The Carolingians and the Frankish Monarchy Studies in Carolingian HistoryCharlemagne’s throne in the gallery of the octagon of the palace chapel at Aachen. The throne, which is approached by a staircase with six steps consists of four stone «pillars supporting the mensa, ive. the base on which the chair is raised, The chair is made of oak planks encased in slabs of white marble. ‘The side pieces are carved to provide elbow resis, The back, rounded at the top, consists only of an upper part; the space below is filled by an upright wooden plank. Installed in the seclusion of the royal (later impetial) logia, the throne faced the main altar, which was visible through the centre opening of a three-part bay formed by two marble pilasters and two marble columns. Charlemagne could thus follow the Mass aad liturgical offices. Fot an even clearer view, the bronze grilles, made at Aachen, which barted the lower part of the bay could be opened at the centre. The throne, like the chapel as a whole, dates fiom the late eighth or early ninth century:F. L. Ganshof The Carolingians and the Frankish . Monarchy Studies in Catolingian History Translated by Janet SondheimerLONGMAN GROUP LIMITED London Associated companies, branches and representatives throughout the world ‘This collection © F. L, Ganshof 1971 ‘Translation © Longizan Group Limited 1971 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transoitted in any forms or by any means, electronic, ‘mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the Copyright owner. This collection first published 1971 ISBN o 582 48227 5 Set in Garamond 156-11 on x2 point Printed in Great Britain at The University Press AberdeenTable of contents XI “XI. -XI0. XIV. XV. XVI Preface Acknowledgements Abbreviations used in the Notes Map of the Carolingian Empire 814-840 Einhard, biographer of Charlemagne Charlemagne Alcuia’s revision of the Bible ‘The imperial coronation of Charlemagne: theoties and facts Charlemagne’s programme of imperial government The institutional framework of the Frankish monarchy: a survey of its general chatacteristics Chatlemagne’s use of the oath The use of the written word in Charlemagne’s administration ‘The impact of Charlemagneon the institutions of the Frankish realm ‘The Frankish monarchy and its external relations, from Pippin I to Louis the Pious ‘The Chutch and the royal power in the Frankish monarchy under Pippin TIT and Charlemagne ‘The last period of Charlemagne’s reign; a study in decomposition Charlemagne’s failure Louis the Pious reconsidered Some observations on the Ordinatio Imperii of 817 On the genesis and significance of the Treaty of Verdun (843) Select bibliography of the publications of F. L. Ganshof relating to the history of the Frankish monarchy under the Merovingians and Carolingians Index vii viii xxi 86 mr 25 143, 162 205 240 256 261 273 289 303 312Preface COLLECYED in this volume are sixteen of my articles devoted to the Carolingian monarchy. In some my purpose has been to clarify the institutional, legal, and ecclesiastical structure of the Reguum Francorum under Charlemagne. In others I have outlined the activity of this power- fal personality as it affected particular fields. Two articles deal with the great Frankish empire under Charlemagne’s son and successor, Louis the Pious, who despite attempts to consolidate his father’s achieve- ment ended by precipitating its dissolution. ‘The break-up occurred in 843, with the treaty of Verdun; the immediate causes of this tragedy are discussed in the concluding article. What the Carolingians; above all Charlemagne, attempted and for a time achieved is of fundamental importance. Without a serious knowledge of the Carolingian eta there can be no proper understanding of the Western Middle Ages, or even of the ceaturies habitually grouped to- gether under the title ‘the modern period’. For this reason in particular I willingly accepted the publishers’ invitation to collect some of my articles on the Carolingian period for publication in one volume. I preferred to leave the task of selection to the publishers and their advisers, whose choice appeats to me very sound. ‘The atticles are reprinted as originally published, without any revision. They reflect my thinking at the date they frst appeared. T have to thank Dr Janet Sondheimer for translating into English the articles originally published in French, and in one case German. This she has done with commendable accuracy, for which I am most grateful. F. L. GANSHOFAcknowledgements We ate indebted to the following for permission to reproduce copyright material: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Paris, for ‘L’échec de Chazle- magne’, Comptes Rendus des stances 1947; Professor Dr G. Boesch, Société Générale Suisse Phistoire, for La fin du rdgne de Charlemagne. Une décomposition’, Zeitschrift fir Schweizerische Geschichte, vol. 28, 19485 Casa Editrice Dott. A. Giufiré, Milao, for ‘Les relations extérieures de la monarchie franque sous les premiers souverains carolingiens’ Aynali di Storia del Diritto, vol. 5-6, 1961-62; Centro Ttaliano di Studi sul’ Alto Medioevo, Spoleto, for ‘Les traits généraux du systéme institutions de Ia monaschie franque’, Seéfimana di studio del Centro italiano de studio sull? Alto Medioevo, vol. 5, 1958 and for ‘L’Eglise et le pouvoir royal dans la monarchie franque’, ibid., vol. 7, 19603 Librairie Droz, $.A., Geneva, for ‘Bginhard, biographe de Charlemagne’, Bibliothique d’Humanisme et Renaissance vol. 13, 1951, and for ‘La revision de la Bible par Alcuin’, Biblio theque 2’ Humanisme et Renaissance, vol. 9, 1947; Glasgow University for “The imperial coronation of Charlemagne. ‘Theories and Facts’, The David Murray Lecture, nr. 16, Glasgow 1949; The Journal of the Historical Association (History) for ‘Louis the Pious teconsidered’, History, 19573 W. Kohlhammer Verlag, Stuttgart, for ‘Observations sur ?’Ordinatio Imperii de 817’, Fectschrift Guido Kisch, Stuttgatt 1955; Monumenta Ger- maniae Historica, Munich, for ‘Zur Entstehungsgeschichte uad Bedeutung des Vertrags von Verdun’, Deutsches Archiv fiir Erforschimg des Mittelalters, vol. 12, 1956; Presses Universitaires de France for ‘Charlemagne et le serment’, Mélanges dédiés d la mémoire de Louis Halphen, Patis 1950; La Renaissance du Livre, Brussels, for ‘Charlemagne et usage de Pécrit en matiére administrative’, Le Moyen Age, 1951; Societa di Studi Romagnoli, Ravenna, for ‘Le programme de gouvernement impérial de Charlemagne’, Renovatio Imperii. Atti della giornata internazionale di studio per il Millenario, Ravenna, 1961, Faenza, 1963; The Editor of Speculum for ‘Charlemagne’, Speculum, vol, 24, 1949, and for “Whe impact of Charlemagne on the institu tions of the Frankish realm’, Speculum, vol. 40, 1965.Abbreviations used in the notes 1, Sources ARF = Armales Regei Francorum, ed. F, Kuzze, Hanover, 1895. VK = Binhard, Vite Karoli Magni, ed. O. Holder-Egger, Hanover, 1911. MGH = Monumenta Germaniae Historica. MGH Cap. = MGH Capitularia Regum Francoram: vol. 1, ed. A. Boretius, 1883; Vol. 11, ed. A, Boretius and V. Krause, 1897. MGH Consifia = MGH Concilia: vol. 1, ed. F. Maassen, 1893; vol 1, ed, A. Werminghod, 1904-8, Supplement to vol. 11, Libri Carolini, ed. H. Bastgen, 1924. MGH Diplomata Karol. = MGH Diplomata Karolinorum, ed. B. Mahlbachet, 1906. MGH Epist. = MGH Epistolae in quarto. Vol, 1 contains inter alia the Codex Carolinns ed. W. Gundlach, ... vol. 1v contains infer alia the correspondence of Alcuin, ed. E. Diimmler, 1895. MGH Formulae = MGH Formulae Merowingici et Karolini aevi, ed. K. Zeumet, 1886, MGH Poetae = MGH Poelae Latini avi Carolini, Vols. 1 and u, ed. E, Dimmler, 1880-81, 1884. MGH SS = MGH Seriptores in folio. MGH SS rer. Merov. = MGH Sriptores rerum Merovingicarum, in quatto, Vol, 1, znd edition contains the historical work of Gregory of Tours, ed. B. Krusch and W, Levison, 1951; the hagiographical works are to be consulted in vol. 1, 1st edition by W. Arndt and B. Krusch, 1884; vol. 11 contains the chronicle of Fredegar and its continuations, ed. B. Krusch, 1888. W-H = The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar with its continuations, ed. with. English translation by J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, London, 1960. 2. Periodicals HZ = Historische Zeitscbrift. Meded. d. Kon. Via. Acad. v. Wet., Ki. Lett. = Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Viaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Beleié, Klasse der Letteren. _ MIOG = Mitteilungen des Ocsterreichischen Instituts fiir Geschiobisforsehung. SSCI = Settimane di Studio del Contro Italiano di Studi sul? alto medioevo. LKG = Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengesobichte, at ix‘winchester chic os “b, Rarbomme ne mp The Carolingian Empire in the period of its greatest expansion (Srq-éq0) (based on: Map 6 from F, Lot, C. Plister, F. L. Ganshof Ler Destinter de l’Empirs de 395 @ 488, Presses Univers- itnices de France, Secon} Edition 1940).Gey Note: Five tersitories may be considered as loose dependencies of the Empire: Bohemia, Britwaoy, Navarre (all three shown heze within its boundaries) and Pannonia and Moravia, The Pattimony of S¢ Peter was, in fact, a protectorate of the Empire,I. Einhard, biographer of Charlemagne® intiarp does not stand in the forefront of the great figures of the Carolingian Renaissance ‘which bequeathed to us such a major part of classical Latin literature. The influence of the Raglish Alcuin, as teacher and writer, and above all as Charlemagne’s adviser on ‘Scclésiastical and intellectual matters, was vastly more profound. And the subsequent flowering of the Carolingian renaissance in the ninth century —which coincided with the political breakup of the Carolingian world— witnessed the development of minds mote forceful and original than his, men such as the Saxon Gottschalk, theologian and man of letters, or the Irish John Scot, 2 theologian but principally a philosopher, to name but two. At the same time it must be said that Hinhard,.a Franconian -from the. Maingau, has enjoyed a resounding success. His biography of Charlemagne attracted praise from contemporaries such as Walahfrid Strabo, the celebrated abbot of Reichenau, and Lupus of Ferriéres, the most considerable humanist of the Carolingian epoch. The work was constantly copied and survives in cighty manuscripts, many of which go back to the ninth and tenth centuries. The influence the biography exerted on_medieval historical writing was considerable. From the six- teenth century onward, it has been published, translated, commented upon times without number. Taterest in Einhard has by no means died out, and over the past thirty years few writers of the carly and central periods of the Middle Ages can have received so much scholarly attention, While his many-sided personality has inspired studies devoted to his activities as lay abbot, politician, theologian, hagiographer and artist,? it is still true that interest has chiefly centred on the biographer of Charlemagne, And it is with Einhard as the authot of the Via Karoli that we shall alone be concerned. Existing studies of the subject fall into two broad categoties.Einhard, biographer of Charlemagne The first is well represented by an important study by an eminent French historian, Louis Halphen, whose recent death has left us all the poorer: I refer to the third chapter of his celebrated Etudes critiques sur Phistoire de Charlemagne entitled “Einhard, historien de Charlemagne’. Tin that article Halphen drastically whittled down the importance ascrib- “able to the ita Kargli as a soutce for the histoty of the great king of the Franke His views have received some support both abroad and inside Frances’ where they have zecently been adopted by one of the most distinguished Frenck. medievalists, E. Perroy, in an interesting Histoire de Frances The second category is represented by studies which take the opposite ling and. attach very great-value to Einhard’s testimony for the insights _ it affords into the history of Charlemagne. It may be recalled that this was very touch the cofdlusion I reached miyself, in an article published in 1924 based on a fresh critical examination of the Vita..A similar view was taken by the late Arthur Kleinclangz, in a book on Einhard and his work which appeared in 1942. In the meantime, in studies published respectively in 1932 and 1934, 8. Hellmann and P. Lehmann had pto- duced fresh arguments in support of Hishard’s authority, working from the angle of the historian of ideas and the literary historian.* ‘My intention here is aot to summarise or debate the arguients advanced on either side over the last thirty yeats but to highlight or reiterate certain facts, impressed on me by a constant reading of the text, which beat on the question of Einhaed’s authority.” I have derived much benefit from the writings of the scholars just mentioned, which directly or indirectly have drawn my attention to important points ot directed my thoughts along particular paths. “There are two problénis to be investigated (the value of the Vita as evidence, and the interest of that evidencé> To tackle the first, we must begin by discovering what opportunitiés Hinhard had for gathering information, That such opportunities existed is hardly in dispute. From 796 at the latest, Einhard was resident at court; he belonged to the band of lively wits in Charlemagne’s entourage; according to Alcuin, he was a familiaris adintor of Chatlemagne’s; he had sufficient ‘prestige to be sent on important official missions, and in particular to be chosen as spokesman for the magnates at the assembly of Aachen in 813 when Louis, king of Aquitaine, was associated with his father in the imperial dignity; to all appearance, he acted as a kind of superintendent of the building works at Aachen.? Hishard’s own statement, confirmed by authors likely to be well informed, leaves little doubt that he was_on terms of friendship with Charlemagne, a favour which probably earned him his master’s confidence.» Furthermote, since he lived at the palace, he could draw on the memories of witnesses to the early part of the reign, which he no doubt used in his account of those distane days, and in 2Einbard, biographer of Charlemagne particular for the passages in the Vita concerning Charles’s relations _with his brother and his mother.!° In addition to using information which came to him de visi or de anditu, Kinhard also had recourse to swritten-sources.It is well known, and needs no further elaboration, that he took most of his information about the wars of the reign, and many particulars of political events, from the Ro s, which down to 8or he was plainly using in the revised version. But he also consulted other written sources, narrative, diplomatic and legal. According to one likely hypothesis, his knowledge of the correspondence between Charlemagne and King Alphonso the Chaste of Asturias, and between Charlemagne and the Itish kings!, was gleaned from the archives, to which he could have had access under Louis the Pious. What seems certain is that he made use—and very exact use—of a collection of the capitulaties: what he says of Charles’s measures regarding the upkeep and restoration of churches agrees exactly with the regulations there laid down. Ever since the time of Isaac Casaubon," it has been recognised that Einhard took Suetonius as his model, borrowing words and phrases very freely from his ‘Life of Augustus’, and to a lesser extent from the ‘Lives’ of other emperors. This use of Suetonius has been severely censured by Einhard’s detractors, from Leopold von Ranke, the most illustrious, down to Louis Halphen, the most learned. Halphen, indeed, remarks: ‘He follows the Latin historian so closely, and adopts his colloquialisms so slavishly, that in many places his “Life of Charlemagne” reads mote like the thirteenth “Life of the Caesars” than an original composition.” And again: ‘Einhard is often quite carried away: he strains all the time to match the biographer of the Caesars in every detail, and in writing of features admittedly to be found in the Frankish emperor does not scruple to exaggerate them; with Suetonius et his elbow, he often falsifies the proportions, distorts the reality and draws a picture of Charlemagne it would be unwise to, accept without considerable reserva- tion.’” These charges are quite without foundation, as has been demon- strated elsewhere. Besides; as Halphen himself admits, many of the characteristics Einhard attributes to his hero differ from those Suetonius attributes to Augustus or some other empetor, and may indeed be their opposite: in fact, there are almost as many passages in the Vita Karoli which use expressions from Suetonius to point a difference or a contrast, as there are passages which use such expressions to stress a similarity.1* As for the concrete instances—very few—in which the model is supposed to have exerted a distorting influence, it is not difficult to show that the distortion existed only in the imagination of certain scholars.” ‘The koot'is oa the other foot: what needs to be stressed is the beneficial influence exerted by Suetonius. In the first place, and this is no new observation,®? the ‘Life of Augustus’ and certain other ‘Lives’ focused 3Binhard, biographer of Charlemagne Hinhard’s attention on the most salient features in a physical and moral portfait of a Caesar; he could check these traits against what he knew of Charlemagne and ine found in the ‘Lives’ the words asd phrases he needed to do justice t6 his subject. But there is yet more to be said: through teading Suetonius, Einhard—the first medieval biographer — wwas fired with the ambition of drawing the chasncter of a person, instead . Of merely recounting piecemeal the exploits of an individual; his model for euch 2 posttait lay before him ia Sdetonius. It is scarcely probable that he could have re-created this literary genre. by his own effort, and that his ultimate creation would have had the majestic st gid’ precision of the Va. This is an aspect of the matter equilibriui ided icture, ‘which Hellmano and Lehmann very properly stress.%* Ought we, however, to assume that the use of a Roman model for'the poriruis was the only possible source of distortion? The answer to that question may be itself. é clear when we ive triéd to analyse the portrait Among the problem: attaching to the authority of the Vita is that of the period at which it was written, which today seems to have been resolved. M. Lintzel has shown, to my mind convincingly, that the only valid terminus ad quem is a letter from Lupus of Ferriéres in which the Worle ig mentioned: now this letter must be dated 829-30.% At the other extreme, the /ifa must certainly be later than 817, since the author alludes to a revolt of the Abodrites which occurred in that year.% All efforts to arrive at a dating closer than 817-830 have ptoved fruitless. If, as is possible, death, is its credit the wotk was written sixteen years after Charlemagne’s thereby diminished? Some have maintained so.” But riticiem of this type starts from @ false premise. Which of us has not etained distinct and exact memories of people we knew or events we took part in, be it fifteen, twenty, thirty ot thirty-five years ago? Such power of recall need not suppose a prodigious memory: it is a quite Ordinary faculty, as anyone can test for himself. There is no need to press the point. “The [ita has met with some more specific complaints. Scholars have found exzors in the chapters dealing with military events, These errors ate not numerous, bbut they certainly exist. The reason for them is usually \that Einhard, whose aim was to characterise an individual and not to narrate events,” in his eagerness to give” coricise general view of military ‘matters has inexpertly.compressed the narratives he found in the Annals.% But this is a mere detail: with very tare exceptions, Hinhard is not the authotity one goes to for information about Charlemagne’s cainipaigns. Hinhard has been reproached for neglecting a topic which Suetonius, in his biography of Augustus, developed at some length: the Regi administratio,\ot government of the state.2® It is certainly noticéable that Hinhard gives far less attention to matters of this kind than he does to 4Einhard, biographer of Charlemagne military events and diplomatic activity, in his efforts to present the figure of his hero in all its glory. If we think about it, this insufficiency is casily explained: most of Charlemagne’s efforts to provide the Frankish mon- archy with a mote effective administratio took the form of ad hoc, partial measures, which contemporaries did not regard us being of geocral application. ‘There is, nevertheless, one notableexception: the attempt made in $02, on the morrow of the imperial coronation, to tecast the traditional laws atid to promote the written law in a way which would gteatly diminish the arbitrariness of the judges’ decisions.% In his account of it, Einhard shows himself very exact, neither disguising where the reform failed nor omitting to indicate its modest successes: surely a telling example of his penetration and of his sound and unbiased judgment. Furthermore, it may be wondered whether Binhard did not quite deliber- “reduce the part of hi Kk dévored 86 the Administratio regni to the minimum, having realised that Charlemagne’s efforts in this department ot exictty. crowned with success; he could’ compare them with ‘Augustus’s achievemeats as elated by Suetonius, and the compatison was no doubt decisive.*t ‘This brings us to the last serious charge levelled at the Vita: its author’s partiality towards Charlemagne. This partiality is indeed quite evident: in any Cise, it is a trait Einhard shares with all the writers of his time, whether authors of historical narratives or of works of edification. Besides, was it not Kinhard’s declared intention to write what used to be called a ‘culogy’ of the great king ? We ourselves are unlikely to be misled by his complaisance towards Charlemagne, since we have other sources to turn’to, We know very well that Hinhard’s statement that the widow and children of Carloman kee no teason to flee the Regnum Francorum in 771 is highly questionable (We can guess the true reason for the authors silence concerning the birth Bid childhood of Charlemagne: it is not, as he claims, that no one could inform him, but because when their first child was born Pippin IMI and Bertha were not yet matried)In most cases, moreover, the biased character of an account in the Vita is already noticeable in whichever passage in the Annals Rinhard was using as his source: for example, the playing down of the Pyrenean disaster of 778 oc the exaggerated picture of the submission of the Slav peoples to the Frankish monarch? We need to bring the same ctitical spirit to the Royal Annals as we do to the ‘Life of Charlemagne’. On the other side, it should be noted how often Einhard’s account of something, where. it can be controlled, is petfectly correct. This applies especially to facts not mentioned in any other contemporary narrative source. Two examples have already been given: Charlemagne’s measures with regard to the upkeep and restoration. of chiitches, and hi efforts, to feform the laws. And there are others. Hinhard tell3 us that the con- chision of hostilities in Saxony was ratified by an agreement between 5Binkard, biographer of Charlemagne Charlemagne and re>tesentatives of the Saxon tribes; although the his- toricity of this event has been much disputed, thethorough investigation of the matter by Lintzel has now made it highly probable, if not certain, that it did in fact take place, probably in 803 at Salz.** Passages in chapter xvi of the Via have in the past been interpreted as evidence that the caliph agreed to the establishment of a Frankish protectorate over the Holy Places. In the light of critical studies by Einat Jotanson and Arthur Kleinclausz this view is doubtless no longer tenable,* but Kleinclausz has shown that two points can be conceded: first, that Charlemagne, as Einhard testifies, won concessions from Harofin-ar-Rachid and other Muslitn authorities on behalf of Christians in Islamic territory, the Holy ‘Land in particular; and second, that the caliph of Bagdad made Charle- magne the gift—in an honorific sense—of the Holy Sepulchre. Reduced to these proportions, the evidence of the Vite is perfectly admissible.®* Einhard asserts that the naval defence measutes against the Normans and the Saracens were on the whole successful; broadly speaking, events proved him right, at least so far as continental Italy and Mediterranean Gaul were concerned.” Hinhard comments on the concern Charlemagne felt for foreigners (peregrin’) and on the welcome—a burden to the state—which so many Of them enjoyed at the Palace; on the first point at least, he is borne out by the capitulaties.®* Binhaed reposts that Charlemagne spent much of his time at Aachen in his swimming pool, where he liked to have plenty of people—there were sometimes over a hundred, it is said in c, xxii—about him; this is confirmed by a reference in one of Alcuin’s letters, in which he recalls expounding a theological problem to Charlemagne in the thermal baths at Aachen, in the presence of other bathers.%* Einhatd will also be found exact in his account of institutional arrangements, as when he desctibes the count of the palace as the ordinary judge of the Palace court, with the king sitting only in exceptional cases.4° Then there is the manner, which I need hardly repeat is wholly in accord with the facts, in which the [ifa deals with Charlemagae’s negotiations with Byzantium between the time of the imperial coronation and the recognition by the Baciteds that the kirg of the Franks had acquired an additional dignity. Lastly, Binhard’s testimony that the gallery which joined the palace chapel at Aachen to the palace was built of stone (he says of a heavy material) has recently been proved correct by the discovery of surviving remnants embedded in the buildings of a later period. Having so much to set on the credit side must surely inspire us with confidence. Now that I have once again, as I hope convincingly, demonstrated that Hinhard’s testimony is of great value to the historian, we can turn to the remaining question and examine what interest attaches to his testimony, which in essentials is a portrait of Charlemagne. Yn essentials, tha- is, but by no means exclusively, There ate factsEinhard, biographer of Charlemagne which we learn from Einhard alone, ot which he alone shows in their most important light. Some have already been mentioned, but there are othets: the names of the leaders who fell in 778, Roland among them ;!* the fact that from the evidence of their letters the king of Asturias and the kings of Ireland addressed Charlemagne in very deferential terms; facts about the btidge at Mainz and the palace chapel at Aachen; the names of the king’s chief concubines; details about the conspiracies of 785 and 792; Charlemagne’s epitaph and his testamentary dispositions.#6 None of this is negligible. To return to the portrait of Charlemagne. Insofar as it rests on the author’s personal tecollections, it shows us Chatlemagne during the two conchiding periods of his life, which tan from the great crisis of 792-3 to the imperial coronation, and from 25 December 800 to 28 January 814.47 For Charlemagne this was_a time. of consolidation rather than creation, but one in which his glory asserted and unfolded itself, so much so that it masked the factors of dissolution which were working to ever graver effect in society and the state. For this reason the portrait is more static than it might have been, had the author first known its subject around the yeat 780. What picture of Charlemagne does Einhard bring before us? In physical appearance he was a man of considerable height—sevea times the length of his foot—but so well-proportioned that he gave one no feeling of the grotesque; he had a domed top to his head, a long nose, large and brilliant eyes, handsome white hait, a neck thick at the nape, and a redoubtable paunch: the majesty of his person impressed itself on all beholders."® Hellmann and Lehmann rightly stress the elements which Hinhard perceived in Charlemagne’s psychological makeup, the virtues which determined his attitude as king. First, for this was his dominant quality, he had magnanimitas, a concept probably detived from Ciceronian stoicism: it was his magnanimitas which made him awate of his own superiority, allowed him to scorn what was petty and mean, gave him self-assurance, and on occasion made him wish to see his own greatness praised.5° Next we hear of qualities allied to magnanimilas: pradentia ox discernment, and constantia, the capacity to persist in his designs, becoming neither dis- heartened by setbacks not intoxicated by success. The closely related virtue of patientia enabled him to suffer insults without giving way to rage; it is here the Christian note is most plainly heard. As a cortective, there was his animositas ot pride, which forbade him to submit to really flagrant threats and insults. These high moral virtues were tempered by some more emotional traits. His magranimitas was no bat to the workings of pietas, a sensibility in which the religious and moral intermingled; it did ‘not prevent Charles from shedding tears of grief at the death of his friend Pope Hadrian I, or over the loss of a child. The king was deeply attached 7Einhard, biographer of Charlemagne to his family: to his queen—no easy matter when she was as hard a “woman as Fastrada*—and to his children, and even his grandchildren, whose education he made a major concern. In fact he liked to have his children always about him, bound by an attachment which contained a fiercely egoistic streak, worthy of a character from the novels of Mauriac in that it became an obstacle to the marriages of his daughters. Charlemagne took a great interest in things connected with his religion, anid besides what is said of his piety we should note the impression made on him by St Augustine’s City of God, extracts from which were read to him at table. He understood the importance of education, and not content with encouraging its spread; neglected no opportunity of becoming personally acquainted with the ‘liberal arts’; but writing, despite the exercises he forced aimself to practise when he could not sleep, he never fully mastered.” He was deeply attached to all things Frankish: he wag a ‘Prank’—an Austrasian Frank, that is—though and through. He always dressed in the Frankish style. He had a passion for the pursuits at which the Franks excelled, riding and the chase. While anxious for his children to be instructed in the ‘liberal arts’, he also insisted they should be educated in the manner traditional among the Frankish aristocracy: the girls were taught to spin, the boys to handle weapons, ride and bunt. He took delight in the lays and epic stories of his nation, heating extracts from them during meals and ordering a collection to be made; he gave Frankish names to the months and winds and ordered the compilation of a Frankish grammar. Twice only, at Rome and to please the pope, did he consent to deck himself out in Roman garments.** His character was reflected in his way of life. Full of energy, he hated to waste time and dealt with business as soon as he got up.* He delighted in human company. In friendship he was ready and loyal, but could easily progress beyond his immediate circle; he liked to have plenty of people about him, whether he was dressing, feasting ot bathing. His expression was cheerful, his speech fluent. It was only on solemn occasions that his “ magnanimitas expressed itself in a desire for pomp and display in the atmament, vestments and insignia of royalty, but even then national traditions were scrupulously respected. | Other traits in his personality were probably determined by his physical constitution. For example, his love of violent exercise, riding, hunting and swimming; his huge appetite, and in particular his passion for roast meat, above ali venison; his incapacity for fasting, and his aversion to the doctors who tried to restrict his diet. In summet he was obliged to take a long siesta after the midday meal. 'Though he drank only in moderation,® the choice of Aacken, with its thermal springs, as his semi-permaneat residence from 794, suggests that he may have suffered from arthritis.* Einhard is discreet about the king’s propensity to carnal pleasutes, 8Einhard, biographer of Charlemagne which he retained to an advanced age.*! The exigencies of Charlemagne’s own temperament were pethaps responsible for a certain indulgence he showed towards his daughters’ conduct, a matter our author has clearly had to treat with considerable reserve. ‘This is indisputably the portrait of a well-defined personality. When it is also tealised that Hinhard never speaks of Charlemagne as imperator but always as rex," and that he in no way exalts the imperial coronation, one wonders how he ever incurred the teproach of having painted a conventional portrait of a ‘thirteenth Caesar’, Besides, 2s Lehmann justly points out, Hinhatd was no fanatical admirer of the antique. In his preface to the Vita, people who disdain the merely topical come in for some itonical comment.” Einhard took from antiquity, from Suetonius and others, only what he needed to equip himself to describe, define and analyse a personality of his own day. Tn conclusion I can do no better than concur in the judgment of the learned professor from Munich: ‘If only all biographers, from the ninth century on, had learaed as much from Suetonius, even though he was no genius, as Einhard did.” The task of the historian would then be simpler.* NOTES * ‘Bginhard, biographe de Charlemagne’, delivered as the Philip Maurice Deneke Lecture at Lady Matgaret Hall, Oxford, on 16 May 1951 and published Bibliotheque d’Humanisme ot Renaissance x11, 1951, 217-30. . For Walahftid Strabo's Prologue to the Vita Karoli see below, 2, 9, and for the letter from Lupus of Ferriéres to Hinhard, below a. 23. . For example: M. Buchner, Eiahards Kinstler~ und Gelebrtenleben, Bonn, 1922; BF. L, Ganshof, ‘Eginhard 4 Gand’, Bulletin do la Société d'histoire of Parché- ologie de Gand, 1926; A. Kleinclausz, Bginbard,Paxis, 1942;B.de Montesquiou- Fezensac, ‘L’arc de triomphe d’Hinhardus’, Cabiers archtologiques 1, 1949. . The only truly critical edition, and the one I refer to, is that of O. Holder- Egget, in the series Seriptores rerum Germanisarum in usu scholaram, anovet and Leipzig, rg11. The introduction contains all necessary information conectning manuscripts and previous editions. . Paris, r92t. This chapter first appeared in the Revwe Historique CxXv1, 1927. Halphen summarised his views in the introduction and notes to his edition of the Vita, which is accompanied by a French translation: Eginhard, Vie de Charlemagne (Paris, 1923), in the series Les Classiques de Uhistoire de France an Moyen Age, In the third and most recent edition (Paris, 1947, p. 110), he admits that he may have ‘exaggerated a little on some points’, but maintains that his general conclusions are unaffected. » Histoire de France powr tous les Frangais, , by E. Perroy, R. Doucet and A. Latreille (Paris, 1950), 73. F. L. Ganshof, ‘Notes critiques sur Eginhard, biographe de Charlemagne’, Retme brlge de Philologie et d'Histoire, ut, 1924. A. Kleinclausz, op. cit. 8. * a. 9Einhard, biographer of Charlemagne st 1 1. 12 2 13. 14 . Hinhard’s statement occurs in his preface to the VK (p. Hellmann, ‘inkards literarische Stellung’, Historische Vierteliabrschrift, xxvTr, 1932. P, Lehmann, ‘Das literatische Bild Kazls des Grossen vornehm- lich im lateinischen Schrifttum des Mittelalters’, Sitzungrberichte der Bayeri~ schen Akademie, Phil-Flist, KJ. 1x, 1934 (eeprinted in Erforsehung des Mittel- alters, Leipzig, 1941). The atticle by H. Pycitz, ‘Das Karlsbild Einharis? (Deutsche Vierteljabrschrift fir Literaturnissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte, xv, 1937), while intezesting is of lesser importance (cf. Lehmana, Erfarsehung, 166 n. 1). I do not intend to list the authors of general works who have rallied to the views of Halphen or his opponents. But an exception must be made for one work of qtite exceptional importance, the late J, de Ghellinck’s Littévature latine ait moyeni age + (Paris, 1939), 101-2. ‘The significance and authority of the Vite are brought out in a-very finely nuanced exposition, by ascholar whose knowledge of medieval Latin literature was second to none. . T resumed the ctitical study of the Viz by taking it in sections with my seminar in medieval history at the University of Ghent in the years 1940-1, 1941-2, 1942-3, 1945-6 and 1946-7. Tt seems pointless to list yet again the texts which provide the evidence for these facts: see in particular, M. Manitius, Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mitielalters, 1 (Munich, 1911), 640-25 my ‘Notes critiques’, 728-345 and Kleinclausz, op. cit., 31-52. Note, however, that the description vester immo ot noster faniliaris adiutor occuts in a letter from Alcuin to Charlemagne (MGH Epis. wv, ed. E, Ditmmler, p. 285, letter no. 172). With regard to Einhard’s functions as superintendent of works, it is possible that the known textual arguments can be reinforced by conclusions to be drawn from a discovery made by Count B, de Montesquiou-Fezensac (see above, n. 2). He found a sketch showing a triumphal arch in the Carolingian style, erected in honour of the Cross by someone named Hinbardus: every thing depends on the identification of this Binhard with ours, and on this for the moment ? reserve judgment. = « perpelua, ‘postquarn in aula eins conversari coepi, cum ipso ac liberis eins amicitia, ‘the othet witnesses ate Welahfrid Strabo (prologue to VK, p. xxix) and Ermoldus Nigellus (Ix bonorem Hixdowici, ii, v. 682: Tune Heinardus erat Caroli dilectus amore; ed, E. Fazal, Exmold le Noir, Potme sur Louis Je Pieuxe et Epitres au roi Pépin, Paris, 1932, p. 54); for the admissibility of this evidence, sce my ‘Notes critiques’, 732-4. Walahftid Strabo is quite explicit that Bishard was in Charlemagne’s confidence: . . . af inter omtes maiestatis regiae ministras pene nullus haberetur, eni rex id temporis potentissimus ef sapientissimus plura familiaritatis ouae secreta committeret. ‘ PP. 22-3. : quibus ipse interfui, quacque praesens oculata, ut dicunt, fide cognovi. HL. Wibel, Beitrage yur Kristie der Annales Regni Francoruan 1. der Annales quas dicuntur Einhardi (Strasbourg, 1902), 168-229. Halphen, Etudes critiques, 78 i. VK, xvi, p. 19. See above, p. 7- M. Bondois, La translation des saints Marcellin et Pierre (Paris, 1907), 83-5, with references to the letters from Hinhard which provide evidence on thisEinhard, biographer of Charlemagne point (MGH Fpist., v, ed. K. Hampe, nos, 4. 12, 20-22, 41)3 see also Ad epistelas variorum supplementum, ibid., ed. E. Dammler, 20. I, pp. 615-16 15. VK, xvii, pp. 20-1: Praecipse tamen aedes sacras ubicwmgue in too regno so vetustate conlapsas conperit, pontificibus et patribus, ad quorum cnram pertinebant, ut restaurarentur imperavit, adbibens curam per legatos, ut imperata perficerent. cf. amongst others, Synod of Frankfurt (794), c. xxvi: Ut domus ecclesiaram et tegumenta ab eis flant emendata vel restaurata qui benefitia exinde habent ... 5 Capitulare missorum of 803, ©. i: De ecclesiis emendandis et ubi in unum locum plures sunt quam necesse sit, ut destraantur quae necessaria non sunt, et alia con- ‘serventur, Capitula ecclesiastica ad Salz data, (803), Cc. i: Ut ecclesiae Dei bene constructae et restauratae flant, et episcopi unusquisqne infra swam parrochiam exinde bonam habeat providentiam, tam de officio et luminaria quamque et de reliqua restauratione; Capitulare missorum Ninmagae datum (806), c. iii: Ut prasdicti missi per singulas civitates et monasteria virorum et prellaram praevideant, quonodo aut qualiter in domibus ecclesiarum et ornamentis accclesiae emendatae vel restanratae esse videntur ... All printed MGH Capitularia, 1, ed. A. Boretius, nos, 28, 40, 42, 46. Hinhard’s use of the capitularies, especially in this matter of the upkeep and restoration of churches, is noted by A. Kleinclausz, op. cit., 72. . See his animadversiones appended to his edition of Suetonius (C. Suetonii Tranguiili de XU Cassaribus libri VIL, Genewa, 1595), passages listed under “Bginhartus’ in the index. 3rd edn of the Vita, pp. xi and xiii. This is where Halphen speaks his mind most plainly. 18, Hellmana, op. cit. 53. 19. Scc my ‘Notes critiques’, 735-6. zo. It is even to some extent admitted by Halphen, Vita, 3rd edn, pp. xii-xiii. see further my ‘Notes critiques’, 737-8. at. As P, Lehmann rightly points out, op. cit., 15 (Exforsehung, 164), the saints? Vitae were written with an entirely different object: they were concerned Jess with a clearly characterised individual than with a type, that of a ero of the Church whom God had chosen to be his servant and witness. 22, Hellmann, op. cit., 45-7, 52-33 Lehmann, op. cit., 15-16 (rforschung, 165-6). 23, M, Lintzel, ‘Die Zcit der Entstchung von Einhatds Vita Karoli’, Krifische Beitriige zur Geschichte des Mittelalters. Festschrift fiir R. Holtzman, Berlin, 1933. The letter from Lupus to Hinhard is no. 1 in the edition by L. Levil- lain (Loup de Fetritres, Correspondance, t, Patis, 1927), who on good grounds dates it 829-30. Lintzel was using Diimmler’s edition (MGH Epist., vr, no. 1, p. 8) and based himself on the latter's dating for the letter, 828-36, for which there is less justification. The passage in question reads as follows: . . . venit in manus meas opus vestrun, quo memorati imperatoris clarissima gosta (liceat mibi absque suspicione adulationis dicere) clarissime litteris allegastis, 24. VK, xii, p. 151... Abodrites, gui cam Francis olim foederati erant . ..For the ‘disaffection’ of the Abodrites see Aanales Reeni Francorum, 817, ed. F. Kurze (Hanover, 1895), p. 147. This is the view taken by O. Holder-Egger _ in his edition, VK, p. xxvii. . Lintzel (op. cit., 4o-1), detecting, as he thinks, traces of hostility to Louis a 2 IrEinhard, biographer of Charlemagne the Pious in the Vita, suggests a date of composition some time after 830, by which time Kinhard had left the court, or even after 853, when Einhard, as a resident of Seligenstadt, had become a subject of Louis the German. ‘The traces of hostility may or may not he there, but the other conjectures ate ruled out by the date which must be assigned to the letter from Lupus. 26. Notably Halphen, Bindes critigoes, 103. 27. VK, iv, p. 7: ad actus et mores ceterasqne vitae iltius partes explicandas av demonsirandas ... transire disposi. vi, p. 9: nisi vitae ilfias modum potins quare bellorum, quae yessit, evenins memoriae mandare praesouti opere avimo eset propositum. Helimann, op. cit, esp. pp. 52 and 55, is rightly vehement on this point; see also Kleinclausz, op. cit., 81-3. 28. See my ‘Notes critiques’, p. 726. 29. The accusation was made in strong terms by E. Bernheim, ‘Die Vita Karoli Magni als Ausgangspunkt zur literarischen Beurteiluag des Histozikers Einhard’, Historische Aujsitye dem Andenken an Georg Waite gewidmet (Leipzig, 1886), 80-1, The ctiticism is to some extent accepted by Kleinclausz, op. cit, 80. 30. Annales Laureshamenses, 802 (ed. G. H. Petz, MGH SS, 1, 38-9): ... Sed ef ipse imperator . . . congregavit dhces, comites et reliquo cbristiano popalo cum Legislatoribus, of fecit omnes legos in rogno suo legi et tradi smicsique bomini tegen suar et emendare ubicumane necesse fuit et emendatam legem scvibere, ot ut indices per scripinm indicassent et musmera non accepissent, sed omnes homines, pauperes et divites, in regna sun institiam habnissent.—Capitulare missorum generale, 802, c. xxvi (MGH Cap,, 1, no. 33): Ut indices secundum scriptam legen inste iudicent non secundum arbitrium suum—Capitulare legibus additum, 803 (ibid. 20. 39, with p. 112 a notice concerning its publication)—Capitwlare legi ribuariae additum 803 (ibid., no. 41). Perhaps: Capituia ad legem Bainwariornm addita (ibid., no. 68). On the general framework ‘into which these measurcs fitted, see my a:ticle on ‘La fin du régne de Charlemagne. Une décomposi- tion’, Zeitschrift fiir Sclweixerische Geschichte xxvttt (1948), 442-3 (translated Ch. XII, below). 31. VK, xxix, p. 33! Post susceptum imperiale nomen, cum adverteret multa legibas popati sui deesse—nam Franci duas babent leges, in plorimis locis valde diversas— cogitavit quae drerant addere et diserepantia unire, prava quogue et perperam (prolata corrigere, sed de his nibil aliud ab eo factim ost, nisi quod paxea capitula ot ea inperfecta iegibus addidit. Oraninm tamen nationum, quae sub eins dominatu erant, inva quas scripta non erant describere ac litteris mandari fecit, On Chatle- magne’s lack cf success in the sphere of administratio regni of, my short paper ‘L’échec de Charlemagne’, Acadtarie des Inscriptions ot Briles-Lettres, Comptes Rendus des Séances, 1947, P. 253; translated Ch, XII, below. 32. VK, iii p. 6, ix, pp. 6-7, ix, p. 12 and xv, p. 18.” 33. See above, p. 3. 34. VK, vii, p. 10. M. Lintzcl, “Der Sachsenfrieden Karls des Grossen’, Néwes Archiv SVM, =929. 35. B. Joranson, ‘The alleged Frankish protectorate in Palestine’, American Historical Review, 1927; A. Kleinclausz, La lgenle du protectorat de Charleneagne sur la Terra Saiste, Sytia, 1926. In my ‘Notes ctitiques’, 744-7, I went too far in crediting Chatlemagne with power over the Holy Places. &Einhard, biographer of Charlemagne 36. VK, xvi, p. 192... am solume quae petebantar fieri permeisit, sed etiam sacrum illum et salutarem locum, ut illius potestati adscriberetur, concessit, The focus in question is indicated earlier in the same sentence: sacratissinum Domini ac Salvatoris nostri sepulchrums locumaue resurrectionis. ibid., xxvii, pp. 31-22 + 0b hoc maxime transmarinorum regu amivitias expetens, ut Christianis sub corum dominatn degentibus refrigerium aliquod ac relevatio proveniret; from what is said earlier, the rages can be identified as those bearing rule ia Syria, Egypt, Africa, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Carthage. Kleinclausz, op. cit. n. 36, 221-33. 37. VK, xvii; cf. my account of the struggle against the Saracens in the Mediter- ranean, F. Lot, C. Pfister and F, L. Ganshof, Les destindes de Empire en Oceident de 395 @ 887 (2nd edn, Paris, 1940-1), 487. 38. VK, xxi, p. 26. Sce in particular Admonitio generalis (789), c. luxw; Capitulare mitsorum generale (802), c. V, Xiv, xxvii, xxx (MGH Cap, 1, nos. 22 and 33). 39. VK, xxii, p. 27: Et non solum filios ad balneum, veruns optiorates ef anticos, ali- quando etiam satellitune et custodum corporis turban invitavit, ita ut nonnumguam centre vel eo amplins hortines sna lavarentur—Altaini Bpistolae, 20. 262, dated 800 (MGH Fpist., xv pp. 419-20), addressed to Nathanael (= Fridugi the subject was St Petet’s catch of seventeen large fish after casting his n . crescents numero ab uno usque ad decem et septem propter decalogsns et soptem Sancti Spiriti dona, De onius numeri mira divisions et significatiane olim me scripsizse memoro, dominoque meo David atzcisse, calido caritatis corde, in fervente naturalis aguae baineo, Ubi te, alumne, praesentene esse non ignore, David, of course, was Charlemagne. 40. VK, xxiv, p. 292... 57 comes palatii litem aliquam esse diceret, quae sine eins iussu definiri non posset, station litigantes introducere iussit et, velut pro tribunali sederet, lite cognita sententians discit—Capitulare de institiis faciendis of 811, c. ii (MGH Cap., 1, no. 80): UF episcopi, abbates, comites ef potentiores quigue, si causam inter se babuerin? ae se pacificare noluerint, ad nostram inbeaniur venire praesentian, neque illorum contentio aliubi diiudicetur neque prapter hoc pauperum ef minus potentinm institiae remaneant. Neque comes palatii nostri potentiores causas sine nostra inssione finire pracsaumat, sed tantum ad paxperu ot minus potentium institias faciendas sibi seiat esse vacandun, 4. VK, xvi, pp. 19-20, ©. xxviii, pp. 32-3. Cf. my ‘Notes critiques’, 748-55. 42. VK, xxxii, p. 36; Porticus, quam inter basilicane et regiam operosa mole construxerat, die Ascensionis Domini subita ruina usque ad fundamenta conlapsa, Halphen unnecessarily casts doubt on this statement, on the grounds that a light wooden gallery (eam e# fragili materia esset aedificata et iam marcidact putrefacta), which linked the church to the palace, is recorded as having collapsed in 817 (ABF, same year). This must obviously have been a replacement for the other gallery, which had probably collapsed in 813. Binhard’s residence at Aachen extended over a long period, he was certainly in a position to know whethet in Charlemagne’s time a gallery which played such an important part in the life of the Palace was made of stone, and at what date it collapsed! The results yielded by the recent discovery, as yet un- published, have been communicated to me by Professor J. Ramackers of ‘Aachen, to whom I am most grateful, 43. It is surprising that an editor as expert as Holder-Egget should place the 3Einhard, biographer of Charlemagne 4 45. 4 48. 49. 50. 14 = I words Hruodlandus Brittannici limitis prasfictus between brackets; the agreement between manuscripts of the A and C families is surely a decisive argument in favour of this reading, and Halphen was quite right to adopt it (Vita, 31d edn, p. 30). Sevétorum reges (c. xvi) can only mean ‘kings of Ireland’, Iris surprising that Einhard’s testimony has been doubted. There were enough Irishmen at Charlemagne’s court io make the establishment of links between that monarch and the Irish kings a quite natural development. Admittedly, when the Irish ‘Kinglets” speak of Chatles as dominunr and of themselves as subditos et servos, we should interpret this as the language of courtly hypet- bole—not forgetting, however, that these expressions have most probably been translated from the Gaclic, and so may have lost some of their original nuances. ‘There is nothing improbable in the use of marks of respect, e.g. the teem proprius vester employed by Alphonso the Chaste vis-i-vis Charlemagne (svi, p. 19), when one remembers his requests for help when in difficulty, and the ‘despatch of Saracen booty to Charlemagne after Alphonso’s victories. Besides, these expressions are not meant to be taken literally, as M, Defourneaux very properly points out in his excellent article ‘Chatle- magne et la monarchie asturienne’, Mélanges Loxis Halphen (1951), 180. . VK, c. xvii, pp. 20-1 and xexii, pp. 36-7; xvili, pp. 22-3; xx, pp. 25-6; xxxi, pp. 35-6 and xxxiii, pp. 37-41. have attempted to ‘plot a curve’ of the reign in my article ‘Charlemagne’, Speculum, 1949, teptinted below, Ch. IL. From the measurements taken of his skeleton it looks as though Charle- sagne was at least 1.92 m, tall; the scientific procedures used do not seem to me to warrart the reserves expressed by A, Kleinclausz, Charlemagne (Paris, 1934), 42. VK, xxii, pp. 26-7. VK, vii, p. 10 (magnanimitas regis ac perpetua tam in adversis quam in prosperis mentis constantia); viii, p. 11 (... ef prudentia maximus et anini magnitudine prasstantissimus); xix, p. 24 (sce below, n. $4); xxi, p. 26 (the burden repre- sented by the hospitality offered to foreigners: Ipse tamen prac magnitudine animi buiuscemodi pondere minime gravabatur, cum etiam ingentia incommoda laude liberalitatis ac bonae famas mercede conpensaret); xxviii, pp. 32-3 (the jealousy shown by the Byzantine emperors: Vicitgue eorum contumaciam magnaninitate, qua ets loage praestantior erat ...). For an account of magnanimitas and of the other moral concepts shortly to be discussed, and of their place in Binhard’s work, see Hellmann, op. cit, 91-6 and Lehmann, op. cit., 17 (= Erforschuag, 166). + Prudentio: VK, vili (see above n. 50), xv, p. 17 (Hacc sunt bella, quae rex... in diversis terraram partibus summa prudentia atque felicitate gessit) —Constanti vii (see above n. 50), viii, p, 11 (following the passage cited above n. 50: nibil in bis quae vel suscipienda erant vel exsequenda aut propter laborems debractavit ant propter periculum exborruit, verum usumquodgue secundum suam qualitatem sabire ef ferre doctes nec in adversis cedere nec in prosperis falso blandienti fortunae adsentiri solebat), xviii, p. 21 (...summam in qualicumgue et prospero eb adverso eventy constantiani),Einhard, biographer of Charlemagne 32. VK, xviii, p. 22 (Post mortem patris cum fratre regnum partitus tanta patientia simultates et invidiam eins tulit, ut omnibus mirum videretur quod ne ad iracundiar quidem ab eo provocari potuisset); xxviii, p. 32 (in connection with the imperial coronation: Invidiam samen suscepti nominis, Romanis imperatoribas saper boc indignantibus, magna tulit patientia). 53 VK, xi, p. 14 (regarding ‘Tassilo, duke of Bavaria, and his alliance with the Avars: Cuixs contumaciam, quia nimia videbatur, animositas regis ferre nequiverat . 54. VK, xix, p. 24 (Mortes filiorum ac filiae pro magnanimitate, qua excellebat, minus patienter tulit, pietate videlicet, gua non minus insignis erat, conpulsus ad lacrimas), The interpretation of piezas as a form of ethic peculiar to the Germanic peoples, which is suggested by Pyritz (op. cit, 181-2), is quite arbitrary. 55. VK, xx, p. 26. 56. VK, xviii and xix, pp. 22-5. 57. Religion: VK, xxiv, p. 29 (Delectabatur et libris sancti Augustini, praccipue his qui de civitate Dei prantitulati sunt), xxvii and xxvii, pp. 30-2. Education: XXY, P. 50. 58. VK, xxiii, pp. ress); xxii, p. 27 (Exercebatur assidue equitando ac venando; quod illi um erat, quia vise ulla in terris natio invenitur, quae in Lac parte Francis posit aequari); xix, p. 23 (education of his children, more Francarum); xxiv, p. 29 (teading at table); xxix, pp. 33-4 (Itew barbara et antiquissima carmina, quibus veterum regum actus et bella cancbantur, soripsit meroriaeque mandavit, Inchoavit et grammatican patrii sermonis, Then follows the passage about the naming of the months and the winds). 59. VK, xxiv, p. 29. 60. VK, xix, p. 24 (friendship); xxiv, p. 29 (crowds present when he dressed o at feasts), xxii, p. 27 (crowds at the baths; cf. n. 39 above; cheerful expres- sion), xxv, p. 30 (fluent specch). 61, IK, xxiii, p. 28 (Aliquoties ot gemmato ense utebatur, quod tamen ronnisi in praccipnis festivitatibus vel si quando exteraram gentinm Iegati venissent.... In Jfestivitatibns veste aura testa et calciamentis gemmatis et fibula aurea sagan adstringente, diademate quoque ex anro et gemmis ornatus incedebat). 62. VK, xxii, p. 27 (pursuits), xxiv, p, 28 and xxii, p. 27 (diet). 63. VK, xxii, p. 27 (Delectabatur etiam vaporibus dquarum naturaliter calentium ++. OD hoc etiam Aquisgrani regia exstruscit ibique extremis vitae annis usque ad obitum perpetim habitavit). 64. VK, xviii, pp. 22-3 and xx, p, 25 (Chatles’s concubines, three of whom are mentioned by name for the period 800-14; the name of a fourth is given only in mss of the C family). 65. VK, xis, p. 25, Pytitz, op. cit., has think interpreted Charlemagae’s reactions correctly, but there was no need to drag in a supposediy Germanic ethic. 66. Rightly stressed by Lintzel, op. cit. 47. 67, Preface, p. 1: I will try to be brief, says the author, to avoid nova quacgue Sastidentino animos offenderem. cf. Lehmann, op. cit., 16 (— Exfersebung, 165) aad E. R. Curtius, Ewropdische Literatur wd Lateinisches Mittelalter, Berne, 1948, 173 and 482 (Bnglish translation by W. Trask, European literature and the Latin Middle Ages, London 1953, 166 and 489). 1Einhard, bingrapher of Charlemagne 68. Lehmann, op. cit., 16 (= Exforsebung, 165): ‘Elatten nur alle, die seit dems 9. Jabrhundert Biographien scbrieben, so viel von dem gewiss nicht genialen Sueton ‘gelornt wie Einbard.? 69. Iam most grateful to Madame Cécile Setesia, ‘docteur en philosophie et lettres’, who read over my text and made some most valuable comments, and to my colleague Professor P. Dollinget, of the Facultés de Lettres, Strasbourg, who very kindly undertook an important piece of research on my behalf. 16II. Charlemagne’ N sprrz of the rather general title that I have chosen, I shall not attempt to draw a full portrait of Charlemagne nor to explain the way in which he moulded the history of Western Europe; nor shall I try to give a complete picture of his reign. Having read and meditated upon the sources of his history, I shall try to distinguish and to characterise the different phases of his reign; T shall also do my best to give a broad outline of his personality as a statesman. ‘The beginning of Charles’s reign is in no way very remarkable. His father, Pippin Ill, having died on 24 September 768, he governed half the Frankish kingdom, and his brother Carlomaa, with whom he did not agree, ruled over the other half. Charles put down a revolt in Aquitaine, but, under the influence of his mother, Bertha, he adopted in foreign aifaits a policy of abandonment, was teconciled with ‘Tassilo TIT, duke of Bavaria, and reached an understanding with the king of the Lombards, Desiderius. This amounted to a recognition of the actual independence of Bavaria and a renunciation, in favour of the Lombard kingdom, of exercising any influence in Rome. In 771 the situation changed. The Lombard alliance was denounced. Carloman died on 4 December and immediately Charles occupied the tertitoties belonging to him; he excluded his nephews from the succession to the throne and re-established fot his own benefit the unity of the mon- archy. The period of weakness was ended and it seems as if Chatles wished to adopt the policy formerly followed by his father. But in his hands this foreign policy becomes more matked and the tesults achieved » are far greater than those of his father. After Charles Martel and Carloman T, Pippin IIT had thrice been obliged to undertake avenging expeditions against the Saxons who continuously 7Charlemagne made intoads upon the Frankish lands on the right side of the Rhine and in Thuringia. As carly as 72 Charles, in his tutn, entered Saxony, and new campaigns succeeded oneanother from yearto year,{If nothing reveals plans of conquest, it is, however, very clear that the king of the Franks was scheming to protect his kingdom from Saxon forays\{n western, Saxony, between Lippe and Diemel, a ‘march’ was established consisting of borderlands with a special military organisation, defended by permanent fortifications This waSHot the only new fact. Before the time of Charles a few timid attempts had been made to christianise Saxony;\now military operations were mingled with-evangelisation and at the assembly of Paderborn in 777 measures were taken to spread the Chsistian religion not only in the ‘march’ but also within Saxony. in Italy Chatles continued to follow his father’s policy. When, at the request of Pope Hadrian I, he decided in 773 to march against the Lom- bards, he did so with no more enthusiasm than Pippin III had shown. Nevertheless, Charles went much farther here. In 774, by proclaiming himself king of the Lombards, destroying whatever might be in opposition to his authority, he put an end to Lombard independence In spite of his respect for the Holy See, he proved by his actions that thé title of patricius Romanorum, which he had received from Stephen II at the same time as his father, was to him the legal-basis of a protectorate which he intended to exercise over the pontifical state. in 77 Charles was thirty-five years of age and a succession of under- takings had turned out successfully for him. His position in Italy gave him far more prestige than his father had ever enjoyed. He was full of enthusiasm for spreading the Christian faith When the vali of Saragossa, displeased with tie emir of Cordova, came to Paderborn, to beg his alliance, Charles was dazzled by the illusion that he could at least tear away from Islam a considerable patt of Spain. In 778 he started his campaign. It was a failure indeed; the Basques, attacking the Frankish army during the retreat through the Pyrenees, almost transformed the defeat into a disaster. This crisis of 778 was extremely serious, Revolts were threatening in ascony, perhaps in Aquitaine, which for so long had been rebellious, | possibly also in Italy. ‘The Saxons, grouped under the leadership of an energetic chief, Widukind, had overrun the ‘march’ and invaded the neighbouring Frankish counties. ‘The Carolingian state was on the verge of collapse* (& is noteworthy that Charlemagne was not content to send troops against the SaxoasJenjoy brilliant victories, and reform military and administrative organisation in the south of Gaul, He also was setiously concerned about the internal condition of the Frankish and Lombard Tingdoms At the assembly of Herstal in 779 he adopted several measures 18Charlemagne for greater efficiency in public institutions and a greater security for the people, the communities and their properties. ‘These are the oldest of his extant ordinances, called ‘capitularies’, and among the most important; they apply to Italy as well as to Frankish countries)'They deserve to be called, with some slight exaggeration, ‘the constitutive charter which Charlemagne granted to all territories of the ancient Frankish kingdom’ at year 779 is a turning point in the. history of Charlemagne. Here bean the outstanding period of his reign)\when he not only considerably widened his power, but gave it a solid basis and initiated policies having consequences felt for centuries. Until this time his activities reflected much pateroal tradition and a fair amount of ‘Sturm und Drang’ ; hence- forward his attitude assumes a more personal character and reveals the gifts of a statesman. He understood that Saxony, if independent, would always be a menace to his snes Conga was a necessity; it was the only way to gain North Getmany to the Christian religion, which Charles considered more than ever that it was his duty to spread. Seven years of cruel fighting resulted in 785 in the submission of the country as fat as the Elbe, its incorporation into the kingdom and its division into bishoprics.