A Bibliographical Review of Historiography on Gottschalk
A
Persecuted Medieval Augustinian
Gregory Johnson • Spring 1999 • St. Louis University
Gottschalk of Orbais is a little-known figure in the English-speaking world.[1] Outside of Calvinist or Jansenist circles, few have heard of the ninth century Augustinian poet, grammarian and theologian or the debates that arose around him in Carolingian France. This bibliographical review will begin with a brief overview of Gottschalk's life, followed by a short discussion of the primary source material available to scholarship today. The discussion of primary sources will in turn be followed by a relatively exhaustive survey of historiography on Gottschalk which will seek to classify the secondary literature. This survey will be grouped around five topics: predestination, the eucharist, the Trinity, Gottschalk's poetry and his grammar. This review will conclude by attempting to assess the current state of Gottschalk research.
An Overview of Gottschalk's Life
Gottschalk—or Godescalc—born about 803, was offered by his father, Berno, a Saxon count, as a child oblate in the Benedictine abbey of Fulda. His name, literally "God's servant," suffers from twelve different spellings in the academic literature, though Gottschalk appears now to be the generally accepted form.[2] Educated at Fulda, Gottschalk completed his studies at Reichenau on Lake Constance before 827, where he developed a friendship with Walafrid Strabo, shortly thereafter gaining the acquaintance of the theologian Servatus Lupus.
In 829, Gottschalk applied to the council at Mainz for release from his monastic status, arguing that his father, as a free man, had no right to commit his son to service, even the sevitum dei. Despite opposition from his abbot, Hrabanus Maurus, the council was persuaded by Gottschalk's arguments and released him. Likely during this period of release, Gottschalk spent some time first at Corbie, where he befriended Ratramnus, an authority on Augustine, and then at Reims, where he served as a protégé to the archbishop, Ebbo. Nevertheless, Gottschalk's release was reversed by the emperor, Louis I (the Pius) after an appeal from Hrabanus. Gottschalk was instead transferred to the monastery at Orbais, in Château-Thierry.
At Orbais, Gottschalk devoted himself to studying the writings of Augustine and of Fulgentius of Ruspe, and it was during this time that he received priest's orders. Around 847, Gottschalk went on a pilgrimage to Rome, followed by a brief period of missionary work in the Balkans. Upon returning to France, Gottschalk was accused of heresy for his views on predestination by his former abbot, Hrabanus Maurus, then archbishop of Mainz, and was condemned at by the Synod of Mainz in 848 for teaching a double predestination in which the elect were predestined unto eternal life and the reprobate passed over and predestined unto damnation. The Synod committed Gottschalk to his metropolitan, Hincmar of Reims, who the next year convoked a synod at Quiercy-sur-Oise to again condemn Gottschalk, though it appears there was no investigation of his views, the synod degrading Gottschalk from the priesthood.[3] Hincmar had Gottschalk flogged until near death, committing him for life to the prison house at the monastery of Hautvillers, with a prohibition on any contact with the outside world.
In 849, Gottschalk went so far as to ask permission for a trial of his orthodoxy by ordeal, though there is no evidence whether such a trial took place. Hincmar penned a treatise to the cloistered of his diocese condemning both Gottschalk's doctrine of double predestination and the practical consequences of teaching such a doctrine, including a collection of texts he felt supported his position. Hincmar also requested consultation from the leading theologians of ninth century Europe. But the replies were not what Hincmar likely expected.
Both Prudentius of Troyes and Lupus of Ferrières sent Hincmar reasoned replies in which they argued that Gottschalk was correct, that Hincmar was in error, and that the Scriptures and Augustine did in fact teach a double predestination. Hrabanus Maurus, who had long opposed Gottschalk, said he was too ill and too busy to reply to Gottschalk's arguments. But by this time, Charles the Bald was becoming interested in the predestinarian controversy. Charles consulted his own theological advisers, receiving replies that agreed with Gottschalk on double predestination and were openly critical of Hincmar, Ratramnus of Corbie accusing Hincmar of "badly misunderstanding" the authors he quoted for support.[4]
After an appeal by Hincmar's supporters, John Scotus Eriugena responded to Gottschalk with a treatise opposing double predestination, but using philosophical arguments that were so foreign to the Carolingians as to be counter-productive—indeed, Hincmar distanced himself from it, claiming to be unfamiliar with the work, and to not even know who had authored it.[5] To Eriugena, Prudentius wrote a devastating reply at the request of Wenilo of Sens, his metropolitan, bringing the Church of Lyons into the debate squarely on the side of Gottschalk, the Lyonnais Church itself putting forward another strongly Augustinian statement of the issue, likely authored by the deacon Florus. Around 852, the Church of Lyon issued an additional document laying accusations of error on Hincmar, Hrabanus and others.
