Claudius of Turin's Insane Fury: The Rhetoric of Emotions and Community
© 2021 by Kelly Gibson. All intellectual property rights reserved. This edition copyright © 2021 by The Heroic Age.
Permissions granted for educational and personal purposes only.
Abstract: Jonas of Orléans's attack on Claudius of Turin in De cultu imaginum utilizes specific emotion words that present Claudius as an outsider and enemy of the community of Christians and saints and associate him with past heretics, political enemies, and the devil and demons. Claudius’ fury, pride, excessive zeal, and lack of shame and fear led to his conflict with the rest of the Church. Jonas encouraged patience, humility, and love as ways to restore peace and order in the Church. He portrayed Claudius's heresy as an issue of wrong emotion, not simply wrong doctrine, and offered an image of orthodox worshipers united in detestation, fear, and grief in response to heresy and in love and joy in the presence of relics. Jonas reinforced the image of Claudius as outsider by contrasting this ideal emotional script with Claudius's emotions. Jonas's use of emotions illustrates how authority accompanied a specific set of emotions that were evoked in order to define membership and preserve and promote proper hierarchy within a community while excluding, discrediting, and silencing oppositional voices by labeling their emotions as unacceptable.
§1. In De cultu imaginum (hereafter DCI), Jonas of Orléans attributed Claudius of Turin's statements and actions to vesanus furor, "insane fury," telling Claudius that "it is obvious that you were seized by such insane fury (tam vesano furore correptum) that you do not know what you say" and asking if he removed the cross from churches because "you were seized by such insane fury (tam vesano furore raperis) that you imitated Julian the Apostate" (DCI 1, 331C, 333C). Jonas insinuated that Claudius should be ashamed of his fury and incorrect statements, instructing him to "blush that seized by insane fury (erubesce quod vesano furore correptus) you made the cross as important as a donkey" (DCI 2, 345A).
§2. DCI responded to extracts from Claudius's Apologeticum sent to Abbot Theutmir after February of 824 (Noble 2009, 289–91). In these extracts, which Jonas quoted and refuted in his treatise, Claudius described how, after becoming bishop of Turin, "I found all the basilicas filled against the order of truth with foul images, worthy of anathema, and because everyone paid cult to them (colebant) I began to destroy them all by myself" (DCI 1, 315B, 316B, trans. Noble 2009, 288). In Jonas's view, Claudius rejected not only images but also the cult of the saints, the cross, and pilgrimage to Rome (Noble 2009, 295–306).
§3. My focus here is not to examine these scholars' doctrinal positions but to explore the role of emotions in Jonas's treatise. I argue that Jonas utilized specific emotion words to present an image of Claudius as an outsider and enemy of the community of Christians and saints. Vesanus furor had a long history of motivating enemies of the Church to destroy ecclesiastical unity. This emotion placed Claudius in the company of past heretics and enemies and reinforced the traditional portrayal of heretics as insane associates of the devil and demons. Claudius's furor, pride, excessive zeal, and lack of shame and fear led to conflict with the rest of the Church. Jonas portrayed these emotions as disruptive to ecclesiastical harmony and hierarchy and encouraged patience, humility, and love as ways to restore peace and order in the Church. He highlighted the saints' important place in this community by urging these same emotions of love, humility, and properly directed grief and fear in the presence of relics. He strengthened the image of Claudius as outsider and enemy by showing how his emotions differed from those of orthodox worshipers united in detestation, fear, and grief in response to heresy and in love and joy in the presence of relics. Jonas depicted Claudius's heresy as an issue of wrong emotion, not simply wrong doctrine. His treatise illustrates how authority accompanied a specific set of emotions that were evoked in order to define membership and preserve and promote proper hierarchy within a community while excluding, discrediting, and silencing oppositional voices by labeling their emotions as unacceptable.
I. Method: Emotions, Community, and Authority
§4. Following the approach of Barbara H. Rosenwein, I examine the use of emotion words in their context (Rosenwein 2006; Rosenwein 2016). I do not attempt to determine the author's emotions. Neither Claudius nor Jonas mentioned being angry, but they may have been angry when writing their treatises, just as Thomas F. X. Noble perceived "expressions of anger" in the Opus Caroli (Noble 2009, 212). Since texts such as Jonas's offer more information about emotional standards than actual emotions (Perfetti 2005, 2), I understand Jonas's mentions of emotions as reflections of his view of proper emotions, not indications of how Claudius really felt.
§5. Jonas's other works can offer further insight into his views of emotions and use of them in DCI. He wrote De institutione laicali (hereafter DIL) in the 820s, initially for Count Matfrid of Orléans, and De institutione regia (hereafter DIR) in 831 for King Pippin of Aquitaine (Dubreucq 1995, 38, 49; Dubreucq 2012, 101–2). Mirrors for the laity have proven particularly useful for the history of emotions (Rosenwein 2016, 67–87; Romig 2017, 39–66). Despite the potential value of this approach, Jonas's three treatises are rarely explored in terms of shared concerns (Appleby 1996, 27). Studies on emotions in DCI have either focused on the emotions related to images or as invective against Claudius without taking into account Jonas's use of emotions throughout DCI and his other treatises (Appleby 2002; Boulhol 2000; Noble 2009, 296–302). The similarities between lay and clerical elite culture reinforce the value of considering the lay mirrors and DCI together. Clerics and the laity both sought salvation and the same sources provided instruction in how to achieve this goal. In DIL, Jonas's discussion of the virtues and vices, including emotions, applied to all the faithful (Sot 2009, 341–52). The fact that Jonas valued the same emotions in a bishop and a lay noble, as we will see, confirms this view.
§6. Since these treatises indicate that Jonas believed that bishops should advise laity on proper emotions, Jonas likely felt that proper emotions were even more important for bishops, who were expected to teach by word and example (Concilium Parisiense 829 1.4). Jonas took part in the Council of Paris in 829 and probably served as recorder of these acts (Patzold 2006, 342). Jonas's treatises also include much of the material from these acts (Dubreucq 1995, 35–42). The first book of these acts was "an elaboration of a new episcopal model" in response to the recent political crisis that the bishops interpreted as a call for everyone to repent. The most important task in fulfilling a bishop's ministerium was "to guide the Christian people" and correct the people (Patzold 2006, 344–45). Jonas's view that proper emotions are necessary characteristics of an ideal bishop is also evident in his revision of the Life of Saint Hubert, which has been described as a mirror for bishops (Dubreucq 1995, 28; Patzold 2008, 169). Satoshi Tada noted that Jonas "erased the grumbling comments of Hubert" and "deliberately softened the strength of Hubert's reaction" after learning that he could not navigate the Meuse because it had dried up (Tada 2003, 220).
§7. Although Jonas may have started DCI with the goal of correcting Claudius, he must have had other aims for the finished treatise. Jonas stopped working on DCI around 827, when he heard that Claudius had died, and then published it in the early 840s, dedicated to Charles the Bald (Noble 2009, 290, 295; DCI praefatio, 307A, 305B). Jonas perceived a resurgence of error among Claudius's disciples (DCI praefatio, 307A–B; Noble 2009, 295). We may, therefore, view Jonas's characterization of Claudius as an ad hominem attack in order to damage the reputation of him and his teachings. Jonas's portrayal of Claudius as a bishop with the wrong emotions could have had great weight among those who shared Jonas's view of episcopal duties, such as the other bishops in attendance at the Council of Paris. Jonas's strategy may be similar to that of the later Mainz annalist who criticized Charles the Fat by addressing "a number of carefully chosen themes of normal and appropriate behaviour, which constitute a pointed attack on the emperor for doing just what he ought not to have done" (MacLean 2003, 33). If it is correct to read DCI as a critique of Claudius himself, then Jonas's extensive use of emotions could suggest that there was an expectation that bishops should exhibit correct emotions. In addition, although DCI had a very limited circulation (Dubreucq 1995, 31), it is entirely possible that it could have functioned as a mirror for bishops to teach them which emotions to avoid and which emotions to cultivate and promote to clerics and the laity.