® The east of Frisia submitted to the same say Chatlemagne also endeavoured to sttengthen his authority over Italy and Aquitaine, trying to make it more steady and more efficient. These two countries had been tecently subdued. Their inhabitants, proud of their traditions, despised the Franks; they considered them not only foreigners but semi-barbarians, especially the eastern Franks who were extremely numerous in the commanding posts. By turning these into two kingdoms for two of his sons, still quite young, he satisfied the local yearning for autonomy though reserving for himself all important decisio: ar Italy he settled to his own advantage his relations with the repel with the duke of Benevento the agreement was neither so firm nor so satisfactory. In 788 he thtew back, by arms, a Byzantine intervention in the peninsula, and he took this opportunity to annex Istria. As to Aquitaine and its dependencies, Gascony and Septimania, he seems to have wished to isolate them from Spain by occupying the southern slope of the Pyrenees, e conquest of which began in 785. ts the same time as this political and military activity there was action in the field of home affairs. This was the period when, to limit ourselves to one example, Charlemagne took one of the most essential measures of his reign concerning the administration of justice by creating for each county court or mallusa permanent body of doomsmen called seabini entrusted to make judgment-Gndings.§.x was at this time, also that Charlemagne undertook the reform of the Church, which was insepatal from the reform of the state, by issuing the Admonitio generalis in 7 ) the basis of this was a canonical collection called the Dionysio-Hadri 19Charlemagne which Charles had teceived from the pope. Not only was he concerned with discipline among the clergy and episcopal authorities; but he was also so anxious to establish order in the religious life that he was, in that same period of 7&5, led to reform the liturgy and the administering of sacraments by gereralising Roman customs. ine article of the dmonitio generalis contains regulations concerning the opening of sckools near the cathedrals or in the monasteries and also relating to the cate with which biblical and liturgical texts must be tran- scribed and corrected) A little later a kind of circular note was sent to the bishoptics and abbe¥s to ensure the carrying out of these orders.’ ‘The aim was entitely ecclesiastic and rather modest: to make sure that the clergy should get at least some necessary instruction, and to provide the Church with satisfactory bri catholici.® But it is to this initiative that we owe the Carolingian Renaissance, Most of the foreign clerics~an English- man, an Italian, an Irishman, a Spaniard—who conducted or stimulated this activity, were invited by Charles during this period, ‘There was Alcuin in 781, Paulus Diaconus in 782, Dungal about 787, and probably ‘Theodulf shortly afterwards. © year 787 and the following ones were marked by political and mili- tary action towards the southeast. Charlemagne was now strong enough to attempt what none of his predecessors had dared to do: to put an end to the actual independence of the national duchy of Bavaria. His own military power, and the ecclesiastical arms used according to his wish by the pope, proved successful, and in-788 Bavaria was subjected to the common peblic law of the reali the moment Charles found himself in contact with the countries of the middle Danube where the Avats, an Asiatic tribe, domineered over Slav populations. These plundet- ing horsemen were for neatly two centuries a terrible menace to their neighbours. Very soon the king realised that they should be reckoned with and even subdued. In 791 2 campaign was started but it proved to be no more than a mere punitive expedition.and was not a great success; a conquest required other preparations.(The year 791 closed that third period (which began in 779), the most:decisive in Charlemagne’s ascent towards dominance over the west of the European continent and the richest in lasting results; ‘The years 792 and 793 were conspicuous because of a serious ctisis, the second in the life of Charlemagne. A very poor harvest in 792 caused an uncommonly cruel famine in the year 793; there was a local rising in Saxony in 792 anda mote serious one in 793, accompanied by a Frankish military defeat which brought about a general rebellion. In 792, also, there were acts of hostility in Italy by the duke of Benevento; in 793 the expeditionary force sent against him was defeated. A Saracen counter offensive in 793 submerged the ‘match’ still only partly established in 'the northeast of Spain, This ended with a devastating raid on the south of 20Charlemagne Gaul. A far more upsetting event had taken place at the end of 792: conspiracy of some great mea led by Charlemagne’s favourite bastard, Pippin the Hunchback, had imperilled the king’s life, the lives of his sons and the Regowm Francorum itself. There had already been a similar conspiracy in 786, butit had been put down, and to prevent the recurrence of such surprises Charles had compelled all his subjects to take an oath of fidelity. Nevertheless, the menace had appeared again. The symptom was setious because it revealed in the atistocracy a feeling of discontent and opposition to royal autocracy;; perhaps, also, it was a sign of weariness caused by unceasing warfare.’ Charles faced all dangers at once, and, far from making any concessions to the discontented leaders, he took measures to give the oath of fidelity a more general character and to insute its effectiveness.1f In 794 he started to regain all lands that had been lost and, if possibley to enlarge his domains, Here begins a fourth period, not so constructive as the preced- ing one, but one that appears to be above all a period of consolidation. From 794 to 797 4 succession of campaigns reestablished the authority of the Franks and of Christianity in Saxony.)Then, after 798, the occupa- tion of territories such as Nordalbingia and Wimodia was undertaken. The newly born marca hispanica was teoccupied in 793 and gradually extended. In 795 and 796 the Avars were successfully attacked and theit treasures, the result of plunder accumulated during the centuries, con- fiscated. The Danubian countries were attached to the Frankish monarchy. Only the most western parts—the eastern ‘march’ of Bavaria (the future Austria) and the exterior part of the ‘march’ of Priuli—were incorporated into it; the greater part of the Avar territory only constituted a protector- ate. ff would scem that by 792, when Charles was fifty years old, he had acquired experience and wisdom; pethaps, also, the advice of certain counsellors had brought him to understand that moderation is necessary to consolidate the results of victory. One of the deep causes of the Saxon revolt of 792~3 had been the reign of terror of 785, caused especially by the Capitulatia de partibus Saxoniae, to secure the Frankish domination and the authority of the Christian religion YOne must mention, also, the ruthlessness shown by the clergy in exaéting payment of the tithe. In 797 a more gentle rule was introduced in Saxony by the Capitulare Saxconicunt' and the results of this new policy were favourable. In the Danube countries the methods used were less rigorous than formerly in Saxony. A feature which at this period seems to have developed strongly was Charles’s special care concerning the interests of the Church and their close association with the interests of the state. In the capitulary, where dispositions made by the Synod of Frankfurt in 794 were promulgated, tegulations of putely political or administrative character are next to those concerning the life of the Church, e.g. the measures taken to extend B 21Charlemagne the right of exclusive jutisdiction of the Church over the clerics, and those aiming to render the discipline of the higher clergy more strict by reestablishing over the bishops, chiefs of the dioceses, the superior hierarchical office of the metropolitan. In matters of dogma the synod of Frankfurt, under the ptesidency of Charlemagne," had agreed with Pope Hadrian to condemn adoptianism, a chtistological heresy. Contrary to the advice of the pope, the synod had condemned the worship of images, which had been restored to honour by the decision of a so-called ecumenical council of the Eastern. Church. Charlemagne had already got his theologians to criticise this worship in the Libri Carolini.({@ spite of his reverence for the Holy See, Charlemagne appears to be, far more than the pope, the real head of the Church in the West. When Leo III ascended the pontifical throne in 795, on the death of Hadrian, Charles states precisely their respective positions in a letter which leaves no doubt on the subject. ‘he pope became more ot less the first of his bishops) Alcuin and a few other clerics had developed ah idea linked with ancient traditions. To ptotect the Church against many corrupt practices and dangers, the realisation of the will of God on earth zequired the reestablishment in the West of an imperial power that would protect faith and Church. Charlemagne, in their eyes, fulfilled the necessary conditions to be that Roman Christian emperor; to be, indeed, an emperor quite different in theit minds from the historical Constantine and Theo- dosius. Favourable cixcumstances occurred. A revolution in Rome overthrew Pope Leo III in 799 and created an extremely difficult situation which remained confused even after Charles had had the pope reestablished on his throne. Charlemagne not only admired in Alcuin the theologian and the scholar to whom he had entrusted the task of revising the Latin text of the Bible," but he also had confidence in his judgment and was strongly under his influence. It was, I believe, owing to Alcuin that he went to Rome with the idea of putting order into the affairs of the Church; it was under the same influence that he accepted there the imperial dignity. Pope Leo LI crowned him emperor oa 25 December 800.8 To give even a short account of the immediate and later effects of this gfeat event would be irrelevant here. {[ shall merely mention the fifth and last petiod of the reign of Charlemagne* which began on the day following the coronatiori It is a rather incoherent stage of his career. ‘One notices this when trying to distinguish what changes in Charlemagne’s conduct could be attributed to the influence of his newly acquired dignity. ¢ certainly appreciated his new position. He intended to make the most of it towards Byzantium and he exercised a political and military pressure on the eastern emperor until that Byzantine prince recognised his imperial title ia 812) oweves, in matters of government Charles’s attitude was not constant. In 802, shortly after his return from Italy, he 22Charlervagne appeared to be fully aware of the eminent character of his imperial power. He stated that it was his duty to see that all western Christians should act according to the will of God; he ordered all his subjects to take a new oath. of fidelity, this time in his quality of emperor, and he extended the notion of fidelity He started legislating in the field of private law; he stipulated that the Glergy must obey strictly canonical legislation or the Rule of St Benedict he reformed the institation of his enquiring and reforming commissioners, the missi dominici, to make it mote efficient. Tn spite of all this, when (806) he settled his succession, the impetial dignity appeared to have lost, in his eyes, much of its importanc Wonless it were to lose its meaning entirely, the empize was indivisible, Yet Charles foresaw the partition of his states between his three sons, according to the ancient Frankish custom, and took no dispositions concerning the imperialis potestas® Doubtless those things that had influenced him a few years earlier were no longer effective and the Roman tradition and Alcuin’s influence no longer dominated him. (Everything was as if the imperial dignity had been for Charles a very high distinction but a strictly personal one. In the very last years of his reign, however, he seemed again to attach more importance to this dignity and most likely some new influen- ces had altered his mind) His two older sons, Charles and Pippin, being dead, he himself conferred the title of emperor on his son Louis in 813. raring the ead of the reign, with the one exception of the Spanish ‘march’, which was enlarged and reinforced (Barcelona was taken in 801), no new territorial acquisition was made, in spite of military efforts often of considetable importance The campaigns against the northern Slavs, against Bohemia, against the Bretons of Armorica, and against the duke of Benevento only resulted in the recognition of a theoretical supremacy Actually, fearful dangers became apparent. The Danes threatened thi boundary of Saxony and their fleets devastated Frisia; the Satacen fleets threatened the Mediterranean coasts. (The general impression left by the relation of these events is the weakening of the Carolingian monatch: ‘This impression incteases when one examines internal conditions of empire. In the state as in the Chutch abuses increased; insecurity grew worse; the authority of the empetor was less and less respected. The capitularies, more. and more numerous, constantly renewed, warnings, orders, and interdictions which were less and less obeyed. (Charles had grown old) Until thea, his personal interferences and those which he directly provoked, had made up for the deficiencies of a quite inadequate administrative organisation in an empire of extraordinary size, Ie physical and intellectual capacities of Charles were declining; he stayed almost continuously at Aachen, his favourite residence after 794, and he hardly ever left the place aftet 808) The strong antidote present before “was now missing, Ail the political and social defects!® revealing a bad government appeared) (When Charlemagne died in Aachen on 28 January 23Charlemagne $14, at the age of seventy-two, the Frankish state was on the verge of decay) L have tried to desctibe and characterise briefly the successive phases of Chaslemagne’s reiga. Isit possible to grasp his personality as a statesman 79° Perhaps. A primary fact that must be emphasised is that FFen compared with others of his time—Charlemagne was not a cultivated man. In spite of his thirst for knowledge and his admiration of culture, he was ignorant of all that is connected with intellectual life and. he had little gift for al action) But he Hid a sense for realities, and especially those of powel\ He knew how one gains power, how one remains in power and how one teaches the highest degrees of supetior and supreme power. His attitude towards the imperial dignity revealed this. The conception of the cletics, and especially of Alcuin, for whom that dignity was an ideal magistratute infinitely above the royal power, was quite inaccessible to him. He knew ot tather he felt, that the real basis of his power was solely his double royal authority, and he refused 4o omit evidence of this from his titles after the imperial coronation. a him the imperial dignity magnified and glorified the royal authority; it neither absorbed nor replaced Charles had also the sense of what was practicable. Save for the campaign in Spain in 778, he undertook no tasks out of proportion to his means. Einhard praises the equanimity of Charlemagne(his cvmstantia* This was, indeed, a remarkable aspect of his personality. In the two periods of crisis which shook his reign—in 778 and in 792-3—no danger, no catas- ttophe, would make bim give up the tasks he had undertaken ot alter his methods of government.|'The moderation with which he happened to treat his vanquished enemies at certain times was not in contradiction with the constancy of his character, On the contrary. Equanimity implies aclear view of one’s plans and one can therefore understand the variations of Chatlemagne’s attitude towards the imperial dignity, the full signifi- cance of which he never really understood. To have a clear line of conduct and keep to it is one thing, but it is quite another to follow out a complete and detailed programme Ghat = magne had, indeed, certain lines of conduct that he followed persistently) _ The facts presented are sufficient to show this as regards his foreign policy. Tris also true as regards political, administrative, and juridical institutions. Charlemagne wanted to improve theit efficiency so as to bring about a mote complete fulfilment of his wishes and to achieve greater secutity for his subjects. But one cannot make out a real programme in his actions. (GHle resorted to shifts; he adopted and improved what was already existing. “This is true of the institution of the missi, true also of the royal court of justice, of the royal vassality and of the ‘immunity’,)Occasionally he cteated something new, but without troubling about a general scheme. 24Charlemagne Giiis reforms were empiridjand at times went through several stages of development as in the case of the organisation of the placite generalia which was roughly outlined at the beginning of the reign but did not assume a definite shape uatil about the yeat 802,nd also the use of writing in recording administrative and jutidicial matte, prescribed by a series of distinct decisions relating to particular cases~ One must avoid any attempt to credit Charley e with preoccupations proper to other times. Because of his efforts to protect the pauperes liberi omines, for instance, one cannot attribute to him the inauguration of a social policy; nor because he promulgated the capitulare de villis can one speak of an economic policy. In both cases he acted on the sput of urgent interests then on hand: free men of modest condition supplied soldiers “Gen royal manors had to be fit to maintain the court. Charlemagne had certainly been under different influences. First, that of his mother; later; during the second period of his reign, it was that of Abbot Fulrad, of St Denis, of Abbot Sturm of Fulda, and pethaps of other men of the preceding reige|, About the year 800 Alcuin and Archbishop Ain of Salzburg, were well trusted advisers. Wala, cousin of the emperor, had a great ascendancy over him during the last years of the reign, when Chazles had lost some of his vigour. Who were the other counsellors who had the master’s car? To what extent did their influence prevail? Such questions ae for me still unansweted. fris sketch of Charles as a statesman would be distorted if stress was not laid upon his religious concerns. It is indeed hard to draw a line between his religious and his political ideas. His will to govern and to extend his power was inseparable from his purpose to spread the Christian religion and let his subjects live according to the will of God If something of the ‘clerical’ conception of the empire struck him deeply, it was the feeling that he was personally responsible for the progress of God’s Kingdom on earth. But always it was he who was concerned. His pious- nef zeal for the Christian religion were no obstacles to'his will to 3 in religious matters as in others the pope was nothing more than his collaborat. One is often tempted to turn Charlemagne into a superman, a farseeing politician with broad and general views, ruling everything from above; one is tempted to see his reign as a whole, with more of less the same characteristics prevailing from beginning to end. ‘This is so true that most of the works concerning him, save fot the beginning and the end of his reign, use the geographical or systematic order rather than a chronological one. The distinctions that I have tried to make between the different phases of his reign may, perhaps, help to explain more exactly the develop- * ment and effect of Chazlemagne’s power; they may help us to appreciate these more clearly. Pethaps, also, the features that T have noted bring out the human personality in the statesman and lead to the same results.22 25Charlemagne The account T have given and the portrait I have drawn certainly justify the words which the poet ascribed to Chatles in the last verse but one of the Chanson de Roland: Deus’ dist li Reis, ‘si penuse est ma vie? (‘O Lord,” said the king, ‘how arduous is my life’). NOTES 4 This addross was given at the dinner of the Medieval Academy of America held on 28 December 1948 in Washington, D.C,, in connection with the sixty-third anawal meeting of the American Histozical Association spublished Speculum, xav (1929), 522-7» . Because of the very general character of this article, the notes have becn reduced to a minimum, For the facts, refer to Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter “den Kerolingern (and edn, Innsbruck, 1908), of J. ¥. Bohmer and E- Mahl bacher, to S. Abel and B. Simson, Jabrbiicher des frinkischen Reiches snter Kor! den Grosien (ond eda, 2 vols, Leipzig, 1883-88) or to a briefer sui mary, such as the one I have given in F. Lot, C. Pfister, PL Ganshof, ‘Lae uestinées de PEmpire en Oecident de 395 2 988 (2nd edn, Pats, 1941)- For the facts concerning mote particularly the ecclesiastical order, see A. Hauck, Kircbengesshichtr Dentscblands, 1 (5th edn, Leipzig, 1935) of B Amann, L’Epogue carolingienne (Paris, 1937): R. Hawticr, La Chanson. de Rolond (Patis, 1935), 1775 of F. L. Ganshol, “Une crise dans le regne de Charlemagne, Les années 778 et 779", Mélanges Charles Gilliard (Lausanne, 1944)y 133-45- | MGH Cup, 1, no, 20. There is no necessity to bother with the remarks of S, Stein, ‘Etude critique des capitulaires francs’, Le Moyen Age, xu (194) Ti MGH Cap,, 1, no. 19, generally dated 769, is not genuine; F. Lot, Te premier capitulaire de Charlemagne’ (Ecole pratique des hantes éindes, Sc. Hist. ct Philol. Annuaire, 1924-5), 7-13- 4G a Clercq, La Hgislation religieuse frangua de Clovis @ Charlemagne (Paris, 1936), 159+ | accept, on the whole, the petiodisation of the wass of Saxony suggested by L. Halphen, Etudes. eritigques sor Ubishoire de Charlemagne (Batis, 1921), 146 “The fixing of this reform at about 780 tests on a new examination of the sources, I hope soon to be able to publish the conclusions of my investiga- tions. . MGH Cap., 1, no. 22, ¢. hexii, and no. 29. . * None has better characterised these beginaings of the Carolingian Renais- sance than J. de Ghellinck, Lit#érature latine de moyen dge (Paris, 1959). % 84 ff 9. A just appreciation by A, Klcinclausz, Charlemagne (Paris, 1934), 205-5 MGH Cap., 1, 0. 255 of. BF. L, Ganshof, ‘Note sux dewx capitulnises non datés de Charlemagne’, Miscllanea L. Van der Bssen (Brussels, 1947), % 123-35. 1. MGH Cap., 1, nos. 26 and 27. S 8 26Charlemagne 12. MGH Cap., 1, no. 28; cf. F. L. Ganshof, ‘Observations sur le Synode de Francfort de 7947, Miscellanea A. De Meer (Brussels, 1946), 1, 506 . 13. See the excellent pages of L. Halphen, Charlemagne et I'empire carolingien (Pazis, 1947), 120 ff. 14. F. L. Ganshof, ‘La xévision de la Bible par Alcuin’, Bibliothéque d’Hamanisme ef Renaissance, 1x (1947), pp» 7-20, translated below ch. IIT, 15. F. L. Ganshof, The Imperial Coronation of Charlemagne. Theories and facks (The David Murray Memorial Lecture, Glasgow, 1949), reprinted below, ch TV. 16. F, L. Ganshof, ‘La fin du régne de Charlemagne. Une décomposition,” Zeitschrift. fir Schweizerische Geschichte, xxvutt (1948), 433-52, translated below, ch. XL 17. MGH Cap. 1, nos 33, 34, 36-41; Annales Laureshamenses, $02, MGH SS, 1, pp. 38-9. 18. MGH Cap.,1, no. 45. 19. F. L. Ganshof, ‘L’échec de Charlemagne,’ Académie des Inseriptions et Belles Lettres, Comptis-Rendus des Stances (1947), 248 &., translated beiow, ch. XIII. 20. Tleave completely aside the other aspects of his personality. 23. Vita Karoli, vii and xviii (ed. O. Holder-Egger, Hanover, 1911). 22, Since the writing of this text, there has appeared a book by my master, Professor F. Lot, Natssance de la France (Paris, 1948). This work contains an excellent notice on the reign of Charlemagne and a very remarkable portrait of him. The reader will easily note the connections and differences between my study and the work of this illusisious French scholar. My friend, Professor Gray C. Boyce, of Northwestern University, has had the kindness to read my manuscript, He has suggested to me some important corrections, for which I xemain most grateful to him. 27Tt. Alcuin’s revision of the Bible” swum stant of this conttibution to the history of the Carolingian Renaissance, J cannot do better than to quote some observations made by J. de Ghellinck: ‘If we ask what motives inspited Charlemagne to strive for an intellectual revival, the answer is that his initial efforts at reform were modest in their objectives. Despite the grandiose language of Alcuin and Notker the Stammerer, who speak of a “pew Athens”, surpassing the old, at first there seems no trace of the humanistic ideal. ... ‘The original goal was that of St Boniface, as under- stood by Pippin the Short: to bring about the intellectual regeneration which must precede the reform of the clergy.”" "This essentially clerical character of the Carolingian Renaissance in its opening stages accounts for the preoccupation with biblical texts which js manifest in Charlemagne’s catliest directives for the campaign. Jn this respect, the circular known as De litteris colendis, which the king sent out to metropolitans, bishops, and heads of religious houses at some time between 780 and 29 May 801, is of particular importance, In it, the Jeaders of the regular and secular clergy received orders from the king to encourage the study of letters (litterarum studid) and to organise instruction to that end, the declared object being to ensure that monks and clerks \ possessed an accctate knowledge of the Scriptures? Dispositions of {milar nature are found in the circular known as the Hpistola generalis, issued at some time between 19 Aptil 8co and 29 May 8or,-in which Charlemagne otdered the churches in his realms to adopt the new homiliary of Paul the Deaccn, compiled at his request;? if the king was concerned to encourage Fam liatity with letters (lifferarum offeinam) and the study of the liberal arts (ad pernoscenda studia liberalinm artium), it was because of his desire to improve the state of the churches. This zeal for letters was directed at the Church primarily in order to semedy the disgraceful state 28Alenin’s revision of the Bible into which the text of the Bible had fallen, through the ignotance of copyists (lébrariorun imperitia), We come finally to the really basic text, which is to be found in the second part of c. Ixxii of the Admonitio generalis addressed to the clergy on 23 Match 789,for which the circular of 780-801 may have been metely an executive measure, Having given instructions to the heads of dioceses and abbeys to set up schools, and having mapped out their general programme, the king continues: ‘And see that you emend the catholic books with care’—or it may be, ‘and sce that you have carefully emended catholic books’—‘since all too often men desite to ask some grace of God aright but ask it ill, because the books are faulty. And do not allow your young clerks to corrupt the text of these books, either in reading aloud of in copying; if a copy of the Gospel, psalter or missal is needed, see that it is made by a grown man, working with due care.’® ‘There could be no plainer declaration of Charlemagne’s desire to see that churches were equipped with reliable biblical and liturgical texts; as the context makes clear, the tetm ‘catholic books’ covers at the least the Gospels and the psalter. ‘That this concern was amply justified is evident from the very wide variation in the biblical texts in use within the Frankish monarchy. Study of extant manuscripts, in some cases coupled with indirect study of the manuscripts from which they derived, has enabled scholars to trace the origin of these divergences. In these manuscripts, it has been possible to distinguish readings derived from pre-Jcromian Latin versions from those derived from the Vulgate, that is the translation made by St Jetome,* and to demonstrate the great direct or indirect part played by Spanish and Irish influences in the interpolations, corrections and omissions which had distorted the sacred texts. What needs chiefly to be borne in mind is that the biblical collections used in Francia during the eighth century contained adulterated texts of mixed descent; even manuscripts imported or copied by the Anglo-Saxon missionaries and theit disciples were of this character, although they usually had the Vulgate as their base.” In this matter, the remedies provided in the capitulary of 789 were at best only partial and indirect. Moreover, theit scope may have been limited to improving the texts of the Gospels and the Psalms, important because of their place in the liturgy. The responsibility for emending texts—or for procuring emended texts—was left to the spiritual heads of dioceses and monastic houses; success depended on the zeal and intelligence they btought to their task, and even in the most favourable circumstances, the measures prescribed were not calculated to lead to the adoption of a uniform text, Charlemagne accordingly took the further step of commissioning a revision of all the books of the Bible, with a view to the adoption of a single and correct Latin text, He recalls what he has done in the Epistola a 29Alewin’s revision of the Bible generalis,alveady mentioned: ‘God helping us io allthings, we have alteady procured 2 careful emendation of all the books of the Old and New "Testament, which the copyists in their ignorance had cotrupted,’> "This task he had entrusted to Alcuin, his chief intellectual and spiritual adviser, In an undated letter addressed to Gisla, abbess of Chelles, and. her niece Rotrud (respectively Charlemagne’s sister and daughter), the illustrious abbot of St ‘Martin’s of ‘Tours remarks that all his time is devoted to “the emendation of the Old and New Testament, undertaken ‘on orders from the king’. From another letter, alsé undated and addressed to Charlemagne himself, we learn that the task has been successfully completed: Alcuin informs the king that he is sending him a gift of the Holy Scriptures, ‘gathered together in the sanctity of single and most illustrious corpus, and scrupulously emended’.*° "That the task should have fallen to Alcuin is in no way surprising. The breadth of his calture—by the standards of his time—and the ‘Anglo-Saxon penchant for biblical stadies!! which he shared with his compatriots in conjunction with the credit his erudition and integrity had earned him with Chatlemagne,® marked him ‘out as the obvious choice. ‘Aleain’s original manuscript has not survived; but examination of manuscripts directly oF indirectly detived from it enables us to form some idea of it as 2 text, As an Anglo-Saxon, and an Anglo-Saxon educated at the celebrated school of York, ‘of which he subsequently became the head, Alcuin would obviously make use of manuscripts from England for the purposes of his tevision.** Texts of an English and conspicuously Northumbrian type, based on the Jeromian Vulgate, seem to have been the dominant influence; but it was not the only one. For one thing, certain Northumbrian manuscripts themselves went back to Italian manuscripts of a mixed types for another, ‘Alcuin probably used conti- rental manuscripts on which. the Trish influence had left its mark, so that they owed something to the old, pre-Jeromian version. On the other hand, a namber of emendations jo the Alcuinian recension, some of them quite daring, ate attributable to Alouin himself; they seem to bave been inspised by his interest in grammat, and pethaps in some cass by his method of interpreting the Scriptures, for which he had patristic authority. Sckolars are in general agreed that taken as a whole the ‘Alcuinian tecension is to be regarded as affiliated to St Jerome’s transla~ tion, that is to say as a text of the Vulgate.” Charlemagne’s desire for a carefully emended text of the scriptutes wwas thus satisfied. Satisfied too was his desire for otder and stability, ‘hich showed itself in the biblical and liturgical spheres" as in everything Uise. If on investigation the productions of the Tours seripforium reveal certain discrepancies, some of them quite ‘marked, they do not as a rule bear on what is essential: an ‘Alcuinian text exists, and this text, widely 30Aleuiz’s revision of the Bible disseminated and continually undergoing fresh distortions, exercised a decisive influence on the later destinies of the Latin Bible. In view of what has been said, it’ may be of some importance to identify the precise period at which Alcuin was engaged on his work of revision. We can start with the evidence provided by a text already mentioned, the Fpistola gentralis, which tefers to the revision as an accomplished fact. "This citcular must have been issued at some time before 29 May 801, since Charlemagne is given the royal title, and after 786, the date when Paul the Deacon returned to Monte Cassino, whence he despatched his homiliary to Charlemagne.2¢ ‘A second piece of evidence is provided by another text already men- tioned, a letter from Alcuin to Gisla and Rotrud. The abbot of St Martin’s tells the ladies he is sending them a first instalment of his com- mentaty on St John’s Gospel; he excuses himself for not sending the complete work on the grounds that the revision of the Bible, ordered from him by the king, is engaging all his attention. His correspondents are nevertheless assured that the commentary will be completed when he has the leisure to devote to it (cum coeptum opus secundum oportunitatent semporis explevero), and that he will dedicate it to them. As is clear from the context, Alcuin intended that this letter, and the accompanying instalment of the commentary, should teach Gisla and Rotrud before Haster.2! Dating of this letter is made possible by another of Alcuin’s letters, addressed to the same cottespondents. From this we gather that his pious friends had been pleading with him for the rest of his commentary and for his messages of spititual support.” He is at last able to gratify their wish; they now receive the concluding instalment of the commentary, a dedicatory epistle, and a covering letter. Near the end of the covering letter, Alcuin refers to a number of recent events which Gisla and Rotrud had touched on in a letter to him, which has not survived. They are all events which occutted in the last days of the year 800: Charlemagne’ imperial coronation, the restoration of Pope Leo III to his authority, and the embassy ftom the patriarch of Jerusalem.? Alcuin must therefore have written this letter early in 801, and at some time before Easter (4 April), since there is no hint of the serious illness with which he was smitten shortly after Easter in that year.? Now in this letter, written before 4 April or, Alcuin tecalls that he sent the first part of his commentary to Gisla and Rotrud in the preceding year." ‘The letter which accompanied that instalment must therefore have been written in 800,2? and we know that it was written before Easter, which fell that yeat on 19 Aptil; and since we also know that at the time Alcuin was wholly immersed in the revision of the Bible, we have a terminus a quo for the work’s completion, Ia this first letter Alcuin declares 31“Alenin’s revision of the Bible that he will finish the commentaty on the Fourth Gospel as soon as he has time; it can therefore be accepted that the revision of the Bible was completed by 4 April 8or, the last possible date for the despatch of the concluding part of the commentary. We thus arrive at a serminis ad quer Closet to the fermias a quo than the date we had previously, which was 29 May Sor. Provisionally, then, we caa place the completion of the re- Vision of the Bible between 19 April 800 and 4 April 8or. “Toro further letters of Alcuin’s make it possible to be still more precise. ‘They are addressed to different recipients but deal-with the same subject. One of these letters has been quoted already and is addressed to Charle- magne. In it Alcuin informs the king of the present he himself wishes to bestow on him at a solemn moment when all the world is preparing to load him with gifts, namely a carefully emended copy of the Holy Scriptures, conveyed to him by one of Aleuin’s monks and the king’s faithful servant2® The second letter is addressed to the beater of the first, Nathanael, Le. Fridugis, monk of St Martin’s and its future abbot,” and reads: ‘Deliver the letter from my littleness to my lord David on Christmas Day, together with the most sacred gift of the Holy Scriprate."® This diligently emended (diligent emendatos) text of the Scriptures which Charlemagne received from. Aleuin at Christmas is clearly the one which ‘Aleain had devoted all his energies to emending (fw emendatione), on the king’s orders, some time previously." Now we have seen that Alcuin finished his work between 19 April 800 and 4 April 801, The only intervening Christmas was that of Soo. Te follows that the revision must have been completed at some time between 19 April 800 and the autumn of that year: at latest by the autumn, because if the manuscript was to zeach Rome by Chtistmas, some considerable margin has to be allowed for the journey over the Alps at the difficult winter season. With the summer or early autumn fixed as the date for the completion of the revision of the Bible, we can see why Alcuin had time to resume his commentary on the Fourth. Gospel and complete it in the early months of 801. Tt is scarcely feasible to fix on a date for the beginning of Aleuin’s work on the Bible with the same degree of approximation as for its completion. A labour of this magnitude must have taken him several years. We know from a letter he wrote to Charlemagne that at the end of 796 ot early in 797 Alcuin undertook to instruct his young monks at St Mastin’s in the Holy Scriptures and the liberal atts, and that he asked the king’s permission to send for the books he had left behind in York. Alcuin presumably first applied himself to the review of the biblical texts at some time after the despatch of this letter and the arrival of his books. In view of the size of the undertaking, we should probably not be far wrong to settle on 797 as the year in which Alcuin embarked on the revision. 32Alcuin’ s revision of the Bible ‘The fact that Alcuin arranged for his revised text of the Bible to be placed in Charlemagne’s hands at Rome on Christmas day 800, that is on the very day of his imperial coronation, sheds light both on the great event itself and on the part Alcuin played in its preparation. ‘The idea that the imperial coronation happened without Charlemagne’s consent seems to me no longer tenable. Indeed, in my view the coronation took place in falfilment of a royal design, itself the outcome of a line of thought which originated in citcles close to the king. In developing this line of thought Alcuin played a crucial sole. The fact is that in letters written to Charlemagne in late 796 or early 797, and in 798, we find him using the terms ‘empire’ and ‘imperial’ in connection with the king. Charles’s power is an ‘imperial’ power (ad decorem imperialis regni vestri). Fis successes ate ‘necessary for the prosperity of the empire, which embraces all Christianity’ (cometo christianitatis imperio pernecessariam prosperitatem); ‘God grant that his power remains in command of the most sacted empire’, (sacratissimi gubernacula imperii custodire), ‘the mercy of God has entrusted Charles and his sons with the task of ruling and governing the entire Christian empire’ (per orbem christian! imperii, quod divina pielas tibi tuisque filiis commisit regendum atque gubernandum) What is more, in each instance we find the ‘imperial power’ and the exaltation ot government of the ‘Christian empire’ explicitly and closely linked with the defence of the Church and the Christian faith.‘ It is clear that Alcuin is here propounding a form of ‘Asgustinisme politique’ 88 and that for him the ‘Christian empire’ consists of the community of the faithful upon carth, governed not by the vainglorious ambitions of princes® but in accordance with the will of God: a ‘City of God’ on earth. Nevertheless, to contemporary minds the ‘empire’ was no mere abstraction, no general idea, determinable at will: the ‘empire’ could be nothing but the Roman empire, the only empire men knew, the only universal community in existence, ot which at least survived as an ideal. It was distinct from, but closely linked with, the Church, and was destined by providence to be the Church’s protector.#° When Alcuin speaks of the ‘Christian empire’, he would certainly envisage no other head for it than the successor of Constantine and Theodosius, but a successor with a greater sense of mission than the Byzantine basileis. We know that on 25 April 799 the pope, Leo III, was the victim of an uprising at Rome fomented by a faction of the aristocracy, in which he was severely manhandled and escaped death only through the iaterven- tion of the duke of Spoleto. During the summer Charlemagne ordered the pope to join him in Saxony, where at Padetborn he examined the two sets of allegations, those of the sovereign pontiff and of his accusers. Still unclear as to the position, Charlemagne sent the pope back to Rome escorted by royal commissioners, among them Alcuin’s friend Arn, atchbishop of Salzburg. 33Alleuin’s revision of toe Bible During that summer of 799 Alcuin’s attitude was hardening. In his view it was important to reinstate the pope in his authority without delay and without reserve, and to punish the rebels. ‘There could be no question of requiring Leo III to resign his office, or even to justify bimself. Annoyed at receiving no invitation to Paderborn, Alcuin discovered for himself what had been decided and wrote to the king and to Arn, impressing on them the need to respect and defend the papal prerogatives.#® In his letters to Charlemagne.we find him reverting to the theme that the defence of the ‘Christian empite’ is an obligation under the same head as the defence of the faith and justice.#® To carry out this obligation the king smust come to Rome: his presence there is indispensable. Of particular importance in this connection is a letter Alcuin wrote to the king when he first got wind of what was happening in Rome.® He declares there are three persons on earth invested with the highest authotity: the pope, the emperor and the king of the Franks. Charlemagne knows what has befallen the pope; he knows that there is no longer an emperor (in 797 Constantine VI had been deposed and blinded on orders from his mother Irene, and was dying of the after-effects); there remained only the king, and it was for him to rescue the Church. Can it be denied that Alcuin is here assigning to the king the role reserved in Christian apologetic for the emperor? Charles thought of sending Alcuin to the pope in Rome, but he refused: at the king’s request, however, he despatched some of his monks to the Bternal City, and they remained thete over the period of the imperial coronation. Among them was Candidus, Alcuin’s confidential adviser on Roman affairs.“ When the royal commissioners came to investigate the situation on the spot, they uncovered a state of affairs even graver than men had feared: the charges of perjury and adultery levelled at the pope were not alto- gether unfounded; he still had powerful enemies in Rome, and the nature of their mission exposed the royal commissioners to real dangers; the disorder in the Church, already serious, threatened to increase.” From Alcuin’s letters it is clear that he was deeply troubled by this news, but at the same time more determined than ever to have the pope’s authority respected.‘ Charlemagne was as much pteoccupied with this agonising situation as was his counsellor. And it is to be noted that in 800, unlike 799, the two men were in personal contact on more than one occasion. In the spring Charles spent some considerable time with Alcuin at Tours, in June Alcuin journeyed to Aachen and stayed at the Palace while a synod ‘vas meeting. Less than two months later, at the assembly of Mainz in eatly August, Charlemagne announced his intention of making the expedi- tion to Rome, from which he returned emperor.” Roman affaits had obviously figured in the conversations between 34Aliain’s revision of the Bible Charlemagne and Alcuin. It was probably in the course of these discussions that Alcuin convinced the king of the necessity for two important deci- sions, however repugnant they might be: that the situation in Rome, if it was to be restored, required his presence there in person, and above all that it demanded his assumption of the impetial title which would make him temporal head of the imperium christianum and possessor of law£al authority in the city of the popes and Caesars.5¢ In support of this interpretation one can argue first from the testimony of the Annales Laureshamenses, whose value as 2 source for the history of the coronation has often been stressed. There we read that at a synod held in Rome, the pope and clergy declared that Charles ought to be made emperor; the reason given is that ‘there was no longer anyone who bore the imperial title in the Greek-speaking part, where 2 woman was occupying the throne’ (guia iam tune cessabat a parte Graccornm nomen imperatoris et femineum apud se habebant), and that Charles, as master of Rome, the city of the emperors, and of Italy, Gaul and Germany, which God had placed in his power, ought lawfully to beat the imperial title, as the people of Christ demanded he should.® These were the considera tions Alcuin had urged on Charlemagne in 799, when he pressed him to intervene.™ He no doubt followed the same line in 800, instructing the monks he sent to Rome to develop it further. But there is another and weightier argument, which brings us back to the revision of the Bible. In the letter he sent with the Bible to be delivered to Charlemagne, Alcuin expresses himself in the following terms: ‘Having long debated. with myself what offering I could worthily make to add lustre to your imperial power (ad splendorem imperialis potentiae vesirae)... 5 and again, ‘none can doubt that the Holy Spirit is acting through you for the salva- tion of the whole Church’ (guid per vos in totius ecclesiae salute Spiritus sanctus operetur); and finally, it should be the ardent prayer of all the faithful that the empire extend itself to your full glory’ (ef quantis uni- versorum fidelium praecibas sit optandum, ut in omnem gloriam vestram extendatur imperium). The use of such language, in a letter Charlemagne was intended to receive on 25 December 800, to my mind points to a definite conclusion. It is explicable only if Alcuin knew that on or about that date the king would assume the imperial title. And if he was addressing the’ man who was on the point of becoming, in law, the temporal head of the ‘Christian empire’, can we deny his claim that no gift could more fittingly match the occasion than his own revision, undertaken on orders from the future emperor, of the text which enshrined the word of God itself P57Alcuin’ s revision of the Bible NOTES + «La vévision de ta Bible par Alcuin’, Biblinthigne d’Homanisme ef Renaissance, Ix (1947), 7-20- _ Littérature latine ex mayen age, x Paris, 1939). 85- " MGH Cap., 1, no, 29. The text of this document has survived in the undated copy addressed to Baugulf, who was abbot of Fulda from 780 to $025 it gives Charlemagne the royél title, which he ceased to use from 29 May or (MGH Diplomate Karol. t, ed. E, Miiblbacher, Hanover, 1906). |. MGH Cap., 1, 20. 30. On the date see above, p. 31- . Ibid., no. 22, . The text of this document does not seem to me definitively established. Having as yet had no opportunity to collate the principal manuscripts which include those in the collection of Ansegisus, 1, 68; MGH Cap, ¥, p. 403), 1 quote the text as given by Boretius: Ef ut scolae legentinm puerorum fiant. Psalmos, notas, cantus, compotirs, grammaticam per singila monasteria vel ‘piscopia, et libros eatbolicos bene emendate, quia saepe, dum bene aligni Dewm rogare cupiant, sed per inemendatos Hibros male rogant. Ect pasros vesires non sinite cos legentio vel scrivendo corrumpere. Et si opus est evangeliun, psalterium et missale soribere, perfectae actatis bomines seribant cms onini diligentia, Several mss give emendatos instead of emendate, hence the two possible translations offered in my text. Tuse the term Vulgate in its currently accepted meaning, which goes back to the end of the Middle Ages. Up to that time the word was generally applied to: the Septuagint, and when need arose to its Latin translation, 7. Ii should be sufficient to cite $, Berger, Histoire de da Valgats pendant les ‘premiers siéces da mayen Age (Nancy, 1893), first thie sections, which is still the classic work, and H. Glunz, Britannien und Bibeltext. Der Vulgatatext der Evangelion in seinem Verhilinis zur Triscb-Angelsiohsischen Kultur’ des Frabmittelalters (Leipzig, 1930), chapters 1 and x1, 1. . Enter quae iare pridem universos veteris de novi instrumenti libros, librarioram imperitia depravatos, Deo wos in omnibus adigvante, examussint correximus. “Alenini sive Albin’ epistolae, no. 195, MGH Epiet., xv, p. 325- Totins forsitan cvangelitexcpositionem direxerins vobis, si mre non occupasset domni regis pracceptim in emendatione veteris et novi testamenti, ro. ibid, no. 261, p. 419... wibil dignius pacatissinvo bonori vestro inventri posse, quam divinornon manera libroram .. qos, in rains clarissimi corporis sanctitatens conenos atgue diligenter entendatos, vestrac altissimae auctoritati... dirigere exravi. . rx. Berger, op. cit, 34r4x; Ghunz, op. cit, 89-114; W. Levison, England and the Continent in the Fighth Century (Oxford, 1946), 142-3- , 12. M, Manitius, Geschichte der laseinischen Literatur des Mittelalters, 1 (Munich, 1911), 287-8; A. E, Schénbach, ‘Uber einige Evangelienkommentare des Mittclalters’, Sitqangsber. d. kais, Akad. d, Wissensch. gu Wien, Phil. Hist. K1., cxavr (1995), 43-78; P. Lehmann, ‘Fuldaer Studien’, Sizgungsber. 4. Bayer. “Akad. d Wissensch., Phil-Hist. Kl, (1925), P+ 52+ y yay s ° 363. 18. 19. 20. a1 22, 23. 24. 25. 26, Allenin’ + revision of the Bible The synod of Frankfurt of 794 (MGH Cup., 1, no. 28, c. Ivi) welcomed Alcuin into its communion and made him the beneficiary of its prayers, at the request of the king eo quod esset vir in ecclesiasticis doctrinis ernditus. . Letter from Aleuin to Charlemagne asking for permission for the books he had left behind at York to be sent to him at Tours, 4/ spist., no, 121, p. 177, 1. 4 ff. See also Aleaini sive Albini carmina, no. 1, Versus de pairibs, ragibus et sanctis Enboricensis ecclesiae, (MGH Poetae, 1, (p. 169 ££): v. 1535 on the library at York and particularly v.. 1538 on the biblical literature), . For the conclusions here summarised see Berger, op. cit., 190-1 and Glunz, op. cit., 127-33 and History of the Vadgate in England from Alcuin to Roger Bacon (Cambridge, 1933), 29-32. . Dom H. Quentin, Mémoire sur Pétablissement du texte de la Vulgate. 1. Octa- fengus (Rome and Paris, 1922), 288-90; Glunz, Britanniev, 127, History, 86-7; B. K, Rand, ‘A preliminary study of Alcuin’s Bible’, Harvard Theo Logical Review, xxwv (1931), 382-53 L. W. Jones, ‘The text of the Bible and the script and the art of Touts’, ibid., xxvitt, 1935, 139-79- . Berger, op. cit., 328-93 Glunz, Britannien, 128. Quentin, op. cit., 438-2 and 519, disagrees; his view is that the Alcuinian manuscripts, like those of other families, went back to a single archetype which was not the same as St Jerome’s text. Quentin’s opinion on this point has not been generally accepted; cf Dom D, de Bruyne, ‘Notes sur la Bible de Tours au IXe sidcle’, Gattingivche Gelebrte Anzeigen, CXCHL, 1934, 352-9. ‘This same concern lay behind Charlemagne’s instructions to Paul the Deacon to compile a new homiliary; cf. Epistola generalis, MGH. Cap. % 10. 30. Betger, op. cit., 328-9; Glunz, History, 2-3. MGH Cap., 1, no. 30; see above, p. 28. For the date see MGH Poctue, 1, Pauli et Petri Carmina, no. xxv, p. 68 (in particular vv. 7-9) and Dimmler’s preface, p. 28. Berger, op. cit., 187, Glunz, Britannien, 127 and C, de Clercq, La Ugistation religiense frangue de Clovis d Charlemagee (Louvain and Paris, 1936), 181, ate doubtful whether the revision referred to in this document should be identified with the revision made by Alcuin; but their objection is weakened by the fact that the sources make no mention of any other revision undertaken on orders from Charlemagne. Alt, epist., no. 195, MGH Epist., 1; see above, p. 30 aad n, 9. The allusion to Easter is on p. 323, IL. 1-4. Tbid., no. 196. Schénbach, op. cit., 49-51, suggests that Alcuin drafted the letter himself, but offers no convincing reasons. Dedicatoty epistle, ibid., no. 213. Covering letter, ibid., no. 214. Litteras vero, quas ditexisti mibi, Denigne suscepi; gratias agens de escaltatione excellentissini domini mei David; et de prosperitate apostolici viri; et de legatione onesta sanctae civitatis, in gua salvator noster mundum suo sanguine redemere dignatus est, For the meaning of prosperitate apostolici viri, see ibid., nos. 216 and 218, For the events mentioned, see ARF, 800 and 801, original version. It is scarcely necessary to add that in the familiar language of the intellectual coteric of the day, David was the name given to Charlemagne. Ale, epist., nos 216 and 218. Scriptamque citias remittite mibi; simul et cum partem, quam vobis anno transacto direxi. 37Alesi’s revision of the Bible 27 28. 29. 30. 3. 33 34 35. 36. 37 38 ‘his date is accepted by Berger, op. cit, 189, SchOnbach, op. eit., 53, and Quentin, op. cit, 267- Alle, epish, 10. 261; see above, and p. 30, M. 10. ‘This identification seams proved by letters 148, 154, 244, 245, 259 ‘Ale. epish,, 00. 2621». Epistolam vero parvitatis meat chm: sanctssimo divinae ‘eriptirae mucere die watalis Domini et verbs salutations pacfics redde domino reo David. Berger, op. cit., 9-91 and B. K. Rand, A Survey of the Manaseripis of Tours (text), Cambridge, Mass., 1929, 39, accept this identification. Diimmlet (MGIL Epis, xv, p. 419, a. 3) suggests that the manuscript ‘Nathanael Fridugis delivered to Charlemagne was a manuscript of the Gospels, put thi can hardly be so when. Alcuin’s letters refer explicitly to a complete Bible. The objections to the identification saised by P. Corssen (elde Handsbrift; ed. K. Menzel, P. Corssen etc., Leipzig, 1899, 33) are without Jubstance and have been refuted by Berget, op. cit., 190. Equally lacking Fe gubetance are the allegations of C. J.B, Gaskoin, Adauin, His life and bis pork (London, 1904), 239, Who claims that at least four Bibles are known, from their dedicctions in verse, to have been written under Aleuin’s diection: but examination of the five “biblical” poems ot ‘biblical? groups of poems composed by Alcuin (Ale, carm, MGI Poetae, nos. LXV-LEIX) Seveals that only one of them contains what is unquestionably a dedication to Charlemagne (a0. LXV, 1). | Berger, op. cit, 189-99, who is followed by Rand, Survy., 39. Clune, Britannen, 127, and E. Lesne, Histoire de Je propriést ecclésiastique on France, 1 (Lille and Paris, 1938), 146, suggests that the revised Bible was delivered to Charlemagne at Christmas Sor. Berger's sole supporting argument is that in a letter to Gisla and Rotrud (no, 228) Alcuin complains of his snerous ‘ceculat’ duties, that he ceased being abbot at the end of Bor, and that he was certainly still abbot of St Martin's at the time he despatched Nathanael Fridugis to the king with the Bible: this letter must therefore date from 807, and so, in consequence, must the despatch of the Bible. ‘This argument would only be worth considering if we could assume that the onerous duties Alcuin feared would crush him necessarily included the revision of the Bible, which there is no reason at all to suppose. (Ale, epitts, 0. 121, P- 176, Me 32-3) - 177, Ih a f On this point sce T.. Halphen, Heudes critiques sur MBittoire de Charlemagne (Paris, 1921), Pest I, Ch, 2, ‘Le couronnement impérial de Van to0', and still mote important, the decisive contribution by L. Levillain, ‘Le Gouronnement impérial de Charlemagne’, Rerwe dbistoire de PEglise de France, 1932- For this fine of thought see K, Heldmann, Das Kaisertum Karls des Grassen. "Theorien und Wirklicbkeit (Weimar, 1928), 47. Heldmann argues thatithad no connection whatever with the imperial coronation; his view of the matter is ‘Critically examined in my review of the book, Le Moyer Age, 1950, pp. 214-78. Alc, epist, nos. 121, 136, 148. No. ser: ad profectum sanctae Dei ecclesias et ad... 30. 136% ad excaltationan sanatae case caclesiae o@... 3 00. 1482 Charlemagne is urged to prevent the spread of the adoptionist heresy per orbem . .«Altuin’s revision of the Bible 38. The very apt description of this doctrine coined by H. X. Arquilli¢ee and used as the title for his book on the subject (Paris, 1934). 39. Like those attributed to the Eastern emperors, Libri Carolini, Pracfatio and iii, 15, ed. H. Bastgen, MGH Corcilia, Suppl. to vol. 1 (Hanover and Leipzig 1924), p- 3) ll. 6 £, p. 134, L 42-p. 135, 1. 2. E. Amann, L'épogue carolingienne (Paris, 1937), 125 (vol. v1 of Histoire de I’ Biglise ed. A. Fliche and V. Martin) suggests that Alcuin was the principal author of the Libri Carolini; W. von den Steinen (Hntstchungsgeschichte’ der Libri Carolini’, Qnellen 4. Forscbungen aus Italienischen Archiven 1, Bibliotheken, xxx (1929-30), 72; ‘Karl dex Grosse u. die Libti Catolin?, Newes Archiv d. Gesellschaft f. dltere deutsche Gesehiebtskennde, x1xx (1930), 207 and 279) plumps for Theodulf, bishop of Orleans. The arguments against Alcuin’s authorship produced by A. Allgeier (Pralmenzitate u, die Frage nach der Herkunft d. Libri, 1926) have been demolished by D. de Bruyne, ‘La composition des Libri Carolini’, Revue Bénédictine, xtav (1932), What does seem established—Amann and von den Steinen are hete in agrecment—is that Alcuin was the author of an important memorandum drafted in preparation for the Libri, 4o. This conception of it is found in St Jerome, St Ambrose, Prudentius, Orosius, Pope St Leo the Great and above all Pope St Gregory the Great, an author Alcuin had studied closely. cf. P. de Labriolle, G, Batdy, L. Bréhier, G, de Plinval, De da mort de Théodose d P’élection de Grégoire le Grand (Paris, 1945), 360 (vol. 1v of Fliche et Martin, Histoire de /’Eglire), and Axquilliéte, op. cit., 72 £, who on good grounds traces the idea of ‘Christian empire’ back to Gregory the Great, 4. See A. Hauck, Kirchengescbichte Deutschlands, 1 (sth edn, Leipzig, 1935), 99-105 and H, Caspar, ‘Das Papsttum unter frankischer Herrschaft’, Zaitsebrift fiir Kirchengeschichte (1935), 218-25, in my opinion the best nattatives of these events. 42. Alc. epist., n08. 177-8 (to Charles), 173, 179 (to Amn). Sec also no. 181 (to ‘Adalhatd, abbot of Corbie); cf. Amann, op. cit., 156-7. Ale. epist., 20. 177% quatenas per vestram prosperitatem christianum tneatur imperium, fides catholica defendatur, institiae regula omnibus innotescat; see also no. 202, to be dated 800, dealing with the adoptionist heresy: the royal ‘will veluti armis imperium ebristianum fortiter dilatare laborat. ibid., nos. 177, 178. 45. ibid,, no. 174, I 17-27. 46. ibid., nos. 177, 178, 193,215, 216. The function I have attributed to Candi- dus emerges from no. 184. 47. ibid., nos. 184, late 799 (to Arn) and 212, early 801 (to Riculf, archbishop of Mainz); cf, Hauck, op. cit.; 103; Caspar, op. cit., 225-6. 48. ibid. 49. J.-F. Bohmet-E, Mihlbacher, Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter den Karolingern and edn, (Innsbruck, 1908), nos. 352 (343) ¢ to 357 (348) a and 358 aand b. _ $0. Tt is only in this limited sense that I accept the imperial coronation as determined by local factors, which is how some scholars see the matter, notably Heldmann, op. cit,, and toa lesser degree G. 'Tellenbach, ‘Rmischer und christlicher Reichsgedanke in der Liturgie des friihen Mittelalters’, 43. 39Allouin’s revision of the Bible 52 53. 54. 55- 56. 57 40 Siteangober. d. Heidelberger Akad. d, Wissenseb,, Pbil-Hist. Kl, 1934-5, pp. 33-4 and E, Caspar, op. cit, 229-31. . The reference is to the assembly before which the pope justified himself, 23 December 800. ‘Asm, Lauresh, 801, MGH SS, 1, p. 38. On the importance of this source see Levillain, op. cit., 8-9. ‘Alb. epist., 00. 174, The two texts even show a measure of verbal agreement. Berger, op. cit., 190, tightly discounts this phrase as being merely a ‘formula of the coust’, a ‘courtesy expression’, Ale, epist., n0. 