Me, Myself, and My Name: Naming and Identity in the Late Middle Ages

T he paper distinguishes two types of individuality: in the pre-modern era, people conceptualised their individuality by constructing themselves a place in society. The suggestion made here differs from older research that sees pre-modern individuality bound to groups. In the modern era, in contrast, people place their selves outside or next to society. In this respect, pre* I would like to thank the PhD-students, research assistants and assistant professors at Bielefeld University who discussed an earlier version of this text during a seminar. Such discussion is the best an author can hope for; in this case it led to considerable rewriting. I would also like to thank Mirko Wittwar who revised my English and, if not otherwise indicated, translated the German quotations. Forms of Individuality and Literacy in the Medieval and Early Modern Periods, ed. F.-J. ARLINGHAUS, Utrecht Studies in Medieval Literacy, 31 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2015), pp. 1-45. DOI 10.1484/M.USML-EB.5.105609 2 FRANZ-JOSEF ARLINGHAUS modern ‘inclusion individuality’ and modern ‘exclusion individuality’ differ strongly from each other. These different forms of individuality are closely linked to the different structures of modern and pre-modern society. In this respect, asking why concepts of individuality have changed amounts to asking why society has changed – and this question is still unanswered, of course. However, bringing individuality and society so closely together questions concepts that see individuality as being a (timelessly) given or want to connect it to changes in mentality based on, for instance, certain features prominent in Christianity. The advantages in conceptualising individuality in this way may be seen in the possibility to historicise the phenomenon and mark differences without describing pre-modern individuality as being deficient. Placing the self within the frame of pre-modern society does not, of course, prevent the single person reflecting about him / herself and developing a strong self-consciousness. In this respect, the paper does not see a difference in ‘self-reflection’ and ‘selfconsciousness’ in modern and pre-modern times in general, but in the way people do so (which can be attributed to the different societal frame these reflections are linked to). To make the proposed shift from ‘bound to groups’ to ‘inclusion individuality’ more clear, I would like to mention two points: 1) pre-modern autobiographical texts show that their authors place themselves in society through putting themselves in parallel with other deliberately and consciously chosen persons; and 2) pre-modern authors built their self-consciousness strongly on ‘being better than others’ or on an over-fulfilment of norms, while modern authors emphasise ‘being different from others’. The comparative ‘better’ (in contrast to ‘different’) marks a self-conscious individuality that is built on (self-defined) links to society. The two types of individuality just described have a long tradition in sociological research, dating back at least to Georg Simmel and having been enriched with a new theoretical frame by Niklas Luhmann. They are, however, still somewhat alien to historical research. In this respect, the article and the volume as a whole are also an attempt to work in an interdisciplinary way and make sociological theory fruitful for pre-modern historical research. 3 Conceptualising Modern and Pre-Modern Individuality 1. Thietmar of Merseburg’s Self-Description Woe is me, a wretch joined in fraternity with so many noble men (proceres), but with an existence so dissimilar to their worthy manner of life. ... Moreover, my intentions are good. But they have produced little because I have not troubled myself to devote sufficient force to them. I always accuse myself, but not freed myself of guilt as I ought to have. Therefore, I require correction in all things because I have not directed myself to him who is praiseworthy above all. Now see, o reader, what a fine nobleman I am! You will see a tiny little man whose jaw and left side of the face are deformed by an ulcer which erupted there and continues to swell. The nose, broken in childhood, gives me a laughable appearance. Of all of that I would regret nothing, if only my inner character were bright. Now, I am a wretch, too prone to anger and resistant to virtue, envious, derisive towards others though myself worthy of derision, granting forgiveness to none though obligated to do so. I am a glutton and a hypocrite, greedy and disparaging. And, to conclude these well-deserved reproaches, I can say that I am much worse than one can possibly say or estimate in any way. It would be permissible for anyone not only to mutter but to openly announce that I am a sinner, and it would be appropriate for me to humbly ask for fraternal correction ... 