§8. Personal image and attack of that image played a significant role in this controversy, as the writings of others involved in it show. Janneke Raaijmakers argues that Claudius portrayed himself as a "lone voice" and his "self-styled image and the associations it evoked in the end influenced how people remembered him: a solitary figure" (Raaijmakers 2017, 72). In his treatise against Claudius, Dungal "deployed the ad hominem attack" "to pull apart Claudius's self-styled persona" (Raaijmakers 2017, 83). It seems that Jonas adopted the image of Claudius as a solitary figure and portrayed him as outside of the Church. He juxtaposed Claudius's view of Saint Peter with the view "of the entire holy Church" (DCI 3, 376A). As bishop, Claudius should have fostered ecclesiastical unity, as illustrated by the assertion of the Council of Paris "that the universal holy Church of God is one body" (Concilium Parisiense 829 1.2; Patzold 2008, 155; Patzold 2006, 344). As we will see, Jonas also utilized emotions to argue that Claudius was outside of the Church and harming ecclesiastical unity.
§9. Shared ideas about emotions could define membership in a community. This is the idea behind Rosenwein's concept of an "emotional community," a group "in which people adhere to the same norms of emotional expression and value—or devalue—the same or related emotions" (Rosenwein 2006, 2). "Templates of acceptable" emotions were "recognizable within particular ‘emotional communities'" and "redrew the lines of community, assigning membership" to those following the templates (Malegam 2016, 374). In this light, we can consider that Jonas portrayed Claudius as an outsider by ascribing emotions to him that were not part of the emotional template that Jonas valued. Since emotions would only be effective argumentative tools if there were shared attitudes toward them, this study of Jonas's views could possibly also shed light on those held by his contemporaries. Because, as we will see, earlier sources shaped Jonas's understanding of emotions, someone familiar with these sources could have developed similar opinions. Jonas's critique could still have influenced those outside of his emotional community because "people who similarly associate feelings need not be members of the same ‘emotional community.' They may simply be expressing the same preference from a range of culturally authorized emotional scripts" (Malegam 2016, 384).
§10. Jonas also seems to assert his authority over Claudius by portraying himself as following an appropriate emotional script and Claudius as following an inappropriate one. Two concepts have addressed how power influences the privileging of one emotional script over others. William M. Reddy's concept of an "emotional regime" considers "the set of normative emotions" as "a necessary underpinning of any stable political regime" (Reddy 2001, 129). For the pre-modern period, Rosenwein prefers to describe this as an "ascendant emotional community," which owed its dominant place to not just "political power but because their emotional styles suited certain forms of power and lifestyles at certain times" (Rosenwein 2006, 200, 202).
§11. Studies of anger have most clearly demonstrated the relationship between emotions and power. The attitude toward anger depended on the judgment of whether it was rational or irrational (Malegam 2016, 375). From the Middle Ages to today, there are numerous examples of the anger of women, non-whites, and those outside of the economic and social elite being portrayed as irrational (Perfetti 2005, 7; Rosenwein 2020, 76–77, 125). Much insight into the relationship between power and emotional discourse has come from feminist approaches (Lutz 2002, 197). The right to become angry shows one's power while "anger from powerlessness (the woman's lot) is seen as more out of control, more passionate, and more ineffectual" (Kemp and Strongman 1995, 410).
§12. Evocation of emotions, particularly anger, could serve to reinforce existing social divisions and positions, as work on later medieval sources has shown. Albert of Aachen stressed love between crusaders and portrayed anger between them as harmful but presented anger as a "legitimate" response to injuries against Christians (Spencer 2016, 428–30). Richard E. Barton argues that "the decision to use ira or furor in describing a subject's anger was not a light one, but rather a political one that simultaneously betrayed the author's personal beliefs about the subject while it worked to maintain the existing structures of political authority." Ira was applied to "those in positions of legitimate authority: kings, dukes, counts, bishops, and husbands" while furor characterized "rebellious nobles, perverse and rebellious clerks, and wives" (Barton 2005, 390–91). This use was shaped by furor's association with "madness, lack of control, irrationality, ineffectiveness, and deceit or secrecy" (Barton 2005, 389). In a similar way, as we will see, Claudius's furor served to depict him as rebellious against proper authority.
II. Furor: An Emotion of Outsiders
§13. Jonas's works use four words to describe anger of varying types: ira, furor, indignatio, and iracundia. Jonas did not ascribe ira to Claudius. Apart from God, only those with ira are demons and a torturer of Christians (DCI 1, 323C; 3, 372D). These attributions, along with a quotation of 1 Timothy 2:8 about prayer without ira (DCI 3, 370B), show that Jonas saw ira as undesirable.
§14. Jonas portrayed ira as a product of foolishness and furor as arising from lack of reason. In his section on ira in DIL, Jonas associated ira and foolishness by quoting Ecclesiastes 7:10: ira in sinu stulti requiescit. He continued, drawing on Alcuin's De virtutibus et vitiis liber ad Widonem comitem (hereafter DVV), "whoever does not manage a prompting of the mind with reason easily falls into furor" (Quisquis namque motum animi sui ratione non regit, facile in furorem incidit, DIL 3.6, cf. DVV 31, Rosenwein 2016, 76, 79). As in my opening examples, Jonas primarily used furor to describe Claudius. The application of furor to Claudius suggests that he could not control his emotions with reason.
§15. This concept of furor due to the absence of reason plays a role in DCI. Jonas accused Claudius of having "dismissed the reins of reason and discretion" (amissis rationis et discretionis habenis) and "unjustly hurled words of shame and mockery to satisfy the madness of your furor" (ad rabiem furoris tui satiandam, DCI 1, 334D). Jonas also highlighted Claudius's lack of restraint and madness by describing how his words "raged in a frenetic way (more phrenetico in nostram contumeliam debacchata)" and how he was "inflamed with such great madness" (tanta rabie inflammeris, DCI 3, 381B, 382A). He explicitly linked furor and insanity by pointing out that only "furious and insane (furiosus et mente captus)" teachers would teach that virgins, mangers, rags, ships, lambs, lions, rocks, thorns, reeds, and lances should be worshiped (DCI 1, 337B). And, as we saw in my opening examples, Jonas reinforced the insanity of Claudius by using vesanus furor.
§16. Vesanus furor had a long history of application to enemies of the Church. Cyprian of Carthage asked "who is so wicked and treacherous, who is so insane with the furor of discord (discordiae furore uesanus), that they either believe that they can divide or dare to divide the unity of God, the Lord's garment, the Church of Christ?" (Cyprian De ecclesiae catholicae unitate 8).1 Later in this treatise, Cyprian juxtaposed those who "preserve unity, keep and think about love (dilectionem)" and those who "insane with the furor of discord (discordiae furore uesanus), divide the Church, destroy faith, disturb peace, dissolve love (caritatem), profane the sacrament" (Cyprian De ecclesiae catholicae unitate 15). Hilary used it to describe those who "with insane fury raged against the apostles" (uesano furore in apostolos desaeuituri essent, Hilary In Matthaeum 10.11).2 The Life of Saint Antony mentions how the "most impious persecution of Maximin devastated the Church with insane fury" (furore uesano, Evagrius Vita Antonii 46).3 Gregory the Great highlighted the negative, extra-ecclesiastical aspect by stating that "the good do not have furor" (boni … furorem non habent) and the Church does not correct the depraved with "insanity of furor" (uesania furoris, Gregory Moralia 20.38.74).4 The late seventh-century Passion of Leudegar applies vesanus furor to Deido, who would not stop besieging the city until he had been able to capture Leudegar and "satisfy the insane desire of his furor (suae furores vesanum desiderium satisfacere)." Vesanus furor prevented Deido from listening to Abbot Meroald or God's word and perpetuated conflict (Passio Leudegarii 23).
§17. The addition of vesanus strengthened the connotation of insanity that furor itself conveyed. Furor had been associated with insanity since antiquity (Harris 2001, 17, 64; Peyroux 1998, 44–45). Seneca also connected furor with a lack of reason (Elster 2004, 31). It is likely its "quality … as the straying of the mind that shades into dementia" that made furor "a marker of heresy in late ancient and medieval Christian discourse" (Peyroux 1998, 45). Describing "heresy as madness (insania) was commonplace" from the patristic era through the Carolingian era (Gillis 2017, 162–3). Jerome's treatise from 406, Adversus Vigilantium (hereafter AV), characterizes Vigilantius as insane (insanum caput) and with fury (tuo furore, AV 5, 16), which, like the expression vesanus furor, reinforces the link between madness and furor. DCI draws heavily on this treatise, which provided Jonas with several quotations and a model for style, content, and emotions (Boulhol 2000, 242). Although the Bible does not offer many examples of human furor, this text certainly influenced Jonas. The only person in the Vulgate with furor is King Nebuchadnezzar, filled with fury at Shadrach, Meschach, and Abed-Nego's refusal to worship the golden statue (Peyroux 1998, 46, Daniel 3:19). This instance of furor, connected with an incorrect perception of wrong worship, could have shaped Jonas's use of furor in DCI.
