‘Obtulisti libellum de vita domni Remacli’: The Evolution of Patron Saint Libelli as Propagandist Instruments in the Monastery of Stavelot-Malmedy, 938-1247

Author(s)

  • Tjamke Snijders Royal Netherlands Historical Society (editorial secretary)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18352/bmgn-lchr.8545

Keywords:

Hagiography, monks, monastries

Abstract

The functionality of a hagiographical text in the High Middle Ages depended on the codex in which it was incorporated. As a result, a manuscript perspective is indispensable to assess the communicative function of a medieval saint’s life. This article analyses five codices concerning Saint Remaclus from the monastery of Stavelot-Malmedy as a way to study the changing strategies of hagiographic propaganda. The community of Stavelot-Malmedy experienced a growing need to increase the propagandist user-friendliness of their manuscripts between the tenth and the thirteenth century. A tenth-century manuscript consisted of a jumble of texts about Remaclus and Stavelot-Malmedy intended for a very broad audience. A second generation of codices consisted of a collection of texts better tailored to a more narrowly defined audience, while the third generation focuses almost exclusively on very specific, contemporary problems. An analysis of these manuscripts shows that these ‘generations’ or general types of manuscripts were representative of the Benedictine Southern Low Countries, and that an abbey’s choice for a specific type of manuscript can often be linked to its institutional position.


This article won the first Low Countries History Award in 2016 (for the best article in BMGN - Low Countries Historical Review over the years 2013-2014-2015).

 

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2013-06-21

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Snijders, T. (2013). ‘Obtulisti libellum de vita domni Remacli’: The Evolution of Patron Saint Libelli as Propagandist Instruments in the Monastery of Stavelot-Malmedy, 938-1247. BMGN - Low Countries Historical Review, 128(2), 3-30. https://doi.org/10.18352/bmgn-lchr.8545