GOTTSCHALK: 1. A monk who started a famous controversy concerning predestination in the ninth century; b. c. 805; d. at the monastery of Hautvilliers, near Reims, 868 or 869. He was the son of Berno, a Saxon count, and was sent to the abbey of Fidda in early youth, but later felt little inclination toward the spiritual calling. A synod at Mainz in 829 declared in favor of releasing him from his vow; but his abbot, Rabanus Maurus (q.v.), refused to do so, and Gottschalk was sent to

36

the monastery of Orbais, in the diocese of Soissons, where he remained a monk. He studied with passionate energy, especially Augustine, whose doctrine of predestination he carried to its extreme logical conclusions. Everything he believed-evil as well as good, condemnation as well as salvation-is foreordained of God. From 837 to 839 he visited Italy. Wherever he went, he preached his doctrine with fervent enthusiasm and gained a considerable number of adherents. On his return he was ordained priest, and then undertook a second visit to Italy, from 845 to 848. There he enjoyed for two years the hospitality of the Count of Friuli; but Rabanus, now archbishop of Mainz, warned the count against the heresies of the subtle monk. Gottschalk then wandered, preaching, through Dalmatia, Pannonia, and Styria, and finally returned to Germany. He arrived in Mainz while the general diet was sitting there in 848, and laid his affirmation of the twofold predestination before a synod of German bishops convened by Rabanus, accusing the latter of SemiPelagianism. His doctrines were condemned as heretical, and he was sent to Hinemar (q.v.), archbishop of Reims and his metropolitan superior, to be imprisoned and punished. In the spring of 849 Hincmar convened a synod of French bishops at Quiercy; the doctrines of Gottschalk were condemned, he was compelled to throw his papers into the fire and was imprisoned in the dungeon of the monastery of Hautvilliers, where he remained until his death, becoming insane in the latter years of his life.

The controversy by no means reached an end with the imprisonment of Gottschalk. Powerful men, like the learned Ratramnus of Corbie, Bishop Prudentius of Troyes, Abbot Lupus of Ferrii'res, and Archbishop Remigius of Lyons (qq.v.) took his part and advocated with him the doctrine of Augustine. Gottschalk himself found opportunity now and then to take part in the controversy; he addressed a letter to Amolo, archbishop of Lyons (q.v.), in 851 and appealed to the pope in 866. Hinomar wrote . against Gottschalk Ad reclums et simPliees in Remenai parochia, and Rabanus Maurus, Amalarius of Metz, and Johannes Scotus Erigena supported him. A synod at Quiercy (853) decided for Hincmar; synods at Paris (853), Valence (855), and Langres (859), for the Augustinian teaching. Futile attempts at a settlement were made at SavonniEres (859) and Toney (860). In the end both sides became tired of the unprofitable strife, and Hincmar had the last word in his De prtedestinatione Des et ltibero arbOrio.

In purity, knowledge, and natural endowments Gottschalk was one of the foremost men of his time, but. the monastery was not the proper sphere for his activity. In his doctrine he started from the conception of the unchangeableness of God, who from eternity has ordered all his decrees in virtue of his prescience. Christ did not die for all, but only for the elect, and the true Church consists only of the elect. Gottschalk carried on an extensive correspondence with the most prominent men of his time. Of his writings there is still extant a letter to Ratramnus, a number of poems, two confessions of his faith (cf. MPL, cxxi. 346 sqq.), and

his Schedula, which he wrote in 853, attacking Hincmar's doctrine concerning the Trinity. .

(Albert Freystedt†.)

Bibliography: Early material is found in J. Usher, De Gotteaehaiei et prodestinatione . . . Aietoria, Dublin, 1631; G. Manguin, Veterum auctorum qui ix. aceculo de pradestinatione . . . 1scripserunt opera, 2 vols., Paris, 1650; L. Cellot, Historia Gothucalei pradestinatiani, ib. 1655; Histoire littéraire de la France, vols. iv. v. Modern treatments are: F. Monnier, De Gothescalci et Johannis Sroti Bripena contraveraia, Paris, 1853; V. Borrasch, Der Msndh Gottschalk von Orbais, Thorn, 1869; E. Dümmler, in NA, iv (1879), pp. 320-321; idem, Geschichte des oeh frankischen Reichs, i. 327-386, 405-409, Berlin, 1887; A. Ebert, Ailgemeine Geschichte der Literatur des Mittelalters, ii. 166-169, Leipsic, 1880; Neander, Christian Church, iii. 472-492; Schaff; Christian Church, iv. 522 sqq., 530 sqq.

2. Ruler of the Wendish tribes on the Elbe and champion of Christianity in that region; d. June 7, 1066. The son of the Wendish Prince Uto, he was educated at the monastery of St. Michael in Lüneburg. Upon the assassination of his father by a Saxon, Gottschalk abjured his faith, and placing himself at the head of the Wendish forces, engaged in a sanguinary struggle with the Saxon Duke Bernard, by whom he was finally defeated and taken prisoner. Restored to liberty after some years, he betook himself to the court of Ding Canute in England, where he became once more a Christian. As apostle of that faith and as claimant also to the royal power, he returned to his native land and, with the aid of the Danish Sing Magnus and Adalbert, the powerful archbishop of Hamburg-Bremen (q.v.), he succeeded in making himself master of the modern Mecklenburg and parts of Pommemnia, Holstein, and the Mark. The introduction of the new faith was zealously prosecuted; priests were summoned from abroad; churches and monasteries were founded at LUbeck, Oldenburg, Lenzen, and Ratzeburg; and the hierarchy of the Church was perfected by Adalbert. Gottschalk preached the Gospel in person and effected the conversion of a third of his subjects, but no sooner had the fall of Adalbert deprived him of foreign help than a pagan reaction ensued and Gottschalk was assassinated at Lenzen with many Christian priests and laymen. Within a year Christianity had been extirpated in the region.

(A. Hauck.)

Bibliography: Sources are: Adam of Bremen, Gesta Hammanburpensis ecclesix pontifimm, ii. 64, 75, iii. 18-21, 4950, ed. Ports, in MGH, Script., vii (1846), 280-389; .Helmold, Chronisa Slavorum, i. 19-22, in MGM, Script., m., 1869 (not nearly so valuable as Adam of Bremen). Consult: L. Giesebreeht, Wendische Geschichte, ii. 65, 85, Berlin, 1843; W. Giesebrecht, Geschichte der deutchen Kaiserzeit, ii. 460 sqq., iii. 130-131, Leipsic, 1888-90; ADB, ix. 489; Hauck, KD, iii. 854-857, 735.