empire could he pursue a successful policy. Even if a ritual submission of Arnulf to Henry I, a so-called deditio , cannot be proven with the help of the available source material , it is very likely that such a submission did exist, as comparable contemporary cases show.

High aristocratic conflicts in Ottonian times were - with a few exceptions - always settled in this form and typically took place in three ideal stages: "controlled escalation, almost institutionalized role of intercessors to settle the conflict, ritualized restoration of the status quo ante". The latter was often sealed by a so-called amicitia alliance, i.e. a friendship treaty. The conclusion of the alliance was celebrated publicly in order to make the (re) establishment of consensus between the conflicting parties, here the king and duke, visible to a wider audience. Arnulf was then linked to Henry I twice: on the one hand as a vassal of the king, but on the other hand as a personal friend of the Saxons. This possibility of conflict resolution is an essential structural element of Ottonian rule: Heinrich I, in contrast to his Carolingian and Conradin predecessors, already refused to intervene in the fortunes of all parts of the empire. Instead, he sat on Integration: He allied himself with the individual tribal dukes - Eberhard in Franconia , Burchard in Swabia and just Arnulf in Bavaria - and left these in return for allegiance silk domestically largely free hand. Church policy was an exception: Henry I and his Ottonian successors generally insisted on intervening in the investiture of the territorial clergy. Often non-indigenous bishops were dependent on the favor and support of the East Franconian king due to the lack of a power base. In this context, it is particularly noteworthy that Heinrich I, in the so-called Treaty of Regensburg of 921 in favor of Arnulf, refrained from intervening in the Bavarian clergy, and is probably due to the domestic and foreign political power base of the Bavarian Duke.

The question of Duke Arnulf's antagonism

In research it is still controversial today whether Arnulf actually raised himself to the counter-king . This assumption is understandable in any case, because "[...] apparently at that time [...] Duke Arnulf I of Bavaria also made a claim to a kingship of an uncertain magnitude", as Alois Schmid suggests. This thesis is underlined by Robert F. Barkowski and Kurt Reindel , who identify Arnulf as the "antagonist" based on the available source material. Wolfgang Giese and Roman Deutinger also agree with this finding, citing the Annales Iuvavenses .

Gerd Althoff and Hagen Keller, however, favor the thesis that Arnulf was proclaimed king by his supporters. However, this king's elevation was limited to the Bavarian sub-empire as far as the claim to power was concerned. Accordingly, Arnulf was not an anti -king in the true sense of the word , but rather a "rival to the throne", who, however, raised independent crown rights to part of Eastern Franconia. This seems plausible against the background that the empire's feeling of internal togetherness was lost at the end of the ninth century (see above).

Ludwig Holzfurtner, on the other hand, contradicts the idea of ​​any kind of (counter) royalty Arnulf: the latter acted far too passively for that. Solid evidence of a possible king's elevation, such as B. a king ride or the drafting of circulars to high-ranking addressees, was almost completely absent in the case of Arnulf. The fact that Arnulf ruled like a king in Bavaria and acquired royal privileges is not sufficient as evidence of (counter) kingship.

output

literature

  • Gerd Althoff : The privilege of the deditio. Forms of amicable ending of conflict in medieval aristocratic society . In the S. (Ed.): Rules of the game of politics in the Middle Ages. Communication in peace and feud . WBG, Darmstadt 2014, pp. 99–125.
  • Ders .: demonstration and staging. Rules of the game of communication in medieval public . In the S. (Ed.): Rules of the game of politics in the Middle Ages. Communication in peace and feud . WBG, Darmstadt 2014, pp. 229–257.
  • Ders .: The Ottonians. Royal rule without a state (= Kohlhammer & Urban paperbacks . Vol. 473). Kohlhammer & Urban, Stuttgart a. a. 2013, ISBN 978-3-17-022443-8 .
  • On the other hand: royal rule and conflict resolution in the 10th and 11th centuries . In the S. (Ed.): Rules of the game of politics in the Middle Ages. Communication in peace and feud . WBG, Darmstadt 2014, pp. 21–56.
  • Ders./ Hagen Keller : Heinrich I and Otto the Great. New beginning on Carolingian heritage (= personality and history . Vol. 122/123). 2 volumes. Muster-Schmidt, Göttingen a. a. 1994, ISBN 978-3-7881-0122-0 .
  • Robert F. Barkowski : The Ottonians and the concept of a united Europe . Parthas, Berlin 2014, ISBN 978-3-86964-073-0 .
  • Helmut Beumann : The Ottonen (= Kohlhammer & Urban pocket books . Bd. 384). Kohlhammer & Urban, Stuttgart a. a. 2000, ISBN 3-17-016-473-2 .
  • Roman Deutinger : The election of the king and the raising of the duke of Arnulf of Bavaria. The testimony of the older Salzburg annals for the year 920. In: Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 58 (2002), pp. 17–68. ( Digitized version ).
  • Wolfgang Giese : Heinrich I. founder of the Ottonian rule (= figures of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance ). WBG, Darmstadt 2008, ISBN 978-3-534-18204-6 .
  • Ludwig Holzfurtner : The Luitpoldinger. The beginning of high medieval Bavaria . In: Alois Schmid / Katharina Weigand (eds.): The rulers of Bavaria. 25 historical portraits of Tassilo III. to Ludwig II. Beck, Munich 2001, 43–57.
  • Ders .: Gloriosus Dux. Studies on Duke Arnulf von Bayern (907-937) (= Journal for Bavarian State History . Supplement 25B). Beck, Munich 2003, ISBN 3-406-10666-8 .
  • Hagen Keller: The Ottonen (= Beck'sche series . Vol. 2146). Beck, Munich 2001, ISBN 3-406-44746-5 .
  • Andreas Kraus : Civitas Regia. The image of Regensburg in German historiography of the Middle Ages (= Regensburg Historical Research . Vol. 3). Lassleben, Kallmünz 1972, ISBN 3-7847-4003-0 .
  • Kurt Reindel : Duke Arnulf and the Regnum Bavariae. In: Journal for Bavarian State History 17 (1953/54), pp. 187-252.
  • Rudolf Schieffer : Ottonen and Salier in Bavaria. The duchy between the proximity and distance of the king . In: Alois Schmid / Katharina Weigand (eds.): The rulers of Bavaria. 25 historical portraits of Tassilo III. until Ludwig II . Beck, Munich 2001, pp. 58-69.
  • Alois Schmid: The image of the Bavarian Duke Arnulf (907-937) in German historiography from his contemporaries to Wilhelm von Giesebrecht (= Regensburg historical research . Vol. 5). Lassleben, Kallmünz 1976, ISBN 3-7847-4005-7 .