In 853, a council which included Charles the Bald and some bishops met at Quierzy where they sought to set forth a compromise on the predestination issue which affirmed a single predestination of the elect only based, in part it would seem, on a foreknowledge of their merits. This conclusion itself drew a response from Florus accusing it of being both un-Augustinian and unorthodox (contrarium... catholicae fidei).[6]
In 855, Emperor Lothar called a council at Valence which formally condemned the compromise at Quierzy, further expressing doubts as to the validity of recent appointments to bishoprics in northern France, including that of Hincmar. The Council of Valence affirmed, "a predestination of the elect to life, and a predestination of the wicked to death; that, in the election of them that are saved, the mercy of God precedes anything we do, and in the condemnation of the wicked, evil merit precedes the righteous judgment of God."
Lothar died shortly after the council, however, and Hincmar's good graces among the nobility were restored due to his political support for Charles. The southern bishops who had formed the core of the Council of Valence began to back off from their earlier strong language, and a council at Tusey in 860 declared generally agreed upon principles about grace, but avoided the question of predestination to death, bringing the ninth century predestinarian controversy to an end.
It was during this same period that Gottschalk found himself in the middle of another controversy with Hincmar, this time over the Trinity. In 849, Hincmar banned the ancient (possibly Gothic) words trina deitas in the Vesper hymn Sanctorum meritis, replacing them with the phrase summa deitas. Gottschalk criticized Hincmar for making the change, Hincmar further condemning Gottschalk and issuing what became Hincmar's major theological work, De una et non trina deitate.
Gottschalk personally was left behind in the conclusion of the predestinarian controversy, but in 866, he did manage to send off (through a supportive monk, Guntbert) an appeal to Pope Nicholas I to have his case reviewed—and Gottschalk evidently had the support of the Roman Curia. Hincmar feared that Gottschalk would be released, instructing his representative in Rome to remain very circumspect about the matter. Gottschalk's hopes ended the following year, however, when Nicholas died. Hincmar continued to imprison Gottschalk, denying him the eucharist the full twenty years of his imprisonment. Hincmar offered the sacraments only on condition that Gottschalk openly disavow his position on predestination, a disavowal Gottschalk would not make, being refused the sacraments even on his deathbed. Gottschalk died in 867 or 869 after several years of hallucinations, possibly the result of his harsh treatment at the hands of Hincmar. Having briefly surveyed Gottschalk's life, we now turn to a discussion of the primary sources for Gottschalk research.
Primary Sources for Gottschalk
Most of Gottschalk's works can be found in D. C. Lambot's Oeuvres théologiques et grammaticales de Godescalc d’Orbais.[7] A number of these works had only been discovered in 1931 by Dom Morin in a library in Bern.[8] Lambot's volume includes Gottschalk's most lengthy surviving works: De trina deitate, De preadestinatione, De ‘IN’ preapositione explanatio, as well as another treatise on grammar. Some of these works, particularly De trina deitate, are likely collections of multiple works written to different recipients on different occasions.[9] The volume also contains two confessions of faith, the shorter Confessio Godescalchi monachi damnati and the longer Gotteschalci Confessio prolixior. Also included are a Responsa Gottescalci de diversis ab ipsomet alicui censori transmissa, evidently a later work in which Gottschalk clarifies his position on various issues, a shorter treatise De Trinitate, a shorter treatise on predestination, a work on redemption, and two treatises on the eucharist, one titled (following Radbertus) De corpore et sanguine domini.
