Skip to main content

IMC 2016: Sessions

Session 1030: Carolingian Religious Culture

Wednesday 6 July 2016, 09.00-10.30

Moderator/Chair:Rosamond McKitterick, Faculty of History, University of Cambridge
Paper 1030-aParis, Bibliothèque Nationale Nouv. Acq. Lat. 1740: The Book of Deuteronomy Interpreted as a Carolingian Christian Community
(Language: English)
Yin Liu, Department of History, University of Notre Dame, Indiana
Index terms: Biblical Studies, Religious Life
Paper 1030-b'How many Dúngals are there anyway'?: A Question Revisited
(Language: English)
Julia Warnes, Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto, Downtown
Index terms: Genealogy and Prosopography, Historiography - Modern Scholarship, Language and Literature - Latin

Paper -a:
On Manuscript Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale Nouv. Acq. Lat. 1740, the marginal glosses beside the biblical text of Deuteronomy, by a 9th-century anonymous author in Lyons, was the most original commentary on the last book of Pentateuch in the early Middle Ages. Since Paul-Irénée Fransen discovered and edited this commentary, there has not been any systematic study of it yet. The originality of this Lyons commentary, as will be demonstrated by comparing it with patristic exegetical tradition and other Carolingian Deuteronomy commentaries, reflects the distinctive exegetical concern of its author. The Lyons commentary was not written as a purely scholarly work, but as a conscious hermeneutical effort to make Deuteronomy a moral and spiritual guide for different orders in a contemporary Christian community. A reflection upon this commentary will bring fresh thought on the nature of the Carolingian exegesis and religious culture.

This paper will attempt to establish how many Dúngals were active in the Carolingian empire during the 9th century. Since Traube's (1892) identification of at least four separate Dúngals, the topic has been discussed again and again, most notably by Manitius, Wattenbach, Dümmler, and finally Esposito, who in 1932 concluded that nearly everything could be attributed to one individual. More recently, Bischoff, Contreni, Leonardi, and Riché have taken up the question, arriving at different conclusions. This paper will first reconsider the arguments made by these scholars, and second offer some new insight into this much-vexed question.