§18. Jonas also built on the long-standing associations between furor and demonic possession. Furor "stood oppositionally to normal human concourse" and was applied to those possessed by demons (Peyroux 1998, 45). It characterized bad people and demons in the Life of Columbanus, indicating "something almost inhuman about such passion" (Rosenwein 2006, 149).5 Along with his insanity and furor, Vigilantius was instigated by an unclean spirit (immundo spiritu, AV 1). Jonas's contemporary Walafrid Strabo used vesanus furor to describe possession by an evil spirit (Walafrid Strabo Vita Galli 15).
§19. In DCI, Jonas highlighted furor's demonic character. He reinforced the negativity of fury by attributing it to both an evil spirit (maligni spiritus furiis) and the devil, who "stirred up" Claudius "with the fury of his treacheries" (exagitavit … insidiarum suarum furiis, DCI 3, 386A; 1, 309D). Jonas portrayed fury as a force that takes over a person like demonic possession, describing Claudius as "seized" by furor through the use of raperis and correptus (DCI 1, 333C; 2, 345A). Jonas's suggestion that Claudius and the devil suffered the same emotions strengthened the traditional association of heretics with the devil (Pezé 2015, 182–83; Boulhol 2000, 237–38, Boulhol 2002, 15 n. 4).
§20. The otherness of furor may have led Jonas to use it for Claudius, a cultural outsider originally from Hispania (DCI praefatio, 306B; Boulhol 2000, 233, 235–36). Furor often occurred in descriptions of non-elites, non-Christians, and Christians needing reform, and those of a different cultural group. In Orosius's work, "those who rage ferociously are rebellious slaves and fugitive gladiators, Jews, and barbarians" (Rosenwein 2004, 132). Gregory the Great described the raging of Franks, Lombards, and "the false and furious monks who resent St Benedict's disciplined adherence to the Rule" (Rosenwein 2004, 134). In works by Jonas's contemporaries, we see a similar application of furor to Moors and Bretons, Northmen, Saxons, and the vulgus, the low-born, at Louis's palace. In Ermold the Black's poem in honor of Louis the Pious, both Zado, the Moors' leader, and the Breton king exhibit fury (furibundus, furit, furore, Ermold In honorem Hludowici imperatoris lines 452, 1682–84). The Annals of Saint-Bertin attribute furia and furor to the Northmen when recounting their destructive actions toward locations (Annales Bertiniani an. 837, 859). Altfrid's Life of Saint Liudger similarly portrays destruction as the result of the Saxons' furor (Altfrid Vita Sancti Liudgeri 1.14; von Padberg 1999, 185). In the Astronomer's Life of Louis, the vulgus at the palace, "at the devil's instigation, began to rage" (furere) and that "fury (furor) would have led to mutual slaughter" if not for the emperor's prudence. "Those in this commotion almost fell into insane fury (illi inter se tumultuantes pene in insanum ruerent furorem)." The Astronomer highlighted the non-human aspect of furor by calling this a "feral commotion" (feralis commotio, Astronomer Vita Hludowici 45).
§21. These Carolingian sources illustrate how authors made arguments through contrasting characterizations. The Bretons represented "enemies, antagonists of the Franks whose political recalcitrance and moral turpitude offered rhetorical sanction and demonstrable proof of Carolingian righteousness" (Smith 2002, 177). "The Astronomer turned the easily roused anger of this plebs or vulgus into the direct cause of Louis's temporary undoing" and cast "the low-born as greedy, stupid and therefore easily manipulated," thus "shifting the burden of guilt away from the populus, the faithful men" (de Jong 2009, 81). This tendency to apply furor to enemies could be connected to the shift in attitude toward royal anger. Gerd Althoff finds that "the Carolingian Royal Annals as well as Einhard's Life of Charlemagne have no place for royal anger" and instead focus on gentleness, mildness, mercifulness, patience, and kindness due to growing ecclesiastical influence on the ruler (Althoff 1998, 64–65). Although ira was different from furor, ira becoming less acceptable could mean that furor also became even less acceptable. This shift could help to explain the use of furor as a component of criticism in these sources.
§22. Carolingian authors perceived heretics as similar threats to the Empire and Church. Heresy and foreignness went together in the Carolingian era. Matthew Innes observed that heresy was primarily charged against those outside of Carolingian territory because for those within "heretification was not a viable strategy, for it potentially threatened the integrity and identity of Church and kingdom" (Innes 2008, 124–25). Spanish Adoptionism similarly was "a political issue" and refutation was "a means to establish cultural hegemony" and "integrate the Spanish March with the rest of the realm" (Chandler 2019, 88). The Opus Caroli, written in the 790s against the Byzantines, applies furor to them (Veyrard-Cosme 2000, 218). Hrabanus Maurus made Gottschalk's Saxon heritage a component of his criticism of Gottschalk's argument, offering "a historical critique of the Saxon gens as a conquered and forcibly converted people, suggesting that such a status denied them the right to avoid serving their Frankish masters" (Gillis 2017, 39). Jonas's emphasis on Claudius's foreign origin indicates that he shares this view of the link between heresy, foreignness, and furor.
§23. In contrast, indignatio appears as a more acceptable, rightful form of anger. Jonas explained that demons irascuntur if not worshiped while angels indignantur if they are worshiped instead of God (DCI 1, 323C, Augustine Enarrationes in Psalmos 96.12). He also quoted Claudius's report that Pope Pascal was indignatus over Claudius's actions (DCI 3, 385A). This emotion had a long history of being a response to error. Jerome asserted that Vigilantius's "open blasphemy" should "demand indignation" (indignationem, AV 17). Jonas's contemporaries applied indignatio to Carolingians, which illustrates its difference from the furor of their enemies. In the Annals of Saint-Bertin, Pippin was indignatus that his father did not honorably welcome him (Annales Bertiniani an. 832). Thegan similarly saw indignation as driving the conflict between Louis and his sons. At Louis's decision to give the title and empire to Lothar, the "other sons were indignant (indignati sunt)" and Lothar, Louis the German, and Pippin "were indignant (indignati sunt)" when Louis gave Charles territory (Thegan, Gesta Hludowici 21, 35).
§24. In DIL, Jonas associated indignatio with ira. He indicated that indignatio proceeds from ira (DIL 3.6, cf. DVV 31, Rosenwein 2016, 76). He also quoted Augustine on the Lord's Sermon on the Mount that similarly linked ira and indignatio, using ira for the internal feeling and indignatio for the expression of that feeling (DIL 3.8, Augustine De sermone Domini 1.9.24).
§25. When Jonas applied indignatio to Claudius, he described it as turbida. Turbida indignatio, used in Augustine's De civitate Dei (hereafter DCD), has been translated as "storm of indignation" (DCD 22.8, translation Dods 1871, 493). Its appearance in Dungal's treatise against Claudius has been translated as "furious indignation" (Dungal 153). Claudius was "moved by turbida indignatio" to make accusations against Theutmir and the orthodox worshipers in his diocese (DCI 1, 312A). Jonas also used turbida indignatio in DIL, warning against the turbida indignatio and furor at slaves' mistakes that could lead to physical violence and expecting a reaction with turbida indignatione to his statement against gaming (DIL 2.22–23). Although turbida indignatio occurred alongside furor in Claudius and in those reacting to slaves' mistakes, it did not have the connotations of otherness that furor held since Jonas was advising Count Matfrid of Orléans against it (Dubreucq 2012, 44–48). In addition, the Acts of the Council of Paris warn, "not without great and furious indignation (magna turbidaque indignatione) can we bear" bishops who do not live a proper sacerdotal life (Concilium Parisiense 829 1.20). This use suggests that the notion of righteous anger present in indignatio could remain even when appearing in a more intense form.
