The Symbolic Language of Authority in the Carolingian World by Ildar H. Garipzanov (review)

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