26:, p. 418, ll. 35-6, p. 419, I 4-6. B, Péeil, Die franbische wud diutiche Romidee des friben Mittelalters (Munich, 1929), 107 f, takes it that Alenin did not envisage the imperial coronation as the necessary outcome of the expedition of oo. But she was unaware— understandably ctough—of the arguments on which I have based my case. In support of het own views che adduces a poem of Aleuin’s which may refer to the expedition of 8c0 and’which makes no explicit mention of the imperial coronation (Ale. Carm., no. xiv, MGH Poetae, 1). I cannot accept the argument a silentio as admissible in this case, particularly since Alcuin had good reasons for not making a specific allusion to the projected imperial coronation: not least among them Charlemagne’s lack of, en- thusiasm for the project. ‘The subject of tais article was investigated in my seminar of medicval history at the University of Ghent during the academic year 19456. Those who took part were Mlle R. Longville and MM. L. Danhieus, K. Jeuninckx, ‘A. Koch and C, Wijffels, all ‘licenciés en philosophic et lettres’, Mme Cécile Seresia, ‘docteur en philosophic et lettres’, very kindly read my text and made many useful comments, for which I am most grateful. T must also express my thanks to the Bollandist Fathers in Brussels and to the Benedictine Fathers of Mont-César, Louvain, for theit kindness in allowing me to consult works not possessed by any other Belgian library.IV. The imperial coronation of Charlemagne:” theories and facts monosr the great problems of medieval legal and political Of fe ptoblem of the Empire is one of the most essential. ‘Therefore it is of capital importance to understand the eveat which on 25 December_of the year 800 restored the Western Empire in favour of Charlemagne) Its circumstances have to be determined and their significance fully zealised. Numerous historians have tried to do so and amongst them such illus- trious scholars as Lord Bryce and Leopold von Ranke. In 1928, in Ger many, at Weimar, thete appeated a book which marks an epoch in the study of the problem; I mean Das Kaisertum Karle des Grossen by Kath Heldmann. The author has examined and criticised all the texts concerning the subjectaswellasthe printed matter relating to it, He then gives his personal explanations of the events, which in a certain measure are connected with the works of some of his predecessors. ‘or Heldmann, the coronation in the year 800 should not be con- dered as the natural and necessary outcome of the spreading of Charles’s _powet. Neither was it the realisation of an ‘imperialist’ programme or of _ some ideal dream of universal authority over the Christian world said nave been in the mind of the Frankish king and a few of his advisers, _ ‘cular Alcuin. "As a matter of fact, the idea of making Charles a Roman emperor would come from Pope Leo III and be instigated solely by local Roman reasons, indeed even by personal considerations. It was essential to punish the authors of the plot that had almost succeeded in killing the pope. Now, in the last resort, the punishment of such a crime belonged to the emperor: since 797, when Irene had usutped the throne in Byzantium, there had been no longer an emperor, Hence the decision to let the king 4t‘The imperial coronation of Charlemagne of the Franks, patricis of the Romans, accede to the imperial dignity through a perfectly regular election, which took place on Chsistmas day in the year 800. Henveforth Charlemagne was emperor, sole Roman emperor. His authority was to extend over all tesritories still being part of the empire— in the West: Rome and the non-Lombard patt of Ttaly—but not beyond. However his new dignity did not in any way affect his power in Francia or in Lombatdy: it was only undet Louis the Pious that the Carolingian empire took on a universal character. T have alzeady pointed out in a teview the seasons why I could not admit the thesis of Heldmann.t Now I would like to take advantage of the David Murray Memorial Lecture of 1948, dedicated to the history of learning, to look ovet the principal works published in these last twenty yeats on the imperial coronation of Charlemagne and then try to define my own view on the subject. Twill first of all recall the plain lines of facts.” oo TI, pope since the end of 795, did not enjoy in Rome a sound moral reputation his power was tather shaken. In 799, 02 25 April, as a consequence of a tevolt, he had heen so ill treated that his life was in danger. A refugee at Spoleto and then summoned to Saxony by Charle- magne, he met him in Paderborn. His complaints as well as those of his Roman enemies against him were examined by the Frankish king, Later, on 30 November, Chatles sent the pope back to Rome accompanied by the archbishops Am of Salzburg ‘and Hildebald of Cologne. These commissioners of the king-patricins re-established Leo IIL on the pontifical throne and had the lzaders of the revolt arrested. However the inquiry to which they proceeded revealed that the pope ‘vas not blameless and that in Rome still survived an opposition which threatened not only the pope’s authority but also, indirectly, the authority of Charlemagne himself. This state of things appeared to be alarming for the king and also for those who wete concetned with the superior interests of the Church. In the month of August of tbe year 800, at Mainz, Charlemagne made Known that he intended to pass the Alps. Having arrived in the Eternal City on 24 November, be started as early as 1 December to deal actively with the difficulties concetning the pope, Rome and the Church, On 23 December in a council, Leo If] cleared himself of the charges which had been brought against him and swore a pretendedly voluntary oath of purgation, According to the testimony of an uncommonly teliable authority, this same council decided that Charles must be made empetot and he agreed with this proposal. ‘Two days later, on 25 December, in the basilica of St Peter’s, as Charle- magne having prayed before the Conféssio was rising to attend mass, the pope set a golden crown on his head; the people who crowded the church 42‘The imperial coronation of Charlemagne cheered Charles emperor of the Romans, afte which the pope ‘adored’ him, according to the rite in use for the accession to the throne of the emperors. Charlemagne declated later that had he known the design of the pope, he would not have gone to church, even though it was Christmas day* ‘Amongst the works that have been published these last twenty years on the subject, a few are worthy of special notice because of the new views of the author or the importance of the arguments brought forward. These only will be analysed in this lecture.® Fout of these works might form a first group: thtee Freach works by the late Arthut Kleinclausz,” Louis Halphen* and Léon Levillain® and. one German work by the late Hans Hirsch2° They hold in common those views that Heldmann called ‘universalist’. They maintain that Charlemagne was led to the imperial coronation through the following circumstances: He was mastet of almost all Western Christendom and even of Rome. He was the defender of faith and Church. He had conquered to Christ huge territories, He had preseeved the purity of the dogma and protected the successor of St Peter. “They also have in comimon the idea that Charles is a Roman emperor, successor of Constantine and Theodosius, but a Roman emperor whose essential duty it is to see that God’s will should be observed by the Christian people. Always accosding to these authors, Charles’s empire is really the organised community of all the faithful Christians (Imperinm Christianum) and a kind of prefiguration on earth of the City of God. Hans Hirsch has shown that as carly as the late eighth century the . ‘Chtistian Empite’ appeared in liturgy as an attribute of the Carolingian king. Halphea, after Kleinclausz, but with more vigour and clearness than anyone before him, has shown that this concept gradually conquered the ciscle of clerics who advised Charlemagne and especially the most im- portant amongst them, Alcuin, Levillain suggests that the initiative in bringing about the imperial coronation, which Klcinclausz and Halphen left to Charlemagne himself, should be attributed to some of these clerics, who managed its triumph in the Roman council, on 23 December 800. I would like to join in a second group the works of three German historians: Elisabeth Pfeil, the late Erich Caspar!® and Martin Lintzel.* ‘All three give the initiative of the coronation to the pope, and not to Charles and his counselloss. Caspar explains the act of 25 December by the local Roman conditions which had struck Heldmann. On the contrary Pfeil and Lintzel detect a plan, mostly inspired by the 43The imperial coronation of Charlemagne pope, by which he might assert that he was no longer in any way subordi- Pope: ne emperor who reigned in Byzantium. Indeed, he would establish aa me an emperor who would be bound to him through the fact that he, the pope himself, had crowned him. ‘Gor que thice German scholars, as for Heldmann, in the pope’s opinion that emperor, undoubtedly Roman, only had qualitate qua authority on the small fragments of imperial territory which, at least theoretically, still subsisted in western Europe; he might pechaps also legitimately claim to have rights on the Roman empire as a whole. | Charlemagne did not refuse the imperial dignity; but accotding to our three scholars, he did not consider himself the successor of the Roman emperors: indeed, his dislike of the Roman empite, that thoroughly pagan institution, was too great for that. Even the conception of the Tmporinon Christianum forged by Alesin and other cletics—a conception on the importance cf which Pfeil and Caspat agree—would not in its essential nature connect it with the Romaa empyse. However Pfeil, Cespar and Lintzel admit that the imperial power of Charlemagne was entirely different from what the pope had meant it to pe and that, after a snort ‘time, it extended to all territories which Charle- magne kept under bis authority. The explanation of the fact differs with each scholat. ‘Pfeil secs it mainly as a cesult of Charlemagne’s wish to free the imperial dignity from the pope; who had bestowed it upon him. ‘That result was reached by extending it to the Frankish and Lombard regna and even by consenting to Jink it up with the ancient Roman imperial tradition. Caspar is not far from thinking the same, Pfeil also thinks that Charlemagne shows the same concetn in the efforts he displayed to obtain from the Byzantine emperor the acknowledgment of his new title. ‘On the contrary Lintzel thinks that if Charlemagne resigned himself to accept the imperial dignity and later on struggled to have it recognised by Byzantium it was to affirm that he was equal to the Basileus. His empire was not Roman, but western. ‘The originality of the works of Edmund E. Stengel! and of Heinz Léwe,5 which might form a thitd group, is that they both lay: stress on. ‘the non-Roman charactet, which they attribute to the imperial power of Charlemagne: a very radical position with Léwe, a less categoric one with Stenzel. . Both thak thet the initiative in the imperial coronation belongs, at least pattially, to Charlemagne and that he was strongly under the influence Cf Meuin, But in Charles’s conception of his imperial dignity, they see onthe one hand the Alcainian idea of the Lmperinum Christianum, community of the western Christians, which, according to them, is only very super fcially connected with the imperial Roman ‘tradition; on the other hand, + Germanic notion of imperial authority, conceived as a superior royal 44The imperial coronation of Charlemagne power, as a power of supremacy. This meaning of imperium would have been known to the Anglo-Saxons and thus have contributed to the mak- ing of the notion of empire, which Alcuin made familiar to Chatlemagne. His imperial dignity would have been by nature, Christian and Germanic. If it happened to Charlemagne to adorn it with Roman forms, it was, according to Léwe, in order to humiliate the Byzantine empixe opposite which it had been erected. ‘What is to be retained amongst these theories, either new or renovated? Rather than subject them to a critical analysis, I will confront them with my own interpretation of the events. ft seems to me that in otder to understand Charlemagne’s accession to the imperial dignity, we must go back to Aleuin’s chief concetn.'® The famous abbot of St Martin's of Tours, whose intimacy of thought with his royal protector"? is well known, was between 796 and 799 full of anxiety concerning the Chu ‘The storm caused by the conflict about the worshipping of the sacred images had only just calmed downs abuses dishonoured the clergy; in Saxony resistance to Christianity ‘was still active; hesitations and misunderstandings threatened to imperil the evangelisation of the Danubian countries and above all the adoptionist heresy preached by Elipand of Toledo and Felix of Urgel was gravely menacing the purity-of faith in the West.!# In May 799 atrived the news of the criminal attempt against Pope Leo e ; to Aleuin, deeply devoted to the Holy Sec, it was the scandal of scandals. "As has been noticed, it is in the midst of these anxious days that, ‘bout the year 798, the expression Imperium Christianan—the Christian Empite—appeats in Alcuin’s correspondence; it was frequently used by him up to 8or/802." He used it when writing to Charlemagne and to his friend Arn, archbishop of Salzburg. ‘That ‘Christian Empire’ is the whole of the territories submitted to Chaslemagne’s authority and inhabited by the populus christianus, which is the community of Christians spiritually dependent on. Rome.” Charles’s task is to govern, defend and enlarge it and closely linked with these obligations is his duty to protect faith and Church Tt is in the letters where he most insistently implores Charlemagne to take measures against the adoptianist heresy or to re-establish the pope in his authority, that ‘Alcuin uses these expressions. : Tt seems to me quite unquestionable that we ate here in the presence of an obvious indication. CChaites is master of almost the whole of westeta Christendom and Rome : | itself is subject to his protectorate. He is more than a king; his states form a whole which may well deserve to be qualified ‘empire’: the under- lying idea is that Charlemagne must be emperor. | 45The imperial coronation of Charlemagne en Alcuin begs him to interfere in favout of Leo III he shows him the Holy See humiliated, the imperial throne in Byzantium vacant and he proclaims that on Charles, the king of the Franks, chief of the ‘Christian foil’, rests the safeguarding of the Chusch’s highest interests | "That character of guatdian of the faith, protector of the Church, was precisely the one which ecclesiastical tradition attributed—indeed quite rbitrarily—to the Roman emperor; Gregory the Gzeat, in whose writings ‘Alenin had been steeped, is categorical in this respect. Tn the eyes of ‘Alcuin it appeared a necessity for the sake of the Church that there should be an emperor, successor of the Christian Roman emperors,” who would end the scandals and above all prevent new on ) Te Alcuin has expressed these ideas with particular force, he certainly was not the only one to think as he did. Ir would be strange if Arn, one of his most faithful correspondents, had had no notion of the kind. We have reason to believe that another of his correspondents, Angilbert, abbot of Saint-Riquier and familiar of Charlemagne as well as declared Joyer of one of his daughters, shared the same ideas.?* We must also remember the insertion in cettain liturgical prayers of the name of the king of the Franks next to that of the emperor and of the Regnum Francoram text to the Imperium Romanum and their association in tho defence of the Christian world against pagans and in the maintenance of peace. In Francia towards the end of the eighth century these prayers must have familiarised many a cleric with the idea that the actual power of theit king and the way in which he used it, fitted in eather well ‘with the (3 appointed to the imperial institution.” Did Alcuin and :he other ‘imperialists’ succeed in convincing Charle- me of theit views? It certainly was a hard task.) In the frst place tecause other duties may have appeared to him more urgent than to go to Rome in order to settle the affairs of the papacy. Tt was difficule sieo because Chatlemagoe seems to have been prejudiced against the imperial title; he might even have felt some aversion from it. Finally ‘because Charlemagne, in spite of his appetite for learning, lacked intel- Tectual culture ané most likely did not thoroughly grasp what Alcuin and his people meant by the imperial dignity,* a notion which required some slight knowledge of history and theology, even if unso nisticated, sand some capacity of abstraction. ‘And yet Charlemagne decided to go the way that, according to me, aS been pointed to him. =~ ‘Nethe end of the year 799, when Ara had imparted to Alcuin the charges levied against the pope and the anxiety then prevailing in Rome, the necessity for a personal intervention by Charles and for a restoration in ‘yestern Europe cf the imperial power ptoved itself even more urgent never. (i most likely during the stay of Charlemagne in Tours, in the spring 46‘The imperial coronation of Charlemagne of the year 800 and during his own stay at the palace of Aachen in June on the occasion of the council that compelled the hetesiarch Felix to abjure adoptionism, that Alcuin managed to convince the kind\ Perhaps he succeeded by using the ‘hegemoniac’ notion of the conte very vast kingdom which was not contained by rigorous frontiers ese notions were familiar to the Anglo-Saxon Alcuin® and they might have been accessible to the tealistic mind of Charlerhagne, mostly impressed by s of power. Cohaslemagne started for Italy some time after the assembly of Mainz, which took place in August. I think that I have shown elsewhere that at the end of summer or at the beginning of autumn, Alcuin knew that this expedition must lead to the restoration of the imperial dignity in favour of his master How did things happen in Rome? The pope whom Charlemagne had re-established on his throne was surrounded by enemies and soon was compelled to clear himself publicly of the accusations brought forward against him.(He was but a toy in the hands of the Frankish king and of his counsellors.” He would certainly not have been in a position to oppose the realisation of a scheme which Charlemagne had adopted) His interests moreover were quite different: he might well believe that an emperor would efficiently protect him, and besides, he had always been compliant towards Charles.3# He might also have found pleasure in removing any suggestion of subordination to Byzantium.(One must admit that Leo IIT showed himself quite willing to take his share in the events: . ‘The leading part belongs, acording to me, to a few Frankish clerics of the royal circle, namely, I take it, to Arn and to Alcuin’s confidential agents, whom he had sent to Rome: Witto-Candidus, Fridugis-Nathanael and other monks of St Martin’s of Tours.4° Thanks to their interference, the ideals of Alcuin and of the other ‘imperialist clerics’ won the day.4! y sat together in the council with other ecclesiastics, Frankish, Lombard and Roman. Thete wete very strenuous debates,* which resulted in the oath by which on 23 December, the pope justified himself. After this on the same day, the council and ‘the whole Christian folk’. t is to say the Franks and the Lombatds as well as the Romans—decided that Charlemagne must be made emperor. Was not the imperial throne occupied by a criminal woman, vacant? Were not Rome, capital of the Caesars, Italy, Gaul and Germany in his possession? Charlemagne accepted: ibe imperial dignity for western Europe had been testored in his favour on that very day) Thete only remained the ceremony at which this Was to be celebrated. On 25 December at St Peter’s, according to the tules that were known in Rome, but which the king and the Franks ignored and did not care about," Chatles was tegularly elected by the ‘Roman people’ expressing theif will by the way of ritual acclamations.®® 47‘The imperial coronation of Charlemagne Ce before these had sounded, the pope had himself crowned the new peror. Like many weak characters, Leo III had played a crooked game. ‘Through his gesture, which could be understood as a symbolic livery, as a fraditio, he had given the imptession that it was he who had invested Charlemagne with the imperial Genin There lies, in my opinion, the reason for the great displeasure shown by Charlemagne,” the reason for which he hesitated during several months to adorn himself with the imperial tide in his diplomas#® and for which he refused to adopt.the one which had appeared in the acclamations: imperafor Romanorus. 0 fe did not wish to seem as if he held his empire from the especially not from a pope who, owed him so much*? and had tal ‘hen in the palace church of Aachen, on 1x September 813, he himself _ctowned his son Louis, emperor —or pethaps ordered him to take the crown from the altar and to put it on his head—without any interference of either pope or clergy, he are) how to his liking things should have taken place on 25 December 800, There is no doubt to me that Charlemagne has been considered, and. has considered himself, as a Roman emperor, the successor of the Christian Roman emperors,® of Constantine the Great and his heirs. His authority however, extendec over tertitories of which some, like the greater part of his possessions beyond the Rhine, had not been part of the Imperim Romanuys. Because it was for all the territories over which his power extended that he had become emperot, it is all his subjects that in the year 802 had to take ar, oath of allegiance to him in his capacity of emperor.* ‘This did not preventhim from keeping histitles of king of the Pranks and of the Lombards; these titles alone were significant of a real political power. Did he, in the yeat 800, also become emperor of the countries submitted to the Basileus of Byzantium? One might have admitted® it all the more so as one of the teasons put forward in favour of his elevation to his new dignity was the vacancy in the imperial throne. Perhaps for a while in the East, such an attempt by him scemed possible. But he himself does not appear to have contemplated such a thing. His empire was a Western Christian and Roman empire and on the day on which he could, in the year 812, constrain the emperor of Byzantium to xecognise his new imperial dignity, the notion of empite ceased to be one of unique and universal authority.” NOTES The David Mutray Lecture No. 16, Glasgow, 1949- 1. Le Moyen Age, 1930. See also chapter xvur in F. Lot, C, Pfister, F. L. Ganshof, Les Destinées de Empire en Occident de 395 4 488, 2nd edn (Paris, 1940-1). 48‘The isperial coranation of Charlemagne 2, J. F. Bohme:E, Miihlbacher, Diz Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter den Karoline gern, 2nd eda (Innsbruck, 1908), 799-800. Aleuini epistolae, no. 184, MGH Epist., 1v, p. 309. Annales Laureshamenses, 801, ed. G. H. Pertz, MGH SS, 1, p. 38. Binhard, Vita Karoli, xxviii, ed. O, Holder-Egger (Hanover, 1911), p. 32. ‘The others will be quoted in the footnotes only. A. Kleinclausz, Charlemagne (Paris, 193.4). L. Halphen, Charlemagne ot Pempire carolingien (Paris, 1947). L, Levillain, ‘Le couronnement impétial de Charlemagne’, Revue d'histoire de PEglive de France (1932). 10. H. Hirsch, ‘Det mittelalterliche Kaisergedanke in dea liturgischen Gebeten’, MIOG, xxv (1930). 11. E. Pfeil, Die frankisehe und deutsche Romidee des frithen Miticlalters (Munich, 1929). 12, E, Caspar, ‘Das Papsttum unter friinkischer Herrschaft’, ZKG, 1935. 15. M, Liatwel, ‘Das abendlindische Kaisertum im 9, und vo. Jahrhundert’, Die Welt als Geschichte, w (1938). 14. EB, E. Stengel, “Kaisertitel und Suveriinititsidee’, Devtsches Arcbio fiir Geschichte des Mittelalters, 1m (1939). 15. Lowe, Der Karolingische Reiehegedanke 1, der Sidosten (Stuttgart, 1937). CE. my review in Reewe belge de Philologie ot d’ Histoire, xvit (1938). 16. On this point I very nearly agree with Kleinclausz, op. cit., 290-1, Halpben, op. cit, 123-5, Levillain, op. cit,, 12-13. Stengel, op. cit., 26 # and Lowe, op. cit., 137-43, also lay stress on the prominent patt played by Alcuin. It is the same with E, Amann, L’Epogue carolingienne (Patis, 1937), 158, J. Calmette, Charlemagne (Patis, 1945), 126, W. Levison, England and toe Continent in the Fighth Century (Oxford, 1946), 122-3, F, Lot, ‘Le concept @empixe a Pépoque catolingienne’, Mercure de France, occ (1947), 416. 17. On this subject see A. Kleinclausz, Alcuin (Patis, 1948). 18, See in particular the lettets of Alcuin nos. 107, 110, 112, 113, 136, 137, 145, 146, 148, 149, 160, 164, 166, T71, 172, 173, MGH Epics, 1. 19. Letters of Alcuin, nos. 175, 174, 177, 178, 179, 181. Alcuin’s attachment to the Holy See and devotion to the pope are testified by several of his letters in 798, among other nos. 146, 149, 56, 159. . Halphen, op. cit., 124. Letters nos. 136 (under the fortn custo christianitatis imperio), 148, 177, 185, 200, 202, 234, 245, 249. On the populus christiais, see the letters nos. 174, 177, 178, 217. The ‘geo graphical” meaning of inzperium christianum is particularly clear ia letter n0. 185, where its frontiers are mentioned and in the letters nos. 202 and 234 where Aleuin alludes to a tetritory. These observations are sufficient to dismiss the views of Liwe, op, cit., 137-43 who refuses to give the imperium christian any meaning except a putely religious one. The ‘geographical’ meaning of this expression has been rightly underlined by Caspat, op. cit,, 218 and by Pfeil, op. cit., 99-100. 23. See, for example, the letter no. 177 written during the summer 799 to Charlemagne and begging him to interfere in favout of the pope: O daleissine, decns populi christiani, 0 defensio ecclesiarnm Christi, consolatio vitae Pen ayey 20. 2a, ES 2: B 49‘The imperial coronation of Charlemagne 25. 26. 27. 28, 50 pracsentis. Quibus nar beatitudinen omnibus necessarium est votis exaltare, intercessionibus adinvare, guatenus per vestram prosperitatem christianum ineatur imporinan, fides catholica defendatur, institian regula omnibus jnnotescats letter peeves, waitien in 809 to Charlemagne about the adoptionist heresy: Vestra vero sancta voluntas atque a Deo ordinata potestas catholicam atque apostoli- cane fiden wbique defondat; ae vehi aris imperium christianum fortiter dilatare Vaborah, ita of apostolicae fide: veritatem defendere . . . studeat. _ Besides the letters quoted in the preceding note, the letter no. 148 (adop- tionist heresy). Letter a0. 174, written in June 799: Nam tres pertonas in mundo altissime Prcnsque fuerant: id est apastolica siblimitas, quae beati Petri principis aposto- Torun sede vicario wumere regere soled; quid vero in eo actu sit, qui rector pragfate sedis fucrat, mibi vneranda bonitas vesira innotescere curavit. Alia est imperialis dignitas et secundae Romae secnlaris potentia; quam impic gubernaior imperii illins depositus sity nom ab alienis, sed a propriis ef concioibus, wbigue fama narrante vrebreccit. Tertia est regalis dignitas, in gua vas Domini nostri Jesu Christi dispensatio rectorem populi cbristiani disposuit, ceteris prasfatis dignitatibns potentia exccellen= viorem, saptentia clariorem, ren diguitate sublimiorem. Bees in t solo tola salus ecclesiarnm Christi inclinata recumbit. Pfcil, op. cit., 106-7 considers that ‘Alcuin, having ia this letter placed the king of the Franks above the emperor must not have thought it indispensable to bestow 2 higher title on Charles. ‘This is a sophism; the superiosity of Charles derives from the fact that the imperial throne had been dishonoured by an usurpation. Pe Labriolle, in P. de Labriolle, G. Bardy, L. Beéhier, G. de Plinval, De ja mort de Tltodose 2 Pélection de Grégoire le Grand (Patis, 1937), 3603 H. Acquillitre, L? Axgustinisme politiqne (Patis, 1934)) 72-825 Kleinclausz, “Alesiit, 235 95, 14-5 187s 118, 135, 211, 252 2386 ‘Alcuin in two letters of 801 of of 802 (nos 245 and 249) gives the Roman emperors as predecessors of Charlemagne, chief of the inyperian christianum ns the notion of izzperium christianum was previous to the imperial crowning, ‘one could not date from here the filiation between it and the christian Roman empire. Kleinclausz, Alcain 246, has emarked with reason that the Christian Roman empire was, in the eyes of the people in the eighth century, a histotical reality. Pfeil, op. cit, ror-r0, Caspar, op. cit., 248 and Lowe, op. cit, 137-43 minimise the Roman filiation in the imperium christiannm by insisting on the pagan chatacter of the Roman empice, but they neglect the fact that in the fourth century the Roman empire had become Christian, As to ‘Aleuin’s lettet on the three powers (no. 174, see above, 2. 25) which has been invoked by the first two of these scholars to suppott theit views, it simply opposes Charles, chief of the populus ebristiams to the actual un- aworthy occupies of the imperial throne at Byzantium: it does not oppose the imperium christiannm to the Roman empire of Constantine or Theodosius. See among others the poem Karolus Magnus et Leo Papa, which is attributed to him (ed. H. Diimmler, MGH Poetae aevi carolini, 1, pp. 366-79). Tt contains views similar to those which we have noted in Alcuin’s letters; the term Angatus used substantively, is three times applied to Charles (v.94 33% 406).The imperial coronation of Charlemague 29, See in particular Hirsch, op. cit. 4-8. G. Tellenbach, ‘Rémischer und christlicher Reichsgedanke in dex Liturgie des frithen Mittelalters’, Sitgungsherichts der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften (PhilHist, Kl., 1934-5), 30-3, gets the exact notion of snperium christianuor and judges correctly the fact that the king of the Franks and the Regnam Francorum are mentioned in the liturgical texts; nevertheless he does not see any ditect connection between on one side the mention of the ‘Christian empire’ and the attribution to the king of the Franks of the same duties as the emperor discharged, and on the other side the re-establishment of the imperial dignity in favour of Charlemagne. 30, Above all the affairs of Saxony, in spite of the efforts made by Alcuin to persuade him to let them wait till after the settlement of the Roman crisis; see the letters nos 174, 177, 178 (to Charles), 207 (to Arn). Caspar shares the same opinion, op cit., 226. ‘The testimony of Einhard (VK, xxviii: quod—i.c. imperatoris et angusti nomen—primo in tantum aversatus est . ..) in any case allows one to assert that Charlemagne was not much attracted by the imperial title. The force with which, concerning the image worship, the Libri Carolini, most likely written about 792 under the ditect inspiration of Charles, attack the em- perors of Byzantium and blame the Roman empire fot the worship paid to images of the emperors (iii, 15; ed. H. Bastgen, MGH, Concilia, 1, suppl., p- 135) points to the same conclusion. It appeats mote importast still when one knows that Charlemagne dictated the energetic approval mire that was written down in tironian notes in regard to that passage; W. von den Steinen, ‘Karl der Grosse und die Libri Carolini,’ Newes Arcbiv, x11x (1932), 256-7, Calmette op. cit., 124~5 has noted the doubts which the familiats of Charlemagne seemed to have about his position towards the imperial dignity. 32. Very judicious remark of H. Pirenne, Histoire de Europe des Invasions an XVe sitcle (Patis and Brussels, 1936), 52. 33. Letter of Alcuin no, 184, 34. See for example his Vita Willibrordi, i, 23, ed. W. Levison, MGH SS. rer, Merov., vay, p. 133. 35. It is only in this very pacticular aspect that one might agree with the views of Léwe and Stengel indicated previously p. 44. Levison, op. cit., pp. 121-5 also to some extent adopts the same opinion. 36. See my article ‘La révision de la Bible par Alcuin’, Bibliotheque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, 1X, 1947, translated above, Ch, IIL. My views are opposed to thosc;of Pfeil, op. cit., ro9 and of Stengel, op. cit., 26. 37. ‘This has formerly been particularly brought forward by L. Halphen in his Eudes critiques sur histoire de Charlemagne (Paris, 1921), 221-3. 38. It is enough to refer to Caspat, op. cit., 215 aad following and to Halphen, Charlemagne, 121 and following. We must however recall here the mosaics which had been placed by Leo II in the teiclinium of the Lateran and which showed thar, according to him, Charlemagne was a new Constantine; see above all, P. E, Schramm, Die Deutschen Kaiser und Kinige in Bildern ibrer Zeit (Leipzig, 1928), 1, 27-9, Plate 4, a-m. 39. A quite secondary part. ‘The pope's position in Rome did not allow him to take the initiative in important matters such as the raising of Charlemagne Ce 31.The imperial coronation of Charlemagne 45. 46. to the imperial dignity. On this point I have different views from those of Caspar, op. cit. 231, Pfeil, op. cit, ror, Lintzel, op. cit., 424-5, A. Boanaud-Delamare, Lidée de paix a Pépoque carolingieme (Patis, 1939), 166-8, K. Hampe, Herrscbengestalien des deutschen Mitzelalters, 2nd edition (Leipzig, 1933), 53-6, E. H. Kantorowiez, Laudes regiae (Berkeley, 1946), 63, G. Osttogorsky, Geschichte des byzantinischen States (Munich, 1940), 128, Pirenne, op. cit., 52, Tellenbach, op. cit,, 33. The ideas of H. Dannenbauer, “Zum Kaisertum Katls des Grossea und seiner Nachfolger’, ZKGxi1x (1930), 304-5, and of J. Haller, Dar Papsttum, u, 1 (Stuttgart, 1936), 17-18 which strictly follow Heldmann, are incompatible with my view of the matter. . Letters of Alcuin nos 178, 211, 215, 216, 261 and 262 (about these two letters sce my article quoted above, n. 36)- . My views are very similar to those of Levillain, op. cit, 11-12 aad of Kleinclusz, Alain, 259-60. The mystery which covers the negotiations has been pointed out by Amann, op. cit., 158 and by Halphen, op. cit., 219. My explanction of the facts is justified by the concordance between Alcuin’s position and the decision taken by the Roman synod. . Echo in Alcuin’s letter no. 212. "The Annales Laareshamenses ate to me the most important source and it is their testimony that I reproduce, Levillain, op. cit., 8-9 and especially Dannenbauet, 00. cit., 305, 2. 1, have shown that in this case it is a strictly contemporary source which is exceptionally well informed. The Liber Pontificalis and the Royal Annals, less contemporary sources of an official character, do not deserve the same confidence; theit authors have had reasons which we may guess, to hush up certain events. Theit silence does not justify the reserve with which the Avs. Layresh. have been considered by Amana, op. cit., 162, Halphen, op. cit., 131-32 and Kleinclausz, Charle- magne, 403-4, Alenin, 259. Not docs it justify the attitude taken by Pfeil, op. cit., 115, who only considers their account to be a Frankish interpreta- tion of the events. As to Dannenbauer, convinced that Heldmann’s views were correct, he accuses the author of the Am, Lauresh. of having com- mitted a deliberate lic (op. cit,, 305-6) because his views ate in contradiction of Dannenbauer’s own way of thinking! . One wonders how Dannenbauer can be convinced that Charles was per- fectly cleat about the juridical foundation of his imperial dignity (op. cit., 305). Lowe, op. cit,, 159, is right when he states that the coronation was a revolutionary act which cannot exactly fit into the framework of the Roman law. And, besides, what was exactly the state of the Roman law in Rome at the end of the eighth century? Heldmann, desetves credit for having made out that these acclamations constituted, according to the law, the act that confetred the imperial dignity. Dannenbauer, op. cit. 306, and Lowe, op. cit., 157-9, tightly observe that it is the practical act of the coronation which must have most deeply imptessed the Franks, who were ignorant of Roman public law. The Chronicon Moissiacense (MGH SS. 1, p. 310) xelating the imperial coronation of Louis the Pious in 813 writes that Charlemagne per coronan auream dvadidit ei imperium.The imperial coronation of Charlemagne 47. The fact that the pope crowned him, rather than the fact that the corona- tion preceded the acclamation—as suggests Levillain, op. cit., 13-19— which in the eyes of the Franks was a circumstance without importance. In any case Charlemagne’s irritation was not caused by his own accession to the imperial dignity but rather by the pope’s attitude. On this matter I agree with Arquillitre, op. cit, 109, Bonnaud-Delamare, op. cit., 164-5, Caspar, op. cit., 233-4, Lowe, op. cit., 158-9. I do nor admit the possibility. of explaining Charles’s displeasure by hostility to the ‘Roman’ tradition of the empire (Hampe, op. cit., 56-7, Lintzcl, op. cit, 425): that hostility had already been won over. Further, I do not believe in a dissatisfaction caused by the fear of trouble with Byzantium (Calmette, op. cit., 127-9, Halphen, op. cit., 131-3, Lot, op. cit., 416-17): on the contrary, the taking of the imperial title allowed Charlemagne to assert, evea mote clearly than in the past, that he was the cqual of the Basileus reigning in Byzantium, as Lintzel has remarked, op. cit., 425. 48. It is known that the definitive imperial title appears for the first time in a diploma of 29 May 801 (ed, E, Mublbacher, MGH, Dipfomata Karolinorum, no. 197). In the meanwhile Charlemagne wore for a short time the title rest Francorum et Romanorum adque Langobardorum (ibid, no. 196, and Formulae Morbacenses, n0. 5, ed. K. Zeumer, MGH, Formulae). 49. ‘These acclamations (ARF, same year) were only according to him, an accessory part of the coronation, The icritation produced by the way in which things had taken place on 25 December explains the fact that Chatle- magne only consented finally to a roundabout formula: imperator Romanum gwbvernans imperium. Wt said the same as the other formula but did not make use of the words which had become odious to Charles. Certain scholars have tried to discover a particular meaning about this formula, but their efforts seem to be in vain, so. As has been very justly remarked by Pirenne, op. cit., 52. 51. Te must be noted also that the assembly of the proceres regni who in spring 813 ‘asked’ Charles to make his son emperor, played a part similar to the Roman synod—assembly attended also by laymen—of the year 8co who ‘asked’ Charles to accept for himself the imperial dignity. 52. This results from the title which was chosen (see above, 2. 49); it also results from the testimony of the Annales Laureshamenses (see above n. 43) and of the testimony of Alcuin (see above, n. 27) and also from the fact thet Charlemagne, as emperor, applying the Roman law, was himself a judge of the leaders of the plot of 799 (ARF, 801). One might also quote the golden bull with the engraving, supposed to be due to Charlemagne, of the following words: Rencvatio Roman() Imp(orii), if it is authentic as believes Schramm (op. cit., 1, 31-3, Plate 7, a-d) and Kaiser, Rom n, Renmatio (Leipzig, 1929), 1, 42. The empire conceived above all as an expression of Germanic sclfconsciousness (Lowe, op. cit., 164) is a conception of which the origin is not to be found in the texts. The Roman and Christian chatacter of Chatlemagune’s empire has been rightly emphasised by Arquilliére, op. cit., 106-7, Halphen, op. cit., 129-30, Hirsch, loc, cit., Kantorowicz, op. cit, 63, Kleinclausz, Charlemagne, 307, Leviliain, op. cit., 11-13, Lot, op. cit., 416, Ostrogorsky, op. cit, 128, Pitenne, op. cit., $2, Schramm, Kaiser, S : : 53"The imperial coronation of Charlemagne 54 Ron n. Renovatio, t, 12-15, A. Vasiliew, Histoire de Empire Byzantin, x (Patis, 3932), 353- . One must insist on the fact that it is a Christian Roman empire which is implied; it was meant to protect and extend faith and Church, to realise the ‘Augustinian’ conception of the City of God: a completely clerical conception. Itis thus natural that Alcuin (letter no. 218) hearing the news of the imperial coronation, should write to his friend Arn expressing his joy, but at the same time asking for information about the fate of the pope and the decisions of the synod concerning the state of the Church and the strengthening of the faith and that he recommends the giving up of the Beneventine wer. In his idea, the empire should shelter the Church from the return of such calamitics which they were then trying to’ cure; as to war between Christians, it was contrary to that peace which the empire must enforce and it might divert the emperor from duties more consistent with his mission. Coapitulare missorum generale of 802, c. ii (MGH Cap., 1, no. 35). This excludes the conception of Heldmann and those who followed him, according to whom the act of 25 December in the year 800 only bestowed imperial power upon Charlemagne over the few western iettitories which were still, theoretically or practically, dependent on the emperors reigning in Byzantium, There is no reason to admit, with Lintzel, op. cit., 428-9, that the measuses adopted in $02 marked a second stage in the conception of the empire. . Owing to the fact that the empize was unique in the opinion of Charles's contemporaries, Lot, op. cit., 416, Ostrogorsky, op. cit., 127-8, Vasiliev, op. cit,, 1, 353, belicve that in the eyes of Charles and of the pope, the power of the new emperor took the place of Irene’s authority. Pfeil, op. cit., 115, seems to me to be nearer the truth when she interprets the passage already mentioned in the Annales Laureshamenses (see above, p. 47) a8 the affirmation that the empercr created in Rome might even assert his rights in Byzantium. . There is no proof of this in the texts. Further, I do not believe that Chatles’s conquest of the Middle Danube countties had any influence on the imperial coronation, as suggested by A. Brackmann, ‘Die Anfinge der Slavenmission u, die Renovatio Imperii des Jahres 800°, Sitgemgsherichte der Preuss. Akad. d. Wissensch. (Phil-Hist. KL, 1931). None of the texts quoted by this scholar justifies his opinion. . L became only quite recently acquainted with the important work of W. Ohnsorge, Das Zutikaiserproblem im fritberen Mittelalter, Hildesheim, i947. Twill review this book in Le Moyen Age.V. Charlemagne’s programme of imperial government’ HERE should be no need to apologise for the appearance of a paper with the above title in a collection devoted to the complex of events leading up to the Renovatio Imperii of the tenth century. In the march of those Stone (Cimetagee’s tapes coronation can surely be tegarded as a very important staging post\\Such, at any rate, is the opinion of P. E. Schramm, who has done more than anyone to define the Renovatia, elucidate its precise meaning and plot its course of development.! Once this view is accepted, we ate free to enquire what place th€idea of Renovatio Imperii occupied in the new emperor's programme of goveriifhent, 2 question which can only be answered at the conclusion of this present seady?) First, something must be said of the circumstances in which the pro- gramme originated. Charlemagne returned to Francia in the summer of Bor, and took up residence in his palace at Aachen. ‘There he celebrated Christmas 801, Easter and Christmas 802, and Easter 803. The only times he left Aachen during this period were in the summer and autumn of 802, when he went hunting in the Ardennes and the Vosges. This departure from habit struck contemporaties as unusual, The annalist of Lorsch records under the year 802: ‘In this year the lord emperor Charles stayed peacefully in his palace of Aachen with his Franks and undertook no military campaiga.”* ‘This long period of quiet calls for comment. We must, I think, accept that Charlemagne, whose intellectual culture was somewhat limited, had rather hazy ideas about the significance of the imperial dignity he had just acquited. That he saw it as a reinforcement to his royal power seems to me certain But that was not the whole story. While he was in Rome, people had no doubt taken advantage of that unique setting to expound to him the conception of the imperial function then current in cultivated 55Charlemagne s programme of imperial government ecclesiastical citcles: it would have been put to him that the emperor, as successor to the Christian Roman emperors, possessed a universal authority which he ought to use for the protection and promotion of the Christian teligion and the Chutch.® Moreover this was the idea cherished by Alcuin, whose influence over Charlemagne at that junctute was con- siderable.® There seemis to me little doubt that Charlemagne spent the last months of So and the early part of 802 coming to grips with the transformation in his power: or to put it more concretely, in trying to determine what new responsibilities had devolved on him and how best to discharge them. Enfightenment came to him through prayer and meditation, through discussion with members of his entourage, and through correspondence with Alcuin, abbot of St Martin’s of Tours.’ The outcome was a series of measutes we have now to examine. In March 802 there was a meeting of the diet at Aachen, followed by the despatch of missi to all parts of the empire.’ Conteaty to the usual practiea, the missi were chosen not from the vassals of limited means and lower rank who served in the palace but from the ecclesiastical and lay atisto- cacy of atchbishops, bishops, abbots, dukes and counts, who would be ess open to corruption. Their main charge was to enquite into existing abuses and where possible put an end to them, if necessary with help from local authorities;? but they also had other tasks, which will be mentioned shortly. ‘As was the usual practice, the miss! were given a written document in support of their oral instructions, which it noted in summary and some- times allusive form: a capitulare missorum1° The text of this document sutvives in four versions intended for four different missatica (the area within which the miss performed their duty of inspection); but traces have been discovered of a fifth and sixth version, prepared for two other missatica’ The instructions given to the missi, as known to us from the capitulare missorum, zefcr implicitly to another and much fuller document, which it would be rash to assert all the missi cartied with them. This fuller document can be identified as a capitulary which used to be regarded —mistakenly—as a capitulare missorsim generale. A more appropriate title is ‘programmatic capitulary’, and it is to this document we must now turn.™ ‘The document is known to us from a single manuscript, Paris, Latin 4613. The text it gives is a very poor copy, derived no doubt indirectly from an archetype itself full of errors. in several places the sense is extremely hard to follow The form of wording also calls for comment. In most of the articles the third person is used throughout, with just an occasional switch to the first person when reference is made to the emperot.1® These, however, are interspersed with articles written in the third person but with additions made in the first person; this is notably the case in articles where the emperor’s feeling of personal esponsibility is 56Charlemagne’s programme of imperial government brought into play.1* Finally, there are articles, some of them highly personal and emotional in tone, which use the first person throughout: for example, those which deal with hospitality, homicide and incest.” All this suggests not only multiple authorship but also the distinct possibility that some of the first person additions, and the wording of the first petson articles in which the personal and emotional overtones are strong, may be due to the emperor’s own intetvention:!8 the draft as submitted may well have failed to satisfy him as a reflection of his forth- tight utterances in the diet and led him to repeat them. with some vigour, not to say vehemence; these fresh pronouncements would then be trans. lated by the drafters into Latin and put into mote ot less proper form for insertion into the capitulary. If this is what happened, the text of the capitulary brings us close not only to the emperor’s advisers but also to Charlemagne himself. Despite the valuable information to be derived from other texts—the capitulare missorum of 802 for example, and passages in the annals relating to that year #—for our present purpose these are complementary sources. ‘The chief source is the programmatic capitulary, which is of such prime importance that we must begin with a brief review of its general structure, The first azticle (c. i) is introductoty and indicates the scope of the mission confided to the missi dominiti, Next we have a group of articles (c. ii-ix) dealing with a new oath of fidelity to be taken to the emperor, ‘This is followed by a second group, devoted to church matters (c. x-xxiv), A thitd group (c. xxv-xxxix), while not completely without method, displays considerably less coherence than the two previous groups; it also bears more traces than the second group of revisions made in draft- ing For the moment, the provisions of this third group can be labelled ‘various’. A final article (c. xl) setves as conclusion. ‘Having traced in its broad outlines the external history of Charlemagne’s ptogramme of government, we can turn to its internal history; I shall now attempt an account of the programme itself, stressing what seems to me its essential characteristics. One main element in the programme confronts us at the outset, namely the despatch of the missé dominici,® To initiate the new regime, it was neces- sary to lay down and enforce rules of conduct to be observed in the future, to confirm and apply rules alzeady in force, but most of all to eradicate existing abuses. Jt was to this task of purification that the missi were to devote their energies, As we have already seen, the commissioners were drawn from the highest Church and lay dignitaries of the realm, with the additional precaution that the laymen were chosen for their piety;% it was hoped that missi of this standing would be conscientious in the performance of their duties and resist efforts to corrupt them or to deflect them from the right road. ‘The first atticle of the capitulary defines the task assigned to the missi, 57Charlemagne’s programme of imperial governnient and its testimony is corroborated by the account given in the Annales Lasireshamenses. The missi were to concentrate on making the following precepts become practice. Everyone, it is said, has the ight and duty to live according to the law; no one should violate the law, or evade its prescriptions by cunaing® "The law (recta lex) which the capitulary had chiefly in mind was the ‘national’ law proper to cach individual; but it is highly probable that the legislative and administrative ptovisions cositained in the capitularies were also included. No one should encroach on tights belonging to the king, to chusches, to the poor ot other miserabiles personae, ot in general on the tights of his neighbour.” Everyone, cletics and laymen alike, should order theit lives following the commandments of God and observe the rules of conduct proper to thei status. ‘The missi are iastructed in the steps they should take to carry out their immediate tesk: they must investigate complaints, take note of the existing situation and where possible remedy abuses, sitting jointly with the counts of their missaticum; abuses beyond theit power to remedy must be reported in wsiting to the emperor, so that he may deal with them himsel£ ‘They are also to repott in writing on any gaps and defects they have found in the laws, so that the emperor may effect some improve- ment.2° Lastly, they are to publish the regulations contained in the capi- tulaty and see that they are enforced. . ‘As the second element in the programme we have the imposition of new oath. Its administration is left to the miss, who are required to explain the meaning of the oath to the emperor's subjects. ‘This is an oath they have already sworn themselves, in the ptesence of the emperor.** ‘We are told that the new oath is to be taken to che emperor as emperor, nominis Cavsaris, and that it is obligatory on all subjects over the age of twelve, not excluding those who have alzeady sworn an oath to Charle- magne as king, regis nomine 'This distinction underlies the difference between the two dignities, showing how much the imperial dignity was superiot to the royal, from which it differed fundamentally. ‘The new oath is described as an oath of fidelity. But we find that on this occasion the notion of fidelity has itself been revised and extended. The traditional idea of fidelity had heen essentially negative. It consisted in refraining from cettain actions: threatening the life of the king (or emperor), introducing enemies into the kingdom with malicious intent, consenting to, or concealing, the infidelity of another. This did not go far enough.” The oath-takers of 802 had to learn from the missi that fidelity was something much greater, that it included many more, and more positive, obligations than was commonly believed.’8 The obligations comprised in the new conception of jidelifas ate set out in. the capitulary, in a series of articles I now summarise; certain essential passages will be found quoted in full in the notes. 58Charlemagne’s programme of imperial government Fidelitas imposes on every man the duty to maintain himself in the setvice of God and the accomplishment of God’s will, the cleric according to his vows or promises, the layman according to his intelligence and strength (c. iii).29 The man who is faithful will not deptive the emperor of his serfs or lands, or assist fugitive fiscales who try to pass themselves offas fee (c. iv) #0 He will do no injury to churches, to méserabiles personae or to pilgrims (c. v)41 He will not appropriate benefices he holds from the emperor to add to his allodial possessions (c. vi). He will obey the summons to the host; cotrespondingly, counts will not dispense from this obligation those who bring, ot tty to bring, pressure to beat on them (c, vii), A man. who is faithful will unreservedly submit to the emperor’s banaum, and to any other manifestations of the emperot’s will; he will pay or deliver to the emperor everything he owes by way of quit-rent (census) or other dues (c. viii). He will refrain from unjustly upholding the guilty party in a court case so as to pervert the ends of justice (c. ix). Fidelity thus imposes not only the duty of refraining from certain traditionally proscribed actions but also certain positive obligations: obedience to the divine precepts, to the commands of Christian charity; obedience to the emperot’s orders, and respect for imperial property; performance of military service and promotion of the regular course of justice We shall find these various preoccupations cropping up else- where. Along with imposing on his subjects a new, mote positive, and above all more comprehensive, conception of fidelity, Charlemagne also im- posed on them new formulae in which to swear it, Two of these formulae, very similar in wording, have come down to us as appendages to one of the surviving texts of the capitulare missorum* They were formulae used by vassals to take their own oath of fidelity; but this does not mean that all the emperor’s subjects automatically became his vassals, since to become a varsur dominieus it was also necessaty to go through the ceremony of commendatio per manus? But an oath taken in such terms bound anyone who swore it to a more exacting loyalty, a greater fidelity: in fact to a fidelity and devotion not far short of the absolute fidelity and devotion demanded of the vassal. It was a formula more in keeping with the new and mote rigorous conception of fidelity which had just been introduced. When we compare the new formulae with the formula used 789-93,!8 we discover that they are more explicitly religious in character; they also expressly indicate that 2 person who took the oath thereby bound himself to the defence of the emperot’s rights and the protection of the realm.5¢ “We turn now to the third and fourth elements in the programme, repre- sented by the provisions of the capitulary which in our initial survey 59Charlemagne s programnie of imperial government were classified as ‘relating to church matters’ and ‘various’! These dispositions mingle new regulations with others promulgated on some previous occasion, which are now renewed, confirmed, aid in some cases amplified; the drafters of the capitulary intend it to be talsen as a whole. ‘These various elements will now be analysed, and an attempt made to characterise particular features. ‘The most striking feature is the markedly religious character of the programme. But this generalisation does not take us very far, and it will be more fruitful to discuss the religious aspect under its various manifestations. First and foremost we have the emperot’s sense of his augmented and “intensified sesponstbility before God; the way he discharges it will dictate what reward ot punishment he receives in the next world. The emperor is responsible, naturally enough, for his own actions; but he is also tesponsible—and this cannot be too greatly sttessed—for the actions and attitudes of his subjects. He should see that each of his subjects is in- structed in his duty to God and performs it; since it is physically impos- sible for the emperor to do this in person, the subject has to be made responsible for himself in this respect, as part of the fidelity he owes to the emperor. The emperor has a special duty to protect churches and miserabiles personae, Since he must answer to God for their wellbeing, it devolves on all his subjects, again as part of the fidelity they owe him, to see that they come to no hatm.%® If the emperor's actions result in all his subjects doing as they should, both he and they will reap an eternal reward. » ‘We find the emperor's responsibility for the actions and attitudes of others stated even more plainly in passages which deal with persons who exercise authority under him. A particularly forceful statement rounds off some trenchant reminders to lay and ecclesiastical authorities” on the sub- ject of aarivas et conordia pacis, stressing the hatmony which should prevail between them, the need to order their lives according to the will of God and to see that justice is always done and miserabiles personae supported and protected: all matters of vital importance, because the emperor’s eternal rewatd is at stake.®* ‘he same idea is at the back of exhortations to ecclesiastics in authority, to the effect that bishops, abbots and abbesses \ should appoint only conscientious and upright men as agents of their authority, that bishops and abbots should recommend only the most deserving monks for major orders; Chatlemagne’s fate in the next world depends on the attitude and conduct of churchmen who wield authority in this. ~ . ‘As Alcuin expressed it, in a letter written to Charlemagne in that same year, $02, the emperor was the one who should know and ordain what was pleasing to God. And it was for the emperor to see that God’s will was done. 60Charlemagns’s programme of imperial government Preoccupation with ecclesiastical and religious matters crops up every- where in the programme, In the first place, as alteady noted, the program- matic capitulary has a group of fifteen articles devoted exclusively to the proper fanctioning of ecclesiastical institutions. Among them are articles which aim at making the clergy, bishops included, live according to the ‘canons’ ;** in patticular, it is insisted that where possible clerics should lead a common life—a provision which has in mind not only canonici but also in certain cases members of the tural clergy. In other articles there is a call for stricter observance of their rule by monks and nuns, and abbots and abbesses*® are left in no doubt as to their responsibility in the matter: the wording of articles which deplote the disorders and unnatural vices all too prevalent in male religious houses at times becomes quite vehement, no doubt a reflection of the emperor’s strong views on the subject.". Religion enters into other aspects of the programme. As we have seen, it partly dictated the choice of the miss, since the lay commissioners were selected for their piety. The capitulary includes articles dealing with the protection of churches and church property.®® Religious considerations were chiefly responsible for the gteat importance attached to the protec- tion of miserabiles personae," and the same goes for the duty of hospitality, in particular towards pilgrims: the article on this last subject actually quotes the relevant texts from St Matthew’s gospel.” “The article dealing with hospitality comes from the third group, which we originally labelled ‘various’.® A religious motive is equally apparent in other articles of this group, notably those which call—in peremptory terms—for the suppression of three offences: homicide, especially where the victim is the kinsman of the assailant,” incest and othet illicit unions,”* and perjury.” All three were mortal sins: hence the tadical measures taken to eliminate them. Here again, an unusual directness and vehemence in the wording seem to indicate the empetot’s personal interest in com- bating offences against God.7® ‘Throughout his reign Charlemagne had always attached particular importance to questions affecting the ecclesiastical hierarchy.” This concern is equally apparent in his programme of imperial government. Especially noteworthy is the tendency to enlarge the competence of the metropolitan, who is invariably described as archispiscopus.* This marks a further stage in the development of a policy Charlemagne pursued through- out his reign, though it only started to take effect after the council of Frankfurt in 794; by the time he died the te-establishment of metropolitan authority, within the framework of reorganised provinces, was an accom- plished fact." ‘Also worth noting in this respect are some of the regulations concerning monks and nuns, To the emperor’s marked annoyance and disquiet, disorders were still prevalent in monastic establishments, despite many 61 ceCharlemagne’s programme of imperial government previous attempts to deal with the problem, the most recent and notable being the effort made at the council of Frankfurt. The articles in the capitulary which deal with the subject make his policy quite clear:*° autonomy for houses of monks and nuns is discouraged; in several respects, such establishments are placed under the very strict control of the bishop or even the atchbishop.*" This is also the place to mention that so far as provision for regulars is concerned, the drafters of the capitulary have drawn directly on the Rule of St Benedict. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to imagine that all the articles in the programmatic capitulary are wholly or even predominantly religious in character. There are articles in the first and third groups (the group deal- ing with fideitas and the ‘various’ group) which relate to matters in which the religious clement is only secondary, or mote rarely, completely absent. In analysing these articles I shall deal first with the political aspect of the programme. ‘Articles relating to the proper functioning of public institutions are relatively few. The forceful reminder to ecclesiastics and laymen in authority to remain on mutually good tetms has already been mentioned, since it appears in the ‘church group’,® but needs repeating here: a political complex in which the religious and ‘civil’ were as closely intee- mingled as they were in the Carolingian empire depended on good rela- tions of this kind, translated into practical cooperation, if government was to be effective. ‘The fundamental rule requiring all subjects to submit without reserve to the emperor’s bannim, that is his power to issue commands and to punich those who disobeyed, is included-—appropriately, in view of its beating on the matver—among the articles which define the new concept of fidelity. Refusal to submit to the bannum, evasion of the bannum by trickery, attempts to restrict its application, cannot be tolerated.