§26. Jonas only used iracundia once in DCI, describing Claudius as writing with "impatience, levity, and iracundia" (impatientiae et levitatis atque iracundiae, DCI 1, 313B). Barton points out that "ira was, in most cases, subtly but significantly different in connotation from furor or even iracundia" (Barton 2005, 382). Iracundia appears several times in DIL. It seems that Jonas considered ira and iracundia to be at least roughly equivalent because he included several biblical quotations that feature iracundia in the section about ira, the fifth vice (DIL 3.6, eg., Ephesians 4:26). Jonas perhaps also saw iracundia and indignatio as similar due to Paul's usage in quotations included in DIL. He quoted Ephesians 6:4 about not provoking sons to iracundia and Colossians 3:21 about not provoking sons to indignatio (DIL 2.14). Jonas also linked iracundia, like ira and furor, with foolishness by quoting Job 5:2, "iracundia kills the foolish man" (DIL 3.5). Iracundia could be a lasting emotional state, as seen in Jonas's call for Godparents to teach Godchildren "not to retain iracundia or hatred (odium) in their heart" (corde, DIL 1.6, Caesarius Sermo 204 3). Jonas employed iracundia when addressing women's anger, such as when mentioning "angry women (iracundas matronas)" when husbands took concubines (DIL 2.4, Ambrose De Abraham 1.4). This anger appears justified and righteous even though both concubines and the resulting anger should be avoided. Iracundia that is excessive poses a greater problem. When discussing proper behavior in church, Jonas warned that "some, aroused by excessive (nimium) iracundia, most bitterly quarrel" (DIL 1.13). He continued, urging that we should "strive to castigate and correct" anyone "disturbed by iracundia" (iracundia turbidum, DIL 1.13, Bede Homelia 2.1). This application of turbidum conveys how iracundia could be both personally and socially disruptive.
III. Emotions and Ecclesiastical Harmony
§27. Jonas built on the depiction of Claudius as an outsider by portraying his emotions, not just his teachings, as a threat to ecclesiastical harmony. He attributed the conflict between Claudius and the rest of the Church to Claudius's furor, pride, excessive zeal, and lack of shame and fear, continuing to associate Claudius's negative emotions with a lack of reason and the devil. Jonas advocated proper emotions for preserving proper ecclesiastical harmony and hierarchy during doctrinal conflict: patience, humility, and love. He also presented an image of orthodox worshipers united in detestation, fear, and grief in response to heresy. Jonas's use of these emotions in the treatise reinforced the characterization of Claudius as outsider and enemy to further discredit him.
§28. Jonas valued concord within the Church and between bishops. The Acts of the Council of Paris assert unity of the Church as "one body" (Concilium Parisiense 829 1.2). The acts explain how emotions affect unity: "pride (superbia),6 through which the angel, ejected from heaven, became the devil; jealousy (invidia), through which the same devil ejected man from paradise; hatred (odium) and discord, which extinguish love (caritatem) between neighbors and eliminate love" (dilectionem, Concilium Parisiense 829 1.1; Patzold 2008, 155). During the conflict involving Louis the Pious and his sons, this "council was an effort by powerful and highly placed individuals to develop a solution to the disunity and confusion of the period" (Moore 2011, 287). As a leader in episcopal meetings such as this one, Jonas knew the need for harmony among bishops and recognized the role of emotions in creating harmony. Pride, anger, and hate could inhibit a council from reaching a successful conclusion (Kramer 2017, 64).
§29. In addition to the characteristics of insanity and demonic possession and use as an emotion of outsiders, earlier authors recognized furor's role in creating social conflict. Cyprian, as we saw above, described vesanus furor as the cause of a divided Church no longer bound by love (Cyprian De ecclesiae catholicae unitate 15). Jerome also portrayed furor as isolating and dangerous to others. Jerome told Vigilantius that going to the desert was "in order to not be disturbed by your fury" (ut tuo furore non mouear, AV 16). Gregory of Tours and Jonas of Bobbio used "furor to portray a violence that is socially destructive in the extreme" (Peyroux 1998, 49).7 Fury led to vengeance in Gregory of Tours's history and the Passion of Saint Leudegar (Rosenwein 2006a, 248, 250).
§30. Jonas addressed the social effects of furor in DIL. He explained how furor affected one's statements, actions, and social relations. It made one "easily dismiss the maturity of council, bounds of right discretion, and the honor of pious action. From anger (ira) sprouts swelling of the mind (tumor mentis), quarrels, insults, clamor, indignation (indignatio), presumption, blasphemy, bloodshed, homicide, desire for vengeance, remembrance of injuries, and many other things" (DIL 3.6, cf. DVV 31, Rosenwein 2016, 76). Jonas focused more on the resulting actions than Alcuin, who had "honest contemplation (honestae contemplationis)" instead of pious action (DVV 31). Jonas also considered anger's effects on speech and social relations to be more problematic than the emotion itself, quoting Augustine's view that censure (uituperationis expressio) said in anger was worse than an expression of anger (uox quae iram significat) or just the feeling of anger (ira sola, DIL 3.8, Augustine De sermone Domini 1.9.24).
§31. Claudius's hostile comments came from his furor, turbida indignatio, and iracundia. As we have seen, Claudius "hurled words of shame and mockery to satisfy the madness of furor" (ad rabiem furoris tui satiandam, DCI 1, 334D). His raging (debacchasse) led to insults (DCI 3, 365D). He was "impatient with fraternal admonition and moved by furious indignation (fraternae admonitionis impatiens, turbidaque indignatione permotus)" and wrote with "impatience, levity, and anger" (impatientiae et levitatis atque iracundiae, DCI 1, 312A, 313B). Jonas linked impatience and anger and asserted that patience (patientiam) could overcome ira, presumably also preventing it from becoming furor (DIL 3.6, DVV 34). Perhaps due to this connection, impatience and angry emotions shared several characteristics: foolishness, absence of reason, and association with the devil. Impatience accompanied foolishness, as in Proverbs 14:29: Qui autem inpatiens, exaltat stultitiam suam (DIL 3.4). Jonas accused Claudius of having "refused to correct reasonably and patiently" (rationabiliter ac patienter corrigere detrectasti, DCI 1, 316B). Man's ancient enemy incited Claudius out of impatience (impatiens) with the calmness of the Church (DCI 1, 309C). Since Jonas viewed "patience as the king and guardian of all the virtues (rex omnium custosque uirtutum patientia est)," he likely saw Claudius's lack of patience as the source of his anger as well as his other vices (DIL 3.4, cf. Gregory Homilia 35.4).
§32. Jonas urged patience during conflict. He advised patience with "persecution, condemnation, and insults" (DIL 3.4, Gregory Homilia 35.9). When applied to this conflict, it suggests that Claudius should have been patient even if Theutmir's criticism had been unfounded. Both the angry person and others ought to be patient, as in Proverbs 15:18: "An angry man (iracundus) provokes disputes. He who is patient (patiens) soothes them" (DIL 3.6). Jonas presented himself as patient, describing himself as patiently (patienter) asking Claudius questions (DCI 1, 313B). However, patience was difficult to maintain in disputes over orthodoxy and too much patience could lead to inaction and the spread of error. Jonas portrayed his patience as exceptional by asking, "Who can patiently (patienter) endure blame and criticism of ecclesiastical authority and contempt of God's saints?" and "who among the Catholics can patiently (patienter) read or hear such impious and blasphemous words?" (DCI 1, 317D, 327A). These questions suggest that Jonas saw impatience, and perhaps the associated anger—the indignatio of the pope, not the furor of Claudius—as acceptable in response to heresy.
§33. Jonas's raging also led him to exhibit arrogance. His "raging without law (sine lege furens)" went along with "speaking pompously" (granditer loquens, DCI 1, 334C; Boulhol 2000, 246). Claudius's arrogance was like his furor in that it was unchecked by restraint and reason. Levity, which Jonas had connected with anger and impatience, characterized Claudius's boasting (jactantia, DCI 3, 380B). Claudius's statements lacked reason due to arrogance (turbido enim arrogantiae tuae fonticulo) and poor grammar (DCI 2, 359C). Arrogance (arrogantiae) influenced Claudius to "indiscreetly and irrationally (indiscrete et irrationabiliter)" blame others for errors to make his own deeds appear praiseworthy (DCI 1, 315D). Jonas attributed Claudius's bragging (glorieris) to pride (superbiae fastu raperis, DCI 2, 353A–B).
§34. Pride shared several negative characteristics with anger and impatience, including a diabolical nature. Like furor, pride appears as a force that takes over (superbiae fastu raperis, DCI 2, 353A). Jonas suggested that the proud (superbiae fastu elati) ought to be called members of the devil (DCI 1, 313B–C). He also characterized demons as arrogant and proud (daemonum est haec arrogantia superborum, DCI 1, 322D, DCD 10.26).
