Carolingian imperial calendar

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Carolingian Imperial Calendar is a medieval type of calendar that is said to have arisen in the context of the Carolingian reform efforts of the 8th century. The term was coined by the German medievalist Arno Borst .

Origin and Distribution

The Roman-ancient genre of the calendar did not survive the upheaval in the early Middle Ages in Western Europe . No Latin daily calendars have survived for the period from the 4th to the 7th centuries. What remained were computist writings , Easter tables and martyrologies that served to define the Christian festival calendar and the sacred culture of remembrance. Time was "subject to the unconditional disposal of God, both as a whole and in detail." From the middle of the 8th century, however, a change in the perception of time began. Monks began to note events that were insignificant for the sacred order, such as the beginning of the seasons or political anniversaries, next to religious memorial days.

Borst is convinced that the prototype of the Carolingian imperial calendar was created in 789 in Lorsch Monastery under the aegis of Abbot Richbod , who belonged to Charlemagne's circle of advisers . A connection to the reform program of the imperial court is also obvious because Karl was very interested in questions of the calculation of time and on various occasions demanded that priests should have basic computational knowledge. From then on, the new calendar continued to develop and its various versions prevailed in Latin Europe up to the 12th century.

swell

In addition to other calendars, according to Borst, the monks mainly used a liturgical calendar from Rome and extended in northern England. This calendar reached the Franconian Empire via English missionaries and was not identical to the lost calendar of the Anglo-Saxon scholar Beda Venerabilis . His computist writing De temporum ratione was the "main source for all non-liturgical and non-formal aspects" of the Lorsch calendar. In addition, the monks used the Naturalis Historia of Pliny . The templates could possibly have reached Lorsch via the Franconian court library.

Lore

For his edition, Arno Borst takes 250 calendar manuscripts from the 9th to 12th centuries into account. He divides these into eight traditional groups (A – H) according to spatial and temporal criteria. A manuscript made around 840 in Prüm , which is now in the Berlin State Library (Phillipps 1869, fol. 1r – 11v), and which Borst traces directly back to the Lorsch prototype from 789, serves as the guiding manuscript .

construction

The calendar consists of a solar and an attached lunar calendar . The individual months are preceded by headers that separate the monthly entries from one another and contain information on the number of days, day length and signs of the zodiac . This is followed by an opening credits, which u. a. relates the Latin calendar to the Greek , Hebrew and Egyptian calendar systems and etymologically derives the name of the month . Finally, the actual daily calendar follows with a three-part daily line: the first column contains key figures and letters ( golden number , sidereal and synodic moon letters ), the second column shows the Roman day, the third column (fixed zone) is particularly for Christian saints, but also Profane dates such as Charlemagne's birthday on April 2nd or details of unlucky days are reserved. It should be noted that the individual calendar manuscripts differ considerably in their execution. For example, the calendar manuscript referred to as A4 contains only a simple header, which indicates the zodiac sign and the number of days of the month in question; the header and footer are completely missing. Due to the great differences between the various editorial offices of the calendar, Borst avoided using the common term archetype and instead spoke of a prototype in connection with the Lorsch calendar, from which the various lines of tradition would have developed.

Criticism of Borst's conception

Borst's calendar edition met with approval from experts, but also received criticism from various quarters. The three main critics Paul Meyvaert , Donald Bullough and Brigitte Englisch shared some of Borst's basic assumptions, but started from different starting points. English edited the calendar manuscript named by Borst A4. She also considered this to be Carolingian , but believed in an emergence of the same in an early phase of Carolingian reform attempts around the Synod of Soissons in 744. In contrast, Meyvaert and Bullough assumed an Anglo-Saxon origin of the calendar. According to Meyvaert, the imperial calendar is actually the long-lost calendar Bedas referred to in his work De temporum ratione . This was brought to the Carolingian court by Alkuin from England , after it had already been held for a long time before Christ. a. circulated in England and Ireland . The court of Charlemagne would only have the role of having promoted the spread of the calendar on the continent. In contrast, Borst assumed that the Carolingian calendar had superseded Beda's calendar. Borst dealt extensively with the criticism of Meyvaert, Bullough and Englisch 2004 in monographic form.

literature

Edition

  • The Carolingian imperial calendar and its tradition up to the 12th century , ed. v. Arno Borst, 3 vol., Hahnsche Buchhandlung, Hanover 2001 (MGH Libri mem. 2).

