În partea de jos este prezentat rezumatul articolului selectat. Pentru revenire la cuprinsul ediţiei din care face parte acest articol, se accesează linkul din titlu. Pentru vizualizarea tuturor articolelor din arhivă la care este autor/coautor unul din autorii de mai jos, se accesează linkul din numele autorului.

    STUDIA IURISPRUDENTIA - Ediţia nr.2 din 2010  

Autori:  .
  Rezumat:  Acting perhaps also as prosecutor in the lawsuit against Tasilo, and thus considered the winner of the Frankish Machtergreifung, Arn had the Notitia Arnonis written by Deacon Benedictus. It is possible that the Notitia Arnonis had been recorded as early as in 788; however, a point of time somewhat later cannot be ruled out either; the text left to us by Rotulus gives the year 790 (anno dcc lxxxx) as title, and only insertions from the 15th century added the entry on 788 to it (anno dcc lxxxviii congestum), accordingly, the dating from the 12th century, the earliest known to us, allows to make the year 790 probable. Based on that, in summary, it can be declared that the statement demanded by Charlemagne at the end of 788 (eodem anno, quo ipse Baioariam regionem ad opus suum recepit), and readily presented by Salzburg, partly relying on and borrowing from earlier records and partly containing new information, was created during the occupation of Bavaria by the Franks, i.e., between 788 and—as it can be deduced from the text left to us—790. Heinrich Wanderwitz dated the creation of the Breves Notitiae to the years between 798 and 814; we can narrow this interval by presuming—as it is justified by historical circumstances taken into consideration—that the immunity granted to Salzburg was connected and in time coincided with making Salzburg Archbishopric. It can be declared that Charlemagne issued the immunities granted by him mostly between 787 and 800. Based on that, we can specify 798 as the terminus post quem and 800 as terminus ante quem of the immunity granted to Salzburg; thus, again the period between 798 and 800 can be given as the time of the creation of the Breves Notitiae. The Breves Notitiae can be by no means qualified as a later revision of the Notitia Arnonis, because their structural composition is independent, and linguistically—in terms of grammar and style—they show more proper solutions than the Notitia Arnonis, which manifests the linguistic deterioration of the age of the Merowings. The highly Carolingian supporting form of presentation used at certain points in the Breves Notitiae is acknowledged and accepted among researches, to various extents though. This tendency is indicated by the occurrence of Pippin and his mother, Hiltrud in the text, who are not mentioned by the Notitia Arnonis at all, and beside whom Duke Tasilo is reduced to a kind of supporting character by the narrative. The Breves Notitiae refer to Tasilo on five occasions in total compared to the nine loci in the Notitia Arnonis —the shorter source in volume; and grammatically he is included in the text as the subject on one occasion only. In relation to the Notitia Arnonis Herwig Wolfram uses the qualification “(eindeutig) prokarolingisch”; whereas regarding the Notitia Arnonis Heinrich Wanderwitz speaks about the unambiguous sympathy for the Agilolfings shown in the source, except for the introduction and the closing chapter. We can agree with Fritz Lošek on the point, that neither in relation to the Notitia Arnonis nor to the Breves Notitiae is it righteous to make such unambiguous and lapidary statements: each Bavarian Duke is adjudged differently, the absolutely positive image of Theodo and Theodbert is followed by portraits depicted of Odilo and Tasilo far from being flattering, which is supported by the conflict outlined in the Libellus Virgilii too.

Keywords: early medieval charters, legal history of Bavaria, Bavarian historiography.
      Revenire la pagina precedentă