® The drafters have particularly in mind the eight classic situations in which the bannum might be irvoked,* but they do not exclude all the other situations which might prompt the emperor to use it. There is nothing new in all this,£* apart from the fundamental fact that non-obedience will in future automatically count as infidelity tothe emperor: the provision is important as a contribution to the external and intetnal security of the empire. Another rule is really an application of the general principle we have just considered to one of the cight classic cases. No one is to refuse military service once the summons has gone out, and petsons in author- ity, counts in particular, are not to grant unwarranted exemptions, nor petmit the replacement of those unjustifiably exempted by others with no obligation to setve. This again is 2 measure which derives its force from the fact that future contraventions will automatically count as infidelity. The rule is important for the protection it afforded to the minus 62Charlemagne's programme of inperial government potentes, and still more as regards maintaining the quality and strength of the imperial fighting force at an effective level. “Another article, in the ‘various’ group, catets for the need to bring aa adequately equipped fighting force as quickly as possible into the field: all those liable for military service are required to hold themselves and their equipment in a state of instant readiness. Tastly, dispetsed among a number of articles, we find warnings to public and church officials to desist from the’ apparently widespread ptactice of bestowing favours, either as @ means of placating the powerful, ot in exchange for gifts fom individuals (or their protectors) who hoped for such a benefit. In some cases practices of this kind are made acts of infidelity. ‘There is one group of institutions whose working the programme of imperial government, in its political aspect, seems particularly concerned to improve, and in some instances to reform: the institutions connected with justice. ‘The chief object is to guarantee that everyone has an opportunity to claim and exercise his rights under the law; hence a series of measures enjoining a strict regard for the law on the courts. The courts the capi- tulary has chiefly in mind are the courts of ordinary jurisdiction, which for the greater part of the lands under Frankish rale meant the count’s mallus. ‘Asalready mentioned, the law the courts wese to apply was the ‘national’ law appropriate to each individual; they were also to treat as law any zegulations for general rules of conduct Isid down in the capitulaties.™ Tn the introductory chapter of the capitulary the missi are ordered to see that all men—public officials, those who sat in courts, private persons Observe the law and apply it without fraud, both in and out of court. "This is naturally to be understood as a general principle, still binding when the missi were no longet present. Other provisions have a mote specific aim, Counts ate to see that their subordinate agents—cen/enarti and others—and executive officers uphold the notmal course of justice and keep strictly to the law.% In couet, steps must be taken to prevent persons of bad faith from defeating the ends of justice by exercising theis influence in defence of a guilty partys defend- ants ought to-act for themselves, but where necessary the court might appoint a defender, provided there were proper guarantees. ‘The threat presented by malicious interventions struck the emperor as so grave that he made them cases of infidelity. "The most important ordinance among the articles enjoining strict observance of the law is quite radical in its wording: ‘Let the judges judge with justice according to the written text of the law and not accord- ing to their opinion.’* In other words, where the written text of the “law contains a provision applicable to the case submitted, the members ate bound to apply it.% 63Charlemagne’s programme of imperial government ‘A knowledge of the law is also demanded from the adbacati, vicedomini (French : vidames) o: judicial officials who were concerned with the admini- stration of justice in courts under the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical authorities—bishops, abbots, abbesses—in their capacity as seigneurs of great estates, especially when the chutch in question enjoyed the privilege of immunity.” Tt was clearly considered important for the law to be applied just as strictly in the scigneurial courts as elsewhere, in particular in those under the jurisdiction of churches with immunity. The capitulare missorum embraces the insttuctiotis to the missi on the subject of observing and applying the law in a single article, covering all the provisions of the programmatic capitulary which have just been summarised: ‘As regards the secular laws, evety man should know what national law he lives under or judges by.” ‘Lives’ applies to everyone, “judges? to those with a role in the courts, that is to say the presiding officials and the assessors—doomsmen (scabin’) and suchlike—who sat with them. Taken as a whole these measures, which tend to reduce the arbitrary exercise of judicial or extrajudicial powers and to establish the sovereignty of the law, deserve to be given prominence. Effectively applied, they would have gone some way towards procuring for the emperor’s subjects the security which depends, for one of its essential conditions, oa stability in the law. ‘A further, and very striking, feature of the programme in its judicial aspect is that we her of many more personal interventions by the emperor. Tn some instances they fall outside the framework of administrative or judicial repression, for example the instruction to bishops and abbots to present monks designated for major orders to the emperor.” But the same cannot be said of the requirement to bring persons accused or suspected of ctimes and rebellion ad nostram praesentiam ox ad palativm, or to submit them ad indicum nostrum. Of the three expressions, the last is admittedly the most unequivocal, but they are clearly used inter- changeably and in tre majority of cases I believe imply an actual appearance at the palace coutt presided over by the emperor. It may be, howevet, that in some instances the decision is envisaged as what we should call an administrative decision, emanating from the emperor in person as jhead of the state. I can best indicate the scope and number of cases ordered to be sub- mitted to the emperor and the palace court—and hence withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts, insofar as they were normally competent to deal with them—by listing the types of offenders and offences in full. Thus: monks refusing to submit to their bishops or abbots in the matter of obedience to their rule;!® unchaste monks, especially those practising or condoning sodomy;! clerics who keep hunting dogs and birds and hold no Aonor they could be deprived of in punishment;!% 64Charlemagne’s programme of imperial government priests and deacons who have concubines;!™ any person injuting another whose deposition upholds the emperor’s rights, in cases where the injury is too grave (homicide or murder) to be amendable by the fine of sixty ‘solidi 2° any person guilty of homicide who refuses to paya composition"? any man ot woman found guilty of incest or an illicit union who refuses to submit to the bishop’s decision anyone disobeying the summons to the host; perjurers; ° any person guilty of homicide of kinsmen who tefuses to submit to the judgment of the bishop and the secular court. "This considerable enlargement of the competence of the palace court and of oceasions for the emperor’s personal intervention must surely be connected with Charlemagne’s heightened sense of his accountability to God, a factor which has already been mentioned.” In two instances—~ unchastity and sodomy among monks, incestuous and illicit unions—the clauses stressing the emperor's determination to root out these vices are so personal in tone"! that they read lile last minute additions made on the otders of Charlemagne himself.“ However that may be, there can be no doubt that even if these measures could only be applied on a limited scale, their combined effect must have been to bring a great throng of people to Aachea, causing unprecedented congestion in what we would nowadays call the court’s list. ‘One last feature of the programme in its judicial aspect which deserves mention is to some extent linked with the features just described: the physical and other sanctions presctibed for grave offences. They might take the form of a very severe physical punishment or of some asbitrary penalty left to the emperor to determine. "The death penalty is prescribed for anyone attempting to enslave or sell into slavery travellers from far-olll places journeying to the emperor's court. The emperor granted such travellers his protection, which could not be violated with impunity. Since imposition of the death penalty is not reserved to the palace court, the ordinary courts must also have been competent to impose it. Perjurers ate to receive the very painful punishment of amputation of the sight hand, the hand which had touched the res sacra. ‘The punish- ment itself was no novelty; it had already been prescribed by the capi- tulary of Herstal.47 What was new was that responsibility for suppressing this crime was apparently placed for the time being on the palace court.¥* Charlemagne must have entertained the illusion that this was the best way to reach his objective, total elimination of an abomination? ‘The right to impose atbitsary punishments, which wete obviously enyisaged as severe, is resetved to the palace court, Arbitrary punishments ate in order for the following types of offenders: unchaste monks, in patticular sodomites and those who condone their vice;#0 ecclesiastics who keep hunting animals and have no honor of which they could'be 65Charlemagne’s programme of imperial government deprived in penalty;"petsons guilty of injuring those deposing in favour of the king’s rights, if the injury were too gtave to be amendable by the banwin fine of sixty solidi} persons guilty of incestuous and illicit unions who tefuse to submit to the bishop’s decision." In certain cases the palace coutt could apparently also order, as a sup- plementary punishment, the confiscation of an offender’s goods, which presumably accounts for the rule that the goods of accused whose offences fell into this category were to be seized and held, pending their appearance before the empeto:. The offences in question were: concubinage by priests and deacons; refusal to pay composition after committing homicide; perjury;2* refusal to submit to judgment after homicide of kinsmen;# refusal, on being found guilty of an incestuous or illicit union, to submit to the bishop’s decision." ‘Apart from the penalties pronounced by the palace court, at which the emperor presided, punishments were also meted out in a form we should desctibe as disciplinary measures, applied by the head of state in his administrative capacity. One penalty of this kind was deprivation of office. In the purely ecclesiastical sphere, it was the penalty prescribed for the praeposifus oc prior of an abbey who abused his position:1° Punishment through loss of public office (sovor) could befall any holder.of it who was an ecclesiastic, and likewise any count; ecclesiastics incurred the penalty for keeping hunting dogs or birds, counts for failing in their duty of cooperating with bishops in difficulty with recalcitrant secular clergy. In this latter event the count would in any case forfeit the gratia or goodwill of the emperor, evenif his honor was not withdrawo?, Loss of gratia also tung as a threat over counts dnd lesser agents of public authority failing to render assistance to imperial missé and (it must. be presumed) to foreign embassics making their way to or from the emperor. Lastly, it is hinted that unspecified disciplinary measures would be taken against public officials, imperial vassals and agents on the royal domains who hunted without permission in the emperor’s game reserves. ‘A review of the political aspects of the programme would be incomplete without some reference to the provisions aimed at protecting the emperor's property, revenues and rights, which occupy a prominent position because they provided the essential material basis for the exercise of imperial power; they had therefore to be defended against attempts at usuzpation and fraudulent expropriation. - Accordingly, the emperot’s subjects ate teminded that they must not cheat him out of his lands or serfs, or aid his setfs in the deception of passing themselves off as free. Subjects who hold lands in benefice from the king are specifically warned not to neglect them nor to denude them of inhabitants (that is to say their labour force) or equipment for the purpose of developing and improving their own properties." Men who owe the king quit-rents or other dues are reminded of their obligations.™” 66Charlemaga’s programme of imperial government ‘The duty of obedience to these commands was of such vital importance as to warrant inclusion among the obligations of fidelity. Disputes between the crown and individuals over property or rights might well lead to legal proceedings, to depositions by witnesses, to an in- quest. As we have seen, witnesses who deposed in favour of imperial (formerly royal) rights’ were in danger of being severely, even mut- derously, attacked by people who wanted their embarrassing testimony out of the way. In such cases the prescribed punishments are exceptionally severe, ranging ftom the banmum fine to some still heavier, atbitrary, penalty. Lastly, as a special case of imperial (formerly royal) rights and posses- sions in need of protection, we come to the forestes or hunting teserves. ‘These were important not only as a means of gratifying the Carolingian passion for the chase but also for their contribution to the palace food supply. Anyone who breached the reserves would be severely punished, all the mote so since similar prohibitions in the past had failed to take effect.4° As we have seen, when the culprits were counts, lesser public officials, imperial vassals or agents on the imperial domains, they were liable to disciplinary proceedings. ‘The punishment for other offenders was the bannum fine, with no hope of remission. To clinch these commands, the emperor made their observance, and the duty of informing on those who contravened them, mattets of fidelity.™ ‘Turning now to the publication of the programme, we must first establish what is known of the activity of the sissi who were charged to catry out the instructions given in 802, and in particular to publish the measures contained in the programmatic capitulary. In the first place, we know by name several missatica in which the mission was definitely accomplished. In the western patt of the Regnum Francorum they ate as follows: a missaticum of Aquitaine; a missaticum which had Paris as its centre, for which the missi were Fardulf, abbot of St Denis, and Stephen, count of Paris; a missaticum with Rouen as its centte, for which the miss were Magenasd, archbishop of Rouen and count Madelgaud; a missaéicum based on Sens, for which the missi were Magnus, archbishop of Sens, and count Godfrey; a missaticun based on Rheims, for which one of the missi was abbot ‘Wulfar, the future archbishop of Rheims; and an unnamed missaticnm for which bishop Gerbald of Lidge was one of the missi.¥® We know too, from other sources, that the celebrated archbishop Arn of Salzburg was active as a missus in 802; his missaticum extended at least over the greatet part of Bavaria and may have covered the whole county. We also have good reason to believe that missi wete at work on the same errand in the Lombard kingdom1# ‘Another surviving text which seems to have some connection with the activity of the missi in the spring of 8o2 takes the form of a collection of 67Charlemagne’s programme of imperial government atticles, most of which are a ftee readering of provisions which figure in the programmatic capitulary and in the capitilare missorum of 802.5 ‘A further source is the Latin text of a speech apparently delivered by one of the missi when he announced the programme of imperial government.46 Lastly, a capitilare missorum of 803 contains what seems to be a reference to summary reports submitted by the mitsi of $02 on theix progress in publishing the programme.’ If we take this cvidence as a whole, it seems reasonable to conclude that the mission was executed throughout the empite and that news of the programme was published aad proclaimed as widely as possible. We have seen that the programme of imperial government was clabor- ated at Aachen in the spting of 802 and published in the form of the great capitulary analysed in the earlier part of this article; during the course of that year the programme was complemented by further measures, which in some respects represent the first stage in its implementation. For the sake of completeness these additions need to be included in our account, Our information on this aspect is much less full than for the main body of the programme. The reports furnished by the misi gave the emperot and his advisers the information they needed for the preparation of new measures of a general character.¥#* These were probably worked out during the summer, in time for submission to the diet fixed for the autumn, ‘This was the diet which met at Aachen in October 802.” For much of the session the two sections of the dict, ecclesiastical and lay, sat separately. The sniversalis synodus, in other words the ecclesiastical section, met for business in two subgroups. The first was composed of secular clergy, primarily bishops, ‘but with priests and deacons in attendance. A reading, with commentaries, of ‘the canons and decretals’, by which is probably meant the Dionysio- HadrianaJ®° was followed by the clecgy’s ‘reception’ of these canonical ales as binding in the empire. The second subgroup was composed of regulars: the abbots and monks assembled in conventus, heard a teading, swith commentaries, of the Rule of St Benedict, which had already been used in the drafting of the programmatic capitulary, and wete required to accept its prescriptions as binding. At Charlemagne’s command, delivered to the full synod, the measutes agreed by the two groups were jnvested with the authority of an imperial edict.1% No text of this edict has sutvived; it is possible no written text was ever made. We can presume chat the emperor repeated his orders to the bishops to celebrate the office according to the Roman use and to organise schools where the clergy could be drilled in the solemn zecitation of the liturgical texts, and to abbots of monasteries which followed the Rule of St Benedict to celebrate the office in the manner it prescribed. Only two texts have survived which seem to have a bearing on the activities of the aniversalis synodus, and both take the form of collected 68Charlemagne’ s programme of imperial government articles. Of these, one is either a memorandum prepared before the meet- ing of the synod or else a draft capitulary drawn up during the session and published at its conclusion; the other looks to me like the draft for a capitulary dealing with church matters in general. ‘The lay section of the diet, normally composed of counts (some of them having the rank of duke or commander of a march), with no doubt a sprinkling of high palace dignitaries and leading royal vassals, was angmented on this occasion by a number of /egislatores, in other words men expert in the various national laws, the judgment-finders or other assessors who sat in the courts which applied the laws. The emperor ordered those /ges which existed in written form to be read aloud, with commentaries, and commanded that anything unsatisfactory he amended, the emendations being put into writing. He confirmed the regulations made in the previous spring ordering those who sat in the courts to judge according to the written text of the /eges and forbidding them to take bribes from interested parties.” He also ordered that those ‘national’ laws which had not yet been written down should be put into writing.1%* "Aswe see, concentration on measures intended to providesound justice for all, and on the still more urgent matter of promoting greater stability in the law, was as marked, if not more so, at the October diet, as it had been in the programmatic capitulaty issued at the conclusion of the diet in March. These were decisions which took time to implement. We have some reason to think that a ‘committee’, which included Jegis/atores, remained at work on the subject in Aachen during the winter, and perhaps into the spring, As the fruit of theiz labours we have a capitulary which modi- fied or complemented all the existing /eges, another which codified certain dispositions of the Lex Rébaria, and perhaps a thitd which complemented the Lex Baiwariorum 9 in short the beginnings of a royal law-making which did not shtink from interfering in the domain of the national private laws. There can be no doubt that on becoming emperor Charle- magne had acquired some awateness of his powers as legislator.1° These powers also found expression in other ways, notably in a capitulary largely devoted to administrative matters, but including nevertheless at Jeast one article which made changes in the national private laws.!*t Nor was this all. The text of the Lex Salica underwent tevision—the Lex Salica Karolina!*—and the same may be true of the Lew Ribuaria4® It is probable that the Lex Angliorum et Werinorum boc ost Thuringorum and the Ewa quae se ad Arsorem habet were written down at this petiod, which may also have been the time when certain articles were possibly added to the Lax Saxonum2 Looked at as a whole, these wete modest achievements, which fell far short of the intended goal; but they were not without significance, and considering that in this field, to put it no lower, Charle- magne’s advisets had only limited intellectual resources to draw on, we can regard them as considerable. 69Charlemagg’ s programms of imperial government ‘To sum up. If we concentrate on what was essentiall** in the programme of imperial government developed by Charlemagne we can describe the following as its most characteristic features: a heightened sense of respunsibility to Ged for his own actions and for the actions and attitudes Of ecclesiastics and laymen in authority under him, and indeed of all his subjects; considerable enlargement to the idea of what constituted fidelity to the emperor; unprecedented efforts to compel the clergy at all levels, ‘both secular and regular, and the mass of the faithful, to perform theit religious duties and practise the Christian virtues; eflorts of similar magnitude to protect the rights of miserabiles personae and the “economic- ally weal? ; a variety of necessarily forceful measures aimed at making the coutse of justice mote regular, equitable and efficient, and above all at giving the law a stability from which arbitrariness could be excluded, provision for the better protection of imperial properties, rights and revenues. Of the measures introduced to implement the ptogtamme, it can be said that some operated for a while more or less as intended but then lapsed? that others were of doubtful success, since they had to be sepeated by Charlemagne himself and again under Louis the Pious,'# and that a handful had more lasting results.!® It would be out of place to go into the details hete, but the subject would be a profitable one for further esearch. Tr will be tecalled that this article was prepared as 2 contribution to a series of studies which took as their general theme the tenth centuty Renovatio Imperii. We must now ask ourselves how far the programme of imperial government worked out in $02!" zeveals that it was influenced by the idea of Renovatio Imperii Romani. T think the answer must be not at all. Does this then mean that no renovatio of any kind is implicit in the programme? Did the programme develop chiefly in the atmosphere of a ‘Potengiering des Konigtums? (an enhancement of kingship’)? I think not, Some of the measures were undoubtedly inspited, at least in part, by considerations of this ‘kind, for example those which deal with obedience to the bani and the obligation to perform military service; the same applies to some extent to the measures taken to protect the imperial patrimony and to a few of the measures concerning justice. “But the programme shows unmistakeable signs of a quite different influence. It aspires to a spiritual, religious renovatio, which should manifest itself in the lives of the dertgy and all the faithful, in the working of ecclesiastical institutions, in the assured protection of those entitled to jt under the. dictates of Christian cariéas, in an equitable and efficient administration of judicial institutions which placed no one beyond the reach of justice. This renovatio is linked in men’s minds with the re-estab- lishment of the empire in the West and is intended to be its fruit. In the event, as has been said, little of this programme was realised. yoCharlemagne’s programme of imperial government But the idea persisted; it would provide inspiration for further efforts under later Catolingian rulers. And we can safely assert, I think, that it was not alien to certain aspects of the imperial concept as understood when the Getman kings came to restore the empire in the tenth century. NOTES * ‘Le programme de gouvernement impérial de Charlemagne’, Renovatio Imporii, Atti della giornata internarionaie di studio per il Milienario, Ravenna 4-5 November 1961 (Faenza, 1963), 63-96. x. P. E, Schramm, Kaiser, Rom and Renovatio, x (Leipzig, 1929), 42-3 and "Die Anerkennung Karls des Grossen als Kaiser’, HZ, crxxit (1952), 493 fi, in the separate edition (Munich, 1952), 49 Thave not thought it necessaty to go back to the actual coronation, which is a subject in itself, or to enter once again into the debate about the character and significance of an event which I here take for granted, Annales Laureshamenses (cd. G. H. Pertz, MGH SS,1), wader 802: Eo anno denzo~ ravitdomnus Caesar Karolusapud Aguis palatinm quiotus cura Francis sineboste. 4. H. Brunner, Deutsche Rechtsgescbiebte (and edn, C. von Schwerin, Munich and Leipzig, 1928), 1, 129: ‘cine Potenzierung seiner kénigtichen Gewalt.” . On this ‘clerical’ conception of the empire see among others L. Halphen, Charlmagse o¢ Pempire carolingien (2nd edn, Paris, 1949), 207 (though Hialphen seems to me to make an insufficient distinction between ‘soyal” and ‘imperial’); H. Fichteoau, Das Karolingische Imperium (Zurich, 1949), yo-25 R. Folz, L’Idfe denspire en Occident (Patis, 1955), 18. For the origins of this conception it is still necessary to consult A. Kleinclausz, L’Empire carolingion (Patis, 1902), 40-64 and H, X. Arquilliere, L’Angustinisme (politique (Patis, 1934), 72-84 (influence of Gregory the Great). On Aldain’s ideas sce A. Kleinclausz, Alcuin (Patis, 1948), 243-7; B. 8. Duckett, Alin, friend of Charlemagne (New York, 1951), 222 i. and 2325 and above all L. Wallach, Ada and Charlemagne (Ithaca, 1959), 12-28. . See especially Aleuin’s letter of 802, MGH Hpist., rv, p. 415, and the excellent commentary by L. Wallach, op. cit., 16. . This statement tests on the combined testimony of a number of sources whose authority is virtually unimpeachable. Under 802 the Aynales Iavavenses Maiores (‘the Major Annals of Salzburg’, ed. H. Bresslau, MGH SS, xxx) record that a syzods—a term which in this and some other texts is synonymous with the dict—met in March at Aachen, Under the same yeat the Annales Sancti Amand (the so-called ‘Annals of St Amand’, ed, G. H. Pestz, MGH S'S, 1) mention that a conciliam—which here means the diet-was held at Aachen and that preparations were made at it for the general administration of an oath. The Annales Guelferbytani (the annals ‘of Wolfenbitte?, MGH 5S, 1) record that in Sor (these annals are con- sistently out by one year) Charlemagne plaidavit at Aachen—that is he presided over a session of the diet or placi#wm—and from there despatched missi throughout the empire. The Annales Lanreshamenses, in the passage 2 eos 7Charlemagne’s programme of imperial government 1B. 14. 2p ‘under 802 already cited (a. 3), may have this diet in mind when they speak of the empetor temaining at Aachen cv Francis; in any case they tell us that Charlemagne despatched missi throughout the empire, at a season which in the context cannot be later than the early spring (see below, nm, 9 and 151). Finally, there is the ‘programmatic capitulaty’, to which we shall haye to return, whose first article, used by the author of the dan. ‘Lauresb, in composing his entry for 802, is devoted to the mission entrusted to the mixsi whose despatch is reported in the Annales Guelferbytani and the Anmales Laureshamenses; c. ii of this capitulary, and c. i of the written instructions given to the wisi, deal with the administration of the oath referred to in the Annales Sancti Amandi (for these two capitularies. see below, an. 12 aad 11). Asm, Laurech., bo2 (following the passage quoted n. 3): Sed recordatus misericordiae suas de panperibus, qui in regno suo erant et iustitias suas pleniter abere nos poterant, noluit de infra palatio panperiores vases transmitiere ad iustitias faciendum propter munera, sed elegit in regna suo archiepiscopos et reliquos episcopos et abbates cum ducibus et comitibus, qui iam opus non abebant super innocontes mamera accipers ot ipsos misit per universum reguim suum, ut ecclestis, vidwis ef orfanis et pauperibus et cuncto popula iustitiam facerent, The immediate tasks of the srissi, as I define them in the text, are specified in the ‘program- matic capitulary’ c. i (see below, n. 12). . F. L. Ganshof, Recherches sur les capitulaires (Paris, 1958), 14-15 and 47-525 see also the newer German edition, 28-30 and 77-83 (Was waren die Kapitularien? Weimar and Datmstadt 1961, trans. W. A. Eckhardt and rev. by the author). _ MGH Cap., 1, no. 34; this edition by Botetius is now outdated, since W. A. Eckhardt has identified four versions of the capitulary and detected traces of two others, I shall refer here to the text of W. A, Eckhardt’s edition, printed in his article Die capitularia missorum specialia von 802’, Deutsches Archiv fiir Erforschung des Mittelalters, xxx, 1956. . MGH Cap., 1, £0. 333 the classification of this text as a capitilare missorum was tightly disputed by G. Waitz, Deutmbe Verfassungigeschichte, x (and edn, Berlin, 1883) and by G. Seeliger, Die Kapitularien der Karolinger (Munich, 1893), 69. Tetroneously treated it as such in my article ‘Charle- magne et le r6le de Pécrit en matitre administrative’, Le Moyen Age (195%) fn. 15, translated as Ch. VII below. Following Brunner-von Schwerin, op cit. 1, 129 and Kleinclausz, Charlemagne, 308, T stressed the programmatic aspect of the document in my study of the last years of Charlemagne (‘La fin du régne de Charle- magne. Une décomposition’, Zeitschrift fiir Schweizerische Geschichte, xxv (1948), 440, translated Ch. XIE below, and in my Capitulaires, 52 and 54 (Kapitulzrien, 84 and 87). "The manuscript in question is Italian, of the tenth century; it somehow found its way into the library of Jacques-Auguste de Thou, and still formed part of the celebrated Bibliotheca Thuana, by that time the property of the Président de Ménars, when Etienne Baluze first published our capitulary in 1677 (Capitularia Regum Francorum, 1, ed. de Chiniac, Paris 1780, cols 361-75). The manuscript then passed into Colbett’s libraryTh. 16. 1% 20. an 2 8 23. 24s 25. 26. 2 3 Charlemagne’s programme of imperial government and thence into the king’s, In its present form the manuscript is incomplete, and what survives is in very poor condition. It contains large portions of the edicts of the Lombard kings (Rothari to Aistulf) and a number of capitularies, including several Italian capitularies from the reigns of Charlemagne, Pippin, Lothar I and Louis II, The text of our capitulary starts £° 83 ¥° (not £° 91 as stated by Boretius, MGH Cap., 1, p. 91). W. A. Eckhardt, who has made his own examination of the manuscript, points out (my Kapifularien, n, 218) that the text of the capitularics con~ tained in the collection is in each case very corrupt. There is no really satisfactory edition. of this text. For example, c. xiii (nobis?), xv (bannum rostrum), xxiv (usque ad nastram presentian), xcviii (missi nostri), xxxvi (usque ad nostrum indicinm), xxxviii (banaum nostrum). oc. xii, xiv, xv, xvi and xvii, c. xxvii, xxxii and xxxiii. Article xxxiv, which deals with the responsibility resting on those liable for military service for keeping thei own equipment in good order, is also in the first person but neutral in tone. |. All the more understandable in view of the fact that two of the articles (xxvii and xxxii, an ‘emotional’ article) deal with homicide and three others (xxxv, xxviii and another ‘emotional’ article, xxxiii) with incest. . In this present context I must limit myself to just a few indications. The subject is an interesting one and I hope to find opportunity for taking it further. The Annales Regri Francorum make no mention under 802 either of the diet or of the despatch of the missi. Sce above, p. 6-7. | "That they were sent is known from the capitulary, c. i, from the passages alteady quoted from the Aun, Gulf. and the Am, Lauresh. (see above, nia. § and 9) and of course from the sapitulare missorum. Capitulary, c. iz... aicosgue religioses, "The piety of archbishops, bishops and abbots could apparently be taken for granted. See above, n. 9 and cf. the last sentence of capitulary, c. i: ef per mullis hominis adulationere vel praeminnt, rallias quogue consangsinitatis defensione vel timore potentum rectam institia via impediretur ab aliquo. co is... ef per ons eynetis subsequentibus secundum vectam lagen vivere concessit. . «Et nemo per ingenium suum vel per astutiam perscriptam legem, ut vault Solent, vel sibi saam institiam marrire audeat vel prevaleat.... ‘The subject ‘of concessit is the emperor (émperator, at the beginning of the article), to whom the words suam justitiam also refer. That the ‘national laws’ ate chiefly envisaged seems proved by c. vi (c. v for other missatica) of the capitulare missoram ed. Eckhardt, p. sor (MGH Capi, t, 00. 34, Vi): De legibus mundanis, ut wnnsquisque sciat, qua lege vieat tel judicat (text for a missaticum in Aquitainc; the other texts merely have the rabric). This article evidently refers back to the passage in question in c. dof the programmatic capitulary, as also to other articles in the same capitulary. King’s rights: suam justitiam marrire (see above, n. 25). The other rights ate referred to by c. i in the words following prevaleat: neque ecclesiis Dei 3Charlemagne’s programme of imperial government 29. 30. 3r 32. 33- 35° 74 neque pauperibus, me viduis, nec pupillis mullique homini christiano. Almost the same words recut a little later in the asticle. Arm. Lanresh.: sce above, 2. 9. . The passage follows Aomini christians (see n. 27 above): Sed omnes onmnino secundume Dei prasseptum insta viverent rationem iusto indicio et unusquisqye in sno proposito vel professione unianiniter permanere ammonere. ‘The next sentence makes clear that his is to apply as much to laymen as to clergy, secular and regular. Es ut ipsi missi diligenter perquirere, wbieumgue aliquis homo sibi iniustitiam factam ab aliquo reclamasset, sicut Dei omnipotentis gratiam sibi expiant custodire ‘ot fidelitase sibi promissa conservare. ... Hit si tale aliquit esse quad ipsi per se cum comitibus provincialibus emendare et ad institiam reducere nequivissent, boc absque alla ambiguitate cum brebitariis suis ad suume referent indicinm. . .. The personal pronouns in the phrases fidelitate sibi promissa and ad suum referent indicium refer bacs to serenissimus et cbristianissinus domnus imperator Karalus at the beginning of the article. The brebitarii ate the scribes attached ta the missi for the drafting of brevia. ‘These instructions follow the sentence ending éoncessi# quoted n. 25 above: Ubi autem aliter quart recte et insta in lege abiquit esse constitutum, boc diligentis- simo animeo exquirere inssit et sibi innotescere: quod ipse donante Deo melisrare cupit. The subject of iursit and eupit is again imperator, to whom sibi also refers (see n. 29). ‘That this was so emerges, for example, from the similarity between many of the articles of the capitulare missorum and those of the ‘programmatic capitulary’, some of which are noted by Boretius in his edition of the capitulare missorum (MGH Cap., 1, 00. 34). Moreover, these were normal functions of the missi dominici: see my Capitulaires, 55-8 (Kapitularien, 89-94). Annales Sancti Amani, 802 (see above, n. 8): Carlus imperator ad Aguis palatinnn concilinm babuit, ut e ones generaliter fideitatem inrarent. Program- matic capitulary, c. ii (see esp. n. 35 below). Capitulare missornm, ui. This seems to me implied by the passage in c. i of the programmatic capitulary which says that the miss? must execute their mission if they want to keep faich with the emperor according to their promise, fidelitale sibi promissa conservare (see above, . 29). . Regulations regarding the oath are laid down, c. ii of the programmatic capitulary. Tt is coteworthy that the new oath is made obligatory even for those who took patt in the general oath-takings of 789 and 793; see MGH Cap, 1, nos. 23 and 25 and my asticle ‘Charlemagne et le serment’, Mélanges @’histoire du mayen dge dédiés a Lonis Halphen (Paris, 1950), translated Ch, VIL below. . Programmatic capitulary, c. ii: De fidelitate promittenda domino imperatori ... , and cf. fidelitaten promittere and promissum latex in the article, Capitalart missorun, c.4 (quote here from the text for the missatica of Paris and Rouen, but the tegulation was of general application): De fidelitatis jurandum omoes repromitiant, That this was an oath and not merely a promise (except possibly in the case of monks and canons regular) is proved by the words in isto sacramento and hoc sacramenium, programmatic capitulary, c.36. 37- 40. 4u 42. 43. Ab ce Charlemagne’s programme of imperial government Hi (see below, n. 38), and inrare, Capitulare missorun, c. i. The word sacra mentunt also figures in the rounding off sentence placed after c, ix of the programmatic capitulary (see below, a 43). c stantum fidelitate dona imperatori usque in vita ipsins, et ne aliquem inimnicum in suum reguim causa inimicitiae inducat, ef ne altcut infidelitate illins consentiant aut retatiahs «.. W. Schlesinger, in an outstanding paper (‘Kaisertum und Reichsteilung’ Festgabe fiir F. Hartung, Forschingen zu Staat n. Verfassung. Berlin, 1958, p. 38) does not to my mind bring out the exact meaning of wique in vita ipsius: he regatds it as implying a limitation in time (‘to the end of his life’) and apparently fails to take into account a limitation of object, ex- tending to all the clements listed. . Et ut omnes traderetur publice, qualiter unusquisque intellegere posset, quam magna in isto sacramento et quam multa comprebensa sunt... . Having pointed out the shortcomings of the traditional negative conception (see above, n. 36), the article continues: sed uf sciant omnes istam in se rationem boc sacramentum habere. These words form the introduction to c. iii-ix. . The article should be quoted in full. Primwm, wt unusquisque ef persona propria se in sancto Dei servitio secundum: Dei preceptum et secundum sponsionenm swam pleniter conservare stuleat secundum intelictum et vires suas, quia ipse domnus imperater non omnibus singulariter necessarianm potest exbibere curam et disciplinam. fiscales suos means serfs attached to the fisei, isc. the imperial domains, ‘The article should be quoted in full: Us sancris erclesiis Dei neque viduis neque orphanis neque peregrinis frande vel rapinam vel aliquit iniuriae quis facere presimat: quia ipse domnus imperator, past Domini ef sanctis cits, eorume et protector et defensor esse constitutus est. ‘An article where the text is clearly very corrupt, and hence especially difficult to follow. A sentence at the end of ¢, ix insists once again that these elements are the essence of the fidelity due to the emperor: Hec enine onnia supradicta imperial sacramento observari debetwr. P. F, Schtamm, ‘Anerkennung Karls d. Grossen’, 496 (in separate edn, 52), rightly stresses the use made of the new oath by the eraperor and his advisers to widen the sum total of subjects’ obligations towards theit monarch (‘die Pflichten der Unter- tanen gegentiber ihrem Herrscher aus zu weiten’). M. Lintzel, ‘Das abendlindische Kaisertum im 9 w. ro Jahrhundert’ (Die Welt als Geschichte, wv, 1938s 429), thinks that in taking the oath the Franks virtually elected Charlemagne emperor (a Nachvabl, complementary to the events at Rome): this view is entirely without foundation, I would not even goas far as Schramm (loc. cit.), who is prepared to see in the oath- taking a confitmation (co/landatio, ‘Voltbor?) of Charlemagne’s acceptance of the imperial title. That is the text preserved by mss, Paris Lat. 9654 and Vatic. inter Palat. 582, which as Eckhardt has shown (op. cit., 505-7) was deawn up for the mistaticum of Sens. The first formula also survived, independently of the capitulary, in two other mss. MGH Cap., 1, pp. tor-z. 75Charlemagne’s programme of imperial government 45. One at least should be quoted in full. I have chosen the first: Sacramentale qualiter repramitio ego, quod ab isto die inantea fidelis sum domno Karolo pitssimo imperatori, filto Pippini regis et Berthanae reginae, pura mente absque frande ot malo ingenio de mea parte ad suam partem et ad honorem regni sui, sicnt per arictum debet esse horio domino suo, Si me adiswet Dexs et ista sanctorum patro- cinia quae in boc lnco sunt, quia diebus vitae meae per meam veluntaters, in quantum rithi intellectam dederit, sic attendame et consentians, 46. Tam happy to find Brunner—von Schwerin (op. cit. 11, 80) and Halphen (op. cit., 202) in agreement with me. Comparison with the oath of vassalage sworn by Tassilo If of Bavaria, as preserved in the Annales Regni Francorum original version, 757, leaves no room for doubt: ...sicut vassus recta mente et firma dwotione per iustitiam, sicut vassus dominos suos esse deberet, 802, fixst formula :siewt per drictum debet esse homo domino suo; second formula: sicut homo per drictum davet esse domino suo. See my ‘Charlemagne ct le serment’, 267. 47. See my Ov est-ce que la fiodalité, (3rd cdn, Brussels, 1957), 42-8 and in the more recent German edition, 25-30 (translated R. and D. Groh from. a text revised by the author, Was war das Lebaswesen?, Darmstadt, 1961; English translation by P. Grierson, 3rd edn, London and New York, 1964, 26-30). Duplese lgationis edictu, MGH Cap., 1, 20. 23, xviii: Sie promitto ego ille partibus domini mei Caroli regis of filiorum eis, quia fidelis sum et ero diebus vitae meat sine frasde et malo ingenio. See above 2. 34. 49. The new formelas invoke the Godhead and tefer to the ves sacra, which at that period had to be touched for an oath to be valid. Formula 1; si me adiwet Deus ef ista sanctorum patrocinia quae in hoc loco sunt; formula 2: si me adiavet Dens, qui coclum ef lerram creavit et ista sanctorum patrocinia, jo. Formula 1: ad svam partem et ad honorem regai sui; formula 2: ad suum regnint et ad suum recium, The term regam remained in use even after Charlemagne’s accession to the empire. gx. See above, p. 57. 52. [shall naturally also draw on what is given in the first two elements of the programme, in particular in the articles relating to the idea of fidelity. 53. ‘The words ‘augmented and intensified’ are impostant, since this sense of responsibility antedates the imperial coronation. Halphen points out (op. cit, 209-19) that it is expressed, though much less explicitly, in the procmium to the Admonitio genuralis of 789 (MGH Cap., 1, a0. 22); its influence can be seen behind a series of articles in the capitulary issued after the council of Frankfurt in 794 (ibid,, 1, no. 28), articles iv, xxv and ‘xxx in particular (ee F. L. Ganshof, ‘Observations sur le synode de Francfort de 794’, Miscellanea Historica in bonorem Alberti de Mayer, 1, Louvain, 1946, 316-17). 54. ¢ lif; see above, p. 59 and n. 39. 55. c.-¥3 see above, p. $9 and n. 41. 36. In the concluding chapter,...e¢ ad nastra eterna mercedem et onmiam fidelinm nostrorim. 57. This concord of sanimitas is a constant preoccupation with Charlemagne; it emerges clearly from c. Ixii of the Admonitio generalis (MGH Cap., 1, 48. 7660, Gr. 62. 6. 64. 65. 66. _ 68. Charlerragne’s programme of imperial government no. 22) and is implied by ¢. vi of the capitulary issued in 794 after the council of Frankfurt, ibid., no. 28. See Halphen, op. cit., 210-11, . It will be enough to quote the opening and closing phrases of the article in question (c. xiv): UF episcopi, abbates adque abbatissae comiteque unanini invicen sint ...ui et nos por coram bona voluntatem magis premium vitae eternae quam sipplicium merearour. There is a corresponding article in the eapitulare missorum: Eckhardt, c. 18a/xx, (MGH Cap., 1, no. 34, c. xvitia), . If they failed. to do as they should, nar blasphemia tel detrimenta oriantur, c. xiii; if they did what was right, nobis... ef merces ... aderescat, c. xvi. Tt should not be forgotten that in Charlemagne’s eyes bishops, abbots and abbesses were oa a par with counts as agents of his authority. The last patt of capitalare missorum 18a/xx (MGH Cap., 1, no. 34, xvilia) is on the same subject as programmatic capitulary, c. xiii. MGH Epist., w, pp. 414-15: cuncta scire ef praedicare quae Deo placeant, Later in the same letter Alouin says of the emperor cuius doctrina omnibus potest prodeise subjectis, F. Lot, ‘Le concept dempire 4 Pépoque carolin- gienne’, Mercure de France, coc (1947), 417, draws attention to the ‘exhor- tatory tone’ noticeable in the imperial capitulaties, particularly in the one at present under discussion. Praedicare as used in the passages altcady quoted from Alcuin and in letters he wrote some years previously (MGH. Epist., rv, nos, 41 (794-5) and 178 (799), cited by Wallach, op. cit., 15-17) seems to me to imply not merely preaching but also orders to conform to ‘its content. c. x-xxiv; see above p. 57. ‘The corresponding articles in the Capitulare missoruns axe nombered in Eckhardt’ edition 2/sr, 3/1, afur/smr, 5/av/¥, ofymi/va, 18a/xx, 19/xvoOr (MGH Cap., 1, no. 3d ii-y, ix, xviiia, xix). ‘They are articles x (capitulare missoram 2/u (ji), xi, xix, xxiy, some of which reiterate or confirm regulations laid down in previous capitulazies or edicts: thus the capitulary of Herstal (779), iv, Adzronitia generalis (789), Ixx and Ixxxii, Duplex lgationis edictum (789), xxxi and the ‘Frankfurt? capitulary (794), xix, xx, xxiv, xxix (MGH Cap. 1, nos 20, 22, 23 and 28). c. xxi, xxii, xxiii; cf, cap, miss., c. 11 (ii), To some extent a reiteration of a regulation to be found Admonitio generals, c. Ixxiii (end). c. xi, xii (cap, miss., c. 3/111 (iii)), 16, 17 (cap. miss, c. 9}vimt}vunrt Gx). Some of these regulations confitm those in previous documents: cf. capitulary of Herstal (779), itis Admonitio generalis (789), xxiti; Duplese legationis edicture (789), i, ii, iv-vi, x-xvi; the capitulary issued in 794 after the council of Frankfurt, xi-civ, xvi, xviii, six, xxv (MGH Cap, 1, nos 20, 22, 23 and 28 c 5 xii, xviii (cap, miss., c. s/uajv (v) and ofvinr/virr (ix), xx, There are echoes of Herstal c. , Duplex legationis edictum, c. xix, and ‘Frankfurt? c. xlvii (see above, n. 64). c. xvii; see above, p. 56 and n, 16, See above, p. 57 and n, 23. c. i (asks assigned to the mist’), v (one of the new aspects of the fidelity due to the emperor,) xl (conclusion). An article which figutes only in the capitulare missoram (c. 17/xvu1]xvtt (xvii) calls attention to the obligation on all subjects to pay tithe and on those who hold ecclesiastical property in 77Charlemagne’s programme of imperial government 69. 70. 7. 72. 7B TA. 1. 2. 78 76. 7 benefice from the king to pay also a ninth and to contribnte towards the upkeep of churches and ecclesiastical buildings. cxv Et onmis eclesiae adque basilicae in eclesiastica defensions et potestatem permaneat. Et de rebus ipse basilicae nemo ausus sit in divisione aut in sorte mittere, Et quod semel offeritur, non revolvatur et sanctificetur et vindicetur. Et si autem aliter prasiampserit, presolvatur et bannum nostram conponat. On pain of a fine of sixty solidi, no one is to effect any division of church property, part of which must have becn granted to vassals in benefice (in divisione aut in sorte mittori). This marks a reversal of earlier Carolingian policy, though it is true that the mention of a penalty suggests that the divisiones envisaged are those made by petsons other than the monarch. There is a parallel passage ia the capitulare missorum (c. rojvimmfx ()): the article makes provision for the protection of royal benefices and continues, Similiter et de rebus ecclesiaram. c. i (tasks assigned to the miss); v (one of the new aspects of the fidelity due to the empetor, very plainly stated: see above, n. 41); xiv, end (again very explicit, see above, p. Go and n. 58, where the concluding passage of the article is quoted); xxv (persons in authority warned pauperes nequaguan opprimest); xxix (persons in authority forbidden to act against any pauperini whose fine of sixty solidi has been remitted by the emperor), xl (Conclusion). c. 18 a/xx (xvitra) of Cap. miss. cortesponds to c, iand xl of the programmatic capitulary, and c. 12/xr/xrr (xii) to & xxv. cf Ain. Lanresh., $02 (see above, 1. 9). c. xxvii; Matt. xxv, 35 (Vulgate). The Admonitio generalis (789) had already prescribed hospitality as a duty of the clergy, seculac and regular: c. Ixxv, swhich cites Matt. xxv, 35, Heb. xiii, 2, in support. See above, p. 57. ¢, xxxii (particularly explicit) and xxvii; cf. cap. miss., c. 8/vu1/vitr (viii). The capitulary of Herstal (779), ¢. viii, and the Admonitio generalis (789), c. Ixvii, had already taken steps as regards homicides. c. xaxiii (particularly explicit), soxv and xxxviti; it can be presumed that article 9/vus/vitr (i) of the cap. miss., which is devoted to adulteria, has these cascs also in mind. Between them the terms éacestum and adulteriun would cover 4 very wide field of sexual excess; for what was meant by adulterium and adulteria see esp. the articles under these heads in Mittellatein- isebes Warterbuch, 1, Fasc. 2 (Munich, 1960), col. 260-r. Measures against incest were laid down in the Herstal capitulary (79), ¢. v. cap. miss, c. 7Jvifvir (wii); ef. Herstal capitulary, c. x and Admunisio generals, c. Ixiv. Especially marked in c, xxadi and xxxili; see above, p. 57 and 2. 17. See my ‘L’église et le pouvoir royal dans la monarchie franque sous Pépin LIT et Charlemagne’, in Le Chiese nei regni dell Europa occidentale e i loro rapporti con Roma sino ail’ 800 (Spoleto, 1960), 1, 108 ff, (Settimana di Studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, vm), Ch. XT below. c. i (archbishops employed as missi); xv (the provincial synod, presided over by the archbishop, to judge monks who tefuse to obey their bishops); xx (the atchbishop to shate with the bishop in the supervision of nun- neties and to see that the rule is kept).79+ 80, 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 9 gt 92. 2 Charlemagne’ s programme of imperial government Capitulary of Herstal (779), €. is Admonitio generalis (789), viii, x and xiii; Frankfurt’ capitulary, vi, viii, ix, x. cf. H. von Schubert, Geschichte der christlichen Kirche im Frikmittelalter (Tibingen, 1921), 368, and my “L*Figlise et le pouvoir royal’, 111-12, ch. XI below. See above p. 61-2, and nn, 64 and 65. c. xv (discipline in monasteries); xvi (selection of monks for major orders); xvii and xviii (concerning the ‘regular’ life in houses of monks and nuns); xx (rules of conduct for abbesses). : c. xiii (at end), (... praepositos vero) and Regula Sancti Benedicti (RSB), lxw. De prasposito monasterii; c. xvi (De ordinatione elegenda ...) and RSB, ixii. De sacerdotibus monasterii; c. xvii (Monachi autem wt firmiter ac fortiter secundum regula vivant...) anid RSB, i. De generibus monachorum, The Regula Sancti Benedicti even appears to have been drawn on for the drafting of non- ‘monastic articles: compate c. ix, in which protection (defensio) of a guilty party is defined as showing a want of the fidelity due to the emperor, with RSB, Ixix, Us 2 monasterio non pracsumat alter alterum defendere, c. xiv; cap. miss., 18ajxx/ (xviiia). See above, p. 60 and nn. 57 and 58. ©. Vili, See above, p. 59. The importance of obedience to the bannum is stressed equally in the concluding article, c, xl. "This is made clear by c. 18/xwmrm/xvmr (xviii) of ezp. miss., which I repto- duce here in full, using the text for the missatioa of Paris and Rouen (c. xvi): De hanno domno imperatoris et regis, an per semetipsam consuetus est Dannire, id est de mamdeburde ecclesiarum et viduarum, orfanorum et de minus potentiuen, atque rapto, ef de exercitali placito instituto, ut hii, qui ista inrumperint, hannum dominican onnimodis conponant. cf. for example, the capitulare saxonicam of 797, ©. i and ti (MGH Cap., 1, no. 27) and programmatic capitulary c. xl. c. vii. Ut ostile bannum domni imperatori nemo pretermittere presumat ... ; cf. cap. miss., ¢, 12)xajsou (xii). ¢. xxxivy cap. mits., c. T5/xt/xert (xiii). ‘Articles which contain injunctions against receiving bribes in specified cases are as follows: iv (allowing imperial serfs to pass themselves off as free, allowing the usurpation of crown lands: this is infidelity, see above, pp. 59 and 66); c. vii (condoning abstention from military service: infidelity, see above p. 62 and n. 87); ¢, ix (protecting a guilty party in a court case, see above, p. 59 and an, 42 and 82); c. xev (selection of monks to receive major orders, sec above, p. 6o and n, 59); xxv (exercise of judicial and police functions by subordinates, see above, p. 63 and n. 93). Cap. iss., c. 12/xt}xat (xii) and the comesponding article of the program- matic capitulary, c. vil. Ane. Lawresh., 802, see above, n. 9. The Admonitio _generalis o£ 789 had alteady reminded persons sitting in the courts that greed ‘and external pressure must not be allowed to deflect them a recto indicio. Implied by the passage vm. Laaresb. quoted above, n. 9 and by program- matic capitulary, ¢. i. See above, p. 58 and n. 26, Cait. . laici ef seculares recte legibus suis uterentur absque frande maligno ... and fuither on: ifa af ommnino in oronibus ubicumgue sive in sanctis ecclesiis Dei vel 9Charlemagne s programme of imperial government 93- 94 OSs a 9 97 98. 03. Tod. Tos. 80 etiam panperibus, papillis et viduis adgue cancto popslo legem pleniter adque iustitia exhiberent secundum voluntatem et timorem Dei. cc. xxv: Ut comiter et contenarii ad omnem iustitiam faciendum conpellent et iuniores tales in ministorits suis habeant, in quibus securi confident qui lege adque iustitiam (fideiter observent... ."The tetainder of the article deals mainly with what ‘we should describe as the ‘police’ functions of centenarii and inniores. ¢. ix, see above p. 59 and nn. 42 and 82. . xxvi: Us indices secundan seriptans legem inste indicent, non secnndure arbitrinm swum. In the Admonitio generalis (789), Ixiii, Charlemagne had already en- joined those sitting in the courts to make a careful study of the written legess the article plainly states that the aim is to secure judgments according to the law. He now takes the further step of forbidding departure from the written text. Since the main body of most of the Germanic laws in force within, the Frankish realm -emained oviside the written Jager there was still plenty of scope for the ‘Urteilfinder? to indicare secundum arbitrinm suumn\ Vor some very pertinent observations on this subject see K. A, Helcharde, in his revised edition of HL. Plenitz, Dewésche Recbssgeschichte (Graz and Cologac, 1961), 33- "There are, however, exceptions to what has just been said, namely Roman Jaw and to a large extent the Visigothic law. c. xiii: Urepiscopi, abbates adgue abbatissae advecatos adgue vicedomsini centenariosgite degen scientes et iustitiam diligentes pacificosque ef mansuetus abeant . . . (sec above, p. 60 and n. 59). c. 6/v/vt (wi). The text is given above, n. 26. The text of this article as given ina seties of extracts adapted from capitularies and from a collection of canons, which Gerbald of Liége later incorporated in his collection of capitularies, is somewhat different: Ut comites et indices confiteantur qua lege vivere debeant et ecundum ipsam indicent (MGH Cap., no. 35, ¢ xlviii and the better edition of W. A. Eckhardt, Die Kapitulariensammlung Bischof Ghacrbalds von Littich (Gottingen, 1955), 85). On the series of extracts see W. A. Eckhardt, ibid., Ch. IL and p. 25 f. In his view (which I shate), the text of our acticle as it appears in the extracts has already been cotrupted {ibid., 30). |. ¢. xvi; see above, p. 60 and nn. 59 and 81. Ad nostram prasontiam: xx, xxiv, ood, worl, xxxvii and xxviii, sxxix. Ad palatinm: xsxiy. Ad indicium nostrum: xxii, and xxxvi, In articles xvii and xix the emperor's intervention emerges from the context. . Lam thinking ic particular of public officials, imperial vassals and agents on the imperial estates who hunted in the emperor’s game reserves without petmission: cf. xxxix, ad nostra presentia perducantur ad rationem (see above, ‘p. 66 and n. 134nd p. 67 and.nn. 140 and 341). . Much of the aricle repeats article vi of the ‘Frankfurt’ capitulary of 794; this too presumes an appearance before the king. c. xvi c, xix. Bishops, abbows and abbesses (bonr holdets) who offended in this way had already been the subject of an article in the Duplex lagationis edictum of 789 (MGH Cap.,1, no. 23). c. xxiv; ef, the bald prohibition Admonitio generalis, c. iv.Charlemagne’s programme of imperial government 106. ¢, xxxi and cap. miss., c. 16/xvurfxvi) (xvi): De illis hominibus, qui propter nostram insticiam adnunciantes, occisi sunt (text prepared for the missatica of Paris and Rouen). See below, n. 122. 107. ¢. xxii, 108..¢. xxxii and xxviii, Capitulary of Herstal (779), v, and Admonitio generalis (789), Ixviii, prohibit incest and illicit unions but make no reference to legal proceedings, . 109. ¢. xxxiv, It is hard to believe this could apply to all who came within this category. 110. ¢ xxxvi, The Herstal capitulary and the Admonitio generalis also condemn petjury (articles x and Ixiv respectively), but make no provision for its suppression. 111. ¢. xxxvii, Article Ixvii of the Admonitio generalis refers explicitly to the com- petence of the ordinary courts in this matter, 112. See above, p. 60. 115. €. xvii (Godomy and the non-obsctvance of chastity): ... Carte si amplins quid tale ad aures nostras pervenerit, non solum in eas, sed etiam in ceteris, qui in talia consentiant, talem uitionsm facimans, ut nullus christianus qui hoc audierit, aullatenus tale quid perpetrare amplius presumserit. c. xxxiii (incestuous and other illicit unions): 5¥ autem indicium episcapi ad swam emendationem consentire noluerit, tune ad nostra presentia perducantur, memores exenplo quod de incestis factum est quod Fricco perpetravit in sanctinoniali Dei. 114, See above, p. 56-7 andann, 16 and 17; p. 61 and na. 66 and 74. 1s. c. xxx: De Ais quos vult domnus imperator, Christo propitio, pacem defensionem habeant in regua suo... and at the end of the article: Si quis boc transgredere pracsumpserit, sciant se exinde damnum pati vitam praesumptiosus dispositum inssa dornum imperator. Cap. miss. c« 15 /8v1)x¥] (sv). 116. c. xxxvi; cap. miss., ¢, 7/v1]v1 (vii), which gives only the heading. 117. €. x; see above, a. 75. 118. I take this to be so since the property of the accused is to be seized sigue ad nostruni iudicinm. 119. «+. boe pessinum scelus christiano populo anferre necesse est. 120, ¢, xvii; above, n. 113. 121, C. xix; ... eaeieri vero tali exinde damnum patiatur, ut reliqui metum habeant talia sibi usurpare, This passage directly follows the one quoted below, R151, 322. €. xxxi: Qui autem pracsumpserit, bannum dominicure solvat, vel sé maioris debith reus sit, ad sua pracsentia perduct iussum est. Cap. miss., , v6/xvnjxvy] (xvi). See above, n. 106. 123, x3xiii, See above, a. 113. 124. ¢. xxiv... . bonorem simul et bereditatem privetur usque ad nostram presentiam, 125. c.xxxii: since the formula is always much the same it is not worth repeating, 126, ¢. xExvi. 127. 6 XxxVi 328, ¢. xxxvi t29. See above, p. 64 and n. ror. 130. C. xiii: ... et si emendare noluerit, a praepositum removeantur. It was for the abbot to take this step. 81Charlemagne’s programme of insperial government 93 94: 9. 96. 9 7 9 99- 109, 103, 04. 105. 8o etiam pauperibus, pupillis et viduis adgue cuncto populo legeo planiter adque iustitia exbiberent sectndum voluntatem et timorem Dei. c. xxv: Ut comites ot contenarii ad oronem institiam faciendum conpellent of inniores tales in reinisteriis suis habeant, in quibus securi confident qui legem adque iustitiam fideliter observent... The temainder of the article deals mainly with what ‘we should describe as the ‘police’ functions of centenarii and ixniores. c. ix, see above p. 59 and nn, 42 and 82. c. xxvii: UP indices secundum seriptar legers inste indicent, non secundum arbitrium suum. In the Admonitio generalis (789), Ixiii, Charlemagne had already en- joined those sitting in the courts to make a careful study of the written /eges; the article plainly states that the aim is to secure judgments according to the law. He now takes the further step of forbidding departure from the written text, Since the main body of most of the Germanic laws in force within the Frankish realm remained outside the written /eges there was still plenty of scope for the ‘Urteilfinder’ to indicare secundum arbitriam suum\ For some vety pertinent observations on this subject see K. A. Eckhardt, in his revised edition of Hi. Planitz, Dedsche Rechtsgeschichte (Graz and Cologne, 1961), 33- There are, however, exceptions to what has just been said, namely Roman Jaw and to a large extent the Visigothic law. c. xiii: Usepiscopi,abbates adgue abbatissae advocatos adque vicedomini centenariosgue legen scientes of iustitiam diligentes pacificasque et mansuetus babeant . ... (see above, p. Go and n. 59). . c. 6fvjvr (vi). The text is given above, n. 26. The text of this article as given in a serics of extracts adapted from capitularies and from a collection of canons, which Gerbald of Liége later incorporated in his collection of capitularies, is somewhat different: Us comites ot indices confiteantur qua lege vivere debeant et secundum ipsam indicat (MGH Cap., no. 35, ¢. xlviii and the better edition of W. A. Eckhardt, Die Kapitslariensammlung Bischof Ghaerbalds von Littich (Géttingen, 1955), 85). On the series of exttacts see W. A. Eckhardt, ibid., Ch. UT and p. 25 £. In his view (which I share), the text of our article as it appears in the extracts has already been corrupted (ibid., 30). c. xvi; see above, p. 60 and nn. 59 and 81. Ad nostram praventiam: 3x, xsiv, xxxi, sxxiii, wocvii and socxvili, soix, Ad palatiam: wxxix, Ad indicium nostram: wxxii and xxxvi. In articles xvii and xix the emperor’s intervention emerges from the context. . Lam thinking in particular of public officials, imperial vassals and agents on the imperial estates who hunted in the emperor's game teserves without permission: cf, sxxix, ad wostra presentia perducantur ad rationem (sce above, p.66andn. 134 and p. 67 and nn. 140 and 141). . Much of the article repeats atticle vi of the ‘Frankfurt’ capitulary of 7943 this too presumes an appearance before the king. ©. xvii, , ¢. xix. Bishops, abbots and abbesses (Jonor holdets) who offended in this way had already been the subject of an article in the Duplex egationis edictum of 789 (MGH Cup., 1, no. 23). c. xxiv; cf. the bald prohibition Admonitio generalis, ¢. bv.Charlemagne’s programme of imperial government 106, ¢, xd and aap. mits., c, 16/xvm/xvi] (xvi): De ilis Bominibus, qui propter nostram iusticiam adauncianter, occisi sunt (text prepared for the missatica of Paris and Rouen). See below, n. 122. TOF, C. xxxti, To8. c. xxxiif and xxviii, Capitulary of Herstal (779), v, and Admonitio generalis (789), Ixviii, prohibit incest and illicit unions but make no reference to legal proceedings. 