Among Gottschalk's works in Lambot is a treatise on the origin of the soul in which he interacts with various authors on the topic without coming to any specific conclusion, as well as several brief works. Lambot also includes numerous fragments from Gottschalk quoted in Hrabanus, Lupus of Ferrières, Hincmar, John Scotus, and Amolo Lugdun. The most extensive of these works quoted elsewhere is Gottschalk's Schedula, a significant Trinitarian work quoted in full at the beginning of Hincmar's De una et non trina deitate.[10] An additional letter was only discovered after Lambot's volume was published and is found in the Révue Bénédictine.[11] Gottschalk's seventeen surviving poems are not included in Lambot's volume, but can be found in the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Poetae Latini Aevi Carolini.[12]
Manuscripts of Gottschalk's writings are scattered over a dozen locations throughout Europe, the largest number to be found at the Bibliothèque Royale in Bruxelles, the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, and the Bibliothèque de l'Université in Leyden.[13] All works are in Latin. None of the works of Gottschalk are available as yet in translation. Having thus far introduced Gottschalk's life and having offered a brief discussion of the primary sources available, we now turn to an overview of the secondary literature, classified around five subjects which serve as the foci of research on Gottschalk: the predestinarian controversy, his eucharist thought, the Trinitarian controversy, Gottschalk's poetry and his grammar.
1.
Gottschalk and the Predestinarian Controversy
By far the majority of the work on Gottschalk has centered on the predestinarian controversy—and understandably so, since this controversy had the greatest impact not only on the Carolingian church, but on Gottschalk's fate as well. Archbishop James Ussher gave the first significant history of the controversy in his 1631 Gotteschalci et praedestinatianae controversiae ab eo moyae Historia.[14] His major concern was to uphold Gottschalk as a precedent for his own Calvinist convictions, but unfortunately for later English scholarship, he produced the treatise in Latin rather than in English so that—as he explained to Archbishop Laud—the commonfolk would not become too confused by the issue.
In the modern era, much of the basic narrative of the predestinarian controversy was mapped out a century ago by A. Freystedt in a series of three articles in the Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschicte,[15] and more recently by S. Epperlein in Herrschaft und Volk im karolingischen Imperium.[16] K. Vielhaber gives a lengthy narrative of the controversy in his 1956 Gottschalk der Sachse, arguing that Gottschalk was less obstinate than often presented, voluntarily returning to the monastic state at Orbais, for example, rather than being forced, and (again) going on his Balkan mission before the predestinarian controversy erupted, rather than trying to flee persecution.[17] What follows is an attempt, albeit imperfect (since some works take more than one perspective), to classify some different approaches to Gottschalk's place in the predestinarian controversy.
• Personal Perspectives on the Controversy: In his three volume tome on Gottschalk's chief opponent, Hincmar, archevêque de Reims, 845-882, Jean Devisse devotes much of his first volume to Hincmar's controversies with Gottschalk.[18] Devisse sees Gottschalk largely through Hincmar's eyes, even seeking to defend Hincmar from the accusation that he "packed" the synod of Quierzy with his own supporters, a defense Nineham argues is unsuccessful.[19] Devisse, for example, defends Gottschalk's treatment at the hands of Hincmar on the grounds that such practice was not exceptional at the time, but simply a strict reading of the Rule of St. Benedict.[20] To these remarks, Nineham responds by noting how ninth century observers considered Hincmar's treatment of Gottschalk to be "unheard of cruelty."[21] Eleanore Shipley Duckett touches on Gottschalk several times in her Carolingian Portraits: A Study in the Ninth Century, first from the perspective of his friendship with Walafrid Strabo of Reichenau,[22] then from the perspective of Hincmar.[23]
• Theological Perspectives on the Controversy: E. Aergerter discusses the theological aspects of the controversy in his 1937 article "Gottschalk et la probleme de la predestination au IXe siecle," also making much of the differences in temperament between Gottschalk and Hincmar, though Aergerter oddly insists that Augustine never taught double predestination.[24]
G. F. Wiggers' 1859 article "Schicksale de augustinische Anthropologie, Fünfte Abtheilung: Der Münch Gottschalk," paints Gottschalk as a reactionary rather than a progressive, a conservative Catholic rather than a proto-Protestant. Gottschalk sought not to deviate from the Catholic faith, but (in his own view) to uphold it over against an archbishop who sought first to distort or deny the master Augustine, and second to change the liturgy as it had stood for centuries.[25] Nineham also takes this "conservative" approach, arguing from Gottschalk's willingness to take trial by ordeal, as well as his appeal to the pope and his support from leading Carolingian theologians, that Gottschalk was convinced of his Catholic orthodoxy—as well as of Hincmar's heresy as a deviant from Catholic religion. Still, Nineham does not interpret Gottschalk simply as a reactionary, noting how Gottschalk applied his own creative and well-trained mind to the question of predestination.[26]