§35. Claudius's pride associated him with past heretics and isolated him from the rest of the Church. Pride and bragging had a long history of being attributed to heretics (Gillis 2017, 224). In a phrase mirroring Jerome's expectation that Vigilantius would brag (glorieris) about his innovation, Claudius bragged (gloriaris) that he destroyed objects being worshiped (AV 8; DCI 1, 316D). Jonas insinuated that Claudius had separated himself from the rest of the bishops and Church through accusations that he bragged (gloriatus fueris) that he alone had defended God's Church and, due to pride (superbiae fastu raperis), bragged (glorieris) that he alone followed Christ (DCI 1, 325B; 2, 353A–B). Jonas specifically connected pride with heresy and schism in his description of "the proud (superborum) and those seeking favor of their own name, whom the Apostle … calls false christs, who work to draw away disciples after them" (DCI 3, 371C–D, cf. 2 Corinthians 11:13, Acts 20:30). Jonas also portrayed pride as destroying proper ecclesiastical hierarchy. Perceiving that pride motivated Claudius's criticism of the pope, Jonas quoted Gregory the Great on the pride (ex ipsa tumidae reprehensionis superbia) involved in criticism of a pastor (DCI 3, 385D, Gregory Homilia 26.6).
§36. Pride could also disrupt ecclesiastical unity by causing disrespect for the authority and tradition on which that unity was founded. Claudius arrogantly (jactanter) transgressed the boundaries set by the holy fathers (DCI 1, 311C, cf. Proverbs 22:28, Pezé 2015, 181) and "haughtily (superciliose)" put himself ahead of Augustine and other outstanding teachers (DCI 1, 317C). He also arrogantly (arroganter) defamed his predecessors (DCI 1, 315D). Jonas advocated following the Church's ancient customs so that God, who punishes the proud (superbientium), would not condemn Claudius (DCI 3, 372C). Superbia separated one from the Church and from future blessedness, removing Claudius from the heavenly community as well (DCI 3, 376C). Jonas reinforced the message of punishment for the proud throughout the text (DCI 1, 339A; 2, 352B; 3, 371B). He even taught this lesson while highlighting the importance of the cross, describing it as "the unconquered support of the humble (humilium), the casting down of the proud" (superborum, DCI 2, 347D, Cassiodorus Expositio Psalmorum 4.7).
§37. Humility could overcome superbia and its personal and social effects: "stubbornness, disobedience, contention, heresy and countless other vices" (DIL 3.2). Jonas encouraged humility, telling Claudius twice to humbly (humiliter) confess his errors (DCI 1, 329A, 333C). Offering a lesson about not being concerned with one's own reputation, Jonas mentioned the example of Paul and Barnabas who declined to be considered gods out of humble piety (humili pietate, DCI 1, 322B, DCD 10.19).
§38. It seems that the lack of restraint that led to Claudius's furor and pride also made his zeal immoderate. Jonas approved of zeal for correction, urging, "let us display zeal (zelemus) for the house of God and, as much as we can, stop any wicked thing from being done there" (DIL 1.13, Bede Homelia 2.1). Zeal (zelo) motivated Claudius to destroy images and crosses, but it was wrong because it was "immoderate and indiscriminate" (immoderato et indiscreto, DCI 1, 310D).
§39. Jonas portrayed Claudius as having no shame, another sign of his excess and lack of restraint. He described Claudius as impudently (impudenter) striving to oppose ecclesiastical authority and insulting ecclesiastical traditions (DCI 2, 353B, 355C). Jonas indicated that shame would have restrained his insults. Claudius did not blush (erubuit, erubuisti) to hurl accusations of idolatry at Catholic worshipers or preach ideas that should be refuted and condemned (DCI 1, 312A; 3 praefatio, 363D).8 As in my opening examples, Claudius should "blush that seized by insane fury (erubesce quod vesano furore correptus)" he attributed equal importance to the cross and a donkey (DCI 2, 345A). Jonas suggested that shame (pudori), easier to attain than honor (honestati), could stop Claudius's impure mouth and injurious words (DCI 3, 383C). DIL offers a similar view of shame functioning as restraint against future error. Blushing (erubescis) was a way to recognize one's wrongdoing and an alert to change behavior (DIL 2.22, Augustine Sermo 61 8). Shame (erubuisti) over sin could help one reform and avoid sin, but shame (erubescis) could also prevent one from confessing sin (DIL 1.15; Firey 2008, 178–79). Claudius's disordered emotional state inhibited him from feeling the shame that would have prompted him to correct, repent, and no longer err.
§40. In addition, Claudius's conflict with the Church arose due to his lack of proper fear. Claudius did not fear (metuit) to denounce orthodox worshipers (DCI 1, 314D). Jonas attributed Claudius's slander and pride to the fact that he did not fear judgment. Jonas advocated fear of judgment to prevent slander, reminding Claudius of the Lord's terrifying (terribiliter) statement in Matthew 5:22 threatening hell fire for those who call their brother a fool (DCI 3, 383C). He also portrayed this fear as able to prevent pride when he explained that he worked to avoid pride because he feared (vereor) that he would be counted among "proud (superbis) and unfaithful pastors" (DCI 3, 370D). Claudius's foolishness, which led to his anger and impatience, also seems to have kept him from fearing judgment. Foolishness led one to not fear (timentes) judgment which led to sin, illustrating how fear functioned as a deterrent against sin (DIL 1.13, Bede Homilia 2.1). Jonas thought that Claudius felt so strengthened by virtues that he "did not fear (pertimescas) human ruin" (DCI 2, 351A). The intensifier per- could suggest that Jonas expected this to provoke very strong fear (cf. Rosenwein 2006, 173). Without this fear, Claudius did not reflect on man's fallen state and God's judgment and work to refrain from slander and pride.
§41. Jonas also attributed Claudius's treatment of Theutmir to a lack of love for humans (described by caritas and dilectio) and love of God (expressed as amor). Jonas presented this as connected to Claudius's pride, excess, anger, and impatience. Instead of arrogance (arroganter), Claudius should have remembered fraternal caritas and felt compassion (compati, DCI 2, 350D–351A). Claudius was "forgetful of sacerdotal respect and fraternal love (fraternaeque dilectionis)" when he wrote against Theutmir (DCI 3 praefatio, 364D). Being "forgetful of fraternal love (fraternae dilectionis)" made Claudius "put aside moderate diction and sacerdotal gravity" and write with "impatience, levity, and anger" (impatientiae et levitatis atque iracundiae, DCI 1, 313B). According to Jonas, "all of the faithful should calmly (aequanimiter) bear injury out of love (amorem) of God" (DCI 1, 317D). Even if Theutmir had been wrong, Claudius should have remained calm due to love of God. Claudius's inappropriate response served to place him outside of the community of the faithful.
§42. Jonas defined caritas "as not just love of God and neighbor but love of God more than the self and love of neighbor just as much as the self" and explicitly indicated that "caritas involves love for one's enemy" (Romig 2017, 64). Dilectio in "meaning was very close to caritas, but more personal" (Boquet and Nagy 2018, 11). Caritas depended on the cultivation of patience and avoidance of envy and pride (Romig 2017, 59–60, 62–63). Caritas itself could help to prevent pride. Although Jonas did not accuse Claudius of vainglory, he linked it with arrogance (uana gloria, quod proprie arrogantium). Therefore, if caritas overcame vainglory, then it could perhaps help against arrogance as well (DIL 3.6, DVV 34). Jonas recognized the importance of caritas among the lay elites and emphasized it at a time of political conflict (Romig 2017, 65).
§43. Caritas was equally necessary during doctrinal conflict, both for the corrected and corrector. Instead of criticism out of pride, Jonas advocated correction out of caritas. He described caritas as his motivation for DIR (DIR admonitio). He stressed that caritas, alongside amor of the human race (unicae gentis amore provocatus), drove Theutmir's correction (DCI 1, 306B, 311D–312A; 3 praefatio, 364D; 3, 369B). Jonas's accusation that Claudius lacked caritas indicates "that the image controversy carried the potential to threaten the very social bonds which made up the Carolingian world" (Schlosser 2017, 41). Irene van Renswoude argues that "assurances of love, harmony and respect may have served to appease anxiety over the competitive, deceitful, combative and sometimes outright abusive traits of dialectical disputation in a social environment that was highly competitive anyway." This concern about dialectic shaped Alcuin's portrayal of his disputation with Felix. Alcuin's mention that "there was love between them" after his victory was "an assurance that restored orthodoxy went hand in hand with restored harmony" (van Renswoude 2017, 53). Although Jonas could not reconcile with Claudius due to the latter's death, this tradition may have influenced his decision to evoke caritas within doctrinal debate. Jonas's emphasis on the caritas behind correction could similarly have assured a return to ecclesiastical harmony. Although Jonas made statements about Claudius that could seem abusive, portraying them as out of caritas may have served to make the treatise reflect poorly on Claudius but not Jonas.
