Reviewed by:

• Absentee Authority across Medieval Europe ed. by Frédérique Lachaud and Michael Penman
• Patrick Ball

‘Kingship was always incarnated and rested on the notion of direct access to the person of the king, a reality which stood in opposition to that of the caliphate, where the person of the caliph was often hidden from sight’ (p. 19). In their introduction, the editors suggest this explains why the medieval West, unlike Islam, did not develop a theoretical literature underpinning the delegation of power, and that it presented obstacles to temporal, unlike ecclesiastical, hierarchies of power. When authority derives from presence, rulers experience difficulties: they cannot be everywhere. The lack of theoretical sources has stimulated contributors to the volume to adopt innovative approaches. Chapters range from the Merovingian to early modern eras, span Europe from Italy to Iceland, and address the topic using diverse sources and methodologies.

The subject raises several questions. How did kings project their authority? Laurent Hablot, in a study of wide applicability, examines rulers’ use of emblematic means—banners, coats of arms, and so on—to mark their territories. Taking a specific case, Bruno Dumézil looks at Merovingian kings’ use of gestures, [End Page 226] itineration, poetry, and other means to establish their virtual presence. Léonard Dauphant too considers itineration and its symbolic and practical applications by later French monarchs. The use of seals to assert authority is a recurring motif throughout the volume.

How did rulers delegate authority? That could be problematic. Frédérique Lachaud explores the dispute between Henry III and Simon de Montfort over the nature and powers of the latter’s role as king’s lieutenant in Gascony. Their conceptions seemingly differed. In Burgundy, Philip the Bold (r. 1384– 1404) compensated for his frequent absences by having his wife represent him as governor, but did she have actual power? Not necessarily, Michelle Bubenicek concludes. Conversely, Torsten Hiltmann proposes that French kings commandeered the medieval ‘kings of professions’ (minstrels, mercers), turning them into their representatives, thus extending royal control over these occupations.

What mechanisms were there for coping in a king’s absence through minority, captivity, or infirmity? In Scotland, proxy rulers were required for sixty per cent of the years 1286 to 1424. Various forms of guardianship were tested, which Norman Reid and Michael Penman suggest assisted with the evolution of representative democracy. Hans Jacob Orning cites Icelandic sagas as evidence that, while kings and magnates grappled with questions of authority and obedience, local chieftains were primarily concerned about providing for communal needs.

Normandy, in the early thirteenth century, had two absentee monarchs. England’s king had been expelled; French kings ruled from afar through baillis, charged with re-assimilating the duchy without provoking rebellion. Tom Horler-Underwood’s examination of a 1247–48 inquiry, initiated by Louis IX, reveals that although baillis consolidated the recovery of Normandy, this did not involve the smooth transition to prosperity often supposed. This is one of several chapters that draw revisionist conclusions. Italian bishops’ relinquishment of temporal power during the Investiture Contest, for instance, is typically understood as reflecting ideological abandonment of worldly authority. Robert Houghton, though, taking Parma as a case study, uses charter records to show that, in the decades before their loss of power, bishops were increasingly missing from their sees, cultivating international networks at the expense of their local authority, while other groups rose to prominence.

The editors state (p. 2) that, when defining ‘absentee authority’ they adopted ‘no very fixed parameters’. A few chapters seem to treat ‘absence and authority’ rather than absentee authority, positioning the two concepts in alignment to each other. These conceivably reflect a last-moment alteration in the volume’s title. Late-medieval genealogical rolls of English kings, argues Olivier de Laborderie, present even usurpers as genuine rulers, because their absence would have diminished rightful kings’ authority. James Bothwell investigates internal exiles within the English king’s domains, a group usually neglected by scholars in favour of persons banished altogether...