• Regional Perspectives on the Controversy: B. Lavaud, in his 1932 "Précurseur de Calvin ou témoin de l'Augustinisme? Le cas de Gotescalc" sees Gottschalk's time in Lyon and the south as central in the development of his Augustinianism.[27] Augustine was little read in the North and West, but was much more widely studied in the South, and especially in Lyon. Thus regional differences played a key role in the predestinarian controversy. M. L. W. Laistner, though only devoting a handful of pages to the predestinarian controversy, nevertheless brings out regional issues that may have played a role in the debate, noting that France "had once been the main stronghold of Semi-pelagianism."[28] Laistner develops the weakness of training in Augustine, despite the authority his name carried, within Carolingian learning. This regional factor is more recently developed by Nineham, who notes that the divisions in the predestinarian controversy frequently fell along West-South lines.[29]
• Intellectual-Historical Perspectives on the Controversy: Charles M. Radding interprets the predestinarian controversy from a perspective which values independent reasoning over authority in his volume A World Made by Men: Cognition and Society, 400-1200. While he praises Gottschalk for being able to look at the world from "God's point of view" (as does J. M. Wallace-Hadrill in The Frankish Church) rather than the normal anthropocentric cognition, Radding roundly criticizes all involved in the debate for depending almost exclusively from quoted authorities (the Bible and the Fathers, especially Augustine) "as a substitute for argument."[30]
• Political Interpretations of the Controversy: David Ganz proposes a political interpretation of the predestinarian controversy in "The Debate on Predestination."[31] Ganz argues that views on predestination during the 840s and 850s served to "define factions among the clerical élite."[32] For a decade, Ganz argues, many among the Carolingian intelligentsia experimented with predestinarianism, which at its heart provided a new doctrine of power and order in a cultural context where society itself appeared to be disintegrating and the intelligentsia feared a total loss of power as it searched the patristic literature for an understanding of the judgment they were experiencing. This new order with which they experimented made the authority of the episcopate to control the spiritual realm unnecessary, Ganz argues, "as were their sacraments and the whole idea of a priestly Church."[33] At its very core, the predestinarian controversy was a decade-long challenge to the seemingly failing political and ecclesiastical order at the middle of the ninth century.
Peter R. McKeon develops the political context for the two councils that brought the controversy to a close in "The Carolingian Councils of Savonnieres (859) and Tusey (860) and their Background."[34] Ironically, Gottschalk is nowhere mentioned in McKeon's Hincmar of Laon and Carolingian Politics.[35] Nevertheless, alongside the personal, theological, regional, and intellectual-historical perspectives on the predestinarian controversy, political interpretations have been offered.
2.
Gottschalk and the Eucharistic Question
Given that most of the secondary literature on Gottschalk has approached him through the context of the predestinarian controversy, yet another controversy about which little has been written concerns the ninth century debate over the nature of Christ's presence in the eucharist. Apart from one paragraph in Nineham, it would appear that little has been written concerning Gottschalk's place in this debate.[36] Gottschalk penned two treatises on the eucharist in response to the De corpore et sanguine domini of Paschasius Radbertus. As Nineham presents it, Gottschalk, like his colleague Ratramnus, opposed Paschasius' argument that the body received in the sacrament was non alia caro than the body born of Mary. Gottschalk did affirm that the Holy Spirit transformed the elements into the true body and blood of Christ at the words of consecration; however, he distinguished between the historical body of Christ and the eucharistic and the ecclesiastical body of Christ. Gottschalk argued that the three are distinct manifestations of the one Christ. Gottschalk particularly insisted that Christ's body cannot suffer anew in the mass, since the glorified Christ is no longer liable to suffering. Developing Augustine's interpretation of the eucharist, Gottschalk identified Christ's presence in the mass as the instrument by which the elements are transformed into his body and blood. Still, as Nineham notes, the modern doctrine of transubstantiation was not yet defined, and there is no record that Gottschalk was accused of heresy on account of his eucharistic theology.[37]
3.
