In the year 818, just three years before his death, Theodulf, the bishop of Orleans, was removed from his episcopal seat on a charge of conspiracy against the emperor Louis the Pious and banished to a monastery in Angers. It is around this pivotal event that Tignolet writes her biography of the man who was born in Visigothic Spain, became highly educated, was highly influential at the court of Charlemagne, travelled to Rome to see Charlemagne crowned emperor, and even was a witness to Charlemagne’s last will and testament. Would a man so loyal to one emperor conspire against that emperor’s son? Or was it Louis the Pious who wished to get rid of a meddlesome bishop? No medieval vita was ever written about Theodulf: does that mean he became subject of a damnatio memoriae, that is, an official silence about this man who dared to conspire against the emperor? And what exactly was he guilty of? These are just some of the questions that this meticulously researched, carefully written, and judicious book seeks to answer.

After a brief introduction, the book examines Theodulf’s alleged involvement in Bernard of Italy’s revolt against his father. Tignolet carefully outlines the various theories of whether Bernard actually rebelled or whether he reacted defensively. She then comes to speak about Theodulf’s involvement, of which there is little surviving evidence. All the same, Theodulf had to vacate the bishop’s seat. Was he the victim of Count Matfrid, whose power in Orleans was increasing at that time? Again, no definite answer can be given since the sources are not clear enough. And did Theodulf’s deposition have an effect on the survival of his literary corpus? This last question can be answered more clearly. While Theodulf’s works have not been collected as avidly as those of, say, Alcuin, enough survives that one can gain insight into the man.

In the next few chapters Tignolet searches for any surviving documents either mentioning or written by Theodulf. She begins with some Carolingian historiographers and notes the fact that Ermoldus Nigellus does not mention Theodulf at all. The Astronomer in his Life of the emperor Louis acknowledges Theodulf’s reception of Louis in Orleans in the year 814 as well as his presence at the coronation in 816, but also describes Theodulf’s alleged betrayal of 817. After the Astronomer, Carolingian historiographers rarely mention Theodulf, even when they speak about Bernard’s revolt.

Tignolet then moves on to Orleans and its environs to consider whether and how his memory is preserved there. Nothing seems to survive from the bishop’s seat itself. Saints’ lives associated with monasteries in the vicinity, such as Micy and Fleury, do not mention Theodulf in the immediate years after his deposition, but begin to recognize his contribution some decades later. Slightly farther away from Orleans, the Life of Benedict of Aniane briefly mentions Theodulf as requesting monks for the monastery of Micy. And a necrology of St. Germain des Prés also contains his name.

The early part of the book concentrates on sources after Theodulf’s death; chapter 2 turns to his earlier life. Theodulf hardly ever mentions his native land; nonetheless, his frequent citation of the works of Isidore of Seville, Prudentius, Eugene of Toledo and others leave little doubt that he was raised in Spain. After he left Spain and before he arrived at the court of Charlemagne, he seems to have spent some time in Septimania, as is suggested by poem XXVIII. How long he was there, and exactly how he attracted the king’s attention remains unclear. By the beginning of the 790s Theodulf can definitively be located at Charlemagne’s court where he joined the group of foreign scholars the king gathered around himself. One of his first duties there seems to have consisted in helping draft the Opus Caroli regis contra synodum, and later he contributed to the Admonitio generalis, one of the foundational documents for the reform of the clergy’s education in the realm. When it comes to Theodulf’s installation as bishop of Orleans, uncertainty reigns again. It seems to have happened around 798, perhaps simultaneously with him becoming abbot of Fleury. By 801-- this can be dated from letter 225 by Alcuin--Theodulf receives the pallium, a special honour given to him personally since Orleans is not an archiepiscopal seat.

Theodulf travelled a lot. Tignolet traces his presence at the councils of Regensburg (792), Frankfurt (794), Aachen (809), and Chalon (813) and at Charlemagne’s coronation as emperor in Rome (800); he must have been in Aachen again in 811 when he was one of the signatories of Charlemagne’s last will. He also seems to have travelled to Lorsch and Worms. Most of these travels were necessitated by his proximity to Charlemagne, but the one he undertook with Leidrad to Septimania to combat the heresy of Adoptionism was independent of the king’s retinue, though clearly at the behest of the king. He never seems to have returned to Spain.

Good relations seem to have existed between the bishop and Louis the Pious in the first few years of the new king’s reign. Theodulf receives the king in Orleans in 814 and was present at Louis’s coronation in 816. In 817 Bernard of Italy rebelled against the king, and despite claiming his innocence, Theodulf was considered implicated and sent into exile at a monastery in Angers.