Secondary literature

  • Arno Borst: The dispute about the Carolingian calendar , Hahnsche Buchhandlung, Hanover 2004 (MGH studies and texts; 36).
  • Arno Borst: The Carolingian calendar reform , Hahnsche Buchhandlung: Hannover 1998 (MGH Schriften; 46).
  • Arno Borst: Computus. Time and Numbers in the History of Europe , Wagenbach Verlag, 3rd edition, Berlin 2004.
  • Donald A. Bullough: Alcuin. Achievement and Reputation , Brill, Leiden u. a. 2002 (Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance; 16).
  • Michel Bur : Review of: The Carolingian imperial calendar and its tradition up to the 12th century , ed. v. Arno Borst in: Revue d'Histoire ecclésiastique No. 97.2, 2002, pp. 174-175.
  • Immo Eberl: Review of: The Carolingian imperial calendar and its tradition up to the 12th century , ed. v. Arno Borst, in: Swiss Journal for History No. 53, 2003, pp. 463–464.
  • Brigitte English: Time recording and calendar problems in the early Carolingian period: The calendar of the ms. Cologne DB 83-2 and the Synod of Soissons 744 , Thorbecke, Stuttgart 2002 (Instrumenta; 8).
  • Yitzak Hen: Review of: The Carolingian imperial calendar and its tradition up to the 12th century , ed. v. Arno Borst, in: Francia No. 31, 2004, pp. 289-290.
  • Paul Meyvaert: Discovering the Calendar (Annalis Libellus) attached to Bede's own copy of "De temporum ratione" , in: Analecta Bollandiana No. 120, 2002, pp. 5-64.
  • Wesley M. Stevens: Review of: The Carolingian imperial calendar and its tradition up to the 12th century , ed. v. Arno Borst, in: Cahiers de Civilization médiévale No. 47, 2004, pp. 384–387.
  • Steven Vanderputten: Review of: The Carolingian imperial calendar and its tradition up to the 12th century , ed. v. Arno Borst, in: Le Moyen Âge. Revue d'Histoire et de Philologie No. 110, 2004, p. 1089.
  • Werner Sulzgruber: Time Experience and Time Order from the Early Middle Ages to the 16th Century , Hamburg 1995.

Individual evidence

  1. ^ The Carolingian imperial calendar and its tradition up to the 12th century , ed. v. Arno Borst, vol. 1, Hahnsche Buchhandlung, Hannover 2001, p. 16.
  2. ^ The Carolingian imperial calendar and its tradition up to the 12th century , ed. v. Arno Borst, Vol. 1, Hahnsche Buchhandlung, Hannover 2001, p. 17.
  3. ^ The Carolingian imperial calendar and its tradition up to the 12th century , ed. v. Arno Borst, Vol. 1, Hahnsche Buchhandlung, Hannover 2001, p. 17.
  4. ^ Arno Borst: The Carolingian calendar reform , Hahnsche Buchhandlung, Hanover 1998, p. 246.
  5. ^ Arno Borst: The Carolingian calendar reform , Hahnsche Buchhandlung, Hanover 1998, pp. 232–244.
  6. ^ Arno Borst: The Carolingian calendar reform , Hahnsche Buchhandlung, Hanover 1998, pp. 248–249.
  7. ^ Arno Borst: The Carolingian calendar reform , Hahnsche Buchhandlung, Hanover 1998, p. 252.
  8. ^ The Carolingian imperial calendar and its tradition up to the 12th century , ed. v. Arno Borst, Vol. 1, Hahnsche Buchhandlung, Hanover 2001, SS 54–333.
  9. ^ The Carolingian imperial calendar and its tradition up to the 12th century , ed. v. Arno Borst, Vol. 1, Hahnsche Buchhandlung, Hanover 2001, pp. 56–59.
  10. ^ The Carolingian imperial calendar and its tradition up to the 12th century , ed. v. Arno Borst, Vol. 2, Hahnsche Buchhandlung, Hannover 2001, p. 751.
  11. ↑ Hs. Köln, Diözesan- und Dombibl. 83II, fol. 72v – 76r [digital version available at http://www.ceec.uni-koeln.de/ ].
  12. ↑ Arno Borst: The dispute about the Carolingian calendar. Hahnsche Buchhandlung, Hannover 2004, p. 12.
  13. ↑ Michel Bur expressed himself predominantly positively in: Revue d'Histoire ecclésiastique No. 97,2, 2002, pp. 174–175; Immo Eberl in: Swiss Journal for History No. 53, 2003, pp. 463–464; Steven Vanderputten in: Le Moyen Âge . Revue d'Histoire et de Philologie No. 110, 2004, p. 1089; on the other hand rather critical: Wesley M. Stevens in: Cahiers de Civilization médiévale No. 47, 2004, pp. 384–387; Yitzak Hen in: Francia No. 31, 2004, pp. 289-290.
  14. ↑ Brigitte English: Time recording and calendar problems in the early Carolingian period: The calendar of the Hs. Cologne DB 83-2 and the Synod of Soissons 744 , Thorbecke, Stuttgart 2002. Cf. in summary Arno Borst: The dispute about the Carolingian calendar , Hahnsche Buchhandlung Hanover 2004, pp. 7-10.
  15. ↑ Donald A. Bullough: Alcuin. Achievement and Reputation , Brill, Leiden u. a. 2002; Paul Meyvaert: Discovering the Calendar (Annalis Libellus) attached to Bede's own copy of "De temporum ratione" , in: Analecta Bollandiana No. 120, 2002, pp. 5-64. Cf. in summary Arno Borst: The dispute about the Carolingian calendar , Hahnsche Buchhandlung, Hannover 2004, pp. 3–7.
  16. ^ Paul Meyvaert: Discovering the Calendar (Annalis Libellus) attached to Bede's own copy of "De temporum ratione" , in: Analecta Bollandiana No. 120, 2002, p. 8.
  17. ^ The Carolingian imperial calendar and its tradition up to the 12th century , ed. v. Arno Borst, Volume 1, Hahnsche Buchhandlung, Hannover 2001, p. 19.
  18. ^ Arno Borst: The dispute about the Carolingian calendar , Hahnsche Buchhandlung, Hanover 2004.