Gottschalk and the Trinitarian Controversy
Two major works have focused exclusively on the Trinitarian controversy. Jean Jolivet's 1958 Godescalc d’Orbais et la Trinité: La Méthode de la théologie a l'époque carolingienne was the first study to focus particularly on the Trinitarian question.[38] Jolivet's work seeks not so much to analyze the history of the theology or philosophy involved in the debate, but rather the theological method Gottschalk used in making his arguments. Jolivet analyzes Gottschalk's use of liturgical argumentation, analogy, grammar, syllogisms, and scriptural and patristic texts, arguing that there is a degree of nominalism already developing in his argumentation, and a platonic spirit about it all. Jolivet argues that Gottschalk is representative of his age, what Jolivet calls the "premier âge de la méthode théologique médiévale," using all the worldly sciences then available to give a reasoned explanation and defense of Christian theology (cf. Radding, above!).[39]
More recently, George H. Tavard's 1996 Trina Deitas: The Controversy between Hincmar and Gottschalk has sought to shed light on the controversy.[40] Tavard looks at the controversy through Hincmar's works, devoting most of his volume to an exegesis of Hincmar's critique of Gottschalk's Trinitarian vocabulary. Gottschalk accused Hincmar of heresy for (in Gottschalk's view) espousing Sabellianism, accusing him of denying the tri-unity of God. Central to the debate, according to Tavard, was Gottschalk's conviction that, since God is naturally one and personally trine, all of God's attributes are therefore naturally one and personally trine, so that God's Deity itself is in some sense trine.
As Tavard lays out their respective arguments, Hincmar accused Gottschalk of polytheism for opposing his removal of the phrase deitas trina. The heart of the problem, as Tavard interprets it, was a mutual distrust that kept Hincmar and Gottschalk from understanding how the other used the terms he used. Both Trinitarian formulations were likely orthodox, but Gottschalk took the poet's prerogative to define his terms in a specific way, a way Hincmar was unwilling or unable to understand, while Gottschalk accused Hincmar of heresy for rejecting a formulation that, when understood the way Gottschalk understood it, was orthodox. In this sense, Tavard sees lessons in this conflict for ecumenical dialogue today.
4.
Gottschalk's Poetry
Some scholarly attention has been given to Gottschalk's poetry, though his poetry is generally treated only briefly and often in passing. Laistner devotes four pages to it in his Thoughts and Letters in Western Europe A. D. 500 to 900.[41] Nineham describes Gottschalk's poetry as revealing "a soul of deep feeling, sensitivity and piety, keenly aware of its own shortcomings and need of God's mercy and grace."[42] H. Grabert is more cynical in his assessment of Gottschalk's emotional and religious expression, dismissing such sentiments as "conventional".[43] Other scholars disagree with Grabert's dismissal, Vielhaber finding in Gottschalk's most famous poem "Ut quid iubes, pusiole?" a prayer addressed to Christ both as earthly baby and as heavenly Lord.[44] Gottschalk's poetry is characterized by a noteworthy lyricism and use of rhyming stanzas to support that lyricism, a practice that was innovative at the time. H. Waddel speaks of "his verse, the most musical... in Europe for centuries."[45] Nineham notes how even Gottschalk's prose writings are often in the form of a sustained prayer, Vielhaber interpreting Gottschalk as an anticipation of the mystical piety that would arise in the twelfth century.[46] There is no consensus as to exactly when any of Gottschalk's seventeen surviving poems were written.
5.
Gottschalk's Grammar
Gottschalk also wrote a two lengthy treatises on grammar, and was a respected grammarian in the Carolingian period. Jolivet discusses Gottschalk's use of grammar for polemical purposes in "L'Enjeu de la grammaire pour Godescalc."[47] Gillian R. Evans has a 1982 article in which she analyzes Gottschalk's use of grammar in his theological argumentation, "The Grammar of Predestination in the Ninth Century."[48] Evans sees in the Carolingian renaissance the same spirit that would later characterize the writers of the twelfth century, a spirit in which theologians were also philosophers of language who pushed the very bounds of knowledge using the latest technical grammatical skills. Gottschalk's grammatical understanding, for example, began with a comparison of differences between Greek and Latin syntax. He speaks, for example, of "the Greek way" of using a genitive for a Latin ablative, further displaying at some level an understanding that grammatical rules were not absolute, but rather human and relative. Speculative theology had already begun in the predestinarian controversy, Evans argues, scholars already using close analysis of language and its functioning to answer the ultimate questions of theology.
Having now taken account of the secondary literature on Gottschalk, which has tended to approach the figure through the either the predestinarian controversy, the eucharist, the Trinitarian controversy, Gottschalk's poetry or his grammar, we now move on to offer something of an assessment of the current state of Gottschalk research.