Tignolet next turns to the intellectual endeavours of Theodulf. She restates his involvement in the Opus Caroli regis contra synodum, draws attention to his involvement in the fight against Adoptionism (though no actual work by him on this topic survives), and his Liber de processione Spiritus sancti. Like Alcuin, Theodulf was engaged in creating a corrected text of the Bible, and glossarial evidence from a Paris manuscript (lat. 11937) indicates that in this endeavour he consulted Jewish scholars. He contributed the De ordine baptismi to Charlemagne’s efforts to collect the various baptismal practices in his realm.In order to advance the Carolingian reforms, Theodulf also employed verse: his Versus ad Iudices (poem XXVIII), his Ad Gislam (poem XLIII), his Ad Episcopos, and his Ad Aiulfum (poem LXXI), all of which Tignolet carefully discusses, were written with this aim in mind. So was his capitulary--in prose, not in verse--in which, for instance, he requests his priests to establish schools not only in towns, but also in villages.

Theodulf contributed to the Carolingian reforms also through buildings. Not all of them can definitely be attributed to Theodulf, but Orleans, Fleury, St. Aignan, and Micy all seem to have benefitted from his activity, which is documented through inscriptions written by Theodulf (though Tignolet is careful enough to admit that this does not necessarily mean that Theodulf actually commissioned the buildings). There is no doubt, however, about his building the church of Germigny, since its eastern apse contains a mosaic, the inscription of which bears Theodulf’s name.

Teaching is another important aspect of the Carolingian reforms. We do not have any actual teaching manuals written by Theodulf, yet several of his poems concentrate on school activities by listing, for instance, the seven liberal arts (e.g., poem XLIV) or the writers which he had read in his younger years (poem XLV). In this connection, Tignolet also examines the question of a Theodulfian scriptorium: was there one at Orleans? Traces of Theodulf’s activity can be found in the manuscripts produced at Micy and Fleury, but are harder to find at Orleans, even though his activities of establishing an authoritative biblical text would suggest that there must have been one.

Chapter 4 concentrates on Theodulf’s networks, that is the friends he cultivated. Tignolet begins with the court and notes that Theodulf uses nicknames sparingly, which in turn raises the question whether he was more distant from Charlemagne and his family than others who did use them. Tignolet denies this by pointing out that Charlemagne did ask Theodulf to compose an epitaph on Fastrada, that he possibly also asked him to compose one on Pope Hadrian, and that Theodulf would not have received the pallium without being on close terms with Charlemagne. Most of the poems addressed to Charlemagne and his family are conventional and at a slight distance, with the exception of poem XXXV, addressed to Charlemagne’s son Charles, which exhibits some warmth.

Deferential though Theodulf is towards the royal family, he can be quite satirical towards the other members of the court. Tignolet frames his mockery in terms of rivalry among the courtiers, and part of that is definitely correct. No one, however, seems to be quite as nasty as Theodulf with his descriptions of Wibod (crassum...caput, “fat-head”; tumefactus...venter, “bloated belly”), of Scottus (removal of the “c” makes him a sottus, “a fool, simpleton”), and to an extent of Alcuin (making fun of Alcuin’s predilection for pultes, “gruel”). Did he use similarly sharp language later on in Louis the Pious’s court and offend the king or some of the more powerful courtiers? (This is my question, not Tignolet’s.) Theodulf did have followers in his students, whom Tignolet names as Vulfinus, Aiulf, Prudence of Troyes, Haimo of Auxerre, Smaragd of St. Mihiel, Fardulf, Magnus of Sens, and John of Arles. He also seems to have strong connections to Septimania, as his poem XXX indicates.

What happened to this network after Charlemagne’s death? Louis sent Charlemagne’s daughters into various monasteries, but made no radical changes at the court itself. Any changes that came among Theodulf’s fellow bishops and abbots were gradual and usually the result of attrition rather than deposition. Until, that is, Bernard’s rebellion against Louis. Towards the end, the book comes back to where it started. Theodulf’s ties with Bernard were close enough that “in the eyes of the contemporaries” (207) he might have been implicated in the rebellion.

The book ends with an epilogue that queries whether Theodulf was pardoned. He never returned to Orleans. Was he too sick? Did the pardon come too late, maybe even after his death? Whenever it came, it seems to have assured the survival of Theodulf’s works and done away with the damnatio memoriae, if any ever existed.

As this brief summary indicates, Tignolet has written a well-researched biography of Theodulf. She examines historiographers contemporary with, and later than, Theodulf; she examines hagiographies in which he is mentioned; she examines necrologies; she examines the buildings he has erected; she examines any references by contemporaries; and most of all she plunges into the poems and prose works he has written. At the same time, she engages with the modern secondary literature and carefully weighs sometimes contradictory opinions. She is honest enough to admit that not all questions can be answered. Not everything is perfect in this book. The Latin quotations are not always faithfully reproduced (e.g., propreant instead of properant [47]; notros instead of nostros [92]; coniunge instead of coniuge [179]; gloria vatorum instead of gloria vatum [182];et al.), but this is a minor quibble. Readers will come away from this book feeling that they have gained a deep insight into Theodulf, into both Charlemagne’s and Louis the Pious’s courts, and into the intellectual dynamics of the Carolingian reforms.