109. ¢. xxiv. It is hatd to believe this could apply to all who came withia this category. 110. ¢, xxxvi, The Herstal capitulary and the Admonitio generalis also condemn perjury (articles x and Ixiv respectively), but make no provision for its suppression. I1t. ¢, xxKVii, Article Ixvii of the Admonitio goneralis refers explicitly to the com- petence of the ordinary courts in this matter. 112, See above, p. 60. 113, ¢, xvii (sodomy and the non-observance of chastity): ... Certe si amplins quid tale ad aures nosivas pervenerit, nom solum in eos, sed etiam in ceteris, qui in talia consentiant, talem ultionem facimus, ut nullus cbristianus qui hoc andierit, nullatenus tale quid perpetrare amplins presumserit, c, xxiii (incestuous and othet illicit unions): Si autem: indicium episcopi ad suam emendationem consentire nolerit, tine ad nostra presentia perducantur, memores exemple quod de incestis Sactum est quod Fricco perpetravit in sanctimoniali Dei. 114. See above, p. 56-7 and an. 16 and 17; p. 61 and nn, 66 and 74, 315. c. xxx: De his quos vult domnus imperator, Christo propitio, pacem defensionem babeant in reguo suo... and. at the end of the article: S¥ gars hor iransgredere Praesumpserit, sciant se extinde damnune pati vitan praciumptiosus dispositum iussa domnum imporator. Cap. miss., 6. 15/xvu/xv] (xv). 116, 6 xxXVA; cap. miss., c. 7]vt/vir (vii), which gives only the heading. 117, €. x; see above, n. 75. 118. I take this to be so since the property of the accused is to be seized nsque ad nostrurs indicia. 119. hoc pessimun scelus christiano populo auferre necesse est. 120. ¢. xvii; above, n. 113. 121. C. Xix;... caeteri vero tali exinds damnum patiatur, ut reliqui metum habeant talia sibi uswrpare, This passage directly follows the one quoted below, ne 131. 122. C. xxxi: Qui autem prassumpserit, bannum dominicum solvat, vel si maiaris debiti tens sit, ad sua pracsentia perduci iastum est. Cap. miss., c. v6/xwn/xvy (xvi). See above, n. 106. 123, xxiii, See above, n. 113. T2de - bonorem simul et hereditatem privetur usgue ad nostram presentian. 125. since the formula is always much the same it is not worth repeating. 126, ¢. xxxvi, 127. c. xxxvii. 128, c. xxviii, 129. See above, p. 64. and n. tor. 130, C. xili:... ef si emendare noluerit, a praepasitum removeantur. It was for the abbot to take this step. 81Charlemagne’s programme of imperial government 131. c. xix: Qui autem presumserit, sciat unasquisque honorem swum perdere. Uhis passage immediately precedes the one quoted above, n, 121. 132. c. xxi, I take this to be the significance of the words ... sicut nostra gratia vel suos honores bebere desiderant, 133. C. xxviii. De legationibus a domno imperatore venientibus, Missis directis ut comites et centenarii praevideant omni sollicitudine, sicut gratia domni imperatori cupiunt, ut... "The terms missi and Jegatio can apply both to ambassadors and embassies engaged on external missions and to missi dominici despatched singly or, as in the case of the ‘commisioners’ sent out in spring 802, in groups, on a mission inside the realm. cf the more explicit statement Gap. miss., co r4icv/xamn (xiv): De legationibus ad nos venientibus et de missis a nobis directis. 134. ¢. xxxix, See above, n. 101 and p. 67 and an. 140, 141. 135. c. iv. See above, p. 59 and n. 40. 136. €. viand cap. miss., c, 10 1x/x (x), which explicitly mentions res ecclesiarum: no doubt the church properties chiefly in mind were those the king had granted out in benefice. Sce above, p. 59 and n. 69, end. Orders to sup ptcss this abuse had already been given tothe missi who were sent to “Aquitaine in 789: Breviarinm missoram Aguitanicum, vi (MGH Cap., 1, 0. 24), in which tae wording is almost identical with that of an article in Pippin IPs capitulare missorum for Aquitaine of 768, MGH Cap.,1, no. 18, v. 157. ¢. viii, last sentence. 138. ... mastram iustitiam adnunciantes. 139. ©. xxxi and cap. miss., c. 16/xvux/xvr|(xvi). See above, p. 65 and n. 1065 p- 66 and n, x23. 140... quod iam multis vieibus fleri contradiscimas ... The Capitulare de vilis, issved at some time between 770 and 800, also had an article on the subject: MGH Cap., 1, n0. 32, Ixii. 141. ¢. xxix, For the penalties incurred by public officials etc., see above, n. tor, p- 66 and n. 134. We can probably assume that permission was quite often granted. The penalties for other offenders are mentioned at the end of the article; their oflences were a matter for the ordinary courts. 142. These six missetica, their mitsi, and some of the texts of the eapitulare missorum they were provided with are discussed by W. Eckhardt in his ‘Die Capitulariz’, ef. p. 6 above and n, 11. 143. M, Heuwieser, Die Traditionen des Hochstifts Passau (Munich, 1930), nos soand 54; T. Bitterauf, Die Traditionen des Hochstifts Freising, 1 (Munich, 1905), nos 183-6. 144. A teasonable sxpposition, since the text of the programmatic capitulary has come down to us in a manuscript (Paris Lat. 4623) which originated in the Lombard kingdom; sec above, n. 14, In this manuscript a harangue from one of the missi forms an integral part of the capitulary (£° 91, v° 1.12). 145. Capitula a misse cognita facta, MGH Cap, 1, no. 59. Hight of its thirteen atticles ate matched by articles in the two capitularies of 8025 of the remaining five, one corresponds to an article in the Herstal capitulary, three to articles in the Admonitio generalis and one to an article in the ‘Frankfurt’ capitulary. 82146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. Charlemagne’s programme of imperial government Missi ciinsdam admonitio, MGH Cap.,1, no. 121. My hypothesis is supported by the religious colouring of the speech as a whole and the attention given to provisions relating to specifically religious matters, which have their counterpart in the programmatic capitulary. ‘To this can be added the argument from the manuscript’s history, see above n. 144. The complete text of the speech is found only in Cavensis 22, an eleventh-contury manuscript known to be of Italian provenance; Paris Lat. 4613, also Italian, gives the text only as far as carifatemr perseverent (MGH Cap., 1, 1p. 239, l. 15), the remainder having been torn away. Capitulare missorum, MGH Cap., 1, 00. 40 5x¥i Ut missé nostri, qui iam breves detulerunt de adnuntiatione, volumus ut adbuc addueant de opere. From this it appeats that méssi have recently been involved in the publication (adau- Haid) of a capitulary and submitted repotts on theit activity; we know of no other capitulary issued close enough to the spring of 803 to fill the requirements. Submission of these reports is envisaged in programmatic capitulary ¢. iz see above p. 58 and an. 29, 30. ‘These, ot at any rate the reports referred to m. 30, must be the breves de adnuntiatione the cap. miss. of 803 has in mind. Ann, Lauresh., 802; see below, n. 151. The passage follows the one cited above n. 9. The Royal Annals make no mention of this session, just as they ignore its predecessor. This is the interpretation given (with some reserves) by G, Le Bras: see P. Fournier and G, Le Bras, Hisfoire des collections canoniques en Occident depuis les Fausses Déorétales jusqu’an Déoret de Gratien, 1 (Patis, 1931), 95 and H. E, Feine, Kirabliche Rechtsgeschichie, 1, Die Katbolisehe Kirche, 3rd eda (Weimar, 1955), 139. Aun. Lauresh., loc. cit.: Et mense Octimbrio congregavit universalem synodam in iam nominate loco, et ibi fecit episcopos curs presbyteris sen diaconibus relegi wniversos canones, quas sanctus synodus recepit, et decreta pontificum, et ploniter iussit eos tradi coram omnibus episcopis, preshyteris ot diaconibus. Similiter in ipso synudo congregavit mniversos abbates ef monachos qui ibi aderant, et ipsi inter 0 comentum facisbant et legerunt regulam Sancti patris Bonedicti, et eam tradiderunt ‘sapientes in conspectu abbatum et monachorun; et tune iussio eins generaliter super omnes episcopos, abbates, presbyteros, diacones sex wniverso clero facta est, wt nnsquisque in loco so iuxta constitutionem sanctorus patrun sive in episcopatibus sen in monasteriis aut per universas sanctas ecclaesias, nt canonici inxta canones viverent, et quicgutid in clero aut populo de culpis aut de neglegentiis apparuerit, juxta canonum actoritate enendassent; ef quicquid in monasteriis sex in monachis contra regula Sancti Benedicti factum fuisset, boc ipsud iuxta ipsam regulam Sancti Benedicti emendare fecissent. Sce the text reproduced in the preceding note, starting from the words at tune inssio... ‘The compilation known to us as the Chronicon Moissiacense (MGH SS, 1 p. 306-7) reproduces the text of the Annales Lanreshamenses for 802, but be- tween the accounts of the deliberations of the synodus (above, n. 151) and the lay magnates (below, n, 156)interpolates the following passage: Mandavit antem ut unusquisque episcopus in omni regno vel imperio suo, ipsi cum presbyteris 83Charlemagne?s programme of 154. 155. 156. 157 158. 159. 84 imperial government suis, officinm, sicut psallit ecclesia Romana, facerent. Nam et scholas suas cantoram in loca congrua construi praecepit. Similiter in monasteriis Sancti Bensdicti servienti- bus regulans, ut offcinm ipsius facerent, sient regula docet, Tt is just possible (though by no means certain) that the text of the Annales used by the compiler was fuller than the one which has come down to us; Wattenbach~ Levison, Deutscilands Geschichtsquallen im Mittelalter. Vorgeit uad Karoliager IL: W. Levison and H. Lowe, Die Karolinger vom 8 Jabrhicndert bis zum Tode Karls des Grossen Weitaat, 1953), 265. For the significance of Charlemague’s presumed instructions, which would have confirmed previous orders from himsclf and his father, see C. Vogel, ‘Les échanges liturgiques entre Rome et les pays francs jusqu’a P’époque de Charlemagne’, 229-33 and 269-75, printed in the volume cited above, 0. 77. Capitula ad tectionem canonum ot regulae $. Benedicti pertinentia, MGH Cap, 1, 10. 37. For the most recent view see my Kapitularien, n. 86; the view that the document was a draft capitulary is advanced by W. A. Eckhardt, Kapitulariensammlung, 21-4. Capitula a sacerdstibus proposita, MGH Cap., 1, no. 36. Both C. de Cleteq, (La ligislation reiigieuse franque de Clovis @ Charlemagne (Louvain and Patis, 1936), 289-90), and W. A, Eckhardt (op. cit. 54-9), regard the text as a diocesan statute. Aum, Lauresh, 802, following the passage teproduced above x. 151: Sed et ipse imperator, interim quad ipsum smodum factum est, congregavit ducts, comites et reliqua christiano populo cum legislatoribus, ot fecit omnes leges in regno.sio lexi, et tradi unicuigue hominé legem suara, of emendare nbicumaus neceste Suit et emendatam legen soribere, et ut indices per scriptum indicassent et munera non accepissent; sed omnes homines, panperes of divites, in reguo suo tustitiam habnis- sent. See the passage quoted n. 156 above, at end. Programmatic capitulary xxvi, see above, p. 63 and n. 95; the various articles referted to n. 89. This emerges from a passage in Hinhard’s Vite Karoli, c, xxix: Patt suscep- titra imperiale nomen, cum adverterct multa legibus populi sui devsse—nam Franch duas babent leges, in plurinis lacis valde diversas—cogitavit quae deerant addere et discrepantia unire, prava quogue ac perperam prolata corrigere, sed de his nil aliud ab eo factum est, nisi quod pauca capitula, et ca inperfecta, legibus addidit. Omnium taren rationnin, quae sub eins dominatu erant, inva quae seripta non erant describere ac litteris mavdari fecit, The first paxt of the passage (down to corrigere), may have been inspired by the Annales Lasreshamenses or some common source; the subject matter is the same, but Hinhard is thinking only of the Frankish /eges, in which he had a more immediate intetest. The concluding part of Einhard’s statement, starting at Onnivm, complements the testimony of the Aanals. Capitulare legibns additum 803, MGH Cap., 1, no. 39; instructions to miss! regarding the pcblication of this capitulary ace contained in the capitulare missorum (ibid., no. 40), of spring 803, xix; nove on the publication of these capitula at Patis by Stephen, count of the pagus Parisiacus, in his capacity as missus, ibid., no. 39, p. 112. Capitulare lagi Ribuariae additum, ibid., no. 41. Conjecturally, cabitala ad legem Baiwariorum addita, ibid,, 20. 68.166. 161. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168, 169, 170. Charlemagne’s programme of imperial government . See my Capitulaires, 96-101 (Kapitularien, 147-53). ‘The capitulare Aquitgranense printed MGH Cep., 1, no. 77. See my article “Zur Datierung eines Aachener Kapitulars Karls des Grossen’, Asnalen des bistorischen Vereins fiir den Niederrbein, clv-clvi, 1954. . Formerly known as emendata; K. A, Eckhardt retains this title for text B, which dates from before Charlemagne’s accession to the empize; it is printed in K. A. Eckhardt’s Lex Sulica, roo Titel Text (Weimar, 1953). K. A. Eckhardt has published the Lew Salica Karofina, unde that title, in his Pacius Lagit Salieae, 1, 2 (Gottingen, 1956); in his synoptic edition of the Pactus Legis Salieas (MGH Leges Nationum Germanicarum, 1, 1, Elanover 1962) it figures as text K. See also Eckhardt’s remarks on the origin of this revision in the introduction to Paséus, 1 (Géttingen, 1954), 218 fh and in his Lese Salica, 100 Titel Text, 70-1. ‘Text B of the Léx Ribuaria could have resulted from this revision, a possibility admitted by K, A. Eckhardt in Lex Saliva, 100 Titel Text, 70-15 he has not so far had occasion to reopen the question, since the only volume yet to appear of the introduction to his edition of the LR. is Lex Ribstaria, 1. Austrasisches Recht im 7 Jabrhundert (Gottingen, 1959). The possibility is also accepted—but solely as a possibility—by R. Buchnet; ‘see his Textkritische Untersuchungen sur Lex Salica (Leipz 1940), 142, and the introduction to his edition (in collaboration with F. Beyerle) of the Lex Ribuaria, MGH Leger nationum Germanicarim (quarto: Hanover, 1954), p. T4- For the Lex Angliorum etc., see R, Buchner, ‘Die Rechtsquellen’, p. 41 (supplement to Wattenbach-Levison, Dextseblands Gesebichtsquellen ize Miltelalter. Vorxeit und Karolinger, 1953)3 fox Ewa etc., see R. Buchner, op. cit., 42 (on this text, however, I'am more in agreement with the views of J. F. Nietmeyer, ‘Het midden-Nederlands rivietengebied in de Frankische tijd op grond van de Ewa quae se ad Amorcm habet’, Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis, levi, 1953). Lex Saxonum, ¢. li-liii, Buchner, op. cit., 39-41 (the test of the Lex Saxonum should I think be dated 785). Tn the cardinal passage from the Vita Karoli quoted above n. 158 (sed de His... addidit), Einhard tends to play down what had been achieved; he speaks only of the Frankish laws, and in this already limited field mentions only the capitula legibus addita, I deliberately exclude ‘means’ to concentrate on the ‘essence’, or ‘ends’, ‘Most of the extensions of ‘fidelity’ fall into this category. ‘As my distinguished colleague Auguste Dumas justly observes: ‘Charle- magne spent his reign pushing the same problems at his wisi, who could do very little about them,’ ‘La parole et Pécriture dans les capitulaires casolingiens’, Manges dhistoire du moyen dge dédiés a la mimoire de Louis Halphen (Patis, 1951), 216. This is particularly true of the imperial period, Notably in the field of legislation. I mean here specifically the ‘programme’ and not the ‘testoration of the empire’; on the connections between this first restoration and the Renavatio ~ Imporii of the tenth century see above, p. 55-and n, 1.VI. The institutional framework of the Frankish monarchy: a survey of its general characteristics” HM FOLLOWING account is necessarily very general in character. It will therefore be impossible to justify every statement by direct references to the sources, as is my usual practice when writing of subjects more natrowly defined, Sticking to my normal scholarly habits would have thrown this contribution to the present discussion out of all proportion to the rest. As regards the general works covering the period, my plan as a rule is to refer to them by title only once, Where a more specialised work deals mote fully than the general surveys with some particular aspect of the subject, reference will be made to it in the notes. Ditect reference to a source in the notes is reserved for the tare cases in which no such work exists, and is given only by way of example. In some cases the absence of any reference is accounted for by the absence of any work I consider sztisfactory. This said, I can affirm that my account is in fact based on a direct study of the sources. Next, it is important to explain exactly what this article sets out to do. Tt does not set out to ptovidea systematic survey of the institutions of the Frankish monatchy.1 My sole purpose is to highlight some of the essential characteristics of the system to which those institutions belonged. The time span covered is that covered by the Merovingian and Carolin- gian periods, that is to say the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth centuries. ‘The geographical area embraces the tetritory ruled by the -Frankish monarchy: in Merovingian times the Regsum Francorum comprised neatly the whole of Gaul and part of western, central and southern Germany; under the Carolingians this territory was enlarged by the addition of two further regions of Gaul, Septimaaia and Brittany (up to a point), the northeast and north of Germany (basically Frisia and Saxony), parts of the Middle Danube region, and the northeast of the Jbetian peninsula. Italy is omitted: even after its enforced submission to Charlemagne, the 86The institutional framework of the Frankish monarchy Lombard kingdom retained its own system of institutions, despite some heavy Frankish penetration. ‘We shall have to deal not only with the Frankish monarchy as a unitary state but also with the kingdoms into which, at certain points in its history, it was divided. With one or two exceptions we shall not go beyond the year 888: as things turned out, the split in the Regawm Francorum which occurred at that date was its final fragmentation. Looking as we ate for the essential features of the system of institutions under the Frankish monarchy, the first point to be stressed is that the elements composing the system were of diverse origin. While some institutions were Roman, others were Germanic, ot based on Germanic ideas and traditions. ‘The Christian Church had also had a part to play in the formation and transformation of the system. These diferent elements are discernible to the historian, above all the Jegal historian. But it must be said that no one of these elements made an imprint on the Frankish monarchy strong enough to justify the claim that its institutions were essentially Roman or essentially Getmanic.® The Frankish monarchy and its institutions zepresent a new departure; to put it more bluntly still, an otiginal creation.® Moreover, Ftankish instita- tions changed with the times. In the course of the four centuries under review, most of them acquired some fresh characteristics, and in some cases the transformation went deep. ‘We mast also note that the institutions as they functioned in the central parts of the Regu Francorum, patticularly between the Loire and the Rhine, sometimes differed quite markedly from those in more outlying regions: at the petiphery.we may find institutions peculiar to the inhabi- tants of the region, or institutions from the central portions adapted to their needs. Until well into the eighth century, the institutions found in Provence and Rhaetia, and east of the Rhine in Bavaria and Alamannia, are in many respects noticeably different from those in operation. between the Loire and the Rhine; and some of these differences persisted. The same is tfue of Frisia in the cighth centuty and of Saxony in the ninth ‘The key institution of the Regnum Francorum is the kingship. It had been forged by Clovis, and by'his sons and grandsons, in circumstances of which we know i he Merovingian king is very different from the old Germanic king from whom he descended. His power was as great— with something over to spare—as that of his predecessor (except when acting as war leader) was restricted. Merovingian royal power was absolate throughout the territory ruled by the monarchy. Its inhabitants, whatever their origin, were unreservedly subject to his authority, and in “precisely the same way: it was, in fact, a characteristic of the Regain Francornm that it recognised no Herremvoik, Those who were Frankish 87The institutional framework of the Frankish rronarchy by origin—or tock themselves to be such—were in no way ptivileged above those who were, ot claimed to be, Romans, Alamannians, Bavarians, Burgundians, Goths, and so forth. The king was a despot, whose atbitrary rule knew no resteaints save those imposed by civil war and assassination. ‘To these curbs must be added, as consequence of Clovis’s conversion, 2 superstitious feat of God and the saints, rather than the restraint of any Christian religious conscience worthy of the name. The assemblies when they met were in effect gatherings of the great men of the realm, which took place when the army assembled, or at least at the time of the annual summons to the host in March; ‘they were purely consultative in character.’ There were naturally times when the aristocracy succeeded in imposing its will oa the king: occasional esisodes of this kind occur from the beginning of the seventh century, and by its middle years have become quite common- lace. p Under the Carolingians, the royal authority was still, absolute. There were no limitations on the king’s hannum, his power to command ot prohibit, which was backed up by the heavy sanction_of.a fine of sixty soldi, No matter the field, the king’s power was unlimited, ‘The great men of the realm, ecclesiastical and lay, were brought together in diets or general assemblies, or in assemblies of mote restricted composition, which met when the army gathered in May (as it did ftom 756) oz on some other occasion; but-the character of these assemblies was even more purely consultative than in the past. On the other hand, the restraint of religion operated With’ greater, and more truly Christian, effect on members of a dynasty who from 751 acceded to power after anointing with the Holy Chrism, administered by a bishop, During the second half of the reign i rions of the lay and ecclesiastical tistoctacy imposéd strong limits on royal absolutism, to their own profit. ‘This movement ered strength. In Francia Occidentalis after 843 the royal authority can be said to have become conditional in character, the aristocracy being the gainer.§ In Francia Orientafis matters had not gone so far, but there was # growing limitation of the royal power in favour of various ethaic groups (Saxons, Bavarians, Alamannians etc.), otto be more ptecise, their leading elements.® Under the Merovingians, the royal power was dynastic, héreditary and personal. By this I mean that it belonged in full to the dynasty, and was effectively exercised by the member of it who occupied the throne: Tt could in no way be said that the king was possessor of a power which in the last resort belonged to an abstraction, that is the state, the res publica. Proprietor of all the soil in the kingdom he was not, but the kingdom as such was considered his property. He treated it like a private patri-_ mony: we might say the royal power had undergone a kind of ‘privatisa-__ tion’. Hence the rule, rooted in the contemporary sense of legality, that of Louis the Pious (i.e, from 830), théThe institutional framework of the Frankish monarchy atthe death of the king the regum bad to be divided among his sons, as would happen with a private landed property. As we know, these parti- tions led to civil wars and gave birth, before the sixth century was out, to Frankish ‘part kingdoms’ (the German expression Teilreiche comes nearest to the sense), known as Austrasia, Neustria, and Burgundy; curiously enough, the Tei/reiche themselves were not subdivided. The idea that the royal power belonged to the dynasty made it secm natural to reconstitute the unitary Regnwm Francorum in favour of one of its members whenever, by chance or design, kings of the Tei/rviche disappeared from the scene? Under the Carolingians, heredity, the patrimonial conception of power, and partitioning continued to be the rule. In 800 Charlemagne acquired the imperial dignity, which under his son and successor almost brought about transformation. Indeed, during the first part of his reign (down to about 829), Louis the Pious and his current advisers attached little or no value to the kingship; all that counted for them was the empire. And at that date the accepted idea of imperial power, among cultivated clerical circles at least, was of a universal authority, having as its essential object the promotion of thé Christian faith-and_the-deferce-of the Church. By reason of this religious bias, the conception of an abstract supreme author- ity made its reappearance: the res publica, the political framework of the ecclesia, And.since the Church was-one, the empire too should be one and undivided: therefore, no more pattitions. These ideas inspired the Orditi- fio Imperit OF 817. The regime of imperial unity, and of the succession of a single heir to the imperial throne which it inaugusated, came to an end, as we know, in 829; the subsequent return to the patrimonial conception of power, and to the practice of partitioning, led to disastrous results, with which we are familiar2* Among the factors which contributed most forcefully to.the failute of the Ordinazio tegime was the fact that, apart from a handful of cultivated individuals, most of them clerics, the men of the time were in a0 position to grasp absttact ideas; the conception of palziniontal power, on the other hand, was teadily accessible and fitted in with tradition, this lattet trait being of particular importance at a time when the binding character of a legal rule rested chiefly on its antiquity. ‘The Frankish monarchy never knew its power as anything but weak: this generalisation holds good as much for the undivided monarchy as for the Teilreiche. That is not to say there were no ups and downs. The \d half of the seventh century andthe early part of the eighth.was.a__. ae” OF extreme weakiéss. Indeed, entite regions slipped almost com- pletely from the grasp of Yoyal authority; those I have in mind were outlying tegions, inhabited by Germanic populations of strongly marked ~ individuality or by Romanic populations who were aware that the civilisa- tion they had inherited was superior to that prevailing ia the centre and 89The institutional framework of the Frankish monarchy north of the Regnzm: at this period, the ‘national’ duchies of Alamannia and Bavatia, and the duchy of Aquitaine, wete in practice independent. Charlemagne’s reign, at any rate until we teach the ninth century,}® and the catly part of the rcign of Louis the Pious, were periods of relative strength. Te mmust be stressed that even during periods of relative strength, the Frankish monarchy never had organs powerful enough to ensure that the decisions of royal authority ‘Were fully implemented throughout. the length and breadth of the realm, The monarchy wag not even in a position t6 maintain the public peace at a satisfactory level, that is to provide norm- ally effective protection for persons and property? The monarchy lacked the necessary administrative personnel,_‘The ‘Palace’ (Palitiiim), the seat of royal power, was statted chiefly by court dignitaries, ie. the heads of the household: the ‘mayor of the palace’ (waior demas), whose position at court ceased under the Carolingians: the steward (dapifer), the butler (buticularius), the chamberlain (camerarius) and the constable (comes stabu/i), to name the most important. The ‘count of tke palace’ (comes palati?) was associated with the king in the dispensing of justice, and because of his functions no doubt considered himself a cut above the rest. But in matters of government none of these dignitaries amounted to mach more than advisers and auxiliaries. There was nothing in the itinerant Palatium which could justify the description ‘central administration’; At even the offices where the writing work was done. Under the Merovingians these offices were supervised by ‘referendaries’ (referendarius), a legacy from Roman tradi- tion, and staffed by laymen; under the Carolingians the work was done by clerics from the ‘chapel’ (capella), that is to say clergy-employed in the. Palace, and. supervised. by ‘chancellors’ (cancellarixs), who were themselves clerics. Their essential fanction was to draft diplonias, grants of favour, ptivilege, and taey had li thing to do with admit ad 1 futle oF nothing to do) coftespondence¥ ‘The chief local agent of public power-was the count (comes, grafio). Above him was the duke, dix, who in Merovingiai times exercised a higher command (first and fotemost a military command) over a stretch of territory embracing several ‘counties’. At the beginning of the Carolingian period this intermediate power, which often acted as a check on the cenffal authority, disappears The occasional dix met with in Carolingian Sources was actually 2 count, invested as a temporary expedient with a superior military command over some wide area thought to be in danger of attack. There were also counts who were invested with permanent command of a frontier region, that is a ‘march’, (marca, limes), which might include conquered tertitory; these ‘matcher counts’ are sometimes described as pracfectus limitis ox by some similar title, and later on as marcbio, (French: marquis) Under the Carolingians the position of the count seems to have been higher than inthe past. = —=—S=SSOS goThe institutional framework, of the Frankish monarchy Charged in particular with the maintenance of public peace (‘police” functions in the broad sense), the administration of justice and the conduct of military affairs, the count received his remuneration only in an indirect form: he was entitled to a portion of the fines and other royal revenues, and he had a landed endowment (res de comitat), sometimes supplemented in the eighth and ninth centuries by lay abbacies (abbatia). Very often, under the Carolingians almost invariably, the count belonged to some great aristocratic family, at this period preferably one with roots in ‘Austrasia.” When the king’s power was weak, he found it difficult to transfer or dismiss a count; during the-ninth century it became inczeas- ingly common for son to succeed father in this office, especially in Francia Ovcidentalis, The count was thus an agent of power who, unless the ruler was strong, was more likely to behave like a local potentate than an official, an agent whose subordination to the centtal power could not be taken for granted. In this they resemble some of the pashas found in Arab ot Turkish states. In any case, counts were always rather thin on the ground. Under the Carolingians, when some of the older large territorial units had been split up, I estimate their numbet at between 250 and 350. Furthermore, in the ninth century it was not uncommon for a count to be placed in charge of two of even three counties.17 ‘The head of the county was frequently. absent, called away to the Palace, summoned, to the atmy, sent on a mis- sions when that happened authority had to be left in the hands of subordi- nate-agents, the vicarius (French: viguier), centenarins (French: centenier), scultetus (écoutite) 2nd so on; no county had mote than a few of these, and even when we add the wicecomes (French: virom#s), the deputy count for cach county introduced into the western parts of the Regnum under the Carolingians, the total is not impressive. Again, the staff at the disposal of the count and the other agents of public power—a secretary (nofarins, cancellarins, brebitarius), a handful of servants (theit immiores), and in the Carolingian period three or four vassals—was absurdly inadequate: with this equipment, the count was more likely to opptess the people he was supposed to administer than to provide them with the needful security. The manner of dispensing justice was in any case very imperfect. During the Metovingian petiod the Frankish judicial organisation became standard throughout Gaul. Everyone had the right to be judged according to his ‘national’ law: Frankish law if he was a Frank, Roman if he was a Roman, Burgundian if he was 2 Burgundian, and so on; in practice, furthermore, this regime of ‘personal laws? must have undergone con- siderable attenuation. The ordinary tribunal was the count’s court or mallus; the local agent of public powér—the count or one of his subordi- ~ inates—presided, but judgment was left to non-permanent assessors (rachinburgii), who were supposed to know the law. There were analogous institutions in the various purely Germanic regions on the right bank of gtVous ‘The institutional framework of the Frankish monarchy the Rhine. Charlemagne succeeded in making the system a little mote workable by introducing permanent assessors (seabini) in place of the rashinburgii, under him the Frankish system was extended to the right bank of the Rhine. At the Palace, justice was dispensed by the king ot emperor, assisted by a single permanent assessor, the count of the palace (comes palatii), and by members of his entourage, chosen at will. All in all, a not very effec:ive judicial system, but pethaps the only one possible, having regard to the social and governmental structute and the very modest intellectual attainments of the people.18 In any case, a large number of disputes—no doubt the majority—were settled_omtside the courts, through private vengeance ( faida) or direct agreement between the parties. “The Very impetlect protection of subjective rights obtainable under a deficient judicial organisation was still further impaired by an extremel primitive _system_of proofs—I'o_make-matters worse, there was degree neertaiaty in men’s grasp. of. whatever law was applicable. ‘The justiciables to whom Roman law applied could no doubt profit from the existence of extensive collections containing all that was essential to it, But for those who lived under Frankish or some other Germanic law, the court was in most cases forced to apply rules known only through oral tradition: the éeges, attempts at putting these laws into writing, were not complete and in fact contained only a very small part of what weshould. describe as the private law. This is true of the Frankish laws (Lex Salica, Lex Ribuaria), as also of the laws of the Alammanians, Bavarians, Saxons, and Thuringians (Lex Alzmannorum, Lax Baioariorum, Lex Saxonum, Lex Angliorum ot Vuerinorum, hoc est Thuringorum), and so on. Tt must be said that the edicts (edictum, praeceptum, praeceptio, etc.) issued by the earlier Metovingians did little to diminish the prevailing uncertainty over the law. The ordinances issued by the Carolingians, known as capitularies (capitulare, capituld), were mote effective in giving some stability to the law; but the results were still modest.1® Having said something of the institutions which were supposed to guarantee the peace (pax) within the Regawm Francorum, we toust make some mention of the institution which was employed in its external conflicts or in civil wars ythe army. The army was compost fe men, Franks, other Germanic ttibes and ‘Gallo-Romans. Under the Merovingians is of: have been far from aniform and often exceedingly primitive, Apart from a few elite groups of warriors, Merovingian armies fought as savage and undisciplined hordes. Under the Carolingians, a reduction in numbers, and efforts to improve the offensive and defensive armament and to set up a good cavalry, were seemingly not without fruit; the growth of yas: ptovided the Frank'sh kings with a nucleus of troops who wete ia pr periiiénenit soldiers, well armed’and well mounted27”~ To conclude this brief account OF tHe StBaHy of government at the 92The institutional framework. of the Frankish monarchy disposal of the Frankish monarchy, it is necessary to mention one institu: tion, knowa to have been introduced at a particular time, which -was-used- to secure some control ever the functioning ofthe.rest :acontrol designed. to permit interventions and, as need arose, the introduction of reforms to improve the working of the other organs. It was with this end in view that the eatly Carolingians, as mayots of the palace and Kings, developed the device available to the head of the Frankish state of using mssi dominici, that is (royal_commissi to enquire into.particular cases;—~ under Charlemdgne this practice was converted into regular periodic inspections conducted by the ssi, inspections which, with some altera- tion, continued undet his successors. Although the results did not always come up to expectations, under. Charlemagne and Louis the Pious the intervention of the mise helped to make the work @ OF public institutions a ake the working of Pubic One of the special features of the system of institutions under the Frankish monaechy-was-the plac occupied init. by.privilege*.by privilege, T mean legal dispositions derogatory to the common law, ima sense fayout--. (SNe Wo tke € corporate. bodies or individuals who were ee beriticiacies) "The importance of privilege in the, political, juridical and economic structure of the Regnum Francorsa is &o_be explained by the operation of « number of factors, One of these was the inadequate protection granted to persons and property by the all too irregular functioning of the organs of public power.” It is essential to’give a little space to the privileges granted by the heads of the Frankish state. I shall limit myself to those which strike me as the most important in relation to this present survey. "The most direct consequence of the inadequacy of the general system of protection, which has just been mentioned, was the development of a form of particular protection, the royal mandeburdis (French: maimbour), which was conferred on individuals. Jt was also extended to certain persons by category; during the Carolingian period at least it was enjoyed, for example, by pilgrims (peregrini pro [De0). The privilege was also granted to churches, Louis the Pious conferred royal protection (usually described as defensia), for themselves and their property, onall churches enjoying the privilege of immunity" Violations of the royal maimboar were regarded a8 Violation of the banmum, and were visited with similar penalties. Those who tame under the king’s special protection could claim the privilege of jurisdiction, that is the tight to have cases to which they were patty judged by the palace couzt. “Another privilege, the immunity (¢nvmitas; from the time of Louis the Pious more often inmmunitas), occupied a place of quite patticular im: _ portance within the institutional framework of the Frankish monarchy." Te-was a ptivilege granted to a church in respect of a single property, oF 93 p*The institutional framework of the Frankish monarchy more generally for its landed pattimoay as a whole. ‘The reason for it lies largely in the arbitrary manner of fixing and collecting whatever survived in the way of direct impositions or other taxes and dues of Roman otigin, particularly during the Merovingian period: it was thus a con- siderable advantage for an ecclesiastical estab it to be exempt from. direct taxes and other dues, and the franchiselaften carried with it the right to collect them on the chutch’s own ‘own account. Another reason why this privilege was sought after was the rapacity of the agents, above all of the lesser agents, of public power: the rile forbidding them to intrude, except in strictly defined cases, on the precincts and lands of an immaunist church, to a latge extent insulated that church and its dependents from a wealth of abuses; it had the further effect of developing in some degree the jatisdiction exercised by the church in its capacity as landed proprietor. We have seen that both the immunity and the special protection granted to churches and miserabiles personae were eagerly sought after because of the protection they afforded against abuses. The reasons why the king or emperor granted or confirmed such privileges were several. First and foremost there was the religious factor, which seems tome incontrovertible; but we cannot altogether disregard the rcnasch 's anxiety in some cases, to.secure the support of some prelate or abbot with power and influence, especially during the Cazolingian period, whea_masy abbots were lay aristocrats, The attitude of both patties—the grantor of the privilege and its benélclary—assumes that public power was unfitted to play its full role. Among other privileges worth mentioning ate those connected with P most considerable of the indirect taxes, to which we shall have to return. From general motives of piety, but also perhaps, in certain cases, to secure Ort Of Some powerful personage, the kings granted ecclesiastical establishments total or partial exemption from toll: moze generously, it appears, under the Carolingians than under the Merovingians. This favour was also granted to pilgrims as a class, at least in respect of their baggage. Hor a large chutch or abbey a privilege of this type did not merely represent a con- siderable negative advantage: the exemption made the task of provision- ing the community easier and gave a considerable stimulus to the sale of produce grown cn the chutch’s estates and to the purchase of such commodities as were not. 2° Although not falling withia the category of privilege, some brief mention should be made of certain ecclesiastical institutions, for example tithes-and_ninths, and the division of the mensae (French: menses). ‘Theit otigin can‘in part be ascribed to the operation of factors analogous to those which produced the privileges just discussed. ‘The authority exercised by the Merovingian and Carolingian heads of the Frankish state over the Church within the Regswm was extensive in 94The institutional framework of the Frankish monarchy the extreme. ‘The intensity with which it was exercised varied; some rulers showed greater diplomacy in the matter than others, But that this authority was indeed exercised, even under the Carolingians, almost all of whom were deeply religious,” and even under Louis the Pious, the most religious of them all, has to be accepted as a fact, and a fact of capital importance. Jn particular, all these rulers, when they judged it necessary, availed themselves of the immense Janded wealth of the Church, It is well known that Charles Martel, Carloman T and Pippin TIL, mayors of the palace who acted as kings, and Pippin III after his accession to the throne in 751, in order to safeguard the Regmm and their dynasty distributed a large part of the Church’s patrimony to theit vassals, at first in full ownership and afterwards in ‘benefice’, We shoul that the intro- duction of the and of the increase in livestocl Pippin LIL and that he regarded the payieiit ‘as a general compensation for the damage the churches had suffered and were still suffering ‘The ‘ninth’ (noma), that is to say a second tithe due from royal vassals who held church land in benefice, and payable to the church which owned the property, was a supplementary compensation, cevised by Charlemagne ia. 779. ‘The root cause of all this was the inability of the earlier Cato! gins to maintain and reward an effective military apparatus merely from their own resources.*9 ‘The same state of affairs explains why all the Carolingians, to secure the needful revenues for their chief collaborators and to win the help and support of some key men, appointed laymen and secular clergy to the head- ship of important abbeys: the result, all too often, was that the major part of the abbey’s revenues was consumed by the lay or secular abbot, while the community lived in penuzy, to the potential detriment of the religious life. Since it was impossible to dispense with lay or secular abbacies, monarchs from Louis the Pious onwatd favoured the constitu tion within the monastic patrimony of a portion withheld from the abbot, whose revenues were to be set aside exclusively for the maintenance of the community; the same reform was introduced into the patrimony of cathedrals, for the benefit of the chapters of canons. In the following centuty these portions became known as the metisa conventualis ot capitularis in distinction to the mensa abbatialis ot episcopalis.® Since our concern here is with the essential featutes of the institutional framework under the Frankish monarchy, we must naturally examine what resources the monarchy had at its disposat— ‘¢ first place there were the proceeds from war, starting with captives, who at least until the beginning of the ninth century were zegarded as slaves. Some of those who fell to the king’s share might be put to work on the royal domains; others might be sold, pethaps, as 95The institutional framework of the Frankish monarchy sometimes happened, to the kings ot chieftains whose subjects ot subordi- nates they had been before their capture.*! "The king’s shate of the booty is certain to have been very considerable, and during periéds of conquest must have brought substantial additions to the treasury. Naturally, not all were of the magnitude of the Avar treasure, brought back in 796 after the capture of the Avar ‘Ring’ in the preceding year , : ‘As well af booty.there were enenval i) posed on conquered peoples. We'eome dcross instances of sudir tributes, payable in coin of in kind, at nearly every petiod in Frankish history; in most cases payments ceased almost immediately or were made only in itregular fashion, To quote a few examples: a annual tribute-of three hundred, cattle was demanded from the Saxons by Chlotar I in 556, and may Been im- posed by Theuderic I at an earlier date; in 748 Pippin III had this promise renewed, and in 758 demanded.a trilute-of tires hundred hosges. The Lombards were paying the king of the Franks.an annual tribute of twelve thousand gold so/id from an unknown date down to 617-8. In 787 duke Arichis of Benevento promised Charlemagne a tribute of seven thousand gold solidi, an engagement soon broken but tenewed in 814 by duke Grimoald, vis-a-vis Louis the Pious. Tributes should not be confused .with subsidies. The Merovingians received subsidies from the Byzantine empéfor as tice of their alliance against the Ostrogoths and later againstthe Lombards, just as they received subsidies from one pretender to the throne of the Visigothic kingdom in Spain for their support against another. Some of the subsidies in question were enormous: the emperor Maurice is said to have paid fifty thousand gold solidi in 583 for military assistance—totally ineffective—from the ‘Austrasian king Caildebert Tl, Again, it is said that in 631 Dagobert I seceived two hundred thousand gold. solidi from the Visigothic king Sisenand, as the price of his services. The proceeds of war were of a ‘casual’ nature; furthermore, since they depended on the success of the Frankish atmies, for most of the seventh century ard in the early part of the eighth, and again from the thirties of the nint’a century, there was very little to be gained from this source: in Francia Oseidentalis the proceeds dropped to zero, atid it would cnot be long before the Frankish kings were forced to pay tribute them- selves.35 . ‘The revenues brought in by the dom: sent a more regular picture. There were nevertheless coniderible fuctaations, due in part to natural causes, but-still more to the methods of exploitation and control, to the granting out of domains in precarial tenure ot in benefice to vassals, to the gifts made to churches or individuals whose services or goodwill had to be secured, and to usurpations. In the present state of our knowledge it is impossible to form an exact idea of the amount of landed wealth 96‘The institutional framework of the Frankish monarchy possessed by the kings and emperors at various times ducing the four centuries with which we are concerned. But T think: it safe to say that it was usually considerable, and that at certain periods it must have been cnormous? ia the sixth century, for example, and again duting the reigns of Pippin IL and Charlemagne, and in the carly paxt of the seiga of Louis the Pious, ‘The spread of these royal domains over the Regen Francarum swas uneven, which meant that some of the Teilreiche were less well endowed in this respect than others.** . "The domains (villa regia, flscus; where a royal residence formed the cenitre, palatium) bad an jmomediate use, which we may think the most important: their produce was available, either on the spot or at a short distance, for consumption by the king oz emperor and his retinue when they took up cesidence in the region; similarly, under the Carolingians at Teast, part of the produce might be earmarked for provisioning the armed forces, Allocations of this kind did not, however, use up the whole product (conlaboraius, laboratss). In Charlernagne’s time, but also no Soubt at other periods as well, part of the product was sold, and a propor- tion of the proceeds had to be paid into the Treasury.” Along with the domains we should mention the hunting reserves (forestis), which could in fact embrace lands which had never, 6f fi Tanger, Formed patt of the royal pattimony.™ ‘The fruits of the chase helped to supply and equip the Palativm, its mumerous personnel aod the many followers and hangers-on. This is also the place to mention the royal mines, open mine-workings (welallum, fossa ferraricia sive plumbaricia) and saltpans (salina, salinaria). "There can be no doubt that between them maladministration, usurpa- tion, misappropriation, wastage, and transport difficulties substantially reduced the effective yield from the royal domains, as from the other inherited resources I have grouped with them. ‘The Carolingians’ multiple attempts at remedying this state ‘of affairs® at times succeeded in limiting the disorder; but they never eliminated it completely. From the end of the reign of Louis thé Pious its increase must have been considerable. . ‘A third group of resoutces can be desctibed as “profits srsing from the exercise of power’. The chief of these must be mentioned, ¥ only “Pasi there were the profits from coinage, insofar as minting was in royal hands, Under the Metovingians, therefore, these profits were very testricted, since royal minting was on a much smaller scale than that of the private moneyers, the mone/arii. Under the Cacolingians, when minting— Enve in exceptional cases—oace more became a royal monopoly, it rust have produced considerable revenues for the treasury. The amounts brought in paturally differed with the period and the region. The profits of justice may have been considerable: two-thirds of the fredum, that is of the ‘one-third of the Frankish composition fine avent to the king, the remaining third being reserved for the-counts“Ehe king aso 97‘The institutional framework of the Frankish monarchy took a fraction of the composition fines levied under the other Germanic laws. When we come to the penal fines—presumably the penal fines levied under Romen law, the fines which served as sanction for the royal annum (60 solidi), and the fines cteated by the Carolingians to punish particular offences (for example the fine of 600 solidi for violation of restricted immunity)—we ate on less sute ground: I am inclined to the view that the count-was entitled to hold back a fraction before translefting the sum paid to the ‘Treasury..One such fine, the beribannum, which was the punishment for the Aon-performance of military service, must have been quite lucrative in view of the large number of defaulters; under Chatlemagne’s successors, especially in Francia Occidentalis, the heribannum seems to have become a kind of ‘military tax’, payable by persons whose ‘service’ did not come up to scratch. ‘In contrast with what 1s iowit Tegarding the judgments pronounced in the mallus or at the placttum held by the missi, there is every reason to believe that when the Palace court imposed a composition ot penal fine the whole of the fredm, ot the whole of the peial fine, went to the king— pethaps after the deduction of a fraction for the count of the palace. ‘The inherent advantage was all the greater in that during the Merovingian and Carolingian periods the Palace court could impose some quite heavy arbitrary penalties. The Palace courtsometimes decteed, usually as a supplementary penalty, the total ot p nial conbication of goods. It appears, too, that this could also happen in Virtue of what we should describe as aa admini- strative decision taken by the king. The profits from justice and the confiscations of property could have been a source of appreciable revenue to the crown. But in the case of the Jreda and the penal fines payable under judgments reached in the ordinary . courts, there must have been a considerable leakage: not everything due to the king can have found its way to. the-TreasuryIn any case, the execu titi of the judicial deci8iéns reached in the mallzs, ot ata session presided over by missi, or by the Palace court, must have presented formidable diiculties, especially when the amount in question was very large. Another potential source of income lay in the statutes_of privilege granted by the king, For example, the merchants (imercatores) attached to the Palace, who ‘Enjoyed important commercial privileges in return for the services they rendered, were required to male an annual or biennial Payment to the Treasury. We know that this happened during the reiga of Louis the Pious. One final source of profit arising from the exercise of power deserves to be mentioned: the presents brought by the ambassadors of foreign monarchs or peoples. When partitions of the Frankish Kingdom were envisaged oF had been effected, the kings of the Toilreiele felt an obliga- tion to exchange such gifts on occasions when they met. The presents 98‘The institutional framework of the Frankish monarchy sometimes took the form of valuable objects..made-.from- preciaus metal 2 "We come next to various groups of revenues which it would be ovet- bold to describe as dizect taxcs: the most that can be said of them is that they present analogies with direct taxes. In this group, the fourth group of revenues to be discussed, we have first of all the old Roman direct taxes, or to be more precise what survived of them. ‘he Merovingians made attempts to continue the Roman land tax (eapitatio lerrena, jugatio) and poll tax (capitatio plebeia) in Gaul, and even tried to adapt them to fresh circumstances. In the course of the sixth and seventh centuries, the growing opposition of the people and the Church to exactions which no longer showed any corresponding benefit worked in conjunction with many other factors to deprive these ributa, _functiones and census of their formet scope and importance. By the end of the seventh century, it can be said that as-an institution they had ceased to exist, In the Carolingian period traces of them still survived hete and thete in the guise of customary dues levied on land o persons and payable to the king. In the sources they are usually desctibed as census regis ox regatis.8 This term can also, howevet, be used of other sources of revenue, In addition to these former Roman direct taxes one can point to other direct taxes, probably not so old, which existed in certain parts of Gaul, for.cxample the inferenda, found in a part-of the Weet: collected originally in heads of cattle, fromthe cighth century. this tax was convertible into fenarii In some basically Germanic parts of the territory ruled by the Frankish monarchy thete is mention during the eighth and ninth centuries of a tributum variously described as stuofa, osterstufa, medem. Scholas whose opinions are worthy of respect have interpreted ted it as a t cup. tion of royal lands, levied on men whose Served Tha ana oe Franck Aiberi (German: Kénigsfreien) from the king’s protection and the services they owed him. The tax they paid, when it was not described by one of the regional expressions quoted above, went by the name of census regalis ox census regius 5 I mention this interpretation merely in order to draw attention to its existence.“* Whatever their origin, it appears that the census regales were not easy to collect, even under Charlemagne. T include within this same group of revenues the ‘gifts’ made annually to the king, the annua dona. Accotding to ancient Germanic tradition these were presents brought to the king voluntarily. Under the Carolin- gians—and no doubt catlier—they were obligatory in character: an imposition laid on each membet of the aristocracy and on ecclesiastical establishments. The ‘gifts’ were often demanded in kind, in particular in weapons and horses, and must have been quite considerable since they wereable to provide mounts, and even arms, fora number of military units. 99The institutional framework of the Frankish monarchy For the sake of completeness, mention must be made of the direct taxes, for such they were, which were raised to pay the tribute demanded by the Normans as the price of their departure: in Francia Occidentalis the tax was first collected in 84; and on several subscquent occasions; - in Lotharingia it was collected in 864. In view of their destination, these taxes cannot be classed as an institution which produced new resources fot the monarchy.” ‘The fifth group of resources to be considered consists of indirect taxes. Chief among them was the toll (#e/onenm), a royal tax levied at the frontiers (at the ports in particular) and internally, on the circulation and sale of merchandise. This duty was a continuation of two Roman indirect taxes, the portorium (sometimes called telovenms even in Roman times), which was a duty on goods in citculation, and the siliguaticum, which was a duty on sales. Under the Frankish kings the toll was introduced into regions which had never formed part of the Roman empire and the number of collecting points increased, During the Merovingian and Carolingian periods it was undoubtedly a source of substantial revenue to the crown, whether the king ruled a Teifreith ox the united Regnum. The amount it yielded, however, was teduced by grants out of the revenue from some of the customs offices, or of the castoms offices themselves, to certain churches; and it ‘was still further reduced by the much mote usual concession of pattial of complete exemption from toll, granted to churches by the Merovingians, and with even greater liberality by the Carolingians. The agents responsi- ble for collecting the toll (¢e/eonearixs), and the counts who were their superiors, no doubt diverted more into their own pockets than the propor- tion they were entitled to by way of remuneration. We can well believe that the establishment of customs posts operated by local agents and potenies on theit own account also reduced the usefulness of tolls as sources of royal revenue. We should inclide in this fifth group certain taxes complementary to the toll, for example the ‘whecl-tax’ (rofaticum) and ‘bridge tax’ (pontaticum) ; in. general their fortunes followed those of the major tax. ‘The product of all the royal revenues, other than those’ earmarked for some special purpose, had to be paid into the royal Treasury; the usual name for the treasury was “besaurus under the Merovingians and fiscus ot camera under the Carolingians, though other expressions, for example aerarium, are also found. In principle the Treasury had its habitation where- ever the king had his, but-it did not always move with him in its entirety. In addition to minted pieces the Treasury housed mintable precious metal and valuable objects, some of which could be turned into mintable metal, but also maay others (stuffs, books, etc.). Custody of the Treasury seems to have been the responsibility of one of the household dignitaries, the camerarias, assisted by sacellarit and dispensatores. When the Regnum was divided, cach Tetreich had its own ‘Treasury. 