The Current State of Research: A Concluding Assessment
In seeking to make an assessment of the research on Gottschalk, a number of observations must be made. The first observation is the relative lack of research on Gottschalk. Certainly this review has taken note of numerous works that touch on Gottschalk, but most of these do little more than touch on Gottschalk. While many volumes will devote three or four pages to the medieval Augustinian, only a handful of monographs have been written on Gottschalk, and none of those in English. Similarly, only a few articles have investigated Gottschalk, which seems scant for a figure whose controversies dominated the theological world for a pivotal decade of a pivotal century.
And why has the English speaking world in particular been so (for lack of a better word) ignorant of Gottschalk? More has been written in French and German than in English. Nineham suggests that this paucity of English scholarship on Gottschalk is due to the dominance of semi-Pelagian theology within the English-speaking world. Nineham suggests that Reformed and Jansenist authors on the Continent have had more interest in the Augustinian monk.[49] This may indeed be a factor, but Reformed Protestantism never thrived on the Continent to the extent it has in the English-speaking world, even if Augustinianism has often thrived only as a minority viewpoint. Calvinists, for example, have always been numbered among the cultural and academic "insiders" in both Britain and North America. I suspect the matter has more to do with the accessibility (or lack thereof) of Gottschalk's Latin manuscripts to English speakers. All of the manuscripts are in Latin, and none has been translated into English. All of the manuscripts are located in Continental Europe, and they were not published until Lambot's volume after the Second World War.
And another issue that must be raised is over the perspective from which Gottschalk should be interpreted. Does one view Gottschalk in light of later events—as a precursor of the Protestant Reformation—as had Archbishop Ussher? Or does one view Gottschalk as a precursor to either the mystical piety or the scholasticism of the twelfth century? Or, on a different note, does one view Gottschalk in light of earlier developments as a defender of Augustinian orthodoxy, as did Wiggers? Even if a theological perspective is taken, does one assume a developmental narrative, and if so, is Gottschalk working for or against that narrative?
All this is to say that authors do carry biases through which they interpret Gottschalk. Devisse clearly does not like Gottschalk, nor does he agree with him. This may be simply because his study is on Hincmar, Gottschalk's opponent, so that Devisse sees Gottschalk through the values of his primary subject, Hincmar. Nineham, by contrast, would seem to come to Gottschalk's defense whenever possible, critiquing Devisse for doing just the opposite. Scholars have biases—assumptions, convictions, blindnesses, values, perspectives, call them what you like (positive or negative)—biases that influence their interpretation of events.
And these biases are not always theological in nature. Take Ganz, for example. He assumes that politics were the real driving force behind the theology. The political uncertainty of the Carolingian era was the real source behind predestinarian thought, far more so that Augustine or the Bible. Ganz does not really demonstrate that cultural need was the driving force; rather, the assertion acts more as a given within his argument. One could state it as Ganz's premise: theological developments arise out of cultural need. But if the 420s and 840s were the only two decades in Church history characterized by political uncertainty, Ganz's assumption would seem more convincing, but political uncertainty has been a constant throughout most of human history. Clearly something more was going on.
Charles Radding, though he devotes only a limited space to Gottschalk, seems equally heavy-handed in his interpretation of Gottschalk—indeed, of the whole Carolingian period. Radding assumes that defending a viewpoint by appeal to authorities in an inferior practice to reliance upon high-level philosophical argumentation. This, again, acts as a bias every bit as influential as a theological bias. No scholarship is strictly objective in its interpretation or assessment of Gottschalk. Some might counter Radding by noting that, seven centuries after Gottschalk—after Aristotle had had his way with Christian theology—many Christians would seek to return to the use of authorities as the primary form of theological argumentation.
And the biases within this paper are no doubt apparent as well. From this author's perspective, more study is needed on Gottschalk's theology itself—a topic that has barely been touched. All 600 pages of Gottschalk's works have been published now for forty-four years in Lambot, so that they are accessible to those who read Latin. The next step, it would seem, is a modern language translation, particularly one into English. Such translation would make the Carolingian monk accessible to a whole new group of people. As for the details and nuances of Gottschalk's theology, very little has been written so far. How did Gottschalk develop Augustine's doctrine of election, for example? And what are the details of Gottschalk's sacramental theology? The works of Gottschalk are in need of solid theological exegesis. On every level, and especially on the theological level, there remains ample room to study Gottschalk.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Literature
Duemmler, Ernst ed. Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Poetae Latini Aevi Carolini, vol. III, 1886, 724-738.