§44. Caritas strengthened social bonds by encouraging shared feelings and led to commiseration (charitate imperante condolendo deflemus, DCI 2, 360A, cf. Romig 2017, 50). Jonas presented the view of a Church united by caritas and shared emotions toward heresy. These emotions were directed more at Claudius's statements and actions than at Claudius himself and therefore compatible with caritas.
§45. Jonas indicated that the entire Church was unified in their fear of heresy, again conveying the idea that fear could guide behavior and serve as a force of internal restraint. Since fear led to avoidance, it was an ideal response to error, as illustrated by Jonas's question regarding Claudius's statements: "who among the Catholics is not terrified (exhorreat) of the author speaking such things?" (DCI 2, 352C). Along with fear, grief was an appropriate reaction to error, impelling one to avoid what caused the grief. Instead of following a heresiarch, "all the faithful ought to greatly grieve (cunctis valde fidelibus dolendum est)" his actions against the faith and Church (DCI 1, 307D). In addition, bitter dolor (acerrimo mentis sustinere dolore) was a suitable outcome of a failure to correct others (DIL 1.13, Bede Homilia 2.1). Claudius similarly connected error and grief, stating that adoration of anything but God "should be mourned" (lugenda, DCI 1, 338D). Jonas agreed with Claudius that error should be mourned and acknowledged that "the faithful should mourn and cry with very many tears (largissimis fidelium lacrymis lugendum et plorandum est)" if the clerics had really worshiped filth instead of God (DCI 1, 315C; Noble 2009, 299). Yet it was Claudius's own errors that should be mourned. His statements against the cross made him an enemy of the cross, and Jonas twice included Philippians 3:18 with Paul crying (flendo and flens) as he mentioned the enemies of Christ's cross (DCI 1, 332B; 2, 354B). In this outline of proper emotional reactions to heresy, Jonas presented a community of orthodox Christians bound by shared emotions.
IV. Emotions of Orthodoxy: Creating Community with the Saints
§46. To Jonas, the same emotions that fostered harmony between Christians created harmony with the saints: love, humility, and properly directed grief and fear. He portrayed Claudius as outside of and a threat to the community with the saints, again noting similarities between his emotions and demons' emotions. Perhaps due to the insanity of his furor, Claudius's emotions were wrongly directed, preventing him from having the right relationship with Scripture, saints, and the cross. This again shows the influence of Augustine and Gregory the Great, who evaluated emotions based on the direction of the will and considered emotions good if they were properly directed (Rosenwein 2006, 50–51, 84–85; Rosenwein 2016, 70; Boquet and Nagy 2018, 45; Schlosser 2017, 5). This concept influenced "Carolingian image discourse" since both image worshipers and iconoclasts could be charged with "disordered loves" (Schlosser 2017, 21). Jonas developed this idea in DCI, presenting Claudius's heresy as an issue of both wrong emotion and wrong doctrine.
§47. Jonas indicated that rightly directed love could lead to orthodoxy and criticized Claudius for his misdirected love. He credited "love (amor) of the holy scriptures" for preventing the spread of Adoptionism (DCI 1, 309B). In contrast, Claudius's "inept writings" demonstrate that he loved vanity (vanitatem diligere, DCI 1, 340A).
§48. Jonas also presented love as the solution for Claudius's specific doctrinal errors. He refuted what he perceived as Claudius's attack on the saints by emphasizing love for them. The bodies of the saints "should be embraced and honored with pious love" (pio amore, DCI 1, 329A, 329C). Although Jonas valued restraint and condemned immoderate zeal, he did not view too much love for saints' images as problematic, stating that he did "not know whether those who with excessive and indiscreet love (nimio et indiscreto amore) due to honor for the saints supplicate their images should rashly be called idolaters" (DCI 1, 326A; Appleby 2002, 103). Jonas did not see a problem with too much love if it was properly directed. He accused Claudius of trying to turn the faithful away "from love (amore) of holy places and the apostles" and, as an "enemy of the apostolic relics," of seeking to recall people's minds from love (dilectione) of apostolic relics "in order to extinguish the fire of love (amoris) in their hearts" (DCI 3, 369B, 375D).
§49. Jonas also evoked love to address Claudius's views of the cross and pilgrimage. Jonas linked honor for the saints and displaying the cross with love (amorem) of God (DCI 1, 328B; 2 praefatio, 343A; Appleby 1996, 20). He also presented pilgrimage as part of worshiping God by mentioning the role of divine love. Love (amore) led people to visit the places of the saints' burial and in the process "love (amor) of the service of the divine cult grows in their minds" (DCI 3, 376C, 368C; Appleby 1996, 16; Appleby 2002, 105). "Love (amorem) of the heavenly homeland" made one endure the toils of pilgrimage (DCI 3, 370A). His use of amor, which he had used to describe love of God (DCI 1, 317D), further reinforced these practices as part of appropriate worship of God.
§50. Jonas urged humility and avoidance of jealousy for harmony with the saints as well. Claudius spoke with arrogance (arrogantiae fastu) against the relics of the apostles and pilgrimage to Rome, again harming his relationship with the Church and ecclesiastical tradition (DCI 3, 376A). Jonas's mentions of humility and jealousy also illustrate proper hierarchy, asserting the saints' superior position. He advocated that people seek intercession in humble supplication (humillimis supplicationibus) and humbly (humiliter) seek the apostles' intercession at Rome (DCI 1, 330A; 3, 367B). Jonas also told Claudius to "refrain from jealously (invide) destroying the saints' peace" (DCI 3, 380B). Jonas understood that only those in a lower position could be jealous (invidere) of those thought to be in a higher position (DIL 3.5, Gregory Moralia 5.46.84). This may have led Jonas to view Claudius's attack on the saints as the result of jealousy. Again, this application of jealousy associated Claudius with the devil, whom he also characterized as jealous (invidentis), thus offering the same lesson about the evil of this emotion that he made in DIL (DCI 1, 327D; cf. DIL 1.1, 3.5).
§51. Jonas also portrayed Claudius's grief and fear as misdirected in that he mourned the saints' honor and power when he should have mourned his own guilt. Jonas indicated that honoring relics made Claudius grieve by quoting that Vigilantius "grieves (dolet) that the relics of the martyrs are covered by precious covering and not tied with rags or rough cloth or thrown in a dung heap" (DCI 3, 372A; AV 5). Jonas further reinforced the association between grief, fear, heresy, and demonic possession by quoting Jerome's attribution of Vigilantius's grief and fear to an unclean spirit (Sentio, sentio, infelicissime mortalium, quid doleas, quid timeas? Spiritus iste immundus, qui haec te cogit scribere, DCI 3, 382C, AV 10). Instead, people should mourn in a way that would lead to redemption, crying (deflendorum) about their own guilt at shrines (DCI 3, 374A; cf. DIL 1.15). In a penitential context, tears were understood as a sign of contrition (Blanchfield 2012, xxiii). Jonas perceived that properly directed fear and sadness provided restraint against error. He connected fear and mourning, with mourning (plangit) of vices leading to fear (timeat) of further vice (DIL 1.9, Gregory Homilia 34.15).
§52. Jonas strengthened Claudius's association with demons by comparing Claudius's grief and fear to demons' grief and fear. He quoted DCD about how demons had grief (dolor) at the shrines of the holy martyrs because they mourned (moerebant) their impending punishment (DCI 1, 327B; 3, 382B–C, DCD 8.26). Jonas linked Claudius with demons by asking Claudius if he was terrified (exhorrescis) of the cross like the demons (DCI 1, 333C–D; Ganz 1995, 777). Claudius should fear demons, like even Julian the Apostate who was compelled by terror (terrore) to make the sign of the cross to drive away demons (DCI 2, 349D, Historia ecclesiastica tripartita 6.1.17).
§53. Instead of feeling sadness and fear like demons, Claudius should have felt joy in the presence of the cross and relics. The cross should bring happiness and alleviate fear, not cause it. Jonas gave the example of Constantine, who was anxious (anxius) before his battle, frightened (exterritus) by his vision of the cross, and then "made happy and confident of victory" (laetus redditus, et de victoria jam securus, DCI 2, 345B, Eusebius and Rufinus Historia ecclesiastica 9.8.15). Quoting Jerome, Jonas asked Claudius, "Are the people of every church foolish who ran to meet holy relics and received them with as much happiness (laetitia) as if they saw the saint present and living?" (DCI 3, 372B, AV 5). Jonas thus depicted a Church united in happiness with Claudius outside, alone in his grief and fear.