100‘The institutional framework. of the Frankish monarchy Tt is not known whether the ‘Treasury had a book-keeping department, even of the most primitive kind, which allowed even a minimam degree of foresight. The Treasury was an instrument of government. Tt had its uses in external relations. It was more useful still in internal politics, in efforts to win support, in rewarding services, in attempts to consolidate wavering loyalties, and so on. The Treasury was never used to temunerate the agents of public power. It played an essential role in the benefactions made to churches. Any attempt at characterising the system of institutions under the Frankish monarchy would in my view omit something essential if no attention were paid to the place occupied by the written word. There were times when written, documents played an important tole, "The oldest collections of formulae, assembled as models for the drafting of acts and used by the Frankish monarchy, leave no doubt that in the sixth century, and dating the fisst half of the seventh, written documents were used in administration to a quite considerable extent: for example, patricians, dukes and counts zeceived royal diplomas of appointment. ‘The importance assigned to written documents for administrative put- poses then seems to dectine, until by the middle of the eighth century it stands at zero. Pippin IIL in a modest way, bat above all Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, and in Francia Occidentalis Charles the Bald, made vigorous and systematic efforts to make the written word play an important part in the administration of the Regu. Persuaded of the potency of the written word as a factor making for regularity and stability, these monarchs used it themselves and prescribed its use to their agents: the most notable examples are the instructions given in connection with the administration and upkeep of all the royal domains, the administration of the oath of fidelity to the king or emperor, and the mobilisation of the army. Whether these instructions wete properly carried out remains doubtful in the extreme.®> ‘An important observation needs to be made with regard to the docu- ments issuing from the monarch himself. ‘These documents never, in my view, formed an essential element in the royal act of authority. The only essential element was the decision taken by the monarch and pronounced by him orally, where need be with due regard to the forms. The document subsequently drawn up in the king’s name might serve as proof that the decision had been taken, or as a means of publishing the decision, or as a memorandum to the agents charged with its execution: which of these various uses it was put to depends on the natute of the act. ‘Apart from the purely administrative documents, we can, | think, divide * most of the written acts of the Frankish monarchs, pro subjecta materia, into two. gtoups: those we might describe, stretching the point a little, as ‘chancery acts’, and those which fall under the general heading of ‘edicts’. 101‘The institutional framework of the Frankish monarchy ‘The ‘chancery acts’, that is the acts drafted and copied in the Palace writing offices,## were diplomas or ‘precepts’ which would serve as means of proof in support of gifts or concessions of various kinds. Some of these acts were piaci#a, diplomas drawn up in favour of a party whom the Palace court had declared to be in the right in a suit submitted to it, They could equally well be sracroriae, mandates from the king to his agents ordering them to respect the privileges granted to the beneficiary, and in certain circumstances to supply him with the provisions to which he was entitled. With very few exceptions, the purposé of these documents was to secute to individuals or corporate bodies—usually churches—the enjoyment of individual rights which had their origin ina grant of favour ot privilege made by the king. The use of the written word by the Frankish monarchy is thus bound up with what has already been noted as one of the most characteristic features of its system of institutions: the place occupied in it by privilege. : By ‘edicts’ I mean written documents in which the king’s will manifests itself over a field wider than that covered by the tights of a single bene- ficiary, Edicts were promulgated by Merovingian kings down to the time of Dagobert I, and some of them have sutvived. The practice was resumed under the Carolingian mayors of the palace and continued under the kings. Under Charlemagne, Louis the Pious and Charles the Bald (ruling in Francia Occidentalis), this activity becomes intense. The edicts are usually known under the name capitulary (capitulare, capitula). There is no indication, save in exceptional cases, that they were drafted in what is conventionally known as ‘the chancery’. Some of the provisions they contain are normative; we should nowadays describe them as legislative or statutory. A few of these complete or modify the whole body of national laws in fotce within the Regzwm Francorum, ot do so in sespect of one or other of such laws. But in the majority of cases the pro- ‘visions contained in the capitularies presenta non-notmative, administrative character: they are measures taken in the ordinary course of administra- tion. Nearly all the aeticles contained in capitularia missorum, the memot- anda setting out the instructions given to sissi dominici, quite clearly fall into this category. The capitularies represent remarkable effort, sus- tained for close on a century, at securing to the exercise of government a permanence, stability and regularity which would be unthinkable without recourse to the written word. Tn conclusion, some mention must be made of the presence of conttactual elements within the institutional framework of the Frankish monarchy. In the first place, there was the oath of fidelity which the subjects, or the most prominent of them, took to the king: a promise of loyalty, confirmed by oath. The oath of fidelity existed for a while under the Mertovingians, but very little is known of the institution before the time oz‘The institutional framework, of the Frankish monarchy of Charlemagne. We know that Charlemagne ordered all his subjects to take an oath of fidelity to him in 789, again in 793, and yet a third time in 802, after his imperial coronation, when they had to swear a new oath of fidelity to him as emperor.** We have no precise information about what happened after Chatle- magne’s-death: no firm indication is found in the sources of any general administration of an oath of fidelity to the’ emperor under Louis the Pious;°* the oaths known to have been administered in the Teilreiche were not general oaths, or were confined to particular regions, though there may have been an attempt at a general administration of the oath in Francia Occidenialis in 854.5 The oath of fidelity is an institution which evades our exact undet- standing. Its role was not to cteate the subject’s obligation of fidelity, which already existed independently, but to reinforce it. Apart from these measures, which were of general application, con- tractual relationships which subordinated one man to another were also accommodated within the institutional framework of the Frankish monarchy. ‘The Merovingian kings had theit axtrastiones, watriors whose personal setvice to the king was secuted by an engagement taken under oath; they were protected by a triple wergeld. The anérustiones appear to have been telatively few in number, and very little is known of their role. By contrast, we know that ftom the time of the first Catolingians there was a very great development of the vassalage which consisted in a telationship calling for obedience and setvice on the one side and protec- tion and maintenance on the other: with vassals—picked watriors and horsemen—at their disposal, the mayors of the palace and kings were provided with a permanent fighting force whose efficiency far exceeded that of troops composed of subjects performing their military service. ‘The distribution of ‘benefices’ to vassals helped to boost their social status. Charlemagne’s measutes made royal vassalage part of the institu- tional system of the Frankish monarchy; at the same time, they incor- porated private vassalage into the system, by assigning specific military obligations to churches, counts and others who maintained vassals of their own. On the other hand, Pippin IIL, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious and their successors attempted to use vassalage as a means of reinforcing their power over the agents of their authority. They sequired the latter to become their vassals, thus duplicating the power they exercised over them as king by a more personal authority exercised as lord. The effect of this policy was limited and transitory; to a large extent, the results it achieved ran counter to those intended.t? Many of the elements which formed part of the institutional system of the Frankish monarchy, particularly as it existed during the Carolingian 103‘The institutional framework of the Frankish monarchy petiod, were incorporated into the institutional framework of the succes- sot states as they emerged in the late ninth century. In these new systems they would act as constitutive elements; sometimes they acted as factors of dissociation from older frameworks, or as factors leading to the crea- tion of new elements. They would meet and combine with elements of different origin. In some cases they would fail to bold their own, But their role would always be important. Knowledge of the essential features of the institutional system under the Frankish monarchy is indispensable to any serious attempt at undetstanding the structure of the states, including the great principalities, of Western and Central Hurope between the end of the ninth and the beginoing of the thirteenth centuries. NOTES * ‘Les traits géndraux du systéme d’institutions de la monarchie franque’, IL passaggio dal?” Antiquita al Medioavo in cccidente, SSCT, xx, 196 (Spoleto, 1962). 1, ‘The subject has been treated in some works of outstanding merit. The principal titles arc as follows. G, Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschicbte, 1 Ged edn, in two parts, Berlin, 1882), ux and rv (2nd eda, ibid., 1883-5), which is still important, despite its date, because of the ample documenta- tion, H. Brunner, Dexfsche Ruchtsgescbichte, 1 (and edn, Leipzig, 1906), (and edn, by C. von Schwerin, Munich and Leipzig, rg28): the basic treatise. R. Schroder, Lebrbvch der deutschen Rechtogeschichte (qth edn, by E, von Ktinszberg, Berlin and Leipzig, 1932): lucid, mote succinct than Brunner. H. Conrad, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, 1 (Karlsruhe, 1954); very much to the point, excellent bibliographies. N. Fustel de Coulanges, Histoire des institutions politiques de Vancienne Prance, w1. La Monarchie frangue and vi. Les Transformations de la royauté pendant Pépogue carolingienne (cd. C. Jullian, Paris, 1883, 1892): forceful, in parts outstanding, but marted by an excess of ‘systematisation’, a want of legal insight and some shottcomings in matters of scholarship. A. Esmeia, Cours élémentaire a°bistoire du droit “frangais (z5th eda, by R. Génestal, Paris, 1925): a very clear general account ‘in French. J. Declareuil, Histoire générale du droit franpais des origines d 1789 (Paris, 1925). E. Chénon, Histoire générale du droit frangais public et privé, (Paris, 1926). F. Olivier-Martin, Histoire du droit frangais des origines & la Révolytion (Paris, 1948). A. Dumas, Manuel dbiitoire dx droit frangais (Aix-en- Provence, a.d.): a very individual treatment. ‘These five French’ manuals are more succinct than their German counterpatts. ‘The Merovingian period is dealt with in original and lively style by F. Lot in his chapter ‘Les institutions mérovingiennes’ contributed to -F. Lot, C, Pfister and P. L. Ganshof, Les Destindes de Empire en Occident de 395 @ 888 (and edn, Paris, 1940-1). ‘The same volume contains a chapter entitled ‘Les institutions de la monarchie carolingienne’, contributed by the ptesént author, I, Halphen has some fine pages on institutions of the Carolingian 104The institutional frameworks of the Frankish monarchy period in his Charlemagne et Pempire carolingien (2nd edn, Paris, 1949). F Steinbach’s very full survey Das Frankenreich (in the Handbuch der Destscben Guschidbte, 1 (and edn, directed by 1, Just, Constance, 1956) has no sections devoted specifically to the institutions, but there are pages dealing with the subject which are well worth reading. . On the ‘Germanist’ and ‘Romanist’ schools see the tematks by F. Lot, op. cit., p. 502, no, 26 and 27: brief, but full of meat. EF, Lot’s charactérisation of the institutional system under the Frankish monarchy—the ‘organisation ‘of power’, to use his expression—deserves to be quoted in full (op. cit., 302), These few lines display to the full the acute historical insight and’ lucidity of expression which went with his ‘Superior cast of mind. ‘Le roi métovingien, pout organiser sa conquéte, ne sembarrasse d’aucun systeme. Qualifier de “germanique” ou de “somaine” sa construction est un mon-sens. Le roi conserve du passé, romain ou getmanique, ce qui convient & ses intéréts ou a ses gots. Tl Tropére pas d'innovacions systématiques, mais en cas de besoin, il n’hésite pas A faire du neuf ("In organising what he had conquered the Merovingian king tied himself to no system. It makes no sensc to describe what he created as cither “Germanic” or “Roman”, The king retained from the past, whether Roman or Germanic, whatever suited his intetests or appealed fo his tastes, Without making any systematic innovations, when need arose he had no hesitation in devising something new.’) The hig German treatises give details about Alamannia, Bavaria, Frisia and Saxony; fot Provence prior to the measures introduced by Charles Martel, see R. Buchner, Die Provence in merovingischer Zeit (Stuttgart, 1933)s and for Rhactia, E. Meyer-Marthaler, Rétiea im frithen Mitielalter (Ziarich, 1948). For ninth-ceatusy Saxony consult S. Krtiger, Studien gr Sdebsiscben Crafwchafisverfassung im 9 Jabrundert (Gottingen, 1950), and the review by HL J. Freytag, Niedersicbsisehes Jabrbuch fiir Landesgeschichte, xxust (195%), 199-200. | "To the works cited above, add the important volume Das Kénigtwm (Lindau and Constance, 1956: vol. 1 of Vortrage wd Forschangen, published under the direction of T. Mayer); note in particular the contributions by E. Ewig, O. Hofler, W. Schlesinger, R. Buchner, H. Battner, T. Mayer, and, for the empire, F. Kempf. A radical, but perfectly sound, summing up by F. Lot again deserves to be quoted. Writing of the relationship of the inhabitants of the kingdom to the Merovingian king he semarks: “Tous sont égaux politiquement parce qwils sont égaux dans la servitude’ (op. cit,, 310: “All were politically equal, because equal in servitude’). . The monograph by W. Sickel, ‘Dic Mcrowingische Volksversammlung’, MIOG, 1, Exgéngungsband, 1888, still repays careful reading. _ On this subject see Lot’s vigorous commentary on the assembly of Coulaines November 843 (MGH Cap. 11, no. 254), in F. Lot and L. Halphen, Le rigne de Charles fe Chanve, « (Patis, 1999), 9°-7- . The best expositions, in my view, atc those of G, Tellenbach: Kénigium and Stimme in dor Werdexeit des deutschen Reiches (Weimaz, 1939), and Die Biitstebung des deutschen Reiches (Munich, n.d. [1940}). 105The institutional framesork of the Frankish reonarchy ro. On all the foregoing see the discussion between the present author and R. Buchner which followed the latter’s excellent paper ‘Die romischen und die germanischen Wesensziige in der neuen politischen Ordoung’, contti- buted to Carattert del secolo VIL in Occidente, printed vol. v, i, of the series SSCT (Spoleto, 1958), 320-5. The most important works on Merovingian partitions are now the two studies by E. Ewig: ‘Die frinkischen Teilungen vnd Teilreiche, 521-613", Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Maing, Abbandlungen der Geistes- und Soxialwissenschaftlichen Klasse (1952), and ‘Die frinkischen ‘Teilrciche im 7. Jahrhundert. 613-714’, ‘Trierer Zeitschrift, xxi (1954). 11. On the Ordinatio (MGH Cap., 1, no, 136) and its significance, see F. L. Ganshof, ‘Observations sur ?Ordinatio Imperii de 817’, Festschrift Guido Kisch (Stuttgart, 1555), translated below, Ch. xv. 12, For the ‘imperial’ policy pursued by Louis the Pious and the fleeting triumph of an abstzact conception of power, sce: F. L. Ganshof, ‘Louis the Pious reconsidered’, Héstory, xxar (1957), reprinted below, Ch. xrv, and T., Schieffer, ‘Die Krise des Karolingischen Impcriums’, “Aus Mittelalter sind Newxgit. Festschrift sume 70 Geburtstag von Girhard Kallen (Bonn, 1957)- On the problem in its ecclesiastical aspect, see J. Semmler, ‘Reichsidee und kirchliche Gesetzgebung bei Ludwig dem Frommen’, ZKG, uxt (1960). 15. For this reservation sec F, L. Ganshof, ‘La fin du régne de Charlemagne. Une décomposition’, Zeitschrift fiir Schweizerische Geschichte, xxvax (1948), translated below, Ch. xa1. 14. The classical account is still that of H. Bresslau in his Handbuch der Urkanden- Lehre fiir Deutschland und Ttalien, x 2nd edn, (Leipzig, 1912), complemented by G. Tessies’s valuable observations on the ‘chancery’ of Charles the Bald, in the Introduction to his Recueil des actes de Charles I fe Chawve, 11 (Paris, 1955). For discussion of the highly debatable concept of ‘chancery’, and of the relationship between the departments under the chancellor and the Capella, sce H. W. Klewitz, ‘Cancelleria’ and ‘Kanzleischule und Hof kapelle’, Deatsches Archiv flr Geschichte des Mittelalters, 1 (1937), and xv (1940), and J. Fleckenstein, Die Hofkapelle der deutscban Kénige. Part 1. Grundlegung. Die karolingische Hofkapelle (Stuttgart, 1959). 15. J. Dhondt, ‘Le tite du marquis 4 Pépoque carolingienne’, Arebitum Latinitatir Medii Aevi (Bulletin du Cange), x1x (1946). 16, Investigation of these families is very important. For the Merovingian period, sce K. F. Stroheker, Der Senatorische Adel im Spitantiken Gallien (Tibingen, 1948) and R. Sprandel, Der Merowingische Adel und die Gebiete astlich des Biwins (Exeiburg im Breisgau, 1957). For the Carolingian period, R. Poupardin, ‘Les grandes familles comiales a ’'époque carolingienne’, Reone Historique, wxxtt (1900), although old, is stil] of great value. More recent works: for the west, M. Chaume, Les Origines du duché de Bourgogne, t (Dijon, 1925); for the east, G, Tellenbach, Kénigtm und Stimme (see above, n 9) and the studies by this scholar and his pupils (J. Fleckenstein, K. Schmid, F. Vollmer, J. Wollasch) published under the title Stadion sd Vorarbeiten ser Geschichte des grossfrinkischen und frithdentschen Adels heraus- gegeben von G. Tellenbach Freiburg im Br., 1957). Two exemplary monographs: 10619 20. an 22. 23. 24. 25. + 26, ‘The institutional frameworks of the Erankish monarchy L. Levillain, ‘Les Nibelungen historiques’, Annales du Midi (1937) P. Grierson, ‘Ia maison d’Ewrard de Frioul et les origines du comté de Flandre’, Reve dx Nord, xxiv (1938). By way of comparison, see two works on Carolingian Italy: E, Hlawitschla, Franken, Alemannen, Bayern und Burgu- der in Oberitalien (Ptciburg im Br., 1960), and an outstanding paper by D. A. Bullough, ‘Leo, “qui apud Hlothatium magni loci babebatur’ et le gouvernement du “Regnum Italiac” & Pepoque catolingienne’, Le Mayen Age (1961). . This fact had long been known, but J. Dhondt quite rightly drew atteation to its importance in his Etudes sur Ja naissance des principantés territoriales en France (Bruges, 1948). "This idea is the basis of F. Lot’s remarks on ‘the adoption of the Germanic system of jutisdiction’ under the Merovingians, op. cit., 309-10. F. L. Ganshof, Recherches sur les capitulaires (Pazis, 1958), and the German translation of the same work (by W. A. Hckhardt), which is in fact a new edition, revised by the author, Was waren die Kapitularien? (Weimar and Darmstadt, 1961). On this subject see: F. Lot, L’ Arf militaire et les armies aa moyen dge (Patis, 1946, 2 vols); H, Conrad, Geschichte der deutschen Webrverfassung (Munich, 1939)3 F. L. Ganshof, ‘A propos de la cavalerie dans Jes armées de Chatle- magne’, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Letires, Comptes rendus des séances (1952), and note the Errafa, correcting references to previous pages, made necessary because the author was given no opportunity to read a second roof. v Krause, ‘Geschichte des Instituts der missi dominici’, MIOG, xx (1890), is still very important; but a study like W. A. Eckhardt’s ‘Die Capitularia missorum specialia von 802°, Deutsches Archiv fiir Brforsching des Mittelalters, 2a (1956), shows that the traditional views are in need of revision. R, Dochaerd, ‘Exemption Pimpéts indirects et citculation privilégiée en Europe Occidentale pendant le haut moyen age’, Hommage d Lucien Febore (Paris, 1953, 2 vols), has some passages on this subject which strike me as excellent, although I would notfind myself in agreement with all the author's views. On this sce the notable study by J. Scmmler, “Iraditio und Konigsschutz’, Leitscbrift der Savigny Stiftung filr Rechtsgescbichte, Kanonistisebe Abteiling, XLV (1959). The basic studies are already sather old: M, Kroell, L'Immunité frangue (Paris, 1910}; E. E. Stengel, Die Immumitdt in Dentschland bis zum Ende dis 11 Jahrhunderts, 1 (no more published), (Innsbruck, 1910). See further the vety important article by L. Levillain, T’immunité mérovingieane’, Berne historique de droit francais et étranger (1927), and for a recent survey, F. L. Ganshof, ‘L’immunité dans la monarchie franque’, in Les Liens de vassalité et les immunitis (2nd edn, Brussels, 1958), (Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin, 1, and edn). See above, p. 100, L. Levillain, ‘Erudes sur ’abbaye de Saint-Denis 4 ’époque mérovingienne. iv. Les documents d’histoire économique’, Bibliotheque de I Ecole des Chartes, Xcr (1930). 107The institutional framesork of the Frankish monarchy 27, See, for example, F, L. Ganshof, ‘L’Eglise et le pouvoir royal dans la monarchie franque sous Pépin ILI et Charlemagne’, Le Chiese nei ragni dell” Europa Occidentale ¢ i loro rapporti con Roma sino all’ 800 (Spoleto, 1960); SSCI, vn). 28. U, Stutz, ‘Das karolingische Zchntgebot’, Zeitschrift der Savigny Stiftung fiir Rechtsgeschichte, Germanistische Abteitung, 1908. With H.Feine, Kirebliche ‘Recbésgeschiehte, x (j¢d eda), I agree that. Stutz’s dating seems greatly pre- ferable to others which have been proposed. 2g. The best account of this problem as a whole still sccms to me that of B. Lesne, Histoire de la propritté ecclésiastique en France, v, 11, t, 2 and 3 (Paris and Lille, 1910, 1922, 1926, 1928). 30. E, Lesne, L’Origine des menses dans le temporel des églises (Paris and Lille, 1910). 31. C. Verlinden, L’Esclavage dans Europe médiévale, 1 (Bruges, 1955); F. L. Ganshof, ‘L’étranger dans la monatchie franque’, in L’Evranger, w (Brusscls, 19585 Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin, x). 32. ARF, 796. 33. Gregory of Tours, Historia Francoram, rw, xiv (ed. B, Keusch and W. Levison, MGH in 4°, Seriptores Rerum Merovingicaram, 1, 2nd edn, p. 146); Fredegat, Chronicle, rv, lexty (ed, B. Krusch, MGH in 4°, SS. rer. Merov. 11, p. 158, Wallace-Hsdrill’s edition (W-H), p. 635 Fredegar, Cort., xexi (117), MGH ibid., p, 18:, W-H, p. 101; ARF, 758; Fredegar, Chronicle, rv, xlv (MGH, ibid., p. x44, W-H, p. 37); ARF, 787 and 814. 34. Gregory of Tours, Hist, vi, xlii (MGH as n. 35, p. 314). Fredegar, Céronick, 1y, lxxiii (MGH, p. 157-8, W-H, p. 61-2), These figures cannot be accepted without reserve. 35. See above, p. 100. 36. ‘There are 2 number of studies of the royal domains which attempt to establish precisely what is known about them, either in respect of the Frankish monarchy as a whole ot for a particular area (in Getman, Rasa); some of these studies confine themselves to a specific period, and these in the main have proved the most useful. Here it is not possible to refer even to the principal titles, but they can easily be discovered from the compre- hensive bibliography given in W. Metz, Das Karolingische Reichsgut (Berlin, 1960), which is now by far the most important work on the royal domains at the Carolingian period. 37. In the edict Capitulare de Villis (MGH Cap., 1, no. 32), issued at some time before 800, Chatlmagne reorganised the exploitation and administration of the royal domains, his aim being to eliminate a aumber of abuses. See in particular c. xxviii, xxx, xxxiii, xliv, and the commentary by M. Bloch, ‘La organizacion de los dominios teales carolingios y la teorias de Dopsch’, Anuario de historia del derecho Espatol (1926). |. Despite its title, there is much of interest for the ninth century in E. Fairon’s excellent paper ‘Les donations de foréts aux Xe et Xe siécles en Lothatingie et en Allemagne’, Revue belge de Philologie et a” Histoire, rv (1925), teptinted in the collection of his papers published as Miscellandes bistoriques (Litge, 1945)- 39. The best known attempt is represented by Capitulare de Villis, see above, n. 37. For these efforts in general, see W. Metz, op. cit., and in particular the first section, ‘Die Zentralverwaltung der Kénigsgiiter’. 3 108The institutional framenork of the Frankish monarchy 4o. F. L. Ganshof, ‘Note sur le “praeceptum negotiatorum” de Louis le Picux’, Séndi in onore di Armando Sapori (Milan, 1957). . For the Merovingian period, see my paper ‘Merowingisches Gesandischafts- wesen’, Aus Geschichte und Landeshunde. Forschungen und Darstellungen Franz Steinbach zu seinem 65 Geburtstag gewidmet (Bonn, 1960). For a good example from the Carolingian period, see Ordinatio Imperii, 817 (never put into effect), c.v. and xii (MGH Cap., 1, no. 136), 42. F, Lot, L’Tespét foncier et la capitation personnelle sous le Bas-Enppire et D dpogue frangue (Patis, 1928). 43. See bélow, same page. 4a. F. Lot, ‘Un grand domaine 4 ’époque franque, Ardin en Poitou’, Cinguante- naire de Ecole Pratique des Hautes Esudes. Mélanges (Patis, 1921). The views I have summarised, greatly simplifying them in the process, can be found in the following: T. Mayer, ‘Kénigtum und Gemeinfreiheit im frithen Mittelalter’, Deutsches Archiv fiir die Exforsebnng des Mittelalters (1943), a revised version of which is printed in the collection of Mayer’s papers entitled Mittelalterliche Studien (Lindau and Constance, 1959), and his paper ‘Die Kénigsfreien und der Staat des frilhen Mittelalters’ in Das Problew der Freibeit (= vol. 1 of Vorivige und Forschungen .. ..geleitet von T. ‘Mayer, Lindau and Constance, 1955); H. Dannenbauer, ‘Hundertschaft, Centena und Huntari’, Hiszorisches Jabrbnch, wxem/uxtx (1949), a revised version of which is reprinted in the collection of Dannenbaner’s papers published as Grandlages der Mittelalterlichen Welt (Stuttgart, 1958); ibid., ‘Freigrafschaften und Freigerichte’, Das Problem der Freibeit (see above). 46. Tt seems to me by no means established that the conceptions outlined by these scholars could have had the very wide bearing they allege. I am not in any case ptepared to believe that in all parts of the Frankish kingdom census regins ot regalis invatiably had the origin they assign to it, 47. E. Joranson, The Danegeld in France (Rock Island, 1925); F. Lot, ‘Les tributs aux Notmands et I'Eglise de France au [Xe sidcle’, Bibliothigue de PEcole des Chartes (1924). 48. F. L. Ganshof, ‘Het tolwezen in het Frankisch Rijk onder de Merowingen’, (with French summary, ‘Le tonliea dans la monatchie franque sous les Mérovingiens’), Meded. d. Kon, Via. Acad. 2, Wet., Kd, Lett. 1958. The same, “A propos du tonlicu & Pépoque carolingienne’, Le Citta nell” alto medioeva (Spoleto, 19593 vol. vr of SSCD. 49. Form. Marculfi, i, no. 8, ‘Carta de ducato et patriciatu et comitatu’, MGH Formulae, pp. 47-8.'The patrician in question must have been the ‘patrician’ who. was governor of Provence. je. My article ‘Charlemagne ct Pusage de Pécrit en matiére administrative’, Le Moyen Age (1951), translated below, Ch. VIIT, attempts to treat the subject in relation io Charlemagne’s reign, 51, The credit for highlighting the essential importance of the oral act belongs to A. Dumas, ‘Ta parole et [’écriture dans les capitulaires carolingiens’, Mélanges d'Histoire du moyen dge dédits d la mémoire de Louis Halphen (Pasis, 1950). 52, See above, p. go. 53. Sec above, p. 936. 4 45. 109‘The institutional framework of the Prankish monarchy 54. A fine edition (with German translation) of six of these edicts, which revise or complement the Salic Law, nas been published by K. A. Eckhardt, Pactus Legis Salicae, w, 2. Kapitularien nnd 70 Titel-Text (Gottingen, 1956), pp. 362 ff. There are important observations on the legislative activity of ‘the Meroviogians in F. Beycrle, ‘Die beiden saddeutschen Stammesrechte’, Zeitschrift der Savigny Stiftung fiir Rachtsgescbichte, Germanistische Abteilung (2956), 136-40. . See above, p. 93- . Sec my book on the subject cited above, n. 19. For the texts, apart from those published in new editions, details of which are given in that work, see MGH Cap,, rand 1. 57 FE. L, Ganshof, ‘Charlemagne et le serment’, Mélanges d°bistoire de mayen age dbdits & la mémoire de Louis Halphen (Pais, 1950), translated below, Ch. VIL. 58. On the other hand, there are a number of indications that the emperor demanded from *he magnates confirmation under oath of their adherence to various dispositions for the succession to the throne: something quite diffezent. 59. Capitulare missorum Alttiniacense (854), ©. xiii and formula, MGH, Cap., 1, no. 261. For what is said in this paragraph, see F. L. Ganshof, Qs'est-ce que la _féoedalit#? (3rd edn, Brussels, 1957); the English translation (by P. Grierson, ‘Feudalism, 3d English edn, 1964) and the German translation (by R. and D. Groh Was ist das Lebnowesen? (Datmstadt, 1961), amount to new editions, tevised by the author. aS 6: $ 110VII. Charlemagne’s use of the oath* HE OATH, as we know, was one of the remedies Charlemagne employed to make up for the deficiencies in the organisation of {his realms.))Brief accounts of the oath as a legal institution will be found in the vatious works dealing with the public law of the Carolin- gian state. Elsewhere, scholars have investigated the possible connections between the oath and the feudovassalage complex.? It is my hope that a study concentrating on Charlemagne’s employment of the oath may contribute towards a more precise knowledge of the institution itself and to a better understanding of that monarch’s reign. To obtain a clear view of the subject, it is important to realise that the policy pursued in this matter by the great king of the Franks had several successive phases. The earliest texts with a bearing on oaths date from 779 and form part of the capitulary of Hetstal, the ordinance which sets down in writing some of the measures intended to strengthen the mon- atchy following the tertible crisis of 778. But far from figuring as an instrument of government, the oath is there represented as a source of potential danger. Article xvi prohibits gilds, in other words associations concluded through mutual oaths whose purpose was to support members in need of material help, or whose goods had been destroyed by fire or shipwreck. It is not the aim which is considered illicit: associations with the same aims, concluded through unsworn agreements, are allowed. The objection is to the oath. This was partly, no doubt, for religious teasons: it was feared the associates might perjure themselyes.¢ But the chief ground for distrust was that the oath forged a bond between the members powerful enough to present a setious threat to public power, should the associates decide to embark on any subversive action. Missi sent to tour Aquitaine ten years later are reminded that the prohibition is still in force.§Charlemagne s ase of the oath ‘The employment of the oath by the royal power appeats to be linked with the plot hatcaed against Charlemagne in 785 by count Hardrad and other members of the Franconian and Thuringian aristocracy. In the spring of 786, before the conspirators had made any open move, the king ordered them to be arrested and despatched under escort to Rome or sanctuaries in Italy, Neustria and Aquitaine; there they were made to take an oath on relics, swearing fidelity to Charlemagne and his sons. This done, sentence was passed: for some of the conspirators the punish- ment was blinding, for others exile, one or two were condemned to death and all had their property confiscated.* Presumably the object of the (post factun administration of the oath was to provide some semblance of. legal justification for a repressive action of quite exceptional sevetity.” Tt was no doubt this same conspiracy which gave tise to a measure of more general application:* the resuscitation of the oath of fidelity to the king, which in former days had been requited from all subjects. ‘This was an institution which had apparently fallen out of use in the seventh century; it is possible that the magnates took an oath of fidelity to Pippin IL at his accession, and pethaps to Charles and Carloman ig, 768 and again to Charles in 771, but the matter is still open to ape ay be won- dered why the oath of fidelity to the king was not reintroduced immedi- ately. A probable explanation is that a measute of this kind would need a certain amount of psychological and material preparation. In any case, the capitulary promulgated on the subject—if it ever existed—has not survived. Bat we know that in 789 the decision was put into effect. 1° And ‘we know beyond any doubt that this was an oath imposed not only on ‘Formula for fe has survived, a8 given in a capitulary of the saffl€ year: “Thus I, so-and-so, promise my lord Charles the king and his sons that T am faithful and will remain so all the days of my life, without fraud ot malice.” It will be noted that the formula contains no invocation to the deity, although the oath must cestainly have been taken in a church or over relics, and that the verb used is promittere, although the introductory passages speak of sucramenta and izrare, which leaves us in no doubt how to interpret it. We know nothing of how the oath taking was organised, apart from the fact that the arrangements were entrusted to missi: the names of those tesponsible in Aquitaine have come down to us, Mancio and Rugerius.!5 (Cie scope of the oath is easy to define; fidelity as here conceived is a negative concept: it consists in doing nothing which might endanger the person of the king and his sons or the royal power, the promise to be kept without dissimulation. Precisely speaking, it means refraining from what the conspirators of 785-6 had attempted.!8)T'hat this was indeed what men at the time understood by fidelity is Sonfirmed by a later text. In S02, ordering a new oath of fidelity to himself now that he was emperor, wzCharlemagne’s use of the oath Charlemagne reminds his subjects of the meaning attached to fidelity itherto: to do nothing which would eadanger the life of the sovereign, to refrain from introducing enemies into the kingdom and from condon- ing the ‘infidelity’ of another, not to refrain from denouncing the ‘inf- delity’ of another.” On the other hand, there is nothing ia the formula to suggest that those who tools the oath would be disposed to regard Charlemagne as lord rather than king." The oath brought two immediate advantages. It created a direct, personal link between the subject and the king. But mote important still, anyone who btoke it became guilty not only of ixfidelitas but also of perjury: if his infidelity was not great cnough in degree to attract the death penalty, he could still be condemned to lose his right hand as a petjurer, and what was more, in religious terms he had placed himself in a state of mortal sin. Beyond this, the reintroduction of the general oath of fidelity seems to fall in line with a general reorientation in Chatlemagne’s policy, following the discovery of Hardrad’s conspiracy: a policy which laid greater stress on fidelitas and on better provision for secuting it. It is even quite possible that oaths of fidelity were imposed in 787 on the recently—and theoretic- ally—subjected Beneventans, and also on the Bavarians, whose duke Tassilo ILL had been forced into making his submission.2! It is equally noteworthy that after 786 diplomas granting the privilege of free abbatial or episcopal election to abbeys and churches contain a clause specifically enjoining the election of a person entirely faithful to the king In its manner of execution, the oath-taking of 789 must have been highly unsatisfactory; this is hardly surprising, in view of the very primi- tive administrative machinery available to the Frankish monarchy, coupled with the hostility an innovation of this kind would be likely to meet in a society for which the legitimacy of an institution was a function of its traditional character. The shortcomings of 789 were brought to light by the great crisis of 792, and in particular by the plot against Charlemagne hatched in that year by his favourite bastard, Pippin the Hunchback, and members of the Frankish aristoctacy, several counts being among them.** The conspirators sought to justify themselves at the inquest by declaring that they had never taken the oath of fidelity. Deeply disturbed by these happenings, the king thereupon decided, at a diet held in Regensburg some time between 25 December 792 and 7 April 793, that the oath would have to be administered again throughout his realms, and issued a seties of instructions which would make the oath-taking truly general in character. _ The Frankish and Lombard kingdoms were divided into missatica. ‘The commissionets fot each missaticum wete instructed to make a pre- liminary announcement to justify the proceedings, on the one hand pointing out that the oath was fully in line with an ancient tradition, and 113Charlemagne’s use of the oath on the other commenting on the conspirators’ circumstantial plea that they had never sworn fidelity to the king. (he commissioners themselves were expected to take the oath from the most important persons within their missaticum, the bishops, abbots, counts, royal vassals, vicedomin’ (French: vidames), archdeacons and canons. The #issi had to make sure that abbots made the members.of their communities ptomise—they were not to swear-—fidelity: this would apply to Benedictine monks and any other clerics leading a conventual life2} Most important of all, the missé had to ensure that each count in their missaticum attanged for every male inhabitant of his county, from the age of twelve and upwards, to take the oath, ‘The vatious categoties of oath-takers are particularised. First, the lesser agents of civil and ecclesiastical authority, the advocati, vicarii, centenarii, and any ptiests who did not belong to a community; next the free men, both those who were pagenses, i.e. non-dependent, and those who were dependert, either as vassals ot otherwise, on Jay and ecclesias- tical lords; lastly, those among the semi-free who performed certain functions, held a beaefice, or had been given the mount and armament of a vassal by their lord. Documents compiled by the counts and the missé would serve to control the operation and act as a record. Anyone who evaded his duty to take the oath was to be dealt with in ways prescribed.” ‘Apart from its organisation and universality, there is practically nothing about the oath-taking: of 793% to distinguish it from that of 789. Even the formula was probably identical. (PTom the instructions issued in connec- tion with the oath-taking of 793, it is clear that the oath of fidelity due to the king from all his subjects differed from the oath of fidelity which formed one of the two acts creating the tie of vassalage. As we have seen, “The lstof persons required bo take The tath i 9p taclnded zosal vassals and the vassals of private lords, two categories of people who would alrem rave taken the oath of fidelity to their lord when they became his ‘vassal. 2% Tf the conspirators of 792 sought to exculpate themselves by alleging the oath had not been administered to them, that is surely an indication of the great impression produced by the reintroduction of the subject’s oath to the king in 789, aod of men’s awareness of the importance of the oath in the organisation of the state and in public life in general 9° We can easily imagine that the effect was still greater when the new oath- taking of 793 was accompanied by measures to make it fully universal and strictly obligatory. The employment of the oath for purposes of government did not re- move its dangers when used by private persons for different ends. Between the years 785 and 792 we find several indications that in the eyes of royal power oath-taking was abhorrent. Charlemagne included in the important collection of regulations for the Church he promulgated in 789, known to us as the Admonitio generalis, a text based on the eighteenth canon of the 1rd,Charlemagne’s use of the oath Council of Chalcedon forbidding clerics and monks to conspite against theit bishops and abbots; the prohibition was renewed by the synod of Frankfurt in 794, and from the more explicit text then issued we learn that the objection was precisely to conizrationes, that is to compacts based on a soutual oath. Still more characteristic is the regulation included in a capitulary of 789 (giving instructions to missi, and also the formula for the oath of fidelity) forbidding drunkenness and, ‘the sworn compacts made in the name of St Stephen, ot of ourselves or our sons’. What this regula- tion forbids are the sworn associations to which members were admitted during carouses in honour of St Stephen, Charlemagne, and his sons, that is to say potationes which invoked for the purpose the name of some saint or important personage.™ Quite apart from the tisk of perjury, these customs were clearly considered dangerous because of theit still semipagan character—they may have been accompanied by magical practices—and above all because the oath might bind the sworn associates together in some ctiminal enterprise. Hardrad and his fellow conspirators had very likely caroused together, calling on the name of St Stephen or some other patron, A few yeats later the question of oath-taking again came to the fore as a result of Charlemagne’s imperial coronation. There can be little doubt that for some time after that event Charlemagne remained acutely con- scious that his responsibilities had increased and that he was answerable to God, even more than before, for the conduct of all Christians subject to his authority. ‘These preoccupations found expression in a ‘programmatic’ capitulary, whose content was communicated to the missi sent to tour the various parts of the realm in the spring of 802. It should further be noted that the capitulary shows pronounced disquiet at the number of abuses prevalent in the empire. The tasks of arranging for 2 new oath- taking was entrusted to the miss, who received specific instructions in a document whose text is known to us in the case of three missatica: Patis (for which the azissi were Abbot Fatdulf of St Denis and count Stephen of Paris), Le Mans (Archbishop Magenard of Rouen and a count Madelgaud) and Orleans (Archbishop Magnus of Sens and a count Godefted). An- nexed to these documents are two formulas for the oath.?” is new oath-taking was to be a completely general one. Its immediate purpose was to bind all Charles’s subjectstohimin his capacity as emperor: everyone, clerical and lay—the former having regard to their vows and promises—who had previously promised Charles fidelity as king, was now tequited to promise him fidelity as emperor, and anyone, from the age of twelve and upwards, who had not yet made such a promise, now had to do so.5*\he text of the oath is given in two forms: ‘By this oath I promise, from this day forward, to be faithful to the lord Charles, the ‘most pious emperor, son of king Pippin and queen Bertha, on my part with a right mind, without fraud or malice, to him on his part and to the 115Charlemagne’s use of the oath honour of bis kingdom, as a “man” should rightfully be to his lord, with the help of God and the saints’ relics in this place; since I intend, all the days of my life, by my own will, as far as God gives me understanding, so to conduct myself, nd hope it may he so.’ Another: ‘By this oath I promise to be faithful to the lord Charles, the most pious emperor, son of king Pippin and Bertha, as a “man” should rightfully be to his lord, fos the good of his kingdom and his rights. And T will keep and hope to keep this oath I have sworn, so far as 1 know and understand it, from this day forward, with the help of God, the creator of heaven and earth, and of these saints’ relics.’ When the formulas of 82 ate compared with the one used in 789, three things strike us. First, their length. Next, the more explicitly religious characte of the promise. Lastly, the introduction of an element from the oath of fidelity taken by vassals, royal vassals in particular.(? ‘The inten tion is quite clear. [here was naturally no question of making all the ing’s subjects his Gases Sr to do this, there Would also have to be the ceremony of izmixtio manuin. The aim was to make the subject’s fidelity a stricter obligation, to extend it to a wider field, and to make it yield a greater dev SE WhIch were hallmarks of the fidelity expected from the vassal.14 "The ‘programmatic’ capitulary maps out the much wider field in which fidelity is now demanded from the subject. The missi are ordered to instruct people in the gravity and importance of the oath of fidelity," which entails obligations much greater than those contained in the limited fidelity familiar from tradition.” The suggestion is not that something new is being introduced but merely that being frithful meant more than was previously believed; no direct challenge is offered to ways of thinking which disliked pronounced changes in the legal domain. For all that, the obligations and prohibitions implied by the fidelity due to the king from his subjects ate set out in detail: everyone is to ‘keep himself in the sacred service of Ged; there is to be no appropriation of royal lands and setfs, no aiding and abetting those who commit such offences; no one is to harm churches, widows and orphans; benefices held of the king must, not be robbed to build up allodial possessions; the summons to the host must be Gbeyed, and agents of public power are not to grant unjustified exemptions from it; imperial orders, and taxes due to the emperor, must not be disregarded, there must be no interference with the execution of orders or with the payment of taxes, nor must anyone ‘neglect to pay his debts and dues; ce-tain practices which endanger the course of justice must be eschewed. ‘All this is binding, because of the oath taken to the emperor.” The enlargement of the idea of fidelity is difficult to deny; in the past people who flouted these obligations and prohibitions had not normally been branded as afidelis, with all the consequences that could entail.!5 Furthermore, under the new dispensation any offender was also 116Charlemagae’s use of the oath committing perjury, and tan the tisk of losing his right hand."* Providing people kept their oath, and the provisions of the capitulary were imple- mented, there was a real hope of eliminating quite a number of abuses, In the event, this wider conception of fidelity went the way of some of the othet teforms conceived in the wake of the impetial coronation and remained a dead letter. Between the years $02 and 814 we heat nothing of its application in practice; when capitularies speak of infidelitas, they en- visage the teally flagrant examples, already covered by the limited, traditional conception.*’ Men’s mind were doubtless not yet ripe enough for such a ttansformation* The general oath-taking of 802 was the last. We hear of no provision for systematic administration of the oath to youngsters as they reached the age of twelve; such method could hardly be expected, given the prevailing disorder in the Carolingian state. From time to time we find the emperor ordering the oath to be administered to persons who had not yet taken it; this happened in 805, 806 and very likely in 811. In 806 Charlemagne ordered all free men to promise under oath to respect his recent dispositions for the succession, but how far this order was cartied out remains unknown.® ‘Although the oath continued to occupy a central position among the institutions of the Frankish state, during the latter years of the reign its use was still regarded as a source of potential danger, and it was treated like some explosive substance, necessary to the safety of the state but dangerous if left unchecked in the hands of private individuals) As always, this was partly on religious grounds;*° but again, as in the past, the chief teason was apprehension over public security. Hence the reiteration in 803 of regulations forbidding sworn associations in the name of the king and his soos and the punishments prescribed in 805 for anyone taking part in a conspiracy, punishments which were all the more severe if an oath had been sworn.5t(Hlence, above all, the absolute interdiction pro- nounced in 805 on all oaths of fidelity between individuals, apart from the oath of fidelity to the king, the vassal’s oath of fidelity to his lord, binding him to service of both king and lord, and of course the oaths required for judicial purposes. There could be no clearer declaration that the oath of fidelity was stPietly reserved for the king, since the whole structure of vassalage was henceforward to be geared to his interests. in reality, the oath did not serve the interests of the monarchy, From as catly as 792 it gave credit to the idea that the oath itself was the basis of royal authority, wheteas it was merely a means of coofitming and rein- forcing the subject’s pre-existing obligation to° be faithful} like the loyalty oath taken in our own day by Belgian officers and officials. Aay- one who succeeded in evading the oath could believe he had also evaded. “the duty of fidelity. The existence of the oath encouraged men to think of power in contractual terms, an idea whose growth was further EB. . 17Charlemagne’s use of the oath stimulated by the oath-takings which were so frequent an occurrence in the reign of Louis the Pious. NOTES * ‘Charlemagne et le sctment’, Miélanger @bistoire du Moyen Age dldits 2 la moire de Louis Halphen (Paris, 1951), 259-70. 1. C. B, Odegaard, ‘Carolingian oaths of fidelity’, Speciium, xvx (1941), 2843 F. L. Ganshof, ‘I’échec de Charlemagne’, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettves. Coniptes rendes des stances (2947), 252, translated below, Ch. XU . A. Dumas, ‘Le sorment de fidélité et la conception de pouvoir du Ter au [Xe sitcle’, Reme historique do droit franpais et étranger (1931); F. Lot, ‘Le setment de fidélité & Pépoque franque’, Revue belge de philologie et a’ histoire, xr (1933); A. Dumas, same title, ibid., xv (2935). The vassal’s oath will not be dealt with in this present article save in passing, and I shall not, of course, be concerned with the oath as a means of proof in judicial matters. |. MGH, Cap., 1, 0. 20, c. i: De sacramentis per gildonia invisem coninrantibys, ut neroo facere prassumet. Alio vero mada de illoram clemosinis ant de incendio aut de narfragio, quaneis convenentias faciant, nemo in hoe iurare prassuniat. 4. In this sense, B. Coornaert, ‘Les Ghildes médiévales’, Reowe Historigne, (2948), 33-4 . Breviarinm missornns aquitanicum, MGH Cap., 1, 0. 24 (789): De gellonia. "he reminder takes the form of a reference back to an atticle in the capitulary of Herstal; other examples could be quoted. For a derailed account, with references, see S. Abel and B. Simson, Jabr- biicher des friinkischen Riches unter Karl dem Grossen, 1 (2nd edn, Leipzig, 1888), 520-5 and 527-9; sound appraisal of the events in A. Kleinclausz, Charle- magne (Paris, 7934), 203-5. The administration of the oath is recorded “Annales Nazariani, 786 (MGH SS, 1, p. 42): Sansmisit .. . aliguas in Ttaliam et ad S. Petrum, quosdam vero in Nestriam atque in Equitaniam per corpora sanctorun, stiliced wb inrarent fidelitatem regi liberisque eins. . Other arbitrary actions, for example the infliction of mutilations prior to judgment, appear to have been perpetrated while the conspiracy was being suppressed. See, among others, H. Brunner and C. von Schwerin, Dentsche Rechtsgescbichte 1 (2nd edn, Munich and Leipzig, 1928), 75; Kleinclausz, op. cit., 206-22; Odegaard, op. cit. 284. Brunner—von Schwerin, op. cit., and edn, 1, 75; E. Mublbacher, ‘Die ‘Treupfiicht in den Urkuaden Karls des Grossen’, MIOG, v1. Ergtinzungs- band (1907), 872; Dumas, ‘Serment’ (1931), 289-90 (with considerable exaggeration as regards the oaths taken to the first Carolingians); Odegaard, op. cit., 284. Fustel de Coulanges had reservations: Histoire des Institutions politiques de Pancienne France, wri Les Transformations de la monarchie a l’époque carolingienne (Paris, 1891), 238-45. For Pippia we have a text, but the inter pretation of the vital word (subieclio) is debateable: Fredegar, Cou, exvii s st : 118Charlemagne’s use of the oath (xxiii), (ed. B. Krusch, MGH, SS rer. Merov., 1, p. 182, in the edition of Wallace-Hadzill, p. 102): Cum consecratione episcoporam et subjectione principum « «+ sublimatur in regno, For Charlemagne (and Carloman) we are reduced to arguing from analogy. 10. Daplese legationis edictum, c. xviii (MGH, Cap., 1, no. 23): for the text of the formula see below, n, 12. The text is dated 23 March 789; this date does not refer to the text which in most manuscripts precedes the ‘edict’, i.c. the Admonitio generalis (ibid., no. 22: also 789, in my view): when a capitu- lary of Charlemagne’s is dated, the date is given at the head of the text, as was shown by G, Secliget, Die Kapitularien der Karolinger (Munich, 1893), 68. ‘The contrary view put forward by K. Zeumer, ‘Aamerkung tiber die sogenannte Admonitio generalis und das angebliche Duplex legationis edictum vom Jahre 789°, in G, Waitz, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 1 (Gottingen, 1896), 403~r0, I find unconvincing. The date 789 for the oath-taking is in any case borne out by the heading of the Breviarinm missorum aguitanicum of the same year (MGH Cap., 1, no. 24): Incipit breviarinm de illa capitula quae domns resc in F.quitania Mancione et Engerio missis suis explore [jussit of} sacra~ mentum fidelitatis tware. Voat this capitulary was in fact promulgated in 789 can be presumed from c. ii. a1, As emerges from the arrangements made for the oath-taking of 792-3, which was intended to make good the deficiencies of its predecessor. . Dipl. leg. td., ©. xviii: De sacramentis fidelitatis causa, quod nobis et filiis nostris iurare debent, quod his verbis contestari debet: Sic promitto ego ille partibus domini sei Caroli regis et filiornm eius quia fidelis sum ef oro diebus vitae meas sine frande et malo ingenio. . ‘This can be presumed from the proceedings in 786 (sce above, n. 6), from the text of one of the formulae used in Boz (see below, n. 39), which is unlikely to have introduced any innovations in this respect, and from the usage followed in judicial matters: Lex Rébuaria, ed. Sohm, MGH Leges, vy, xxii, 3; xxiii, 2; Capitulare legi Ribuariae additum, MGH Cap., 1, no. 4 (803), . xi. 14. c,d of the Council of ‘Tours, 813 (MGH Concilia, 11, 10. 38) uses the wotds fidem qua ei promissant babent 10 remind the bishops of the oath they had sworn, on relics, to the emperor in 802. 15, See above, n. 10. 16, Annales Nagariani, 786: concilium fecerunt, ut Carolum regem Francoram dolo Jenerent of occiderent; si ergo boc scelum atgue nefandissimum crimen perpetrare non pracvaluissent, saltion boc enpiebant constituere, ut non ei oboedissen? neque obtem= perassent inssis eins, 17. Capitulare missorum generale (802); MGH Cap., 1, 10. 33, ¢. iit... wt multi ssque nme existimaverunt, tantum fidslitate domno imperatori usque in vita ipsiss, ef me aliquem inirricum in suum regnsire cansa inimicitiae inducat, ef ne alieué infidelitate illius contentiant aut retaciat....On the negative character of the first oath of fidelity see Lot, op. cit, 571, and Odegaatd, op. cit., 290. HL Mitteis, Leburecht snd Staatsgewalt (Weimar, 1933), writes with penetra- tion on the originally negative character of the idea of fidelity. A, Dumas, ‘Serment’ (1931), thinks otherwise, and his views seem to meet with some sympathy from Odegaard (see his “The concept of royal 1 11gCharlemagne’s use of the oath stimulated by the oath-takings which were so frequent an occurtence in the reign of Louis the Pious.5* NOTES * ‘Charlemagne et le sctment’, Milanges Phistoire du Moyen Age dlidits & ia mimoire de Louis Halphen (Patis, 1951), 259-70 1. C. E, Odegaard, ‘Carolingian oaths of fidelity’, Specadum, xvz (1941), 2843 F. L. Ganshof, ‘L’échec de Charlemagne’, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Letires. Comptes rendes des stances (2947), 251, translated below, Ch. XUL . A. Dumas, ‘Le serment de fidélité et Ja conception de pouvoir du Ter au [Xe sitcle’, Revue historique de droit franguis et étranger (1931); F. Lot, ‘Le serment de fidélité 2 Pépoque franque’, Reows belge de philologic et a’ histoire, x1 (1933); A. Dumas, same title, ibid., xrv (1935). The vassal’s oath will not be dealt with in this present article save in passing, and I shall not, of course, be concerned with the oath as 2 means of proof in judicial matters. |. MGH, Cap., 1, 0. 20, ¢. i: De sacramentis per gildonia invicem conisrantibus, ut nemo facere pracsumat. Alio vero moda de illoruns elemosinis ant de incendio aut de naxfragio, quansris convenentias faciant, nemo in hoe iurare pracsumat. 4. In this sense, BE, Coornaert, ‘Les Ghildes médiévales’, Revue Historique, (1948), 33-4. . Breviariam missoruss aguitanicum, MGH. Cap., 1, no. 24 (789): De gellonia. ‘The reminder takes the form of a reference back to an article in the capitulary of Herstal; other examaples could be quoted. For a detailed account, with references, see S. Abel and B. Simson, Jabr- butcher des friinkischen Reiches unter Karl dem Grossen, t (and edn, Leipzig, 1888), 520-5 and 527-9; sound appraisal of the events in A. Kleinclausz, Charle- magne (Patis, 1934), 203-5. The administration of the oath is recorded Annales Nagariani, 786 (MGH SS, 1, p. 42): srantmisit . .. aliquos in Ttaliam et ad S. Peirum, quosdam vero in Neustrian atque in Equitaniam por corpora sanctorum, scilicet ut israrent fidelitatem regi liberisque eins. . Other arbitrary actions, for example the infliction of mutilations prior to judgment, appear to lave been perpetrated while the conspiracy was being suppressed. . See, among others, H, Brunner and C. von Schwerin, Deutsche Recbésgeschichte 1 @nd edn, Munich aad Leipzig, 1928), 75; Kleinclausz, op. cit., 206-225 Odegaard, op. cit., 284. Brunner—von Schwerin, op. cit., and edn, 1, 753 E. Mithlbacher, ‘Die ‘Treupflicht in den Urkunden Karls des Grossen’, MIOG, vr. Erginzungs- and (1907), 872; Dumas, ‘Serment’ (1951), 289-90 (with considerable exaggeration as r2gards the oaths taken to the first Carolingians); Odegaard, op. cit., 284. Fustel de Coulanges had reservations: Histoire des Institutions politiques de Pancienne France, vi: Les Transformations de fa monarchie d Pépogue carolingienne (Patis, 1891), 238-45. For Pippin we have a text, but the intex- pretation of the vital word (sbiectio) is debateable: Fredegar, Cont., cxvii a ot 2 118Charlemagne’s use of the cath (wxsiii), (ed. B. Krusch, MGH, SS rer. Meron, 11, p. 182, in the edition of Wallace-Hadeill, p. 102): Cums comseeratione episcoporum: et sbiections principum « «« sublimatur in regno. For Charlemagne (and Catloman) we are reduced to arguing from analogy. 10. Duplex legationis edictum, c. xviii (MGH, Cap., 1, no, 23): for the text of the formula see below, n. 12. The text is dated 23 March 789; this date docs not refer to the text which in most manuscripts ptecedes the ‘edict’, i.e. the Adnonitio generatis (ibid., no. 22: also 789, in my view): when a capitu- lary of Charlemagne’s is dated, the date is given at the head of the text, as was shown by G. Secliget, Die Kapitularien der Karolinger (Munich, 1893), 68. The contrary view put forward by K. Zeumer, ‘Anmerkung tiber die sogenannte Admonitio generalis und das angebliche Duplex legationis edictum vom Jahre 785’, in G. Waitz, Gesammelte Abbandlungen, t(Gottingen, 1896), 403-10, I find unconvincing, ‘The date 789 for the oath-taking is in aay case borne out by the heading of the Braviaria missorum aguitanicum of the same year (MGH Cap., 1, n0, 24): Incipit breviarium de illa capitula quae domnus rex in Equitania Mancione et Exgerio missis suis explere [inssit ef) sacra- mentum fidelitatis iurare, Vhat this capitulary was in fact promulgated in 789 can be presumed from ¢. ii, As emerges from the arrangements made for the oath-taking of 792-3, which was intended to make good the deficiencies of its predecessor. . Dapl. leg, tay c. xviii: De sacramentis fidelitatis cansa, quod nobis et filiis nostris inrare debent, quod bis verbis contestari debet: Sic promitto ego ille partibus domini ei Caroli regis et filiorum eius quia fidelis sum of ero diebus vitae meae sine frauds et malo ingenio, . ‘This can be presumed from the proceedings in 786 (see above, n. 6), from the text of one of the formulae used in 802 (see below, n. 39), which is unlikely to have introduced any innovations in this respect, and from the usage followed in judicial matters: Lex Ribaria, ed. Sohm, MGH Leges, v, xxii, 35 xxiii, 2; Capitulare Ikei Ribnariae additum, MGH Cap., 1, no. 41 (803), c. xi. 14. ¢. i Of the Council of Tours, 813 (MGH Concilia, 11, no. 38) uses the words fidem quam ei promissam babent to remind the bishops of the oath they had sworn, of relics, to the emperor in 802. 15. See above, n. 10. 16. Annales Nagariani, 786: concilinn fecerunt, ut Carolum regem Francorum dolo tenerent et occiderent; si ergo hoc scelum atque nefandissinnuns crimen perpetrare non pracaluissent, saltion boc cupiehant constituere, ut non ei obvedissent neque obtem= _perassent iussis cits, 17. Capitulare missorum generale (802), MGH Cap., 1, no. 33, C wt malt sigue runt existimaverunt, tantum fideitate dono imperatori usque in vita ipsins, ef ne aliquem inimicum in swum regnum causa inimicitiae inducat, ef ne aliout infidelitate illius consentiant aut refaciat....On the negative character of the fixst oath of fidelity see Lot, op. cit. 571, and Odegaard, op. cit., 290. FE. Mitteis, Lebarecht nd Staatsgewalt (Weimar, 1933), writes with penetra tion on the originally negative character of the idea of fidelity. 18. A. Dumas, ‘Serment’ (1931), thinks otherwise, and his views seem to meet with some sympathy from Odegaard (see his “Ihe concept of royal ry 119Charlemagne’ s ase of the oath 19. 21. 