medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
"Ms B.M. Cook" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Don't we have to distinguish between the patron saint of (the realm of)
France and the patron saint of the Royal House ?
i wonder if such a distinction would have been possible before --i don't
know-- the later 13th c. (just to pick an arbitrary number). a question to
bounce around on the history list. there was the use of the term
"Francia" rather early on, i believe, but i'm not sure what it really
entailed. and, the king was the "Rex Francorum," but, was there a "Regnum
Francorum" as a term/concept? i don't know.
the "royal domain" is, i believe, a quite modern term and, since Wendell
Newman's work in the late '30s (_La Domaine Royal..._), is not reflective --or
not just reflective-- of a geographical area, but is much more elastic,
encompassing, as well as the real property, all the places where the monarch
exercised any sorts of significant rights. as far as i know, Newman's work
is still, at the least, a touchstone for debate on the issue (except, of
course, for the French: since he was an American, even though he published
most everything he did in French, he needn't be taken seriously). Bournazel's
more recent book --the name escapes me-- might well treat the matter
differently, though i wasn't too impressed with it, i have to say.
>[log in to unmask] wrote:
>St Martin was certain important to the Carolingians.
as was Denny.
Suger only added on to the west and re-did the east of the Carolingian
building did he not? were there Carolingians burried there? i can't recall.
of course, Paris is not the Carolingian "capital."
and to the Merovingians --"Dagobert's Tomb" wasn't Suger's invention, was it?
>Martin's cloak ...was preserved at Aachen, presumably by the Holy Roman
Emperors. After the break up of the Carolingian Empire, this would have made
continued political or military reverence difficult in France.
interesting idea.
might even be true.
but, equally important, i should theorize (on no evidence whatever) might be
the fact that Tours was not in royal hands from the 9th c. --passing first to
the Thibaudians of Blois/Chartres, then, in the 1030s(?), to the Angevins.
while Saint-Denis (the place) was rather centrally located geographically in
the Capetian domains, which extended from Bourges to Soissons (and beyond?).
>The fortunes of St Denis, I suspect, rose with those of the Capetians.
that's what i mean.
combination of factors, surely.
the early capetians were, like all the great Movers and Shakers, peripatetic,
constantly on the move, showing the flag, healing dandruff,
dispensing justice, twisting arms, kicking the necessary butt here and there,
smoozing with all the various Saintly Powers around and about (cf. the
remarkable itineraries to be found in any edition of the various royal
_acta_).
one of Suger's main points in his recounting of the struggles of Fat Louis
with the petty barons of the region south of Paris is that they "strangled"
(his word, i think) the communication route between the southern and northern
parts of the king's direct holdings. hence, a very modest place like Etampes
becomes --for a time-- statregically very important.
the location of Denny's planting place --roughly in the middle of things
--was surely important, happenstantial though it was, and Philip Augustus'
decisions to settle down a *bit* more and to make Paris more or less the
"capital" of the realm didn't hurt his cause, either.
idle thoughts.
best from here,
christopher
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|