Grundlach, Wilhelm, ed. "Zwei Schriften Hinkmars von Reims." Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschicte, 10 (1889), 258-309.
Hincmar of Laon. De Una et non trina deitate, in Migne, Patrologia latina 125.
Lambot, D. C. "Lettre inédite de Goescalc d’Orbais," Révue Bénédictine 68 (1958), 41ff.
_______, ed. Oeuvres théologiques et grammaticales de Godescalc d’Orbais. Louvain, 1945.
Secondary Literature
Aergerter, E. "Gottschalk et la probleme de la predestination au IXe siecle," Revue de l'Histoire des Religions 116 (1937), 187-233.
Devisse, Jean. Hincmar et la loi, Dakar, 1962.
_______. Hincmar, archevêque de Reims, 845-882, 3 vol., Geneva, 1975-1976.
Duckett, Eleanor Shipley. Alcuin, Friend of Charlemagne, New York, 1951.
_______. Carolingian Portraits: A Study in the Ninth Century, Ann Arbor, MI, 1962.
Epperlein, S. Herrschaft und Volk im karolingischen Imperium, Berlin, 1969.
Evans, Gillian R. "The Grammar of Predestination in the Ninth Century," Journal of Theological Studies 33 (1982), 134-45.
Freystedt, A. "Studien zu Gottschalks Leben und Lehre," I-III. Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschicte, 18 (1898), 1-22; 161-82; 529-45.
Ganz, David. "The Debate on Predestination," in Charles the Bald: Court and Kingdom, eds. M. Gibson and J. Nelson, 353-73. Oxford, 1981.
Godman, P. Poetry of the Carolingian Renaissance, London, 1985.
Grabert, H. Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte 8 (1937), 611.
Jolivet, Jean. Godescalc d’Orbais et la Trinité: La Méthode de la théologie a l'époque carolingienne, Paris, 1958.
_______. "L'Enjou de la grammaire pour Godescalc," in Jean Scot Erigène et l'histoire de la philosophie, ed. R. Roques, 79-87. Paris, 1977.
Laistner, W. M. L. Thoughts and Letters in Western Europe, A.D. 500 to 900, Ithaca, NY, 1957.
Lavaud, B. "Précurseur de Calvin ou témoin de l'Augustinisme? Le cas de Gotescalc," Revue Thomiste 15 (1932), 71-101.
Marenbon, John. "Carolingian Thought," in Carolingian Culture: Emulation and Innovation, ed. Rosamond McKitterick, 171-92. Cambridge, 1994.
McKeon, Peter R. Hincmar of Laon and Carolingian Politics, Urbana, IL, 1978.
_______. "The Carolingian Councils of Savonnieres (859) and Tusey (860) and their Background," Revue Bénédictine 84 (1974), 75-110.
Morin, Dom. "Gottschalk retrouvé," Revue Bénédictine 43 (1931), 303-12.
Nineham, D. E. "Gottschalk of Orbais: Reactionary or Precursor to the Reformation?" Journal of Ecclesiastical History 40 (1989), 1-18.
Raby, F. J. E. A History of Christian-Latin Poetry, 2nd edn, Oxford, 1953.
Radding, Charles M. A World Made by Men, Chapel Hill, NC, 1985.
Schrörs, Heinrich. Hinkmar, Erzbischof von Reims. Sein Leben und seine Schriften, Freiburg, 1884.
Stratmann, Martina. Hinkmar von Reims als Verwalter von Bistum und Kichenprovinz, Sigmaringen, 1991.
Tavard, George H. Trina Deitas: The Controversy between Hincmar and Gottschalk, Milwaukee, WI, 1996
Ussher, James. Gotteschalci et praedestinatianae controversiae ab eo moyae Historia, Dublin, 1631.
Vielhaber, K. Gottschalk der Sachse, Bonn, 1956.
Waddel, H. The Wandering Scholars, 7th edn, London, 1938.
Wiggers, G. F. "Schicksale de augustinische Anthropologie, Fünfte Abtheilung: Der Münch Gottschalk," Nieder Zeitschrifte für die historische Theologie (1859), 471-591.
[49]Nineham, 18.