2 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. power in Carolingian oaths of fidelity’, Specalum, xx, 1945, 280-2). Dumas is decisively refuced by Lot, op. cit., 571-2. On this see Branner-von Schwerin, op. cit., 1, 2nd edn, p. 83. On the punishment for perjury sec capitulary of Herstal (779), MGH Cap., 1 no. 20, & x: De 60 qui periarium fecerit, nullam redemptioncm nisi manum perdat. The eflects of the oath are described by Halphen, Charlenragne et Vempire carolingiea (Ratis, 1947), 165-6. Tn this sense, Brunner-von Schwetin, op. cit., 1, 2nd edn, 75 and Miihi- bacher, op. cit., 873. It must be said, however, that a plain statement is found only in the revised version of the Annales Regni Francorum (786 and 787, ed. F. Kurze, Hanover, 1895, pp. 75 and 79). The earlier version, in the entry under 787, perhaps implies that the Beneventan people took the oath, but as regards Bavaria limits the oath-taking to the duke (ibid., pp. ya.and 78). . MGH Diplomata Karol., 13 examples of abbeys, nos. 152 (786), 158 (787), 173 (792); church, no. 174 (792) ef. Mithlbacher, op. cit. ‘A good narrative of the facts, with references, is given by Abel-Simson, op. cit., 1 (1883), 39-495 interesting appraisal of the events in Kleinclausz, op. cit, 204-5. Capitulere miscoram, MGH Cap., 1, n0, 25, ¢. i. The misté ordeted to arrange for a fresh oath-taking ate told how to justify it to local populations: Quam: ob rem istam sacramenta sunt necessaria, per ordine ex antiqua consnetudine cxplicare faciant et quia mado isti infideles honvines magnien conturbinen in regent domui Karoli regi voluerint terminare et in eins vita consiliati sunt et inguisitt dixerunt quod fidelitatem ei non inrasset. On the date, see F. L. Ganshof, ‘Note sur deux capitulaites non datés de Charlemagne’, Miscellanea L. van der Essen (Brussels, 1947), 1 128-32. c. iis Quomods illum sacramentuns invatum esse dvbeat ab episcopis et abbatis sive comitibus vel bassis regalibus necnon vicedomini, archidiaconibus adqute canonicis. Monks and clergy leading 2 conventual life, c, iti, c. iv: Deinde advmoatis et vicartis, contenariis sive fore censiti presbiteri atque cunctas genevalitas popili, tam puerilitate annorum XII quamque de senili... , sivs pagenses, sive episcoporum e¢ abbatissuarum vel comitum homines et reliquarun ‘Bomines, fiscilini Guoque ef colani et ecclesiasticis adque servi, qui honorati beneficia et ministeria tenent vel in bassallatico honorati sunt cum domini sui et caballos, arma et scato et lancea, spata et senespasio habere possunt: omnes invent... The count’s tole can be deduced from what js said later in the same article. c. iv, at end. In view of the date at which the capitulary was promulgated the oath cannot have been administered before the spring of 793. Known to have been the practice at latest from the’middle of the cighth century: for royal vassals, sec the passage ARF, 757, relating to Tassilo; for the vassals of private lords, ¢. ix of the Dearetum Vermeriense, same yeat (MGH Cap., 1, no. 16; on the date, see C, de Clercq, La ddgislation religiouse frangue de Clovis d Charlemagne, Louvain, 1936, 142). Dumas, ‘Setment? (1931), 295, maintained that Tassilo did not become a vassal in 757, but he has been decisively refuted by F. Lot, op. cit., $75; Dumas’s reply, ‘Serment’ (1935), does no: convince, H. Krawinkel (Untersuchungen zum frinkischen30. 31. 3 37 38. 39 Charlemagae’s use of the oath Bonifizialwesen, Weimas, 1937, 48-65), made a further attempt to dispose of the evidence relating to Tassilo; Odegaard (Vassi and fideles in the Carolingian Empire, Cambridge, Mass., 1945, 99-6), has shown that this point of view is untenable. ‘A point already made by T. Sickel, Acta regune ot imperatorum Karolinorsm, ut (Vienna, 1867), 272. Adm, get, MGH Cap, 1, 0. 22, ¢, xxix: Onmibus, Teens in eadere concilio ut nec clerici nee monachi conspirationes vel insidias contra pastoren suum faciant, ‘The date of this text I hope to deal with elsewhere, Synod of Frankfurt, ibid, 1, no. 28, c, xxxi: De cunurationibus et conspirationbus ne fiant; ef abi swat inventae destruantur (in the part of the capitulary concerned with purcly ecclesiastical matters). . Dipl. lege, edict, co Xvi: Onanina prokibendans est omnibus ebrietatis maluna ot istas conivrationes quas faciunt per sanctim Stepbansens aut per nos aut per filias nostros probibemus ... . St Stephen’s day falls on 26 December, that is to say during a period when spitits were thought patticularly free to roam (the Germanic Ju/): the saint's name was much invoked during the ritual carouses, whose object may have been, in part, to render these spirits inoffensive, Cf. A. Spamer, ‘Site und Brauch’, in Handbuch der deutschen Volkskande, ed. W. Peszler (Potsdam, v.d.), 11, 130, and L, Mackensen, articles on ‘Minne? and ‘Ste phansminne’, in Handwérterbuch des dewtscherr Aberglanbens, ed, HL, Bachto'd- Stabli, vr (Berlin and Leipzig, 1934-5), col. 375 ff; vimt (1936-7), col. 428 . On this subject see Coorneart, op. cit., 33-4; Mackensen, articles cited above n. 53 and ‘Karlsminne’, ibid., rv (1931-2), col. 1006. . Capitulare missorune generale, MGH Cap., 1, no. 333 ¢f. L. Halphen, op. cit., p. 211; F. L. Ganshof, ‘Lafin durégne de Charlemagne. Une décomposition’, Leitschrift fiir Schweizerische Gescbichte, xxvmm (1948), 439-42, translated below, Ch, XH, and ‘Charlemagne’, Speculum, xxiv (1949), 525, above Ch. II. . Tn addition to the capitulary, see Annales Laureshamenses, 802 (MGH SS, 1, pp. 38-9). Capitularia missorum specialia, MGH Cap, 1, 2. 34. Cap. mits. gen, c. tit De fidelitate promittenda domno imperatori. Precepitque ut omni homo it toto regno suo, sive ecclesiasticus sive laicus, smusquisque secundsira votum et propositum suum, qui antea fidelitate sibi regis nomine promisissent, nome ipsum promissum nominis cesaris faciot; et hii qué adbac ipsum promissum non porficernnt onmes usque ad duodecino actatis amium siniliter facerent. Cap. miss. “sper, Ci: De fidelitatis susiurandum, wt omnes repromittant. cl. Annales S, Amand, 802 (MGH SV, 1, p. 14). Cap. miss. spec., at end: Sacramentale qualiter repromitto ego, quod ab isto diz inanten fidelis sum donno Karolo ptissima imperatori, filio Pippini regis et Berthanae reginae, pura mente absque frande et malo ingenic de mea parte ad snam partem et ad honorem regni sui, sicut per drictum dobet esse bono domino suo, si me adiwet Deus of ista sanetorum patrovinia quae in hoe loca sunt; quia dicbus vitae meds per mean voluntatem, in quantum mibi Dens intellectum dederit, sic atiendam et consentiam. Item alind. Sacramentale qualiter repromitto ego: domno Karolo piisinno inporatori, filio Pippini regis o£ Berthane, fidelis sum, sieut homo per 120Charlemagne s use of the oath 40. 4 43. 45 122 driciune debet esse domino suo, ad suum regnum et ad sums rectum. Bx illud sacra- mentum quod ivvatum habeo éustodiant ef custodire volo, in quantum ego scio et intelligo, ab isto die inantea, si me adinvet Dens, gui caclum et terram creavit, et ista sanctorum patrocinia, The words sicut homo per drictum debet esse domino so must surely be taken from the vassal’s oath (as is accepted by Brunnet-von Schwerin, op. cit. 11, and edn, p. 80, and Halphea, op. cit,, 202): one has only to compare this wording with thar of Tassilo’s oath (sient vassus recta mente et firma devotions (per institiar, sieut vassus dominos suos esse deberel, sce above, 1. 29). Homo, ‘which was the generic name for any man dependent on a lord, is here applicd—as so often elsewhere—to the species vassal. The generic term may have been used deliberately, to avoid confusion. P. Petot (in “Vhommage servile’, Revue Distorigue de droit franpais et éiranger’, 1927, 97) and F. Lot (op. cit., 574-5) maintain that Jomo here means. ‘subject’, but the interpretation cannot be reconciled with the use of dominas in place of imperator ox rex. Following Dumas, ‘Serment’ (1931), 289, Odegaard (‘Carolingian oaths’, 289) rightly stresses that most of Charlemagne’s contemporaries had little facility in abstract thinking, From this he concludes that they would be incapable of distinguishing between an oath implying the strict fidelity due from a vassal to his lotd and the oath actually taken by a vassal. ‘Lo a large extent the contention is justified and I shall return to it, But in 802 the men advising Charlemagne were intellectually in advance of most of their aristocratic contemporaries, and may have cherished the illusion that subjects would be aware that although they had not become Chatlemagnc’s vassals—since there was no immixtio manaum—they were nevertheless bound to the same fidelity as a vassal, having taken an oath which would have the same effect, - Cap. miss. gen., C. ii: Et ut omnes traderetur publice qualiter mnusquisque intelligere poset, quam magna in isto sacramento et quam sulta comprebensa sunt... In. MGH Cap., r, 00. 59, we may have a memorandum outlining the com- munications to be made by the mini: c. xii is a reminder that men should observe their oath of fidelity and refrain from associating with those who had not. In this sense, Brunner-von Schwerin, op. cit., 11, 2nd edn, pp. 81-2; against, Odegaard, ‘Carolingian oaths’, ago~r; for the more limited conception see above p. tr2 anda, 16, p. 113 and n. 17. . Cap. mist. gem, 6 ii (at end): . «sed ut sciant omnes istan in se ratinnere bor sacramenium babere, We then have articles iii-ix, followed by the words: Hc enim omnia supradicta inperiali sacramento observari debetur. The memoran- dum quoted above (n. 42) reiterates in c. iii the attiele of the capitulary (c. vi) which forbids men to rob an imperial benefice for the benefit of their allodial properties. ‘The cases of infdelitas priot to 802 known to us from Charlemagne’s capitulaties and diplomas are all consistent with the more limited conception of fidelitas: MGH Cap., 1, nos 25, c. iand 28 ¢. ix; MGH Déplomata Karol., J, Mos 181, 187, 273, The obligation placed on fideles to keep themselves in the service of God (c. iii) stems from theemperor’s awareness of his responsiat 47. 48. 49. 50. Charlemagne’ s use of the oath bility before God for the conduct of his subjects, which formed part of the imperial ideology. . Fresh xegulations, confirming those of 779: MGH Cup., 1 no. 33 (82), c. xxxvi; no. 44 (805), c. vand xi; no. 52 (807-8), c. iv. ‘Thus Brunner-von Schwerin, op. cit., m, and edn, pp. 82-3. In the Divisio reguorum of 80 (MGH Cap., 1, no. 45), the infidelifas envisaged c. xiv is clearly some action of exceptional gravity. In the capitulary of Boulogne of 811 (ibid, no. 74, c. i), faiture to rejoin the army is punished by a fine of 6o solidi, the traditional sum: itis not treated as infidelitas, nor is it perjuty. The same holds for the counts, #izarii, and advocafi who grant unjustified exemptions from military service, Capibulare missorum de exercitu prommvendo (808), ibid, 1, no. 50, c. ii See above, n. 41. Cap. miss. gen. of Thionville (805), MGH Cap., 1, 00, 44, ¢. ix; Cap. miss. of Nijmegen (806), ibid., no. 16, ¢. ii, The ordex contained in the capitulare de institiis faciendis c. xili (ibid., no. 80, to be assigned in my view to 811) is not, I think, for a general oath-taking (costra, Brunner-von Schwerin, op. cit., m, 2nd edn, p. 77) but for an administration of the oath to all who had not yet sworn it—more numerous than people imagined—whom it was important to track down; the procedure to be followed is the consuetudo jamdudum ordinata, i.e. previous usage, known to have been followed in 805 and 806, and the significance of the oath is to be expounded, In 806 the magnates who were present when the Divisio regnorum was made con- firmed it by an oath (ARF same year). At the diet of Nijmegen, also 806, it was decided that all free men should swear to respect the Divisio (Cap. mits, (806), MGH Cap., 1, no. 46, c. ii). One might cite, I think, canons xiii and xviii of the council of Chalon-sur- Sadne, 813 (MGH Concitia, 11, 0. 37). . Capitulare missorum of 803, MGH Cap., 1, 20, 40, €. sexii: Us nadlus praesumat per vitarn regis et filiorum eins iurare; Cap. miss. gen. of Thionville, ibid., no. 44; c. x: De conspirationilous vero, quicumaue facere pracsuneserit ef sacramento quant- cumaue conspiraticnen firmaverint, ut sriplick rations indicentar, Primo ut wbi- cumque aliquid malum per boc perpetratumn {uit, anctores facti interfitientur; adiutores vero corum singuli aliter ab altero flagellentur et nares sibi invicem praecidant. Ubi vero nibil mali perpetratuns est, similiter quidem inter se flagellentur e2 capillos sibi vicissine detundant. Si vero per dextras aliqua conspiratio firmata fusrit, oi liberi sunt, aut invent cune idoneis inratoribus hoc pro malo aon focisse, ast si facere non potuerint suam legem conponant,...Ta this connection’ one can also perhaps cite canon xvi of the Bavarian council of Riesbach, dating from the end of the reign, which urges priests to restrain the faithful from nefariumy inramenti usu (MGH Concilia, 11, 00. 24). . Cap. miss. gen. (MGH Cup., 1, n0. 44), €. ix: De inramento. Ue null alteri per sacramenium fidelitas promittatur nisi nobis et unicuique proprio seniori ad nostram tilitatem f sui senioris: excepto bis sacramentis quae inste secundure legens alteri ab altero debetur.....A slightly different version of the same capitulary, which ‘has no less authority than the one represented in the majority of manuscripts (cE. Seeliger, op. cit., 12-13), figures in mss Paris, Lat. 9654 and Vatic. Palat. 582. At c. xii (which corresponds in patt to c, ix of the other mss) it reads 123Charlemagne’s use of the oath De inramentis nt frustra non fiant et non aliter nisi senioribus ad utilitatem regiam ef unicuique qui sam institian querit. These is no mention of the oath of fidelity to the king, which is naturally regarded as lawful. Halphen discusses the rule laid down in 805, op. cit., 202. 53. On this point see the excellent appraisals of Fustel de Coulanges, op. cit., 55 and Bruaner-von Schwerin, op. cit, 1, 2nd edn, pp. 77 and 82. I took the subject of this study as a topic for research in my seminar on medieval history at the University of Ghent in 1947-8 and 1949-50, Mlle M. vaa Winter, ‘candida: en philosophie et lettres’, MM. W. Roels and R. van Caenegem, ‘licenciés en philosophie et lettres’, and M. A. H, Bredero all took an active share in the work. When this article was already in the press, M. Roels drew my attention to a legal record which proves that the oath of 802 was actuslly administered: it is a notice of a Bavarian judgment, dated 14 August 802, mentioning witnesses who were cited and heard per sdcramentun fidelitatis quere domno Karola magna imperatori ipso praesente anno inraverunt (T. Bitterauf, Die Traditions dos Hochstifts Freiting, 1, Munich 1905, 0. 186, pp. 178-9). 124VII. The use of the written wotd in Charlemagne’s administration” poses survived, in at least some patts of the territory ruled by the Frankish monatch, as a debased legacy from the Later Empire. Ia the formulary of Marculf, which was compiled in the Paris region during the first half of the seventh century, documents used in administrative practice are given some prominence. If we turn to the Lex Ribuaria, we find that it contains provisions which mention a cascellarixs, who seems to have been a scribe attached to the county court and qualified to draw up charters. Some of these provisions may belong to the oldest part of the text, in which case they date from the second quarter of the seventh cen- tury; they show traces of borrowings from. the Burgundian law, and through this intermediary from Roman institutions.* It is by no means established, however, that the ‘chancellor’ of the Lex Rébuaria was called on to write documents which formed part of an administrative routine. After the middle of the seventh century there is nothing further, or at all events nothing of which we can be certain.S From that time onward, the only use for written records seems to have been to furnish proof of indi- vidual rights, of to assist in such proof. So far as we can judge from the sources, the use of the written word for administrative purposes started to revive under Pippin III, though only to a very modest extent. His xare capitularies deal chiefly with church affairs, and administrative documents do not enter the picture. With one exception. In 768, when Pippin sent his commissioners into a subdued Aquitaine, he armed them with a memorandum of their basic instructions, as elaborated during an assembly; this was a summary of the measures . they were expected to implement, some being of permanent application, others no doubt related to issues of current importance. In almost ~ every case, the purpose of the measures was to make authoritative inter- ;: is known that the use of the written word for administrative put- Ee 125‘The use of the written word in Charlemagne’s administration vention in support of religion, the zoyal power and the sights of com- munities and subjects. A new form of administrative document had made its appearance, the document shortly to be known as a capitulare missorunt. When we come to the reign of Charlemagne we find a change in the situation. ‘The number of sources to, enlighten us about administrative records becomes mete plentiful; and although more numerous for the period after the imperial coronation, they ate spread over the entire teign. This abundance of documentation is novel and revealing. Whatever the fielé, Charlemagne attached great importance to setting things down in writing. We find an increase in the documents designed to furnish or facilitate proof of individual rights. Existing legal provisions regarding both Church® and state were grouped together and published, and new ones ptomulgated; in the period immediately following the imperial coronation there was even an attempt, admittedly abortive, to commit to writing all the national laws currently in force within the realm and to make judges adhere to the written text of the laws.® In judicial matters we fiad an unmistakeable preference for written evidence.” The same preoccupation shows itself in procedure: a new tule, first laid down by a capitulary of 794 and repeated in several subsequent capitularies, prescribed that parties or witnesses directed by civil or ecclesiastical authorities to appear before the royal court at the Palace should go armed with a document prepared for the occasion.® ‘The foregoing facts have been mentioned as a necessary introduction to the business of this ptesent article, which is to examine the use of the written word for administrative purposes. ‘They ate important as an aid to placing the measures taken by Charlemagne in this ficld within their general context. We should start by examining the documents which originated in the Palace. They fali into several groups, the first consisting of documents drawn up for the use of the monarch. We know that two acts of great political importance were recorded in writing. One was Tassilo II's solemn and final renunciation of all his tights over Bavatia, made at Frankfurt in 794 and tecorded in a document made in as many as three copies.* The othet was Charlemagne’s disposition of the succession, effected at Thionville in 806 and recorded in a solemn instrumentum drafted with particular care, a copy of which was even sent to Rome to receive the pope’s subscription.!° This Divisio Reguorwm inay have been the first Carolingian arrangement for the succession ever recorded in writing. Another type of document prepared for the use of the monarch was the written agenda listing questions for deliberation with the lay and ecclesi- astical magnates at the general assembly, Whether such documents were tegulatly produced is not known; the examples we have relate to the assemblies of 808 and 811.1" There may have been occasions when one ot 126The use of the written word in Charlemagne’s administration two important people were given copies of the agenda in advance of the meeting? Sometimes the points discussed at the assembly and the decisions taken were recotded afterwatds in a minute. A few such minutes have survived, all dating from the period after Charlemagne became emperor; they were apparently used as the basis for drafting instructions to miss, or for framing capitularies more general in scope.#? In a second group we can place documents sent out from the Palace, first and foremost those connected with the activities of the miss? dominici. What these ‘itinerant commissioners’ frequently received was a memo- randum containing instructions to themselves and a note of the communica- tions they were to make to the agents of power and inhabitants in the localities, communications concerned in some cases with permanent orders of general application and in others with matters of immediate interest; action on the orders they brought with them was usually left to the missi to initiate.4 We have here the development of a document first met with under Pippin IIL, the capitaare missorum. Three such survive from the petiod befote the imperial coronation, and perhaps seventeen from the period after it. Some of these sapitularia missorum were drawn. up for the use of mise ad boc, for example the mise sent on a special mission to Aquitaine in 789 and the mis made responsible in 807 and 808 for mobilising the army in a particular zegion;!* othets were prepared for missi on regular touts of inspection, who when appropriate received a copy which included articles relating specifically to a particular group of counties they were visiting."” With the exception of the great capitulare missornm of 802, which embodies a religious and political programme promulgated after Charlemagne had assumed the imperial title,'* these texts show a great economy in drafting, some of the articles even taking the form of headings or allusions.1® Another administrative document carried by missi was the sractoria, an authorisation to requisition transpost, lodgings and proyisions.2° ‘Along with the capitwlaria missorum we should notice the analogous document sometimes issued to bishops, abbots and counts—by no means all of whom acted as miss# dominici—on their departure for home at the con- clusion of a general assembly: it listed the measures, chiefly administrative, to be notified to local populations and implemented. ‘This written memo- randum was clearly a reinforcement to instructions given orally. We have the text of one of these documents, dating probably from 808." Written instructions might also be issued to ambassadors sent on embassies abroad. Two sets have survived, both relating to missions to the pope; one of them specifies the exact words the ambassadors were to * use, the other takes the form of a letter addressed to the ambassador, who was a very distinguished person, namely Angilbert.2* We have been concetned so fat with administrative documents issued 127The use of the written word in Charlemagne’ s administration by the Palace and handed directly to agents of the royal authority. But there were also those the Palace despatched to various parts of the country, some of which were what we would describe as circulars. The earliest surviving circular, sent out between 779 and 781, was addressed to the secular agents of royal authority in Italy, to remind them of certain general principles of government and to order the enforcement in Italy of regulations laid down in the capitulary of Herstal.2® Another circular, issued between 25 December 792 and 7 April 793 and sent probably to all bishops, abbots and counts, instructs the clergy, counts, and royal vassals in the pious exercises and almsgiving appropriate to times ‘of famine or political crisis. Citculats with a similar theme were also sent out in 807—we have the copy addressed to bishop Gerbald of Litge—and perhaps again in 810. Also to be classed as circulars are the celebrated Epistola de litteris colesdis, issued between 789 and 800 to bishops and abbots enlisting them in a campaign for education—we have the copy addressed to Abbot Baugulf of Fulda—and the Epistola generalis of 786-801, ordering the clergy to use the homiliary composed by Paul the Deacon. Finally, there is the Capitulare de villis, issued between 770 and 800 to administtatozs of fisci, in 20 attempr to ‘bting a modicum of order into the by now defec- tive management’ of the royal domains.*® Another type of document sent out directly from the Palace was the written mobilisation order, when it was not transmitted through the intermediary of a missus." This order, addressed in any case to counts and to bishops and abbots whose churches enjoyed immunity, would specify the place and time for the army to assemble and might also include details about the type of fighting men, equipment and war material required. We know of one sich mobilisation order, dated 806 and addressed to Abbot Fultad of St Quentin.?§ ‘The Palace also despatched administtative documents direct to indi- viduals. Comparable with our modern despatches, they dealt with some particular affair or class of affairs? usually issuing some directive; they are often called by the traditional name, indiculum. We hear of two further types of administrative document sent directly from the Palace. Tete is the type which can broadly be described as written directives issued by Charlemagne to his sons who tuled autono- mous kingdoms. Instructions of this kind must have been drawa up for Louis when he was king of Aquitaine, though no trace of them has sut- vived. But we have a capitulary promulgated by Pippin as king of Italy which was based on written instructions (scedz) from his father, and also a letter from Charlemagne to his son in which he tefers, infer alia, to the fact that the capitulary of 803 is an obligatory addition to all the national Jaws.3° The other type is exemplified by the set of instructions (ammonitio) handed down by the emperor to the Fathers of the five reforming councils which met in 813, listing the chief matters requiring discussion.” 128The use of the written word in Charlemagne’s administration ‘The various administrative documents so far discussed have one thing in common: they all issued from the Palace. The documents we now turn. to were issued either by the ‘itinerant commissioners’ sent out by the king (or emperor), ot by agents of royal (or imperial) authority in the localities. On occasion the missi seem to have used the written word in theit dealings with the inhabitants of their »issaticum, or with the royal agents it was their duty to inspect. The documents of this nature which have survived all date from the impetial period. One of them, comprising thirteen articles, contains directives which the emperor ordered the misst sent out in the spring of 802 to communicate to the people; it may well be that this is the Latin summary form of thei adswntiatio, the announcement the missi were required to make to the free men attending theit placitum.® We also have examples of written instructions sent or handed to counts by misci—all well-known personages—on ordinary tours/of inspection, as a guide to the performance of their duties, In one of them it is stressed that the written directive is merely a summary, complementing their oral instructions; counts in doubt over its meaning should seek enlightenment from the missi by sending them a deputy capable of under- standing their explanation* We also have the text of a speech in the exhortatory vein composed by a sissxs, doubtless an ecclesiastic and pro- bably an Italian, for the edification of the clergy, royal agents and in- habitants of his sissaticum.™ Tt could happen that sisi were doubtful over the meaning of instruc tions they had received from the Palace, of about the measures they should take, and we know that some sought to resolve their difficulty by writing to the Palace for farther instructions. ‘To one such request a missus received a somewhat impatient response (still extant), displaying a yery clear disposition to leave him to shoulder his own responsibilities.** ‘We are much less well informed about the use made by counts of the written word in the administration of their counties; it can only have been on a very restricted scale, We have a formula for an indiculum de comite ad vicarium,® but it is hard to believe counts often made use of it to remind subordinates of basic rules for the exercise of their office. We know that during the imperial period a count might be called on to supply a written report to the #ésé on some specific matter, for example acts of rebellion.” And that is all. Certain texts suggest, however, that in Italy the counts made a mote. extensive and systematic use of written documents,** which should not surptise us. ‘A group of administrative documents comprising seports and returns addressed to the king or emperor merits particular attention. The work of compiling them often fell to the missi, and we heat of them performing ~ this task from quite early in the reign, One such report still extant was drawn up in 780 by Vetnatius, one of the missi appointed ad /uc to investi- pate alleged enctoachments on properties belonging to the church of 129The use of the written word in Charlemagne’s administration Marseilles: it is a lengthy and muddled document, showing no sign that it was compiled to any standard pattern.” Particularly impo-tant ate the reports the king commanded from every part of the Frankisa and Lombard kingdoms on the administration of the oath of fidelity he imposed on all his subjects in 793. ‘The basic docu- ment, as we learn from the capitulary promulgated on the occasion, was a list drawn up by the count, centena by centena, giving the names of all who had taken the oath and distinguishing natives of the pagus from those who had come as vassals from elsewhere; defaulters had to be listed under a separate heading. Having compiled their list, the counts were to hand it over to the mist wko would deliver it to the Palace, but not before they had added their own return, giving the names of all persons from whom they themselves had taken the oath, hands between hands, and a numerical statement, based on the count’s lists, of the total number of oath-talers in their méssaticum 4 Tt will be appteciated that the actual execution of such an otder may well have fallen far short of what was intended. After Charlemagne’s accession to the empire we hear of more and more details to be reported by missi at the end of their tours, although we cannot always be sure whether the headings are for a general report" oz for one of more limited scope. In any case, the miss# were requited to report in writing to the emperor all public pronouncements they made in the course of their tours (breves de adnuutiatione), and they were reminded of their duty to inform him of their interventions and decisions (de opere).® They had to tepott serious professional misdemeanours by counts,"* they had to submit lists of important personages, lay or clerical, who absented themselves from the placita aissorum,* they had to send in the names of any scabini, advocafi or ‘notaries’ they themselves had appointed. They are told to report, county by county, on the upkeep of benefices held from the king or from other lords within their missaficum, andata later date to submit a full list of all such benefices with a descriptio of each, detailing the state of upkeep, encroachments on the king’s tights, and the numbers of vassals living sasa# on lands which formed part of the benefice. On yet another occasion they are asked for a full list of non- autochthonous clements in the population.” Lastly, when a capitulary was promulgated as aa addition to one of all the national laws, the missi had to supervise the subscription of a copy by the counts, subordinate officials and scabini, and presumably convey the copy back to the Palace.!# ‘The Palace also received reports and returns relating to the administea- tion of the royal domains. In 787 we find Charlemagne demanding descrip- tions—we can, I think, call them polyptychs—of all the Italian domains he had assigaed to Hildegarde, his deceased queen. ‘This is a text which applies to lands in the Italian peninsula, but there is nothing specifically Ktalian in the preoccupation which inspired it.!9 In any case, we also have the Capitulare de villis, which is quite general in its application®® and 130The use of the written word in Charlemagne? s administration demands from the iudices, or chief administrators of the fisri, a multiplicity of reports and returns. The annual returns to be compiled and sent to the Palace were as follows: a statement of the product derived from cultiva- tion (/Jeboratio), submitted before the money raised from it (argenium do nosivo Jaboraii) was paid in on the day appointed, which was Palm Sunday; a statement of the commodities available for consumption during Lent, after the court’s allocation had been subtracted; three separate returns of the total production of the fiseus, the first showing everything allocated to the king’s service ot the army, or still in hand for some special purpose, the second showing what had been distributed to prebendarii, set aside for sowing and so forth, the third accounting for all the rest, for example everything sold; and a general survey, to be submitted cach Christmas, showing production, revenues of various kinds, and the resources of the fiscus in human and material equipment and reserves, all set out under the appropriate headings.*" It is well to bear in mind that we are dealing here with instructions; how far they were cartied out may have been another matter. Further orders on estate management were issued after Chatlemagne’s accession to the empite. Between 802 and 813 he demanded returns, to be sent to the Palace, of the wool and flax issued to women who worked in the gynaecaea on the royal domains, and a statement of the number of garments woven.# In 8ir be wanted descriptions not only of benefices held from the Crown but also of all royal domains not granted out ia benefice: and to give him a clearer picture of the imperial properties, the descriptions had to be made by mizsatica.! The desctiptions of the fiscs of Annappes, Cysoing, Somain (France, Nord), Vitry (Pas-de-Calais) and Tiel (Seine-et-Oise), known to us from the Brevinw exemple, were possibly made in response to this command. To the reports and returns dealing with the administration of the royal domains we must add those demanded in respect of the landed properties of great ecclesiastical establishments. We know that in 787 Charlemagne ordered two missi—Abbot Landri of Jumiéges and count Richard—to compile an inventory of the possessions of St Wandrille, ‘This is unlikely to have been an isolated case. Furthermore, the Brevinne excempla, which were intended as models for descriptiones of domains, contain not only brevia for fiscé but also some fragmentary descriptioas—of a different type —of church properties (belonging to the bishopric of Augsburg and the abbey of Weissenburg); these descriptions obviously owed their existence to the intervention of miss. When we think of the use the Carolingians made of church property, the interest of such documentation becomes apparent.55 All the adminiscrative documents so far discussed can be attributed to the activity of the Palace, missi, local officials, or administrators of domains. But we also hear of written records we are unable to connect with the 131The use of the written word in Charlemagne’s administration activity of any known institution or agent. Who, for example, drew up the list of Saxon hostages and their custodians, the gist of which has come down to us? Was it compiled in the Palace, or by some com- mander in the field? We do not know. What we do ktiow is that the commendaticiae, the letters of tecommendation which a priest who had served one Ejgenkirche had to present to his new master before being accepted to serve another, were issued not by a representative of public authority but by the lord of the Eigenkircbe the priest was leaving: even 80, we ate still dealing with a document which Charlemagne’s legislation made obligatory. Just how administrative documents were produced is difficult to establish. ‘As regatds the documents which issued from the Palace (capitularia missorum, citculars, despatches, instructions of various kinds), we are completely in the dark: thete is nothing to indicate whether or not they were produced by what is conventionally knowa as the chancery.57 In all probability they were written, on orders from the monarch or one of his advisets, either by a cleric serving in the Palace or by some young man ptepating himsef for public or ecclesiastical office, one of the pweri palatini® "here seems to have been no regular writing office with the capacity to produce copies of the same document in reasonable quantity. In 808, when Charlemagne issued a capitulary concetning mobilisation in a particular region, he ordered it to be made in four copies: one for the missi conveying the capitulary, one for the count involved, one for the missi who would command the army once it had mobilised, and one for the chancellor. Since the capitulary must haye affected several counts, we can only suppose that each was expected to take note of its contents, if necessary making a copy, before passing it on; providing a copy for all the counts affected was apparently beyond the resources of the Palace, Still in the later part of the reign, we hear that a document whose content was to be notified to local officials and populations through the miss? could not be supplied to each group of commissioners: those who had a copy were expected to pass the information on to the rest. With such methods of transmission there was obviously plenty of scope for error, Presumably, the ‘notary’ who in all probability accompanied the #issi to attend to their written business in many cases made copies or notes of documents for them, which could partly account for the great divergencies in the manuscript tradition of certain capitularies, Documents purpor:ing to be written by missi ot counts must in practice have been the work of a notary when they had one, or of some cleric pressed into service Zor the occasion. Some places had a cancellarius ot notarias appointed for the county and charged with the drawing up of deeds: where this was so, we can assume he would normally have attended to the count’s written business.®° In the period after his accession to the 132The use of the written word in Charlemagne’s administration empire, Charlemagne gave orders that bishops and abbots, as well as counts, should each have 2 notary; if a count had failed to appoint one, the missi had the emperor’s instructions to appoint one themselves. It is questionable whether this order was everywhere obeyed. The use of the written word for administrative purposes supposes the existence of atchives, since without them records cannot play their ptoper role. That archives of a kind existed at the Palace is not in doubt. We know that two copies of Tassilo’s solemn setunciation of 794 were destined for preservation at the Palace, The same is true of one of the copies of the mobilisation capitulary of 808, and of one text of the canons issued by each of the five reforming councils of 813.% It was presumably in the Palace archives that Hinhard, private secretary to Louis the Pious, found the letters Charlemagne received from the king of Galicia and Asturias, and from the Irish kings."* This was the archivum palatii; it seems to have been placed under the authority of the chancellor, though whether the deposit was a dependency of the ‘chapel’ is impossible to say. We know nothing of the way it was organised, nor even whether the Dogvulfus scriniarius, to whom Alcuin addressed a letter, was attached to the deposit.*° It is known that along with documents reccived the archive also housed drafts of documents sent out, as was cettainly the case with some of the capitularies.7° But we cannot tell if this was a general tule, and if so, how far it was observed. Documents concerning the royal domains and their administration, when they were kept, may have formed a separate deposit. A reference in 2 capitulary from the imperial period suggests that they went to the camera ot chamberlain’s office;7! when a genetal superintendent of the domains was appointed, he may perhaps have taken charge of them.” ‘As for the counts, we know that in the itaperial period, at least, they were requested to make a collection of the capitularies and other instruc- tions addressed or communicated to them, which according to exhorta- tions they received from their sis they were to read and re-read.” Tt is doubtful whether the counts’ collections can ever have been vety complete. We must now consider what conclusions are to be drawn from the foregoing exposition. The fuller use of the written word to administer the Frankish realm under Charlemagne stands in contrast with the modest role it played under: Pippin II and its insignificance in the preceding reigns. Unmistakeable signs of this fuller use appear as carly as the 780s and 790s: it reflects aspirations towards a clearer view of things and a concern for order, stability and system in state and society, goals characteristic of Charle- inagne, which the written word could help to promote. In the years following the imperial coronation we find still greater emphasis on written tecords, as is consistent with what we know of the emperor’s 133The use of the written word in Charlemagne’s administration efforts, admittedly somewhat fruitless, to make his government more efficient, and thus better equipped to combat a growing number of abuses. These developments in the use of written records during the latter part of the reign are no doubt also partly accounted for by the emperor's decteasing mobility, However that may be, there seems to me no doubt that the use of the written word for administrative purposes was an act of policy. Ie was a policy which continued to be applied, and with greater emphasis, under Louis the Pious; in Francia Occidentalis it even continued under Charles the Bald: But thereafter, from the end of the ninth and in the succeeding centuries, the use of the written word to administer the states ptoduced by the dissolution of the Carolingian empire progressively diminished, until it almost reached yanishing point. This is a fact so well known that it hardly needs to be recalled. It must also be said that even uader Charlemagne the written word was not fully exploited. It is highly characteristic, for example, that no trace has survived of ary diploma of appointment to important offices, for example that of count,” although we know that such a diploma existed in the sixth and eatly seventh centuries. Furthermore, it seems certain that many of the records ordered to be made were never in fact compiled, or if they were, only in unsatisfactory fashion, One reason, of course, was the deficiency of personnel, both in quality and quantity. This can be illustrated by considering two particular cases. I have already described the returns demanded in connection with the oath-taking of 793: would every county have had a scribe capable of compiling them, by wanton of vicaria, with the necessary clavity and precision? That some returns were compiled is not in doubt; we can be equally certain that others were never produced, or if produced, that they left something to be desired.” Again, what of the many returns demanded from the dudices who. managed the fisci?7” To compile them, these officials would have needed assistance not only from sce‘bes but also from expert accountants. Where were such men to be found? As in the first instance, we need not doubt that some tetutns were made; but few can have met the requirements laid down, and many probably never saw the light of day. When these documents—reports, lists, returns and so on—arrived at the Palace, were they all used, or indeed useable? The answer is un- doubtedly that they were not. We find no trace at the Palace of the de- partments needed to sort, study and classify documents of this kind. Some of them were used, just a few were referred to more than once— very impoctant texts preserved with especial care, ot others whose survival was due to chance-—but the bulk must have piled up ia a confused heap, or vanished completely. We have to set this mass of documents arriving at the Palace beside the mass of business which had to be transacted there, ‘but could not be cealt with, or was handled inefficiently.”® Admittedly, 134The use of the written word in Charlemagne’ s administration these remarks apply only to the Frankish or imperial Palefinm; in the departments and archives of the Palatium of Italy better order may well have prevailed. Effective use of written documents demands a minimum of intellectual training. At the period under discussion this was a very weak point, particularly among the laity. We have only to look at the questions counts asked of the Palace, and the replies which came back, to realise that the mental capacity of both sides was stricly limited. When a missus invited a count to send a subordinate to receive instructions, he had to stress it should be someone capable of understanding them,” Even the scribes— and they were clerics—were not clear in their work. The report submitted by the sissus Vernarius in 780 would be incomprehensible if we did not also have the report of a placitum to enlighten us.6° We have only to look at a few capitularies—vepitwaria missorum in patticular—to realise just how faulty and obscute they are in composition, even at the end of the feign, Documents of this kind must have produced some dire confusions. But when all is said, the fuller use made by Charlemagne—and Louis the Pious—of the written word in the administration of their realm is a fact of great historical importance. For despite all the imperfections and failings, it gave a powerful stimulus to the formation and development of social and political cadres which have left a profound and distinctive mark on countries once part of the Carolingian empire. NOTES * Charlemagne ot Pusage de Pécrit en matiére administrative’, Le Moyen Age yu (1951), 1-25. . MGH Formulae, Form. Marculf, i, 208 5, 6, 8, 11, 19, 23, 26-9, 373 on the date and otigins of the formulary I share the views of L. Levillain, ‘Le formulaire de Marculf et la cuitique moderne’, Bibliotheque de I’ Ecole des Chartes (1923). See also F. Lot, L’impbt foncior ot la capitation personnelle sous le Bas-Exmpire ef a époque frangue Paris, 1928), 83 fl. . Lex Ribuaria, lixcand lxxxvili, ed. R. Sohm, MGH Leges, v, pp. 247-50, 267. ‘As regards this text, I accept the views of F, Beyerle, ‘Volksrechtliche Studion, 1. Die Lex Ribuaria. ut. Das Gesetzbuch Ribuatiens’, Zeitschrift der Savigay-Stiftung fir Rechtsgeschieble. Germanistische Abkeilung (1928 and 1935). 3. Formula no. 6 (which is a charter from the king designating someone bishop of a civitas) of the suppl. Marexiji—a collection dating apparently fom the mid-cighth century—is still thoroughly Metovingian (MGH Formulae, p. 109); formula no. 33 (ibid., p. 155: royal command to a count to take action against a pagensis who has failed to appeat before the king’s court) of the Tours collection—generally considered to date from about the middle of the eighth century—is largely a reproduction of Marculf i, 37, but has 135The usé of the written word in Charlemagne’s administration been given an insitulatio which conforms to that of Pippin II: it would be rash to assert that this formula reproduces a document which actually existed. 4- MGH Cup., 1, no. 18: the only articles dealing with judicial activities are «. ix and x. » For a typical passage see the introductory section to the Admonitio generalis of 789 (MGH Cap.,1, no. 22)? in order to make whatever reforms ate neces~ sary in the life and organisation of the Church, Charlemagne is sending mits on a visitation of bishoprics and abbeys; furthermore, sed ef aliqua capitula exc canonicis institutionibus, quae magic nobis necessaria videbantur subiuaxei- ms. 6, [have in mind manifestations of law-making such as the publication and revision of the aational laws, the promulgation of general regulations, intended to be permanent, in capitularies of various types, and the promulga~ tion, starting in 805, of capitularia legibus addenda, On attempts to commit law (with revisions) to writing see Annales Laureshamenses, 802 (MGH SS, 1); Einhard, VK, xxix, For the judges’ obligation to observe the written law, see Ana, Lauresh, loc. cit., and Capitulars missorkm generale, 802, xxvi (MGH Cap., %, no. 33). In Ttaly, not surprisingly, the superiority of written over customary law is asserted as early as 787 (MGH Cap., 1, no. 95, x); for the date sce C. de Clercq, La dégislation religiense frangue de Clovis & Charlemagne, (Louvain, 1936), 165-7. See for example the Capitulare legibus additum (803), ¢. vii (MGH Cap., 1, no. 39) and the teply to questions put by a méssus, (802-14), ibid, no. 58, c. vii. On the implications of the attempt to institute a ‘chancellor’ or ‘notary’ for each county, which at latest dates from 803, sce A. de Bottard, Manuel de diplomatique frangaise ot pontificale, w. Lacte privé (Paris, 1948), 129-30. Synod of Frankfurt, 794, c. vi (MGH Cap., 1, no. 28): if, in a dispute lying within his competence, a bishop is unable to secure the appearance or submission of the defendant either before himself ot before the metropolitan, dane tandem veniant accusatores cum accusate cunt litteris metropolitano, ut sciamus weritatem rei. Capitulare missorum generale issued at Thionville, 805, c. viii (ibid., no. 44): if one of the parties to a suit is unwilling either to acquiesce in the judgment or to make a charge of false judgment and wants to apply to the Palace, then that party must produce the request and... eu eustodia et cum ipsis litteris... ad palatinm nostram remittanter, Capitulary issued at Aachen, 809, c. xiv (ibid., no. 6x): oath-helpers are ordered . .. cuz indiculo aut sigillo ad palaiium venire. Bavarian synod held in 799 or 800 at Freising and presided over by Arn, archbishop of Salzburg, c. xxvi (ibid., no. 24): same rule as in the Frankfurt capitulary, ... cx Jitteris commendatitiis dirigere exm studeat ad regem. A. capitulary issued by Pippin LT (751-55) ptovides for sim‘lar cases (MGH Cap., 1, no. 15, c. vii: on the date see De Clercq, op. cit., pp. 131-2), but makes no mention of written documents. . Synod of Franicfurt, c, iii (MGH Cap..1, no, 28). See below, 1. 64. 10. ARF, 806: De hae partitions ot testamentum factum et ixreiurande ab optimatibas Francorum confirmatum e¢ constitationes pacis conservandae causa faclae, alque Aaec oninia litteris mandata somt et Leoni papae ut his sua mann subscriberet per Einbardum missa. The text is printed MGH Cap. 1, 00. 45. 7 136The use of the written word in Charlemagne’s administration 11. 808, MGH Cap., 1, 0. 51: Ia anno octavo. Capitule ones prints conferendis. 20, . MGH Cap, 1, n0. 71, xii . For example: aap. miss., 802 (see above n. 17), ¢. Thirteen articles follow, in the form of short headings (1. De /atronibus et _furibus, 2. De falsis testibus cte.). 811, ibid., 1, nos 71, 72, 73: in two manuscripts no. 71 is headed De interragatione domni imperatoris de anno undecimo and c. i runs as follows: In primis separare volumus episcopos, abbates et comites nostros et singulariter illos alloqui. The three capitulaties are of the samé character; the first is mixed, the second ecclesiastical and the thitd secular. On the whole topic see De Clercq, op. cit., 210-11, 215-15. [sta conservetis sicut vobis decet; et in vobis confido, iissinsi pontifices, et in quantum investigare possum vobis mittere seu scribere non dubito. . G. Secliger is probably right when he says (Die Kapitularien der Karolinger, Munich, 1893, 71) that MGH Cap, 1, no. 63 minutes decisions taken during an assembly held at Aachen in 809; no. 61 could be a capitulare per se seribendum promulgated at the conclusion of that assembly, and no. 62 a memorandum, for the mitsi who were charged, amongst other things, to see that the measures decided on were executed. For the assembly of 810, no. 65 would play the same role as no. 6 for that of 89 and no. 64 the same tole as no. 62. Seeliger (op. cit,, 82) thinks we should regard both nos. 65 and 64 as minutes of the assembly's decisions, but his view is difficult to reconcile with c. ii, viii and sil of no, 64, which certainly look like instructions to mie. . Articles which make this last duty plain are to be found in a number of capitularies: the capitalare missorum of 803 (MGH Cap., n0. 40), . iii, v, xvii, xix; the capitalare missoram generale issued at Thionville, 805 (ibid., no. 44), xiii, xix; the memoratoriam de excercitu proparands of 807 (ibid., 0. 48), c. iii; the capitula.a missis cagnita facienda of 803-813 (ibid,, 0. 67), c.iv; the Bavarian capitulare missorum of 802-813 (ibid., no. 69; cf. De Clercq, op. cit., 221). Seeliger argues (op. cit., 69-71) that several of these texts should not be classed as capitularia missorum, but the passages just cited are already cnough to weaken his case. » The documents I accept as capitularia missorum are as follows, all printed MGH Cap., 1: nos 23, 24, 255 33, 34 40, 43, 44, 46, 48, 49 (in part), 50, 53, 60, 62, 64, 66, 67, 69, 83. . ibid, nos 24, 48, 50. . The list of instructions issued to the miss! who were despatched thronghout the empire in the spring of 802 has survived in copies made for the missatica of Paris, Le Mans, and Orleans (MGHCap., 1, no. 34). Certain articles (xiiia, xiiib, xviiia), notably those which apply to coastal regions, figure only in the copies intended for the Paris and Le Mans mixsatica. . MGH Cap., 1, no. 33. cf. F. L, Ganshof, ‘La fin du régne de Charlemagne. Une décomposition’, Zeitschrift fiir Schweizerische Geschichte, xvi (1948), 440-2, translated below, Ch. XII. i. De periaria. ©. viii, De homicidia, c. x. De illis honinibus qui nostra beneficia habent distructa et alodes eorura restauratas. Simibiter et de rebus ecclesiarum. Known to us from Formulae Imperiales no. 7 (MGH Formulae, p. 292); this collection dates from the reign of Louis the Pious, in whose chancery it was compiled. Despite this late date, the formula agrees so well with information 137The at 22. 25. 26, 27 28. 29. 30. 31 32. 33+ 138 se of the written word in Charlemagne’s administration to be gleaned fom some of Charlemagne’s capitularies (a0. 32, xxvii; no. 40, ¥ and xvii and no. 57 ii), that I feel justified in using it here. cf. F. L. Ganshof, ‘La 'Tractoria’, Revue d'histoire du droit, vit (1927), 88-90. The intitulatio of Forwulae Marculfinas asoi carolini no. 20 (MGH Formulae, pp. 121-2) has a Carolingian look to it, but for our present purpose is of no interest, since it is an almost word for word copy of Form. Marcuifi, x, xt. MGH Cap., 1, no. 54: Capitula quae valurnts ut episcopi, abbates et comites qui modo ad casam rediunt per singula loca eorutn nota faciant 2t observaro studeant, tam infra coram parocbias et missaticos sex ministeria eorum comicinantium qui in exercitu simul cum equivoco nostro perrexcerunt. There follow six axticles dealing with aid to the needy, mobilisation, btigandage and the monastic life. MGH Cap., 1, no. 111 (ambassadors sent with gifts for Pope Hadrian I, presumably 785); MGH Epist.; 1v, pp. 135-6 (mission to Pope Leo ILL, 796). . MGH Gep., 1, no, 97; on the date sce De Clereq, op. cit., 16-2. MGH Cap., 1, no. 21; on the date see F. L. Ganshof, ‘Note sur deux capitu- aires non datés de Charlemagne’, Miscellanea L. van der Essen, x (Brussels), 123-83 Merkel’s formula no. 63 (MGH Formulae, p. 262) presumably repre- sents written inst-uctions given by a misssto.a bishop. MGH Cap.,1,n0. 124 and note the allusion in no. 127. MGH Cap., 1, nc. 29, later in date than Admonitio generalis lxxii (789: ibid., no, 22), but ptiot to Chatlemagae’s assumption of the imperial title, ibid., 1, no. 30; on the date see F, L. Ganshof, ‘La révision de la Bible par Alcuin’, Bibliothique d? Hoamanisme ef Renaissance, 1X (1947), 12. (p. 31 above). MGH Cap., 1, no. 32; on the date sce M. Bloch, ‘Iorigine et ta date du Capitulare de Ville”, Reone Historique, cxumn (1923), fom which the passage in inverted commas is taken, and F. L. Ganshof, ‘Observations sur la localisation du Capitulare de Villis’, Le Moyen Age (1949), 2034. MGH Cap., 1, no. $4 (805-8), iii, instructions in case of mobilisation: Ur ormnes praeparati sint ad Dei servitium et ad nastram utilitatem, quandoquidem missus aut epistola nostra venerit, ut station nobiseura veniro faciatis. MGH Cap., 1, no. 75, which Boretius dates 804-811; my reasons for assign- ing it a more precise date will be justified elsewhere. MGH Cap.,1, no. 122 (to Bishop Gerbald of Ligge; De Clercq, tightly in my opinion, dates it 8or-810, op, cit., 222-3), Carfae Senonicae no. 26 and Formulae Marculfinae aevi carolini no. 18 (MGH Formulae, pp. 196, 121) are also relevant even though they may be adaptations of earlier texts (ie. Form. Marculft i nos. 37 and 29, ibid., pp. 67, 60-1). Cartae Senonicae no. 18 (ibid.,.p. 193) is definitely not taken from a document issued by the palace. MGH Cap.,1, 00.94 (Pavia, 787-8; De Clercq, op. cit., 165-7): Incipit capitula ds diversas institias secundum seeda domni Caroli, genitoris nostri, ibid. no. 103 (806-810; the capitulary to which he alludes is that of 803, ibid., 20. 39). Council of Mainz, ¢. iv and vi, MGH Covzilia u, no. 36; Council of Tours, c.li, ibid, no. 38. MGH Cap., 1, a0, 593 two articles (ii and xi) are still in the second person. MGH Cap., 1, no. 85 (802-8135 cf. De Clereq, op. cit., 226), c ivi... sf aliquid de omni ill mandato ... quod vobis domni nostri aut seribendo ant dicendo commendatum est, dubitetis ut celeriter missum vestrum bene intelligentem ad nostra mittatis, qualiter omnia ot bene intelligatis et adinwante Domina bene perfiviatis,34 42. 43. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. The use of the written word in Charlemagne’s administration MGH Cap., 1, n0. 121 (800-813). ibid,, 1, no, 58 (802-813; cf. De Cleteq, op. it., 222). . Formulae Salicae Merkelianae, n0. 5 (MGH Formulae, p. 259; its date must be 790-800). . MGH Cap., 1, no. 85, iit: Deinde ut quicumaue vobis rebeltes aut inobedientes fuerint «+ inbraviate illas quanticumaue fuerint ef aut antea, si necesse fuerit, remandate ant nobis ipsis exam insimaul fuerinus dicite... . See, for example, Pippin of Italy’s capitulary of 782-7 (MGH Cap. 1, no. 91) c. vi, and another promulgated by the same ruler at an assembly held in Mantua between 802 and 810 (ibid., no. 80; on the date see De Clercq, op. cit., 218-19), © ii and ii, . J. H. Albanés and U. Chevalier, Gallia Christiana Novissima 1 (Marseilles- Valence, 1899), no. 41. On this text see F. L. Ganshof, ‘Les avatars d'un domaine de ?église de Marseille a la fin du VITe et au VIIle sitcle’, Studi én onore di Gino Lugatto, x (Milan, 1950), 55-6. . MGH Cap., 1, no. 25, i, ii, iii, iv (25 Dec. 792-7 Apr. 793): on the date see Ganshof, ‘Note sur deux capitularies’, 128-32. . "That the miss’ of spring 802 submitted a general written report seems certain: MGH Cap.,1, no. 33, x1. MGH Cap.,1, no. 40 (803), xxv. MGH Cap., 1, no. 85 (802-813), vis sciatis cerfissime quod grandem exinde contra vos rationem babebimus (the missi, addressing themselves to the counts of their atea). MGH Cap., 1, no. 58 (imperial period), c. vs ef gui tune venire contempecrint, eorum nomina annotata ad placitum nostrum generale nobis repraesentes (the emperor addressing the missi). MGH Cap., 1, 10. 40 (805), seripta deferant. MGH Cap., 1, no. 49, iv (which in my view has no connection with the preceding articles; it must ia any case be later than the great ! Remaining faithful to his usual concern for the protection of free men in humble citcumstances,3# Charlemagne first set a limit of two of three, and later of thtee per annum as the number of judicial meetings (p/acita) of the malius at which the free men wete required to be present. It seems that the part of the capitulary by which this measure was taken has been preserved, but the date of its publication is unknown; a capitulare missorum of 803 applies the rule and the capitulary of Thionville of 805 refers to it.5? ‘There was, I believe, some difficulty in enforcing this decision in view of F 149The impact of Charlemagne on Frankish institutions the number of times Charlemagne and later his son Louis the Pious had. to repeat in their capitularies the prohibition to summon the pagenses, if they were neither party nor witness, to more than three plucita generalia a year. Besides the scabixi, persons of high tank and vassals of the count could be summoned to sit as assessors. Both reforms were introduced into Italy. In the Frankish realm proper the two of them, but especially the creation of seabini, resulted in judicial practices that survived the Reguwam Francorum and lasted several centuries. ‘The cteation of the seabini shows how much Charlemagne took to heart the cottect application of the law. Tt was not merely sufficient to secure permanent and better informed assessors, but the count and those en- titled to serve as substitutes for him as chaitman of the court had to have a part in the application of the law. Both chairman and assessors had to keep to the law. Probably the strict order issued in the programmatic capitulary of 802 entreating the ‘judges’ (iudives) to judge according to the written text of che law was intended for the chairman and the asses- sors: the immediate aim was to remove arbitrary procedure and judgment by binding those who sat in court to follow those parts of the law that had been written down ot would be written down in the future.5? With the same end in view and in compliance with the rule of personality of the law, it was expected that the parties should make known their national law and tkat the presiding officer should know which national Jaw was applicable to the case and be familiar with it* The counts and the lesset officers of justice were ordeted in capitularies issued after 802 to secure an earnest knowledge of the law which normally was applicable to the cases submitted to the court over which they presided. These measures, fat from removing all the difficulties that arose from the exist- ence and from the binding character of various national laws, never- theless eased the search for means to solve them when they would arise. ‘We must note another provision made late in Charlemagne’s reign in $10 intended to produce, at least in the most serious cases, less hazardous rulings by the county courts. The trials that could affect personal freedom or real property were allowed to be judged in the mallus only if the count himself was presiding and not if it was a vicarius ox a cenfenarius, who was intellectually and morally less to be trusted.