审核人：

• 中世纪欧洲各地的缺席管理局。弗雷德里克·拉尚（FrédériqueLachaud）和迈克尔·彭曼（Michael Penman）
• 帕特里克·鲍尔

``王权始终体现为与国王直接接触的观念，而这一现实与哈里发的现实相对立，后者常常使哈里发的人看不见''（第19页）。在他们的导言中，编辑建议这解释了为什么中世纪的西方（不同于伊斯兰教）没有发展出支持权力下放的理论文献，而且它为暂时的（不同于教会的）权力等级制提供了障碍。当权力来自存在时，统治者会遇到困难：他们不可能无处不在。缺乏理论资料刺激了采用这种创新方法的人。章节涉及从Merovingian到近代早期的各个阶段，涵盖了从意大利到冰岛的整个欧洲，并使用多种资源和方法论着解决这一主题。

该主题提出了几个问题。国王如何展现自己的权威？洛朗·哈布洛特（Laurent Hablot）在广泛应用的研究中，研究了统治者使用象征性手段（例如横幅，纹章等）来标记其领土的情况。在一个特定的案例中，布鲁诺·杜梅兹（BrunoDumézil）研究了梅洛芬吉安国王的手势使用，[End Page 226]迭代，诗歌和其他手段来建立虚拟存在。莱昂纳德·道芬特（LéonardDauphant）也考虑了后来的法国君主的迭代及其象征性和实际应用。使用印章来主张权威是整个书卷中反复出现的主题。

统治者如何下放权力？那可能是有问题的。弗雷德里克·拉尚（FrédériqueLachaud）探讨了亨利三世与西蒙·德·蒙福特（Simon de Montfort）之间的争端，后者讨论了后者在加斯科尼担任国王中尉的角色的性质和权力。他们的观念似乎有所不同。在勃艮第，菲利普大胆的菲利普（Philips the Bold，1384年至1404年）通过让妻子代表他担任州长来补偿他的经常缺席，但她有实际权力吗？不一定，Michelle Bubenicek得出结论。相反，托尔斯滕·希特曼（Torsten Hiltmann）提出，法国国王占领了中世纪的“职业之王”（臣民，默瑟），将其转变为代表，从而扩大了王室对这些职业的控制。

有什么机制可以通过少数派，囚禁或虚弱来应对国王的缺席？在苏格兰，从1286年到1424年，百分之六十的人需要代理人统治者。对各种形式的监护权进行了测试，诺曼·里德（Norman Reid）和迈克尔·彭曼（Michael Penman）建议在代议制民主的发展过程中提供帮助。汉斯·雅各布·奥宁（Hans Jacob Orning）引用了冰岛的萨加斯作为证据，证明国王和大亨们在争夺权威和服从问题时，当地酋长们主要关心的是满足公共需求。

诺曼底，在十三世纪初，有两个缺席的君主。英格兰国王被开除；法国国王从远处通过百利统治，被控重新同化公国而不引起叛乱。一个1247年至1248年调查，由路易九世发起的汤姆Horler -安德伍德的检查，报告显示，尽管baillis巩固了诺曼底的复苏，这并未涉及通常认为的向繁荣的平稳过渡。这是得出修正主义结论的几章之一。例如，意大利主教在投资大赛期间放弃临时权力的做法通常被理解为反映了意识形态对世俗权威的放弃。不过，罗伯特·霍顿（Robert Houghton）以帕尔马（Parma）为例，利用宪章记录显示，在失去权力之前的几十年中，主教越来越不见他们的视线，他们以牺牲当地权威为代价来建立国际网络，而其他团体上升到突出。

编辑们指出（第2页），当定义“缺席授权”时，他们采用了“没有非常固定的参数”。某些章节似乎将“缺席和授权”视为“缺席和授权”，将这两个概念彼此对齐。可以想象，这反映了该卷标题的最后一刻更改。奥利维尔·德·劳德代里（Olivier de Laborderie）认为，中世纪后期的英国国王家谱册甚至将篡夺者视为真正的统治者，因为他们的缺席将削弱合法国王的权威。詹姆斯·博瑟威尔（James Bothwell）调查了英国国王统治范围内的内部流亡者，这个群体通常被学者所忽视，而赞成被完全放逐的人。