The Symbolic Language of Authority in the Carolingian World by Ildar H. Garipzanov
Leanne Good
REVIEWS 292 be read against Caccini’s earlier deposition of 1615. All these selections are helpfully organized chronologically, giving the reader a sense how Galileo reworked his arguments over time, and those who tried him reacted to most immediate texts. Finocchiaro carefully picks chooses from previous translations, has included updated ones own (and notes for scholar indicating where he done so, further reference). For example, translates perspicillum The Sidereal Messenger as “spyglass,” not “telescope,” pointing out that word “telescope” was coined until year after first published. weaves important scholarly details into very modern translation; at every point, makes it clear primary concerns up-to-date accuracy accessibility. According , “... all educated persons ought have some accurate reliable information about trial condemnation Galileo” (2). Finocchiaro’s text accomplishes this task; collection leaves feeling enriched by greater knowledge Galileo’s life voice. Everywhere operates under assumption is self-contained study, but written instead tool seek information. volume includes necessary apparatus beginning student scholar—in history ideas, science, religion—to continue their investigations multiple approaches. VALERIE A. SHEPARD, English, UCLA Ildar H. Garipzanov, Symbolic Language Authority in Carolingian World (c. 751–877), (Leiden Boston: Brill 2008) xx + 392 pp., ill. maps. Garipzanov introduces subject with story rejection emperor Philippicus Roman subjects 711, which they signaled refusing accept signs authority: would issue coins, date documents years rule, or mention liturgy. While past approaches study medieval royal authority focused on building consensus between rulers aristocracy, role ritual creation political consensus, focuses indirect communication through liturgical, diplomatic, numismatic, iconographic sources. Political defined here legitimated public power. author differentiates power, dependent control material resources ability make others act, authority, linked ideology legitimacy favorable attitude others. Thus dialogue becomes essential, central Garipzanov’s idea regional expectations limitations field Carolingians could communicate while also contributing diversity available them utilize. Through analysis four types “non-narrative sources,” identifies three main codes authority. When Pippin took power king 751, followed model Merovingians representing himself rex francorum, reflecting perception Frankish gens. However, ninth century, bound gens no longer fit ex- 293 panding polity. adoption late antique term imperator augustus dealt problem incorporation new gentes body. This had advantage communicating Lombard, Roman, Byzantine audiences, were familiar tradition, well satisfying ecclesiastical imperatives. image Christian ruling people unifying element; gave vicar Christ earth. After division empire sons Louis Pious, however, there revival portrayal leader protector In addition, clergymen increasingly represented themselves during Louis’ reign directly responsible God, mediating grace performance Charles Bald foremost using phrase gratia Dei connect divine grace, although detects tension clerical court versions concept...
Comitatus-a Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies