В течение последующих 50 лет различные национальные нарративы были косвенно усвоены разными людьми. Если Конрад III и Фридрих I (1152–1190) высказывали более франкские политические взгляды, то римская коммуна и папство имели различные римским идентичности. Восприятие правителей среди других итальянских авторов существенно разнилось: сторонники империи называли императора Римским, остальные – немецким варваром. Он не мог быть франком, ибо к этому времени это однозначно означало среди итальянцев – француз. У немецких авторов, тем не менее, сомнений не возникало: они были и немцкими, и франкскими, и даже иногда римскими, в зависимости от ситуации.
Ключевые слова: Германский; Франкский; Римский; Конрад III (1138–1190); Фридрих I (1152–1190); Рим; папство; идентичность; со-идентичность; соперничающая идентичность.
GERMAN, ROMAN AND FRANKISH: THE NATIONAL NARRATIVES OF THE EARLY HOHENSTAUFEN ERA (1138–1190) AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON HIGH POLITICS
Just as modern Europe has contested national identities, some of which have been challenged in the great upheaval following the fall of the Soviet Union, so did Medieval Europe have many similar phenomena. A particularly interesting case is the Holy Roman Empire, as it was multi-national state which wavered between the Frankish, Roman and German identities. While some rulers, for example Charlemagne and Otto the Great, thought the Frankish identity to be the most important one, other, such as Louis the Pious or Otto III, believed that the Roman identity should be only relevant one.
This, however, had been contested by Italian writers since 1000, eventually leading to a renunciation of the Empire’s Roman and Imperial character by Gregory VII in the 1070s. Since then the term Teutonicus rose to the forefront of European diplomacy as a disparagement of the would-be Roman emperors. German authors slowly started using the term themselves, even though it was primarily used by pro-Papal writers at first. By the time of Conrad III (1138–1152), however, the German identity was commonly accepted by German writers, although the Frankish and Roman identities had still not been completely forgotten.
During the following half century, differing national narratives were implicitly accepted by various persons. While Conrad III and Frederick I (1152–1190) exhibited a more Frankish-based political worldview, the Roman Commune and the Papacy embraced two very different Roman identities. Among other Italian authors the rulers were perceived in markedly different fashions: imperialists called the emperor a Roman, while others called him a German barbarian. A Frank he could not be, as by this point this meant only the French – in Italian eyes. For German authors, however, no doubt existed: they were both German and Frankish, and sometimes even Roman, depending on the situation.
Keywords: German; Frankish; Roman; Conrad III (1138–1190); Frederick I (1152–1190); Rome, the Papacy; identity; coidentity; contested identity.
СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ (REFERENCES)
1. Anonymus. Carmen de gestis Frederici I. imperatoris in Lombardia, ed. Irene Schmale-Ott. MGH SRG 62. Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung,1965. 125 s.
2. Anonymus. „Civis Mediolanensis anonymi Narratio de Longobardie obpressione et subiectione", Italische Quellen Uber die Taten Kaiser Friedrichs L, Italien und der Brief Uber den KreuzzugKaiser Friedrichs I, hrsg. Franz-Josef Schmale. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1986. S. 240–295.
3. Dendorfer Jurgen. „Konrad III. und Byzanz“, in Die Staufer und Byzanz. hrsg. Karl.-Heinz. Ruefi, Góppingen: Gesellschaft fur Staufische Geschichte, 2013. S. 58–73.
4. Engels Odilo. „Friedrich Barbarossa im Urteil seiner Zeitgenossen“, in Stauferstudien: Beitrage zur Geschichte der Staufer im 12. Jahrhundert, hrsg. Odilo Engels. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1996. S. 225–245.
5. Godfrey of Viterbo. „Pantheon”, in MGH SS 22, Historici Germaniae saec. XII, 2, hrsg. Georg Heinrich Pertz und Georg Waitz, Hannover: Hahn, 1872. S. 107–307.
6. Godfrey of Viterbo. „Speculum regum“, in MGH SS 22, Historici Germaniae saec. XII, 2, hrsg. Georg Heinrich Pertz und Georg Waitz, Hannover: Hahn, 1872. S. 21–93.
7. Górich Knut. Friedrich Barbarossa: Fine Biographie. Munchen: С. H. Beck, 2011. 782 s.
8. Górich Knut. „Friedrich Barbarossa und Byzanz", Die Staufer und Byzanz, hrsg. Karl.-Heinz. Ruefi, Góppingen: Gesellschaft fur Staufische Geschichte, 2013. S. 74–85.
9. Hausmann Friedrich. „Gottfried von Viterbo: Kapellan und Notár, Magister, Geschichtsschreiber und Dichter", Friedrich Barbarossa. Handlungsspielráume und Wirkungsweisen des staufischen Kaisers, hrsg. Alfred Haverkamp. Sigmaringen: J. Thorbecke, 1992. S. 603-21.
10. Mierow Charles, ed. and trans. The Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1966. 366 p.
11. Miiller-Mertens Eckhard. Regnum Teutonicum. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1970. 416 s.
12. Otto Mořena. „Ottonis Morenae eiusdemque continuatorum Libellus de rebus a Frederico imperatore gestis", Italische Quellen Uber die Taten Kaiser Friedrichs I. in Italien und der Brief uber den Kreuzzug Kaiser Friedrichs I, hrsg. Franz-Josef Schmale. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1986. S. 34-239.
13. Otto of Freising. Chronica sive historia de duabus civitatibus, hrsg. Adolf Hofmeister, MGH SRG, Usum scholarum separatim editi 45. Hannoverae et Lipsiae: impensis bibliopolii Hahniani, 1912. 577 s.
14. Otto of Freising. „Ottonis Gesta Friderici I. Imperatori", MGH SRG, Usum scholarum separatim editi 46, Ottonis et Rahewini Gesta Friderici I. Imperatoris, hrsg. Georg Waitz und Bernhard von Simson. Hannoverae et Lipsiae: impensis bibliopolii Hahniani 1912. 385 s. P. 1–161.
15. Rahewin of Freising. „Rahewini Gesta Friderici I. imperatoris", MGH SRG in usum scholarum separatim editi 46, Ottonis et Rahewini Gesta Friderici I. imperatoris, Ed. Georg Waitz and Bernhard von Simson. Hannoverae et Lipsiae: impensis bibliopolii Hahniani. P. 162–346.
Гуситские грамоты и их перевод в «Книге