Web links

Remarks

  1. ↑ Alois Schmid: Das Bild des Bayernherzogs Arnulf , p. 14.
  2. ↑ See Wolfgang Giese: Heinrich I. , p. 76 .; also Ludwig Holzfurtner: Gloriosus Dux , pp. 126–129; also Alois Schmid: Das Bild des Bayernherzogs Arnulf , pp. 7–9.
  3. ↑ See Andreas Kraus: Civitas Regia , p. 8.
  4. ↑ See Ludwig Holzfurtner: Gloriosus Dux , pp. 126–129.
  5. ↑ See e.g. B. Alois Schmid: The image of the Bavarian Duke Arnulf , pp. 7–23 passim.
  6. ↑ Brief description of the Fragmentum de Arnulfo duce Bavariae on the pages of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences ( http://www.geschichtsquellen.de/repOpus_02305.html )
  7. ↑ See Gerd Althoff / Hagen Keller: Heinrich I. and Otto the Great , pp. 41–56; also Robert F. Barkowski: Die Ottonen and the concept of a united Europe , p. 41 f .; also Helmut Beumann: Die Ottonen , pp. 22–31; also Kurt Reindel: Herzog Arnulf and the Regnum Bavariae, pp. 222–233.
  8. ↑ See Helmut Beumann: Die Ottonen , pp. 28–31; also Ludwig Holzfurtner: Die Luitpoldinger , pp. 45–52; also Alois Schmid: Das Bild des Bayernherzogs Arnulf , pp. 14-18.
  9. ↑ Cf. Gerd Althoff: Das Privileg der deditio , pp. 99-101; likewise another .: royal rule and conflict resolution , pp. 22–29; also Wolfgang Giese: Heinrich I. , p. 75; also Ludwig Holzfurtner: Gloriosus Dux , pp. 101–112.
  10. ^ Gerd Althoff: Royal rule and conflict resolution in the 10th and 11th centuries , p. 53.
  11. ↑ See Gerd Althoff: Demonstration and Staging , pp. 230–243; likewise another .: Die Ottonen , pp. 45–62; likewise another .: royal rule and conflict resolution , p. 54; also Wolfgang Giese: Heinrich I. , p. 76 fu 151–156; also Hagen Keller: Die Ottonen , pp. 103–123; also Alois Schmid: Das Bild des Bayernherzogs Arnulf , p. 35.
  12. ^ Rudolf Schieffer: Ottonen and Salier in Bavaria , p. 60.
  13. ^ Robert F. Barkowski: The Ottonians and the concept of a united Europe , p. 41; Kurt Reindel: Duke Arnulf and the Regnum Bavariae, p. 187 f.
  14. ↑ Cf. Roman Deutinger: King election and ducal elevation of Arnulf of Bavaria , pp. 20–30 passim; also Wolfgang Giese: Heinrich I. , p. 73 f.
  15. ↑ See Gerd Althoff / Hagen Keller: Heinrich I and Otto the Great , p. 68.
  16. ↑ Helmut Beumann: Die Ottonen , p. 35.
  17. ↑ See Ludwig Holzfurtner: Gloriosus Dux , p. 123 f.