§54. Ideas of community depend as much on exclusion as inclusion, and emotions could serve as markers of inclusion or exclusion. Jonas presented an image of ideal society where people resolved their conflicts with patience, humility, and love and were united in detestation, fear, and grief in response to heresy and in love and joy in the presence of relics. Those who did not share these emotions were excluded. Claudius's emotions made him an outsider and enemy of this community. His furor placed him in the company of heretics, political enemies, and the devil and demons. Furor—along with pride, jealousy, hatred, excessive zeal, and lack of shame and fear—disturbed ecclesiastical hierarchy and harmony, and Claudius destroyed the love between members of the Church and between people and the saints. Emotions played a key role in Jonas's rhetoric of community and both played a role in his doctrinal polemic. This same strategy of attack can be found in other conflicts, even those today. We still see statements and actions dismissed as out of irrational anger and pleas for patience, moderation, and self-control, serving to discredit and silence opposing views (Rosenwein 2020).
First, I would like to thank Cullen Chandler and Rutger Kramer for organizing the "Twelve Angry Carolingians" sessions for Kalamazoo ICMS 2017 and for the invitation to participate. I also thank the audience for helpful questions and comments. Thomas Greene commented on a draft of that conference paper and an early draft of this article. This article owes a great deal to the comments of the two anonymous reviewers. I especially thank Cullen Chandler for the invitation and encouragement to submit this written version and for the patience and helpful suggestions throughout the process. Any weaknesses that remain are my own.
5. Given the large number of surviving copies of this text, including copies from the ninth century (O'Hara and Wood 2017, 38–40), it is likely that Jonas and his contemporaries could have been familiar with it. [Back]
Alcuin. 1851. De Virtutibus et Vitiis Liber ad Widonem Comitem. PL 101: 613–38. [Back]
Altfrid. 1881. Vita Sancti Liudgeri. In Die Vitae Sancti Liudgeri, edited by Wilhelm Diekamp, 3–53. Münster: Theissing'schen Buchhandlung. [Back]
Ambrose. 1897. De Abraham. In Sancti Ambrosii opera, edited by Karl Schenkl, 501–638. CSEL 32.1. Vienna: Tempsky. [Back]
Astronomer. 1995. Vita Hludowici Imperatoris. Edited and translated by Ernst Tremp. MGH SRG 64. Hanover: Hahn. [Back]
Augustine. 1871. The City of God. In vol. 2 of The Works of Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, translated by Marcus Dods. Edinburgh: Clark. [Back]
———. 1955. De Civitate Dei. Edited by Bernard Dombart and Alphonse Kalb. CCSL 47–48. Turnhout: Brepols. [Back]
———. 1956. Enarrationes in Psalmos LI–C. Edited by Eligius Dekkers and Johannes Fraipont. CCSL 39. Turnhout: Brepols. [Back]
———. 1967. De Sermone Domini in Monte Libros Duos. Edited by Almut Mutzenbecher. CCSL 35. Turnhout: Brepols. [Back]
———. 2008. Sermo 61. In Sermones de novo testamento (51–70A), edited by Pierre-Patrick Verbraken, et al., 265–76. CCSL 41Aa. Turnhout: Brepols. [Back]
Bede. 1955. Homeliarum Evangelii Libri II. In Bedae Venerabilis opera 3, edited by D. Hurst, 1–378. CCSL 122. Turnhout: Brepols. [Back]
Caesarius of Arles. 1953. Sermones. Edited by G. Morin. CCSL 104. Turnhout: Brepols. [Back]
Cassiodorus. 1958. Expositio Psalmorum I–LXX. Edited by Marc Adriaen. CCSL 97. Turnhout: Brepols. [Back]
Cassiodorus and Epiphanius. 1952. Historia Ecclesiastica Tripartita. Edited by Walter Jacob and Rudolf Hanslik. CSEL 71. Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky. [Back]
Cyprian of Carthage. 1972. De ecclesiae catholicae unitate. In Sancti Cypriani episcopi opera 3.1, edited by M. Bévenot, 249–68. CCSL 3. Turnhout: Brepols. [Back]
Dungal. 2002. Dungali Responsa Contra Perversas Claudii Taurinensis Episcopi Sententias. In Responsa contra Claudium: A Controversy on Holy Images, edited and translated by Paolo Zanna, 1–251. Florence: SISMEL, Edizioni del Galluzzo. [Back]
Ermold. 1964. In Honorem Hludowici Imperatoris. In Poème sur Louis le Pieux et épitres au roi Pépin, edited and translated by Edmond Faral, 2–217. Paris: Sociéte d'édition "Les Belles Lettres." [Back]
Eusebius and Rufinus. 1903–8. Historia Ecclesiastica. Edited by Theodor Mommsen. Corpus Berolinense 9.1–2. Leipzig: Hinrichs. [Back]
Evagrius. 2005. Vita Antonii. In "Die Evagriusübersetzung der Vita Antonii: Rezeption–Überlieferung–Edition. Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Vitas Patrum-Tradition," edited by Pascal Bertrand, 160–92. Ph.D. Dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht. [Back]
Florus of Lyons. 2014. Sermo in synodo Carisacensi (838). In Opera polemica, edited by Klaus Zechiel-Eckes and Erwin Frauenknecht, 63–79. CCCM 260. Turnhout: Brepols.
Grat, Félix, Jeanne Vielliard, and Suzanne Clémencet, eds. 1964. Annales Bertiniani. Paris: Klincksieck. [Back]
Gregory the Great. 1979. Moralia in Iob Libri I–X , XI–XXII. Edited by Marc Adriaen. CCSL 143–143A. Turnhout: Brepols. [Back]
———. 1999. Homiliae in Evangelia. Edited by Raymond Étaix. CCSL 141. Turnhout: Brepols. [Back]
Hilary of Poitiers. 1978. In Matthaeum. In vol. 1 of Sur Matthieu, edited and translated by Jean Doignon, 90–303. Sources Chrétiennes 254. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. [Back]
Jerome. 2005. Adversus Vigilantium. Edited by J.-L. Feiertag. CCSL 79C. Brepols: Turnhout. [Back]
Jonas of Orléans. 1851. De Cultu Imaginum. PL 106:305–88. [Back]
———. 1995. De Institutione Regia. In Le métier de roi, edited and translated by Alain Dubreucq, 148–285. Sources Chrétiennes 407. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. [Back]
———. 2012–2013. De Institutione Laicali. In Instruction des laïcs, edited and translated by Odile Dubreucq. Sources Chrétiennes 549–50. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. [Back]
Krusch, Bruno, ed. 1910. Passio Leudegarii. MGH SRM 5. Hanover: Hahn. [Back]
Thegan. 1995. Gesta Hludowici Imperatoris. Edited and translated by Ernst Tremp. MGH SRG 64. Hanover: Hahn. [Back]
Walafrid Strabo. 1902. Vita Galli. Edited by Bruno Krusch. MGH SRM 4. Hanover: Hahn. [Back]
Werminghoff, Albert, ed. 1908. Concilium Parisiense a. 829. MGH Concilia 2.2. Hanover: Hahn. [Back]
Althoff, Gerd. 1998. "Ira Regis: Prolegomena to a History of Royal Anger." In Anger's Past: The Social Uses of an Emotion in the Middle Ages, edited by Barbara H. Rosenwein, 59–74. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. [Back]
Appleby, David. 1996. "Sight and Church Reform in the Thought of Jonas of Orléans." Viator 27:11–33. [Back]
———. 2002. "Instruction and Inspiration through Images in the Carolingian Period." In Word, Image, Number: Communication in the Middle Ages, edited by John J. Contreni and Santa Casciani, 85–111. Florence: SISMEL, Edizioni del Galluzzo. [Back]
Barton, Richard E. 2005. "Gendering Anger: Ira, Furor, and Discourses of Power and Masculinity in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries." In In the Garden of Evil: The Vices and Culture in the Middle Ages, edited by Richard Newhauser, 371–92. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. [Back]
Bertrand, Pascal. 2005. "Die Evagriusübersetzung der Vita Antonii: Rezeption–Überlieferung–Edition. Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Vitas Patrum-Tradition." Ph.D. Dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht. [Back]
Blanchfield, Lyn A. 2012. "Prolegomenon: Considerations of Weeping and Sincerity in the Middle Ages." In Crying in the Middle Ages: Tears of History, edited by Elina Gertsman, xxi–xxx. New York: Routledge. [Back]
Boquet, Damien and Piroska Nagy. 2018. Medieval Sensibilities: A History of Emotions in the Middle Ages. Translated by Robert Shaw. Cambridge: Polity Press. [Back]
Boulhol, Pascal. 2000. "Pratiques et enjeux de l'invective dans la controverse théologique à l'époque carolingienne: Dungal et Jonas d'Orléans contre Claude de Turin." Lalies 20:223–52. [Back]