1 Thietmar, Chronicon, IV, 75, ed. Thietmar von Merseburg, Chronik, ed. and trans. W. TRILLMICH (Darmstadt, 2002: Ausgewählte Quellen zur deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters 9), pp. 190 ff.: “Heu me misero, qui tot tantisque immerito sum coniunctus in fraternitate, sed longe dissimilis existo in condigna conversacione! Ego in peccatis iam pene mortuus, ut spero, vivam in lucido conspectu Dei eorundem meritis refocilatus; quia, etsi in hoc seculo parum boni operatus sum, tamen defunctorum semper memor sum. Voluntas mea interdum bona est; sed quia eidem vires aptas suggerere non studeo, parum prodest. Semper me accuso, sed sicut debui reatum non solvo; sumque ideo in omnibus corrigibilis, quia me non converto ad eum, qui est super omnia Iaudabilis. Agnosce, lector, procerem, et videbis in me parvum homuntionem, maxilla deformem leva et latere eodem, quia hinc olim erupit semper turgescens fistula. Nasus in puericia fractus ridiculum de me facit. Idque totum nil questus essem, si interius aliquid splendescerem. Nunc sum miser, nimis iracundus et ad meliora inflexibilis, invidus, subsannans alios ipse deridendus, nulli pro debito parcens, glutto et simulator, avarus ac detractor et, ut haec convicia merito illata concludam, peior sum, quam possit dici vel ullatenus estimari. Unicuique sit fas non solum muttire, quin pocius in aperto, quia peccator sum, dicere, et post correptionem fraternam congruit suppliciter orare”. I follow the edition of Werner Trillmich rather than the older edition of Holzmann, Die Chronik des Bischofs Thietmar von Merseburg und ihre Korveier Überarbeitung, ed. R. HOLZMANN, (Berlin, 1935: MGH Scriptores rerum Germanicarum: Nova Series 9). For criticism of Holzmann’s edition see S. PATZOLD, “Nachtrag”, in: Thietmar von Merseburg, Chronik, ed. W. TRILLMICH (Darmstadt, 2011: Ausgewählte Quellen zur deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters 9), pp. XXXII-XLVIII, at p. XXXVI. The translation, except the italics, follows Ottonian Germany: The Chronicon of Thietmar of Merseburg, trans. D.A. WARNER (Manchester, 2001), p. 203. 4 FRANZ-JOSEF ARLINGHAUS In his Chronicle, Bishop Thietmar of Merseburg († 1118) every now and then talks about himself. In the passage just cited he describes his body and character and compares it with his contemporaries. It would be naive, of course, to read these lines as an authentic portrait of Thietmar’s self-esteem and inner feelings, but, on the other hand, we would fall short if we just throw them away as one of these typical medieval self-humiliations that could be read as showing oneself off as the perfect, that is: humble monk. It is not astonishing that Guibert of Nogent and Otloh of St. Emmeram, for instance, portray themselves in a similar way. All this seems to be part of a typical humiliatio / exaltatio game that monks, bishops, kings and emperors played in similar ways. Our bishop was well aware of the fact that his contemporaries could interpret this self-humiliating description as self-adulation. Another part of his chronicle reads like this: “Externally, I appeared good but I violated my inner being with the worst thoughts. Born of an impure seed, I wallowed in filth like a stinking sow”, and – that is important – he comments: “Someone may say: ‘You have praised yourself badly’. To that one I respond: this is true, and I do not know anyone worse than myself”. Elsewhere, again addressing his reader, Thietmar stated that he showed more of his bad side than many others (“Ego conscius 2 H.-W. GOETZ, “Die Chronik Thietmars von Merseburg als Ego-Dokument: Ein Bischof mit gespaltenem Selbstverständnis”, in: Ego Trouble: Authors and their Identities in the Early Middle Ages, ed. R. CORRADINI et al. (Vienna, 2010: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 385 – Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 15), pp. 259-270, at p. 265 (with further literature on Thietmar). 3 See GOETZ, “Die Chronik”, p. 269. The newborn Guibert of Nogent is described by himself in his Monodiae 1, 3, “like an aborted foetus”; see the edition of E.-R. LABANDE (Ed.), Guibert de Nogent, Autobiographie, ed. and trans. E.-R. LABANDE (Paris, 1981: Les classiques de l’histoire de France au Moyen Age 34), p. 18. Guibert’s ugliness is discussed by F.-J. ARLINGHAUS, “In and out, then and now: The confident self and his relation to society in pre-modern and modern times”, in: Autobiographical Writing and Concepts of Personhood, ed. S. CHURCH et al. = The Medieval History Journal 18.2 (in print). 4 G. ALTHOFF, “Humiliatio – Exaltatio: Theorie und Praxis eines herrscherlichen Handlungsmusters”, in: Text und Kontext: Fallstudien und theoretische Begründungen einer kulturwissenschaftlichen Mediävistik, ed. J.-D. MÜLLER et al. (Munich, 2007: Schriften des historischen Kollegs: Kolloquien 64), pp. 39-51, points out that, based on Luke 14: 11, “Omnis qui se exaltat, humiliabitur, et qui se humiliat, exaltabitur”, (self-) humiliation was a kind of prerequisite for exaltation, es