———. 2002. Claude de Turin: Un évêque iconoclaste dans l'Occident carolingien. Étude suivie de l'édition du Commentaire sur Josué. Paris: Institut d'Études Augustiniennes. [Back]
Chandler, Cullen J. 2019. Carolingian Catalonia: Politics, Culture, and Identity in an Imperial Province, 778–987. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Back]
de Jong, Mayke. 2009. The Penitential State: Authority and Atonement in the Age of Louis the Pious, 814–840. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Back]
Doignon, Jean. 1978. Introduction to Sur Matthieu, by Hilary of Poitiers, 1:19–86. Sources Chrétiennes 254. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. [Back]
Dubreucq, Alain. 1995. Introduction to Le métier de roi, by Jonas of Orléans, 9–138. Sources Chrétiennes 407. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. [Back]
Dubreucq, Odile. 2012. Introduction to Instruction des laïcs, by Jonas of Orléans, 1:33–114. Sources Chrétiennes 549. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. [Back]
Elster, Jon. 2004. "Emotions and Rationality." In Feelings and Emotions: The Amsterdam Symposium, edited by Antony S. R. Manstead, Nico Frijda, and Agneta Fischer, 30–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Back]
Firey, Abigail. 2008. "Blushing before the Judge and Physician: Moral Arbitration in the Carolingian Empire." In A New History of Penance, edited by Abigail Firey, 173–200. Leiden: Brill. [Back]
Ganz, David. 1995. "Theology and the Organisation of Thought." In The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 2: c. 700–c. 900, edited by Rosamond McKitterick, 758–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Back]
Gillis, Matthew Bryan. 2017. Heresy and Dissent in the Carolingian Empire: The Case of Gottschalk of Orbais. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Back]
Harris, William V. 2001. Restraining Rage: The Ideology of Anger Control in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Back]
Innes, Matthew. 2008. "‘Immune from Heresy': Defining the Boundaries of Carolingian Christianity." In Frankland: The Franks and the World of the Early Middle Ages. Essays in Honour of Dame Jinty Nelson, edited by Paul Fouracre and David Ganz, 101–25. Manchester: Manchester University Press. [Back]
Kemp, Simon and K. T. Strongman. 1995. "Anger Theory and Management: A Historical Analysis." The American Journal of Psychology 108:397–417. [Back]
Kramer, Rutger. 2017. "Order in the Church: Understanding Councils and Performing Ordines in the Carolingian World." Early Medieval Europe 25:54–69. [Back]
Lutz, Catherine. 2002. "Feminist Emotions." In Power and the Self, edited by Jeannette Marie Mageo, 194–215. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Back]
MacLean, Simon. 2003. Kingship and Politics in the Late Ninth Century: Charles the Fat and the End of the Carolingian Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Back]
Malegam, Jehangir Yezdi. 2016. "Evangelic Provocation: Location of Anger in Medieval Conversion Narratives." Literature Compass 13:372–88. [Back]
Moore, Michael Edward. 2011. A Sacred Kingdom: Bishops and the Rise of Frankish Kingship, 300–850. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press. [Back]
Noble, Thomas F. X. 2009. Images, Iconoclasm, and the Carolingians. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. [Back]
O'Hara, Alexander and Ian Wood. 2017. Introduction to Life of Columbanus, Life of John of Réomé, and Life of Vedast, by Jonas of Bobbio, 1–84. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. [Back]
Patzold, Steffen. 2006. "Redéfinir l'office episcopal: les évêques francs face à la crise des années 820–830." In Les élites au haut moyen âge: Crises et renouvellements, edited by François Bougard, Laurent Feller, and Régine Le Jan, 337–59. Turnhout: Brepols. [Back]
———. 2008. Episcopus: Wissen über Bischöfe im Frankenreich des späten 8. bis frühen 10. Jahrhunderts. Ostfildern: Jan Thorbecke Verlag. [Back]
Perfetti, Lisa. 2005. "Introduction." In The Representation of Women's Emotions in Medieval and Early Modern Culture, edited by Lisa Perfetti, 1–22. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. [Back]
Peyroux, Catherine. 1998. "Gertrude's furor: Reading Anger in an Early Medieval Saint's Life." In Anger's Past: The Social Uses of an Emotion in the Middle Ages, edited by Barbara H. Rosenwein, 36–55. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. [Back]
Pezé, Warren. 2015. "Hérésie, exclusion et anathème dans l'Occident carolingien (742–années 860)." In Exclure de la communauté chrétienne: Sens et pratiques sociales de l'anathème et de l'excommunication (IVe–XIIe siècle)," edited by Geneviève Bührer-Thierry and Stéphane Gioanni, 175–95. Turnhout: Brepols. [Back]
Raaijmakers, Janneke. 2017. "I, Claudius: Self-Styling in Early Medieval Debate." Early Medieval Europe 25:70–84. [Back]
Reimitz, Helmut. 2016. "The Early Medieval Editions of Gregory of Tours' Histories." In A Companion to Gregory of Tours, edited by Alexander Callander Murray, 519–65. Leiden: Brill. [Back]
Reddy, William M. 2001. The Navigation of Feeling: A Framework for the History of Emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Back]
Romig, Andrew J. 2017. Be a Perfect Man: Christian Masculinity and the Carolingian Aristocracy. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. [Back]
Rosenwein, Barbara H. 2004. "Identity and Emotions in the Early Middle Ages." In Die Suche nach den Ursprüngen: Von der Bedeutung des frühen Mittelalters, edited by Walter Pohl, 129–37. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. [Back]
———. 2006a. "Les émotions de la vengeance." In La Vengeance, 400–1200, edited by Dominique Barthélemy, François Bougard and Régine Le Jan, 237–57. Rome: École française de Rome. [Back]
———. 2006b. Emotional Communities in the Early Middle Ages. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. [Back]
———. 2016. Generations of Feeling: A History of Emotions, 600–1700. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Back]
———. 2020. Anger: The Conflicted History of an Emotion. New Haven: Yale University Press. [Back]
Schlosser, David. 2017. "Love your Neighbor? Augustine and Society in the Carolingian World and Beyond." The Heroic Age 17. [Back]
Smith, Julia M. H. 2002. "Confronting Identities: The Rhetoric and Reality of a Carolingian Frontier." In Integration und Herrschaft: Ethnische Identitäten und soziale Organisation im Frühmittelalter, edited by Walter Pohl and Max Diesenberger, 169–82. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. [Back]
Sot, Michel. 2009. "Concordances et discordances entre culture des élites laïques et culture des élites cléricales à l'époque carolingienne: Jonas d'Orléans et Dhuoda." In La culture du haut Moyen Âge: une question d'élites?, edited by François Bougard, Régine Le Jan, and Rosamond McKitterick, 341–61. Turnhout: Brepols. [Back]
Spencer, Stephen J. 2016. "Piety, Brotherhood and Power: The Role and Significance of Emotions in Albert of Aachen's Historia Ierosolimitana." Literature Compass 13:423–43. [Back]
Tada, Satoshi. 2003. "The Creation of a Religious Centre: Christianisation in the Diocese of Liège in the Carolingian Period." Journal of Ecclesiastical History 54:209–27. [Back]
Van Renswoude, Irene. 2017. "The Art of Disputation: Dialogue, Dialectic and Debate around 800." Early Medieval Europe 25:38–53. [Back]
Veyrard-Cosme, Christiane. 2000. "Littérature latine du haut moyen âge et polémique antibyzantine: procédés et enjeux de la rhétorique du blâme dans les Livres Carolins." Revue des études latines 78:212–35. [Back]
Von Padberg, Lutz E. 1999. "Zum Sachsenbild in hagiographischen Quellen." In Sachsen und Franken in Westfalen: Zur Komplexität der ethnischen Deutung und Abgrenzung zweier frühmittelalterlicher Stämme, edited by Hans-Jürgen Hässler with Jörg Jarnut and Matthias Wemhoff, 173–91. Oldenburg: Isensee Verlag. [Back]