*° A similar prohibition had ‘probably been made shortly before regarding trials that could end with condemnation to death.*! This reform was introduced into Italy that same year by a capitulary of Pippin. Both in Francia and in Italy a case had to be postponed, if necessary, in order to be submitted to the mallus when the count could be present or to the forthcoming assizes of the missi dominici, unless of coutse it could be tried at the Palace Court. Already in 811 it was necessary to renew the prohibition that lower officers of justice could not preside over the mal/us in the three cases just men- 150‘The inepact of Charlemagne on Frankish institutions tioned. ‘These lower officets evidently did not want to comply with this refotm;® it does not seem to have been amongst the effective ones that Charlemagne tried to carry out. During his whole reign Charlemagne was very much concerned not oaly about the zeal and the dignified behaviour of the counts, the vicarii, and the centenarii in discharging theit judicial duties, but also about theit honesty and independence. The admonitia generalis of 789 and the capitulare wissorais of the same yeat forbade them to accept presents and to bend to the will of powerful men. This chatge tepeated emphatically in the pro- grammatic capitulare of 802 was frequently reiterated by the emperor in the following years, ‘The missi were to see that the prohibition was obeyed." ‘The counts wete to be responsible for the honesty and the unselfishness of their vicarii and centenarii sitting as judges. Even the missi themselves in their judicial fanctions were teminded to resist the all too frequent temptation to corruption.” These orders and interdictions wete meant not only for those who presided over the courts and the assizes but also for the assessors, especially the seabini.88 ‘We mect in the capitularies regulations concerning the dignified be- haviour expected from the parties and witnesses to a case; we also see that it was forbidden to anyone to be present in arms at the sallus or at the assizes of the #issi.6 While the reason for these regulations is obvious, it is not so easy to understand another that appears for the first time in the programmatic capitulaty of 802 where it is forbidden to defend before a court a party whose cause is unjust; he who transgresses this interdiction is committing an act of infidelity to the emperor.’ Most likely this pro- hibition was directed at some influential chatacter who might use his authority ot other means to protect a culprit and spate him a sentence, tathet than being directed at those who gave counsel to the defendant. This prohibition repeated several times and in various forms shows what difficulties its application met,” While it should be noted that articles of capitulaties ordered places to be well maintained where the mallus might at any time meet and stipulated the existence of a prison and of gallows,” what is mote im- portant is that Charlemagne, out of his longing for permanence and security, a fact to which his whole action on institutions bears testimony, attached great importance to the authority of the res judicata. Two tegula- tions were made duriag the imperial period of his reign to have the people vabide by this rule. ‘The first suppressed every attempt to submit once mote to a wallsis a case which had previously been the subject of a final judgment; such an attempt became an offence liable to a reduced bannum fine which was 15 solidi or 15 sttokes with a stick, The tegulation was even considered sufficiently important to be made a part of the national law." In the same connection the plaintiff or his representative who refused to acknowledge a judgment but did not dare to indict the scabini srThe impact of Charlemagne ot Frankish institutions for having knowingly passed a false judgment was, according to a provision in the capitulary of Thionville, to be put in custody. He might be discharged only if he accepted the judgment or decided to indict the scabini. Under certain precautions, however, leave might be granted to bring the case before the king. If the king agreed to hear the case, the proceedings agains: the seabin? would then take place befote the Palace court which entailed a new remedy at law.” The account just given is somewhat uneven; it does not flow with that systematic pace so pleasant to observe in many studies on the history of institutions and of law. The reason for this is that I have tried to follow closely the actions of Charlemagne in reforming the institutions of the Regnum Francorum, patticularly some of the judicial institutions, the de- velopment of which, except perhaps in 802-3, was rarely systematic. Charlemagne very simply put his teligious faith aad his respect for the law above all othe: considerations; he fully realised his responsibilities as the head of an important state and later as emperor in the West; he did his best to make the realm’s institutions achieve their maximum effi- ciency while still safeguarding the rights and property of his subjects. T have endeavoured to show what methods Charlemagne used and how he tried to apply them to judicial institutions. T hope to have succeeded in untavelling at least a few threads out of this complicated skein.” NOTES * Lecture delivered at the annual meeting of the Mediaeval Academy of America held at Princeton, New Jersey, 25 April 1964, and printed Specalim, XE (1965), 47-62, 1. I xefer to my article ‘Les traits généraux du systtme dinstitutions de la monarchie tencue’, in I passagio dell” Antichita al Median in Occidente (= SSCT, TX), Spoleto, 1962, translated above, Ca. VI. 2. See my Recherches sur les Capitulaires (Paris, 1958), 37, ot the German edition Was waren die Kepitularien 2, Trans. W. A. Eckhardt (Darmstadt and Weimar, 1958) 13-18. \ 3, MGH Cap., 1, no. 20. For the historical circumstances surrounding the capitalary of Herstal, see my article ‘Une ctise dans le régne de Charlemagne. Les années 778 et 779, Mélanges Charles Gilliard, Lausanne, 1944. 4 MGHGup.,1, n0s 22, 23 (Duplex legationis edictum) and 24 (Breciariase missorum aguitanicum), On the importance of the Admonitio generalis sce L. Halphen, Charlemagie et Pempire carolingien, 2d eda (Patis, 1949), 209-10, and my article ‘L’Figiise et le pouvoir royal sous Pépin IIT et Charlemagne’, in Le Chiese nei regni dell” Europea Occidentale e i loro rapporti con Roma sino all? 800 (= SSCE, vm), Spoleto, 1960, 104-5, and below, Ch. XL. 152os ¥ 18, Lc . ¢ iand ii of the progtammatic capitulary, Annales Laureshamenses, 802 (ed. ‘The impact of Charlemague on Frankish institutions c. lxii, Omnibus, Ut pace sit et concordia et wxianimitas cum omni populo cbristiano inter episcopas, abbates, comites, indices et omnes sbique seu maiares seu minores personas, quia nibil Deo sine pace places, ...‘The quotations from the Bible are in the order where they appear: Matt. v, 23 and 24; Lev. xix, 18; Matt, v, 93 Joho, xiii, 3y; 1 John, iii, 10. MGH Cap, 1, no. 28 and MGH Concilia, u (ed. A. Werminghoff), no. 19, G. In Werminghof’s edition the capitulary is published on pp. 165-271, whereas other important documents about: the council of Frankfurt are published on the preceding pages (A-F). See also my article ‘Observations sur le Synode de Francfost de 7947, in Miscellanea historica in bonorem A. De Meyer, 1, Louvain and Brussels, 1946. For that critical period see my ‘Note sur deux capitulaires non datés de Charlemagne’, in Miscellanea bistorica in honorem L van der Essen, « (Brussels and Paris, 1947). . tis sufficient to refer to E. Amann, L’épague carolingienne, vol. v1 of Histoire de Eglise, ed. A, Flice and V, Martin (Patis, 1937). Jarisdiction over members of the clergy: ¢. vi, xxx, xxix. Weights and measures: ¢. iv. Coinage: c. v. . MGH Cap., 1, no. 33. The title Capitalare missorum generale given by the editor does not correspond to the nature of the document; see our Recherches sar les capitulaires, 52 and n. 207 (Was waren die Kapitularion?, 84 and 0. 207). . The work that should now be consulted is R. Folz, Le couronnement impérial de Charlemagne (Paris, 1964), 178-87. . See my article ‘Le programme de gouvernement impésial de Charlemagne’, in Renovatio Imperii. Atti della giornata internazionale di Studio per il Millenario, Ravenna 4-3 Novembro 1961 (Eacnza, 1963), translated above, Ch. V. ix of the capitulary. G.H. Pettz, MGH SS, 1, p. 38), and Capitilare aissorun: of the same yeat (see following note). . Rather than use the edition of Boretius, MGH Cap., 1, no. 34 (Capitularia missorum spetialid), one should use the superior edition of W. A. Eckhardt, “Dic capitularia missorum specialia von 862’, Dexésches Archiv filr Erforsehung des Mittelalters, xax, 1956. . Trwas a double capitulary: one section ws merely ecclesiastical, the other, general. MGH Cap., 1, nos 43 and 44, and my commentary, Recherches sur les capitulaires, 73-4 (= Was waren die Kapitularien?, 114-16). Capitulary of Herstal, see above p. 143. . ‘Capitulary of reform’ is the translation of the French expression ‘Capisulaire de riformation’ which I used in my book mentioned in the preceding note, P- 44, 0. 169 (= p. 73, n. 169: ‘Reformbapitularien’); the second part of the expression I borrowed from the ‘ordeanances de rbformation’ of the Ancien Régime in France. ‘That state of uncertainty and of anxiety can easily be detected in the prosenritm to the Divisio Regnorum of 6 February 806 (sce following note). On the citcam- stances which created that uncertainty, see two important articles by H. Beumann: ‘Nomen inperatoris, Studien zur Kaiseridee Karls des Grosser’, Historische Zeitschrift cuxxxv (1958) and W. Schlesinger: ‘Kaisertum und 153The impact of Charlemagne on Eraickish institutions 19. 2 8 2 22, 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. Reichsteilung. Zr Divisio Regnoruns von 806°, in Forschungen xu Staat und Ver~ _fassung, Festgabe fir Frite Hartung (Berlin, 1958), reprinted in W. Schlesinger, Beitrdge aur deutschen Verfarsungsgeschichte des Mitislaltors, x (Gottingen, 1983). T do not want to adopt a definite position cegarding the views of those authors on other aspects of their subject. Boretius, Capiularia, 1, no. 45 and Annales Regni Francorum (806), ed. F. Kurze (Hanover, 1895), p. 121. . Capitulare legibus additum,; Capitulare legi Ribnariae adtitum: Capitulare Aquis- granense; Capitulare missorum; MGH Cap., 1, 208 39, 41, 77, 40 On the date of no. 77, sce my article ‘Zur Datierung cines Aachener Kapitulars Katls des Groszen,’ Annaien des historischen Vereins fiir den Niederrbein, cLV~CLNI (1954) Capitule post annum 805 addita, chiely c. iii; MGH Cap.,1, 20. $5. My Recherches sur hs capitulaires, 79-85 (—= Was warsa die Kapitularien?, 123-30). See my book mentioned in the previous note, 91-93 (= 139-41). Capitulare missorum (803), ¢. iis Capitulare Aquisgranense (805), c. i and. xi; Capitulare missorum Aquixgrasense primum (809), ¢. xiii, xxii (ia the important manuscripts of the group Paris lat. 9654 and Vatic. Palat. 582), xxviii; Capitulare missorum italicum (Lam doubtful about the Italian origin attributed to this capitulary by Boretius), of 802-810 (dated in that way by C. De Clercq, La Legislation religieuse frangue de Clovis & Charlemagne (Louvain and Paris, 1936), 381: that date corresponds with the results of my own research); Capitulare incerti cani (805-815 ?), c. i and ii; Pippini capitulare italicum (806— 810), c. iv (provisions of Frankish law, introduced into Italy); MGH Cap., T, nos. 40, 61, 62, 99, 86, 102. Capitula de cansis dversis (806), c. ii and iii (on the date see my article ‘Observa- tions sur la date de deux documents administratifs émanant de Charlemagne’, MIOG, uxx, 1954); Memoratorium de eccercitu in Gallia Occidentali praeparando (807), c. ii; Capitelare missorum de exercit promsovendo (808), c. i; MGH Cap., 1, 208 49, 48, 50 ‘The legal acts accomplished orally were the only ones considered to be essential: the written form given to them was only a matter of publication; sce A, Dumas, ‘La parole et Péceiture dans les capitulaires carolingiens,’ in Milanges & bistotre du moyen dge dédiés & la mémoire de Lonis Halphen (Paris, 1951), and my Recherche: sur les capitulaires, 18-21 (= Was waren die Kapitularien?, 35740)- ‘L’échec de Charlemagne’, Académie des Inscriptions ot Belles Lettres. Comptes vendus des shances, 1947, translated below, Ch, XTIT; ‘Het falen van Karel de Grote’, Verslag wer de algewene vorgadering van het Historisch Genootschap kevestigd te Utrecht, 1948. ‘We meet a very strong expression of that concen in c. i of the progeam- matic capitulary of 802, MGH Gap. 1, n0. 33. Capitula cum primis constitita (808), c. i, MGH Cap,, 1, no. 52. Capitulare Bainarium (probably 803), c. vi, MGH Cap., 1, no. 69. The rule introduced in Bayarian law, was that of the res porprisa in the Lex Ribuaria, c. lxxviii (xxv), ed, F, Beyerle and R. Buchner, MGH Leges, p. 128. Capitulare Aquisgranense (eo), c. i and ii, MGH Cap, 3, no. 61 Capitulare missorum Aguisgranense primtm (809), c. ii; Capitula tractanda cum comitibus, episcopisst abbatibus (811), c. iii; Borctius, Capitalaria,t, nos 62.and 71. 1543 36. 3 ‘The impact of Charlemagne on Frankish institutions . Capitulare de vidlis (771-800), c. xxix and lvii; Capitulare missorum Aguisgranense primum (810), ©. i; Capitulare missorum Aguisgranense secwduts (810), 6. viii; Boretius, Capitularia, 1, 108 32, 64, 65. . See the article translated above Ch. V (quoted inn. 12 of this present article), (Le programme’, 83-85), aad also the two articles quoted n. 27, “The faiture of Charlemagne’, Ch, XII below, (‘L’échec’, 252), “Het falen van Karel de grote’, 42. See also my article ‘La fin du regne de Charlemagne. Une décom- position’, Zeitiebrift fiir Schweizerische Geschichte, xvmtt (1948), 449-50, translated Ch. XU below, and nn. 53 and 54. . Charlemagne divided the competence of the Palace coutt into sessions pre- sided over by the emperor and those presided over by the counts palatine; Capitulare de institiis faciendis (811), ©. i (MIGH Cap., 1, no. 80). However, this reform does not seem to have brought forth a setious change for the better. Pippin: Capisulare missoram (803), ctx; Capitulare deinsttiicfaciendis (811), cots MGH Cup., 1, nos 40 and 80, However in 811 Charlemagne introduced a seservation in his newly issued capitulary: certain cases of scisin prior to Pippin’s death might be submitted to him and he would take a decision (probably in the Palace court). A few charters of the early yeats of Louis the Pious’s reign, indeed show that the seisin existing ia the time of Pippin TIL was one of the grounds upon which trials that affected real property and property of sexfs were judged. See F. Bougaud and J. Garnict, Chronique de Pabbaye de Saint-Binigne de Dijon, suivie de la chronique de Saint-Pierre de Bige (Dijon, 1875), pp. 250-1, (815) (= M, Thévenin, Testes relatifs ance institutions privées ot pabliques ance Epoques mérovingienne ot carolingienne (Patis, 1887), no. 115); E. Pérard, Reeweil de plusieurs pidces curienses servant dV histoire de Bourgogne (Paris, 1664), p. 14 (815); M. Prow and A. Vidier, Recwei? des Chartes de Pabbaye de Saint-Benolt-sar-Loire, 1 Patis, 1900), 00. Xv (819)— “Tassilo: Capitulare Baiwaricum (probably 803), c. viii; MGH Cap., 1, 20. 69. . Duplese legationis edictams (789), c. xvii; Programmatic capitulary of 802, c. i; Capitulare missoram generale of Uhionville (805), ¢. ii; Capitila de causis diversis: (806), c. i; MGH Cap., 1, n08 23, 33, 44, 49. In the articles of capitularies which have been mentioned, the ordets of Charlemagne aze clearly expressed. ‘The following atticles of other capitularies simply imply the existence of those orders: Capitulare Baiwaricam, probably of 803, ¢. ii; Capitula a missis dominicis ad comites directa, probably of 806 (according to W. A. Eckhardt, Die Kapitulariensammlung Bischof Ghaerbalds von Littich (Gottingen, 1955}, pp 33-7), © ti; Capitulare missorum Aguisgranenss prirtim (B10), ¢. xx; MGH Cap.+1, 908 69, 85, 64. The capitulary of Mantua (781), c. i, introduced the same tule in Italy, ibid., n0. 90; this makes it probable that Charlemagne gave his first ordets about the matter ptior to the year when such a provision appeared for the first time in a ‘Frankish’ capitulary that has been preserved. . Capitulare lage Ratuariae additum (803), c. vi MGH Gap., 1, no. 41. This article cortects the dese Ribwaria, 36 (32) De manire, ed. Beyerle and Buchner, pp. 87-8. . We know 2 case of the year Brg when after an homicide had becn committed, it-was expected that the count himself would make a complaint and, in so doing, institute a teial (Dom Devic and Dom Vaissete, Histoire géntras de Langiedsc, ed. Privat, 1, Toulouse (1875), Preaves, no. 49, cols. 125-4 = 155The 42. 43. 45. s at 47 4 156 » See e, impact of Charlemagne on Frankish institutions M. Thévenin, Texxfes, no. 67, pp. 80-1). The circumstances described in the notitia seem in 819 to have been considered normal; this permits us to use that case as evidence for the last years of Charlemagne’s reign. . Excellent expositions of the reforms made by Charlemagne in the com- position of the walizs and in the periodicity and character of its judicial meetings, are those of H. Brunner and C. von Schwerin, Dautsche Rechts gescbichte, 1 (2nd edn, Munich and Berlia, 1928), 296-301, of R. Schroeder and E. von Kiinszberg, Lebrhuch der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte, (7th edn, Berlin and Leipzig, 1932),179-82, of H. Conrad, Deutsche Rechtwgeschichte, 1 (2nd edn, Karlstuhe, 1962), 140-2. I do not, however, agree with all the opinions of those learned authors; my opinion differs from theirs particn~ larly in the part olayed by the free men present at the judicial meetings of the sallns. Fornulee Salitae Bignonianae (Gist years of Charlemagne’s reign), no. 13; Formulae Salieae Merkelianee (same period), nos 18 and 42; Cartae Senonicae (same period), nos 20, 38, 51; pp. 232-3, 248, 257, 194, 202, 207. See e.g., Formulae Salicae Merkelianae, a0. 16, the supplement to no. 28, and no. 29; MGH Formule, pp. 247, 252. See below, same page. e.g., Formulae Seronenses recentiores (end of Charlemagne’s teign ot that of Louis the Pious), nos 1, 4, 6; MGH Formulae, pp. 211, 213, 214. Boni Lomines and magnifici viri, see ¢.g., Formulae Senonenses recentiores, nos 1 and 3; MGH Forreulae, pp. 211-13. Petsons sitting in the court other thaa the Jcabini might have been included in those appellations. In texts of the south of Gaul during and after Charlemagne’s reign the word iudes is commonly uscd for the regular asscssots of the count, in the mallus; c.g.: Hist. gén. de Languedoc, éd. Privat, 11, Preuves, no. 6, cols. 47-50 (782), 00. 10, cols. 57-8 (791), no. 57, cols. 134-5 (821), no. 39, cols, 287-8 (852), no, x50, cols. 306-8 (858) (= Thévenin, Texter, nos 68, 88, 93, for the texts of 821, 852, 858); Thévenin, Texves, no. 71 (834). See: R. H. Bautier, ‘L’exercice de la justice publique dans l’empire carolingien’, in Eels Nationale des Chartes. Positions des theses contenues par les élives de la promotion ds 1943, 14-153 G. Sicgrd, “Sur Porganisation judiciaire carolingienne en Languedoc’, in Féudes bisto- riques a Ia mémvire de Noél Didier (Paxis, 1960), 293-9. Wheteas Bautier con- siders the iadices as different from the scabini, Sicard docs not take a personal stand about that problem. We incline to the belief that those ixdices were seabini undet another name. Formulae Salicae Bignonianae, supplement to 10. 7 (genecally considered as ptior to 774; R. Buchner, ‘Die Rechtsquellen’; ‘Beiheft’ to Wattenbach- Levison, Denéschlands Gescbichtsquellen im Mittelalter. Vorzeit und Karolinger (Weimar, 1953), 533 Come resedisset ille vigarius inluster vir illo comite in illo mallo publica una cums ipsis scabinos, qui in ipsum mallum resedebat ...MGH Formulae, p. 230. See e.g., Formulas Salicae Lindenbrogianae (last years of the cighth century), nos 19 and 23; MGH Formulas, pp. 280-2. . J. H, Albanés ard U. Chevalier, Gallia Christiana Novissina, uw. Marseille (Walence, 1899), n0. 42, cols. 34-5 (= B. Guérard, Cartulaire de Pabbaye de Saint-Vistor de Marseille, x Paris, 1857), no. 31), 23 February 780, Digne49. 50. sr. 5a ‘The impact of Charlemagne on Frankish institutions (France, Basses—Alpes): ... sissi domni nostri Karoli, regis Francorum et Langobardorum sen et patricit Romanorum, id est Viernarins ef Arimodus, wma cum rationesbarguis dominicis...(5 names) ..., scabinas lites, soabinos ipsius civitatis, The terminology was not fixed. (2) MGH Diplomata, Karai., 1, no. 158, 16 December 781 inter Ripheronene comite vel suas escapinios in page Tellauo, in malle puiblico qui vocatur Turcarias. "The pages mentioned in the text, was the “Talou’, located immediately to the north of the pager of Rouen (France; Seine Maritime). (3) K. Glockner, Godex Lanreshamensis, 0 (Darm- stadt, 1933), no. 228, p. 31, 3 June 782, Schwanheim (Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Land Hessen): ‘.. vemerunt missi domni regis Richardus et Guntramnus comes... cum prefatis scabinis et testibus. .. (4) MGH. Diplomata Karol,, 1, no. 141 . wna cum scabinis et testibus Moslinses... 2? Capitulere missorum (803), ¢. xx: Ut nuilas ad placitam banniatur, nisi qui causant sitar quaerere aut si alter quaerere dobet, excceptis scabiveis septem qui ad omnia placite pravesse debent; Capitulare missorum generale of Thionville (805), ¢. viii; De chematoribus vel causidicis qui nec inditium scabinorum adquiescere nec blasfemare volut ...; Cépitulars Aguitgranense (809), cv: Utnallus alius deliberis bominibns ad placitum vel ad mallum venire cogatur, exceptis scabinis et vassis comitum, nisi qos cansam seam aut quaerere debet aut respondere; Capitulare missorum Aquisgra- nense primum, (Bo9), c. xiii; Capitulare missorum italicum (on this capitulary, see above, n. 24) (802-810), c. xii; Pippini capitulare italicwm (806-10), c. xiv (provision of Frankish law inteoduced and enforced in Italy); MGH Cap., 1, nos 40, 44, 61, 62, 99, 102. The ministerixm, the public office of the seabini, is quoted in c. xi of the Capitulare Aquisgranense of 809 and in c. xxii of the Capitulare wissoram Aguisgravense primum, at \east in the text of the manu- scripts belonging to the important group Paris lat. 9654 and Vatic, Palat. 582. See below a. 50. Capitulare missorum (803), ©. iii: Us missé nostri scabinios, advocates, notaries per singula loca elegant et eoram nonin, quando revarsi fusrint, secum scripta deferant Capitulare Aquiserananse, (809), c. xi: Ut indices, advocati, praepositi, centenarit, seabinii, quales meliores inveniri possunt et Deum timentes, constitnantur ad sua ministeria exercenda (the manuscript Paris Lat. 4995, after simenses, has the following text: cum comite et populo legantur mansusti et boni); Capitulare missorum Aguisgranense primum (809), c. xxii (text of the manuscripts of the group Paris Lat. 9654 and Vatic. Palat. 582): Us indives, vicedomini, prepositi, advocati, centenarii, seabinei boni ef veraces ef mansieti cum comite et populo eligentur et constituantur ad sua ministeria exercenda; MGH Cap., t, 108 40, 61, 62, On the exclusion of those who had been condemned to death and aftctwatds pardoned: Capisulere Aguisgranense, c.i and Capitulare missorum Aquisgranense primun, c. xxvii Capitula incerti anni (805-813), MGH Cap., 1, no. 86, c. i: UE non ‘sint comites nostri tardi cansas nastras ad indicandsn nec eorum scabini; c. ii: De pravis centenariés vel scabinis at testimonia mala, qui non prevident recta inditia nec recta testimonia testificant, This is sttongly stressed in c. i of the programmatic capitulary of 802 (MGH Cap.,1,n0. 33),in the passage of the Annales Lanreshamenses where the despatch. of missi in the year 802, is treated (MGEL, SS, 1, p. 38), and in several other texts, amongst them c. xvi of the Capitulare missorum gensrale of Thionyille 27The impact of Charlemagne on Frankish institutions (805) (MGH Caj., 1, 20. 44): Ds oppressione pauperum liberorum hominum, ut non fiant a potentioribus per aliquod malum ingeninm contra institiane oppressi, ita ut coucti ves eorum vendant aut tradant. Ideo hace et supra et bic de liberis bonsinibus dixcivens, ne forte parsntes contra institiam fiant exbereditati et regale obsequinm witinatar ef ipsi beredes propter indigentiam mendici vel latrones seu malefactores effciantir. .. 53. Capitulare missorum (803), €. xx: see above, 1. 493 Capitulare missoram generale of Thionville, (805), the conclusion at the end of c, xvi, after the passage quoted in the preceding note: ... Et wt saepius non fiant manniti ad placita, nisi sicut in alio capitulare praecepinus ita servetur; MGH-Cap., 1, nos 4o and 44. W. A. Eckhardt, Kapitulariensammluyg, pp. 19-21, seems to ave rightly identified the older capitulary to which Charlemagne referred in 805 with fragment of a capitulary included in the collection of Gherbald, bishop of Liege, probably compiled in 806; Eckhardt’s edition p. 92 (= MGH Cap.,1, no. 104, ¢. iv): (UP comises ef cemtenarii generalem placitun fraquentins non babeant propter panperes; sed cum illos super quos clamant iniuste patientes, et cum maioribus natu at testimoniis necessariis frequenter placitum tencant; ut bi pauperes, qui nullaos cansam ibidem non babent, non cogantar in placituos venire, nisi bis aut ler in anno. That fragment of a capitulary does not mention the saabini and quotes only the maiores natu (= men of high rank by their birth) as assessors: pethaps we may be allowed to believe that the capitulary had been issued at a time when the institution of the seabini, though existing, had not yet been generalised. 54. Capitulare Aquisgranense (809), c. v7 see the text quoted above, n. 493 Capitalare missorum Aguisgrancnse primum (809), . xiii: Ut nullus ad placitum venire cogatur sisi qui catuars bales ad querendam, exceptis scabinis (the manuscripts of the group Paris Lat. 9654 and Vatic, Palat. 582 add to this : eévassadlis comitunt) ; Capitulare missorun italioum (see above, 8. 24), (802-810), ©. xii: Ut per placita non fant banniti liberi homines, exccepto si aliqua proclarnacio super aliquem vencrit aut certe ‘si scabinus aut index non fuerit; ot pro boc condenati illi pauperes non fiant; MGH. Cap., 1, 0s 61, 62, 99. Two capitulatics refer explicitly to the rule issued by Chariemagne: first an ‘Italian’ capitulary of Pippin 810, ibid., n0. 102; ¢. xiv relates to the enZorcement of the rule in Italy: ... Et ingenuos bomines milla placita faciant custodire, postquam illa tria custodiant placita quae instituta sant, nisi orte consingat ut aliquis aliquem accuset; excepto illos scabinos qui cum indictbas resedere debent; secondly the capitulare missorum of Louis the Pious belonging to the group of 818-819, ibid. no. 141, ¢. xiv: De placitis siquidem quos liberi homines abservare debent constitutio genitoris nostri penitus observanda.atgue tenenda est, ut videlicet in ono tria solummodo generalia placita observent et nullus eos amplins placita cbservare compellat, nisi forte quilibet aut accusatus fuerit aut alinm accasaverit aut ad testimonium perkibendum vocatus fuerit, Ad cactera vera, quae centenarii tenent non alins vetire iubedtur, nisi qui aut litigat, aut indicat ant testificatur. 55. See texts quoted in na. 49, 53, 54+ 56. See nn. 49 and 54. 57. We believe that this expresses the full significance of c. xxvi of the program- matic capitulary of 802 (MGH Cup., 1, 00. 33): Ut indices secundum seriptam Jeger inste indicant, non secundum arbitrinm suum. The written text of the /eges covered only part of cach of the national laws which were applicable in the 15860. 6x. ‘The impact of Charlemagne on Frankish institutions Regewm Francorum (as K. A. Eckhardt stressed it rightly in the aud edition made by him of H. Planitz, Deutsche R echésgeschichte [(Gxaz and Cologne, 1961}, 33). Charlemagne intended to extend largely the written text of the laws; however, the results of the decisions reached with that aim by the Empire’s assembly of Octobet $02 at Anchen and of the measures taken for applying these decisions remained extremely limited. Very important parts of the laws remained customary and oral; the judges still had plenty of possibilities to judge secundum arbitrinm suun.—E, Kaufrnann, in his remarkable book Acquitatis Tadicinn (Frankfurt, 1959), 57, believes that the rule, though it first appears in a capitulary of Charlemagne, may be much older; but he does not give any valid argument to uphold his opinion. . ‘This is, we believe, the meaning of c. vi of the Capitulare mitsorum of 802, at least in the formintended for the missaticumA, (Aquitaine), cd. W.A. Eckhardt (sce above, n. 15), p. 501 (= MGH Cap., 1, no. 34, in the ‘apparatus criticus? below p. 100): De legibus mamdanis, ut unusqpisque sciat qua loge vivat vel indicat, . Collection of articles of capitularies, some of them revised, intended for the missi of: 806, W. A. Eckhardt, Kapitulerionsammlung, p. 85, ¢. xxi (= MGH Cap., 1, no. 35, c. xviii): Ut comites et indices confiteantur qua lege vivere debeant et secundtem ipsam ixdicent (according to W. A, Eckhardt, op. cit,, p. 30, a corrupt reproduction of the text quoted n. 58); Capitula omnibus cognita facienda (802— 813), ©. iv: Ud comiter e¢ vicarit corum legem sciant ut ante eos ininste neminem quis iudicare posit vel ipsam legem mutare; Capitelare missorum (802-813), C. iii: Comites quoque ef centenarii et celeri nobiles viré legem suam pleniter distant sicut in alio loco decretura est; MGH Cap., 1, nos 57 and 60. It seems probable that when Charlemagne and his councillors required the counts, their subordinates and their deputies to know their own national law, they tightly or wrongly considered that this law, more often than not, would be also the national law of most of those under their jurisdiction: consequently it would be the law which they would have to supervise when their assessors applied it to most cases submitted to their court. Capitulare missorum Aduisgranense primum (810), ¢. iit: Ut ante vicarium ef centenarium de proprietate et libertate indicium non terminetur aut adquiratur, nisi semper in pracsentia missorum imperialium aut in pracsentia comitum; Capitulare missorunt Aguisgranense secundum (810), c. xvi De res ct mancipia ut ante vicariis ef centenariis non conquirantur; MGH Cap., 5, 108 64 and 65. ‘This is suggested by the fact that in the same year, the article of a capitulary introducing that provision of Frankish law into Italy, mentions explicitly the interdiction to judge the crininales actiones, as well as trials about freedom (see following note).—One generally admits that the interdiction was not applicable to the count’s deputy, the viscount (vicecomes), when there was one. There are several nofitiae of later years in the ninth century, where one meets a viscount acting as a chairman of the madlus with the same judicial competence as the count: Devic and Vaissete, Hist. gén. de Languedos, éd. Privat, 1, Peeuves, 00, 150, cols, 306-8 (858) (= Thévenin, Textes, no. 93), E, Getmer-Durand, Cartulaire de l’église cathédrale de Notre-Dame de Nimes (Nimes, 1874}, no. 1 (876), no. 8 (898) (= Thévenin, Texter, nos 107, 114)3 cE, W. Sickel, Der frankische Virecomitat, 1907, 53-4, 57-9, Brunner-von Schwerin, op. ci#., 1, 251. 159‘The impact of Charlemagne on Frankish institutions 62. 63. 6. 65. 66. 67. = Pippini capitulare italicum (810), MGH Cap., 1, no. 102, ¢. xiv: Ut ante vicarios nulla crininalis actin diffiniatur, nisi tantum leviores causas quae facile possunt dindicari; et nullus in corum iulicio aliquis in servitio hominens congudrat; sed per fidem remitiantur usque in pracsentidm comitis. The interdiction to judge a case ‘of geal property is not explicitly expressed; we believe, however; that it is expressed implicitly, because cases of that type certainly might aot be con- sidered as Jeviores causas quae facile posstnt dixdicari. Capitula de institiis faciendis (811), MGH Cap., 1, 20. 80, ¢. iv: Ut nullus hana in plasito centenarii neque ad mortem, neque ad libertatem saam amitiendam aut ad res reddendas vel mancipia indicetur, sed ista.in pratsentia comitis vel missorum nostrorins indicenixr; c. Vi « Ceteris vero mensibus anusquisque comitum placitum suum babeat et intitias faciat. Some instances, posterior to the reign of Charlemegne, can be found of meetings of the walls, held under the chairmanship of lower officers of justice, when cases were judged that belonged to the exclusive competence of the count: Albanés and Chevalier Gallia Christiana Novissima, tut, Marseille, no. 51, cols, 41-2 (845) (= B. Guérard, Cartulaire del’ abbaye de Saint-Victor de Marstille, 1, Patis, 1857, no. 26, pp. 32-4, =“Thévenin, Textes, n0. 80); G. Desjardins, Evégues de Rodez au IXe, au Xe et an XIe sitele, Bibliotheque de PEcole des Chattes, xxiv (1863), P. J. no. VI, p. 167 (864) (date worked out by F. Lot, Fides on Vassaux: [Patis, 1904], pp. 114-15, 9. 4). It is however much more important to note that the semantic evolution of the words vicaria in the west of France and in Burgundy, centena in Lorraine (which in the tenth and eleventh centuries included the right to condemn to death) can only be explained in a satisfactory way by the fact that vicarii and contenarii would in Carolingian times have largely preserved the judicial competence which Charlemagne had tried to take away from them. See C. E, Perrin, ‘Sur Je sens du mot “centena” dans les chartes lorraines du moyen Age,’ Archivum Liatinitatis medii aeoi — Bulletin du Cange, v (1929-30), 26-30; M. Garaud, ‘Vorganisation administrative du comté de Poitou au Xe siecle et ’avéne- ment des chitelains et des chitellenies’, Bulletin de la Société des Antiquaires de Ouest, 1953, 431, 443-73 J- Richard, ‘Aux origines du Charolais.’ Annales de Bourgogne, xxxv (1963), 88, H. Hirsch thought that the interdictions made by Charlemagne to the lower officets of justice did not apply to the judg- ment of persons apprehended red-handed; we aze inclined to agree with that opinion, thoug the arguments put forward to support it are very feeble; Die hohe Gerichtsharkeit im deutschen Mittelalter (Darmstadt, 1958, reprint of the edition of 19223, 191-3. Admonitio generalis, c. \xiti (ommibus)s Duplex legationis edietum, c. xxii;, pro- grammatic capi-ulary of 802, c. iand Avnales Lauresharenses, 802, MGH SS., 1, p. 38; Capitulare missornm of 803, c. xv; Capitulare Aquisgranense (809), ¢. viis Capitulare missorum Aquisgranense prinmm (809), ¢. xvii; Capitulare missorum Aqquisgranense primum (810), ¢. vii; Capitula incerti anni (805—813),C. 1; Capitula ¢ canonibus exccerpta (813) ¢. x; Boretius, Capitularia, 1, nos 22, 23, 33, 40, 62, 62, 64, 78, 86. Programmatic capitulary of 802, ¢, xxv; see also c, xi, xiii, Capitula incerti anni (805-813), ¢. ii. Sce a. 65. Capitulare Aquisgranense (809). c. vii. See n. 65. 16068, 69. 8 Jo. 7 ¥ T 1B 74 Ts 76. The impact of Charlemagne on Frankish institutions ‘Most of the texts quoted in n. 65 apply implicitly to the scabini; c. xvii of the Capitulare Aquisgranense of 809 and c. ii of the Capitula incerti anni quove the scabini explicitly. Capitulare missorum (803), c. xv and xvi; Capitulare missorum Aguisgranense primum (809), C. xvi, Capizela per missos cognita facienda (805-815), c. i, MGH Cap., 1, 008 49, 62, 67. C.is. The text is corrupt and difficult to understand; however I believe there is no doubt about the meaning of this article. « Capitulare legibus additum (803), c. iv; Capitula de missorum offviis (810), ¢. 73 pethaps Capitulare misscrum of Nijmegen (806), ¢. viii (implicitly); MGH. Cap., 1, 208 39, 66, 46. . Capitulare Aquisgranense (809), ¢. xiii; Capitulare missorum Aquixgranense primum, (809), c. xxv (with the various readings of some manuscripts); ibid, 1, nos 61 and 62. Capitalare Aquisgranense (802-803), ibid., 1, no. 77, c. xi. Capitulare legibas additum (803), ©. x: Si quis cassam indicatame repetere in mallo pravsumpserit ibique testibus convictus fuerit, ant quindecim solidos componat, aut quindecim ictus ab seabinis qui cansam prins indicavernnt accipiat.c.vii of the Capitula a misso eognita facta of 802, probably had the same bearing, though it did not yet include a punitive sanction: Us nullus contra rectum indiciwm andeat iudicare guicquam. ibid., 1, nos 39 and 59. Capitulare missorum generale of Thionville (805), ibid., 1, no. 44, c. vill; De clamatoribus vel cansidicis gui nec inditinm scabinorum adguiescere nec blasfemare volunt antiqua consuetude servetur, id est ut in custodia recludantur donec unum ¢ duobus faciant. Et si ad palatium pro hac re reclamaverint et litteras detullerint, non guides cis credatur nec tamen in carcere ponantur: sed cum eustodia et cum ipsis litteris pariter ad palatine nostrum renittantur, ut ibi discutiantur sicut dignum est ‘The text of the manuscripts Patis Lat. 9654 and Vatic, Palat. 582 is slightly different, but only as far as the form is concerned, Putting the unwilling clamator into custody was pethaps an old legal rule that had passed into disuse and was now revived by Charlemagne. Thave tried, as much as possible to keep this article in the form of the oral Jectute which it was originally. In several parts, however, [ have more fully discussed certain statements. As a matter of course [ have added footnotes, endeavouring to limit their number and to make them as short as possible. —I wish to express my thanks to my friends Professor Bryce D. Lyon, of the University of California (Berkeley), and Mrs Mary Lyon, who had the kind- ness to xead my manuscript and suggested a serics of uscful corrections. I am most grateful to them fot the trouble they have taken aboutit.X. The Frankish monarchy and its external relations, from Pippin III to Louis the Pious” monarchy in their technical aspect, 2nd is thus a contribution less to the history of diplomacy than to that of international and institutional law. It follows two previous articles on external relations during the Merovingian period; here as there, the emphasis is on facts, to the exclusion of any account of the movements of ideas. This is not because I believe such movements wete unimportant—quite the contrary; but there ate already studies of this aspect, to which I am happy to refer? ‘The period covered is confined to the reigns of Pippin III (751-68), Carloman IL (768-71), Charlemagne (768-814) and Louis the Pious (814-840), ninety years which for out present purpose have enough in common to make a general survey possible. The same cannot be said of the years following the death of Louis the Pious, during which a number of independent kicgdoms emerged as successor states to what had been an almost undivided monarchy; for this reason it has seemed preferable to reserve this later petiod for a separate study. It must first be stressed that responsibility for external relations was one of the essential functions of the Frankish monarch, before the imperial coronation of Christmas 800 as well as after. ‘This is a point of capital ‘importance.® ‘There were occasions on which the monarch exercised this function in his own petson, by entering into direct negotiation with foreign heads of state or other potentates, The political conversations which Pippin II, Charlemagne, and Louis the Pious conducted on Frankish soil with popes of their day—-Stephen II, Leo [Land Stephen IV—ate sufficiently well known,? But we know also of direct negotiations with othet kings and potentates, arrong them the Lombard king, an exiled king of Den- t= article is concerned with the external relations of the Frankish 162The Frankish monarchy and its excternal relations mark plotting to regain his throne, the largely autonomous vali or govern- ot of Saragossa, the uncle of the emir of Cordova and a governor of Barcelona. To this list of petsonal confrontations should be added contacts with the dukes of Spoleto and Benevento before their duchies ceased to be independent, with Saxon and Breton leaders, with the doges of Venice, with the Avar Ahagan and iygur, and with chieftains of Slav tribes from beyond the Elbe, the Wilzes, Saths and Abodrites.® Even so, the list is not exhaustive. Some of these confrontations coincided with a session of the Frankish assembly-or diet.§ Direct contacts, however, were the exception. The Frankish monarchs normally conducted their external relations through ambassadors, whether their own oz those of the foreign powers with whom they were dealing. It. is scarcely necessary to add that such ambassadors were always appointed ad foc; as soon as their mission was completed, they retutned to their masters. We know that some foreign delegations were received by the Frankish monarch at the time when the general, of some more specialised, assembly was in'session. This could arise purely by chance. Equally, it could have been a contrivance on the part of the foreign ruler or potentate to ensure that their ambassadors met not only the head of the Frankish state but also his advisers and a large number of the great men of his realm, On the other hand, there were occasions when the Frankish monarch himself desired such an arrangement. ‘I'he solemnity of such a reception would both impress itself upon the foreigners and enhance the monatch’s prestige in the eyes of his own subjects: the greater the number of embas- sies received on any one occasion, the casier it was to achieve this double effect. Reception of a foreign delegation during an assembly also meant that advice could more readily be taken, from those presumed most competent to give it, on the matters to be discussed with the ambassadors, We know of dicts under Pippin III and Charlemagne at which foreign legations were received.? Under Louis the Pious the practice was still morte frequent.8 Conversely, there were diets or other assemblies which were followed, as a consequence of the deliberations, by the despatch of a Frankish embassy. In contemporary sources—nartatives, capitularies, letters—diplomatic missions and their personnel ate referred to in a set terminology.” Frankish ambassadors to the head of a foreign state, and foreign ambassadors to the head of the Frankish state, are teferred to either as. missus or Jegatus32 Tn the ninth century one can perhaps discern a slight preference in favour of the mote classical /egatus, which could be due to the Carolin- gian renaissance, then statting to take effect. But it cannot be said to preponderate, and the two were in any case interchangeable. The doublet -egatarins, which occuts fairly frequently in Merovingian texts, is by now a rarity; nmtiusis used, but infrequently. Greek sources describe Frankish ambassadors as mpéofes2® When two or more ambassadors ate sent 165‘The Frankish monarchy and its excternal relations together on the same mission they are teferred to either in the plural (missi, egati) ox under the collective noun Jegatio:'® Jegatio can also be used of the message catried by the ambassadors to the monarch to whom they are being sent? In any case, the meaning of these terms depends entirely on the context, at least where agents of the Frankish king ate concetned. ‘They can only be taken in the sense just indicated if the missus or degatus is Cleatly seen to be engaged ona mission from the Frankish monarch to a foreign court: when it is said, for example, e¢ missé domni imperatoris [Caroli] de Constanti- nopoli reversi sunt, or again, as ina letter from Charlemagne to the Byzan- tine emperor Michael I, rogamus . . . fraternitatem tam ut [pacti descriptio- nem]... missis nosiris mersoratis dare digneris® Missus was in fact a general term, used of royal or imperial commissioners charged with some mission of inspection of teZorm, of of persons invested witha military command over part of the regsum Francorum ot some other territory—the regnum Langobardorum ox Italiae, for example—which was subject to the Frankish monarch: in effect of any person who was a missus dominicus. Legatus was sometimes used in the same sense. Again, /egatio could be applied to the area within which 2 ntissus dominicus carried out his duty of inspection and teform (his missaticum), or even to the mission itself. It is therefore neces- saty to be on the alert. In fact the ambassador employed on a foreign mission, and the royal or imperial commissioner despatched on a mission inside the ‘realm, were two species of the same genre. In hoth cases we are dealing with an individual the king had entrusted with an important mission and armed with appropriate powers; hence the identical terminology. Next, with which powers did the Carolingians maintain what we should nowadays describe as diplomatic relations ? In the first place, it should be noted that relations of this order existed until 817 between Louis the Pious and his nephew Bernard, sub-king of Italy, and at a later date between Louis and his sons, as rulers of kingdoms by tights subject to the emperoz’s supreme authority but in practice from 831 partially independent, and from 834 completely so.!9 ‘We know that lively diplomatic relations existed between the Frankish monarchs and the papacy; indeed, there were moments in each of the reigns covered by our petiod when the two powers were in constant communication, Admittedly, our impression that Carolingian dealings with the papacy were mote frequent and regula: than with any other foreign power may be due to the fact that in the Cadex Carolimus we have an exceptionally full collection of the letters addressed to the Carolingian head of state by successive heads of the Church, from pope Gregory IIT (731-41) to pope Hadrian I (771-95), whereas documentation on this scale for Carolingian relations with other powers is totally lacking. Even so, Lam not convinced that this is an optical illusion. 164‘The Frankish monarchy and its external relations ‘There is one power which may have rivalled the papacy in this respect, namely the Byzantine empire. From the narrative sources and the handful of surviving letters, it appears that the king of the Franks—emperor aftcr 25 December 800”—maintained active diplomatic relations with the Bacwers2 We know that Charlemagne ordered a compilation to be made of the letters addressed by the Byzantine emperors to Carolingian heads of state, which had it survived for out inspection might have revealed diplomatic activity on an even greater scale. It must be stressed that we are better informed concerning relations between the Frankish monatch and the eastern emperor during the period following Chazle- magne’s imperial coronation (that is to say between 800 and 815) than we ate for the years preceding it, or for the greater part of the reign of Louis the Pious. The Frankish monarchs had occasional contact with Byzantines who occupied positions of high, virtually independent, authority in the West: the patricius (6 marpiiexs) of Sicily, the doges (duces) of Venice, the Byzantine authorities in Dalmatia and Sardinia, and the duke of Naples.% We hear of many other heads of state or potentates to whom the Cato- lingians sent their representatives, or whose representatives they received, ot with whom they treated direct. In Italy thete were contacts with the Lombatd kings, until the conquest of theit kingdom by Charlemagne in 7745 with the Lombard dukes of Spoleto as long as their duchies remained autonomous,” and with the Lombard dukes of Benevento.” We know of diplomatic contact, either directly or through representatives, with political leaders who were in practice almost independent rulers of territories bordering the Regewm Francorum: the duke of Aquitaine, until his elimination by Pippin ILL; dukes of Gascony 2° Breton chieftains; and in the period before Tassilo III’s enforced submission, the duke of Bavaria! Avar leaders—the khan or &hagan and the ixgur or tudun—and their representatives were received both by Charlemagne and by his sons, Pippin king of Italy and Louis the Pious; these contacts continued after the Frankish conquest and into the period when the Avars were relegated to a Styrian ‘reserve’. The Frankish conquest of lands formerly subject to the Avars brought the Slavs of the middle Danube, the Mor- avians and even the Czechs, under a Frankish protectorate; as a conse- quence, embassies from these Slav peoples started to appear at the Frankish coutt.® So did legations from the khan of the Bulgars, whom the Frankish protectorate over the Slav peoples made an immediate neighbour of lands at least theoretically subject to the westetn emperor. Similarly, the conquest of Saxony necessarily brought the Franks into contact, whether friendly or hostile, with Slavs beyond the Elbe: the " Abodrites, Sorbs and Wilzes, whose chiefs or ambassadors made several appearances at the Carolingian coust.% But the most important effect of this conquest in the sphere of foreign relations was to create a common 165The Frankish monarchy and its external relations boundary between the Frankish realm and Denmark, whose kings proved uncomfortable neighbours. During the latter part of Charlemagne’s zeign and under Louis the Pious there was considerable Frankish- Danish diplomatic activity, with the additional complication that from 810 onwards the Danish throne was disputed among several claimants, all of whom looked to the Carolingians for support or attempted to make terms with them.%* To the west, across the Channel, the Carolingians had contacts of which we know little with the kings of Northumbria; there wete also dealings between Charlemagne and Offa of Mercia, at one time bretwalda of England, on which we are rather better informed.” To the south, beyond the Pyrenees, Charlemagne was at times in close diplomatic contact with the christian kings of Asturias.™ Lastly, we should not ignore the diplomatic contacts with the patriarch of Jerusalem, who was a person of consequer.ce not as 2 political leader but because of the dignity and authority attaching to his religious office.” Frankish relations with the Islamic world were by no means everywhere and always hostile. Pippin III, Charlemagne and Louis the Pious exchanged embassies with the Abassid caliph of Bagdad Aboa Djafar al-Mancour, with his illustrious grandson Harotin-at-Rachid, and with Hatoin’s son AL-Mamoan® Charlemagne apparently found it possible to combine these diplomatic relctions with the relations he maintained with the patri- arch of Jerusalem. In Islamic Spain we heat of Muslims willing to negotiate with the Carolingians, Saracen governors based on Barcelona, Gerona, Saragossa nd Huesca and members of the Umayyad dynasty. Indeed, at the end of Charlemagne’s reign, and under Louis the Pious, embassies were excranged with the Umayyad emir of Cordova The Carolingians also had some contact with Saracen leaders in north Africa. Carolingian diplomatic activity thus spread itself over a wide and ever-increasing field. At its fullest extent it reached to Denmark in the north, England in the west, the Tberian peninsula and north Africa in the south; in the east it penetrated into the Slav, Bulgar, Byzantine and eastern Islamic worlds. We must now examine what is known of the Carolingian agents of this activity. For some of these foreign missions only a single missus or Iegatus was employed, though he would naturally be accompanied by some sort of staff. Whea a legate of the eminence of the co-emperor Lothar was despatched, as he was in 824 with a message from his father to Pope Eugenius II and instructions to see that it was acted on, he was presumably accompanied by at least one adviser.*® In practice few missions can have been entrusted to a single ambassador; it may often appear from the sources that only one was sent, but the reason is probably that the person named was the most important member of the mission or of particular interest to the writer. The chief sources giving this impression are letters preserved in the Codex Carolinus, which concern missions 166The Frankish monarchy and its external relations addressed to the popes (Stephen II, Paul I, Constantine II, Stephen HI, Hadrian 1).* When the Carolingians wished to convey a message to a foreign head of state or to some other potentate, it seems that their normal practice was to despatch an embassy (with powers to negotiate if necessaty) consisting of two or three ambassadors and a supporting staff. This was the type of embassy they themselves usually received.” It was a pattern already established in the Merovingian period.!® A single degafus ot missus was the exception; the rule was to send several Jegati or missi, a kegatio. The tule will be found to hold good for the reigns of Pippin IIL Carloman TI and Charlemagne,*° of Louis the Pious,®! and of his sons during their father’s lifetime.** ‘The Carolingians notmally chose their ambassadors from members of the serving aristocracy. Many were churchmen, bishops and abbots in patticular, but also palace officials and palace clergy; othets were counts, whose normal function was to exercise public authority in the king’s name in a particular part of the country, A few examples will help to give substance to these generalisations. In 759, when Pippin IIL needed ambassadors to send to Italy to negotiate between the Lombard king Desiderius and Pope Paul I ovet territories the pope claimed from Desiderius, he chose for the purpose archbishop Remedius of Rouen, who was his half-brother, and duke Autgarius, one of the principal agents of his authority.5* In 781 the pope, Hadrian I, urgently requested Charlemagne’s intervention in the matter of the Sabine ‘patrimony’, part of which had in fact been usurped from the Roman Church, Charlemagne, king of the Franks and Lombards and patrician of the Romans, sent to Rome two missi, with orders to investigate and negotiate, and to take whatever action was needed. His choice fell on two churchmen in whom he had complete confidence, Hitherius, his ex-chancellor, now abbot of St Mattin’s of Touts, and Maginarius, one of his court chaplains: in other words, a past and present member of the palace clergy.™ In 808 a number of contentious matters had to be settled with Pope Leo III. On his father’s instructions, Pippin king of Ttaly sent ambassadors to Rome, who brought with them a letter from the emperor. Not content with this, Charlemagne despatched his own embassy to the pope, consisting on this occasion of two highly placed laymen, both of them counts who enjoyed his confidence: count Helm- gaud, who was to become count palatine and had experience of several foreign missions behind him, and Hunfrid, count of Chur.5* In 823 Louis the Pious sent two missi to Rome, to investigate reports that prominent Romans had been put to death in the Eternal City for holding ‘pro- - Frankish’ views, and to negotiate with Pope Paschal J, ramouted to have had some responsibility in the matter. The chosen ambassadors were Adelingus, abbot of St Vaast’s of Arras, and the count Hunfrid we have 167The Frankish monarchy and its external relations already met.** In 828 Louis the Pious sent as his ambassadors to the Byzantine emperor Michael IJ, from whom he had received an embassy in the previous year, two members of the higher clergy: Halitgarius, bishop of Cambrai, and Ansfrid, abbot of Nonantula.%” When we look at the Carolingian ambassadors as a whole, it is un- deniable that the clerical element was strongly reptesented.5* This was to doubt due to the advantage the higher clergy and the clerical personnel of the Palace derived from their intellectual training. We should note here the use of chance messengers for diplomatic purposes, both by foreiga rulers with whom the Carolingians were in contact and by the Frankish monatchs themselves. ‘The occurrence is known to us only from passing references in the sources, but was prob~ ably more common than these casual mentions suggest. ‘The remarks and behaviour of Frankish ambassadors to the supreme pontiff at times caused the pope to protest: one such offender, no less a person than bishop Jesse of Amiens who was among the emperor's most trusted advisers, he declared persona non grata, begging Charlemagne not to send him on any future missions to foreign powers.®? Conversely, we know of at least one occasion when Charlemagne complained of the meddling and intrigues of papal ambassadors to which the pope teplied with apologies and promises of punishment. Tt may be wondered whether the Carolingians made a habit of selecting certain individuals in preference to others for missions to a particular foreign power. The advantages of such a practice would be obvious: the ambassador would aot only gain a closer acquaintance with the matters in hand but also find it easier to establish local contacts and to gain access to the people he had to deal with. It looks as though the Merovingians to some extent selected ambassadors on this principle, as did cettain of the powers with whom the Carolingians had diplomatic relations, most notably the papacy. Under Stephen II and Paul I two bishops, Wilcharius of Nomentum and George of Ostia, figure as regular ambassadors ‘accredited? to the king of the Franks ;* it is noteworthy that despite the cuttent ptovisions of canoa law, but with the Pope’s agreement, both were later appointed to Frankish sees, Wilcharius to the bishopric of Sens—and indeed, to the atchbishopric of Gaul—and George to that of Amiens." During part Of his reign Pope Hadrian I had his regular ambassadors to Charlemagne: bishops Andrew and Philip, and duke ‘Theodore, the’ pope’s nepos. In the time of Louis the Pious, the names of John, bishop of Silva Candida, and of several adirinistrators from the Lateran—T'heodore, nomenclator and subsequently primicerins, the nomenclator ‘Uheophylact, and the prini- cerius Quitinus—tecur in the embassies addressed by the pope to the emperor. There were Byzantine ambassadors who seem to have specialised in 168The Frankish monarchy and its external relations negotiations with the heads of the Frankish state. The metropolitan ‘Michael of Philadelphia was one of the ambassadors sent by the Byzantine emperor to Charlemagne in 803 and again in 8123 Arsafios, spatharius ot pratespatbarins, also took part in two embassies, those of 810-11 and of 812, which were entrusted with the delicate negotiations entailed by Charlemagne’s imperial coronation.*" There may have been other Byzan- tine ambassadors who specialised in this way, but the references to Byzan- tine embassies in the sources are too imprecise for us to judge. It looks from the evidence as though the Carolingians to some extent chose particular ambassadors for their embassies to the Holy See, perhaps following the example set by the pope. We know of a number of Frankish ambassadors who carried out more than one mission to Rome: Vulfardus, abbot of St Martin’s of Tours, under Pippin TIL, Wilcharius, bishop of Sens, under Pippin I and Charlemagne, Hitherius, Charlemagae’s chancellor and subsequently abbot of St Martin's, Maginarius, abbot of St Denis, bishop Possessor, presumably of the Tarentaise, abbots Dodo and Rabigaudus, and count Helmgaud, all under Charlemagne, and count Hunfrid under Charlemagne and Louis the Pious.‘ In Carolingian dealings with Byzantium, on the other hand, the same names never recur; it seems there was no one in the royal entourage who made such missions his special province." But there is one country, ngland, where the special knowledge possessed by at least one Frankish ambassador was of vital importance. The person in question was Gervold, abbot of St Wandrille on the lower Seine, who was administrator of customs in the Frankish channel ports. This office brought him into contact with Offa of Mercia, whose sway either as direct ruler or hegemon extended over the whole of southern England. Gervold executed a number of missions to Offa on Charlemagne’s behalf. It is significant that in 790, when 2 personal quarrel led to a worsening in relations between the two monarchs, Charlemagne abandoned his initial intention of sending Alcuin, himself an Englishman, to patch things up, and sent instead Gervold, who had contacts in England and experience of dealing with the English court.7° Gervold’s standing with both monarchs enabled him to restore peace between them.” A similar circumstance—the ambassador’s long history of good relations with both sides—no doubt accounts fot Louis the Pious’s choice of Marcward of Prim as his envoy to Lothar on two occa- sions when father and son were in conflict.” One can give further examples of individuals presumably chosen for their personal qualifications or contacts. When Charlemagne sent Lantfrid and Sigimund as his envoys to the caliph of Bagdad in 797 ot 798 he added to their party a Jew named Tsaac,"* who may well have known a Tittle Arabic; it is also possible that people in Aachea were aware that Jews were valuable in the east as inteemediaries. Zacharias, the palatine priest who was sent to Jerusalem in 800, perhaps commended himself 169The Frankish monarchy and its external relations for his knowledge of Greek. When some Bulgat ambassadors teturned to their master in 824, they were accompanied by an inhabitant of Bavaria named Machelmus, instructed by Louis the Pious to seek an audience with the khan, Machelmus may well have been chosen because he spoke ont of the Slav dialects. ‘The reasons whick prompted the Carolingians to despatch an embassy to foreign heads of state or other potentates (and vice versa) wete various. Here we shall concentrate only on the most important. Some of the business transacted was of a dynastic nature, which natur- ally always had its political side. Marriages occupied a place of particular importance. Missi sent by the Byzantine emperor Constantine V ii 766-7 may have brought Pippin II a request (in any case not granted) for the hand of his daughter Gisla, the prospective bridegroom being the future Leo IY, then heir to the Byzantine throne. Some twenty years later, on the initiative of the empress Irene, negotiations were in train for another Byzantine marriage, between Chaclemagne’s daughter Rotrud and the youthful emperor Constantine VI; Charlemagne received Byzantine ambassadors in 781 and again in 787, Irene received a Frankish embassy in either 786 or 787. In the event the negotiations were broken off and relations between the two monarchs became strained.”> At some time around 790, Abbot Gervold of St Wandrille was sent to Offa of Metcia to request the hand of his daughter for Charlemagne’s eldest son, Charles the Younger; Ofa would only agree on condition that his own son married Charlemagne’s daughter Bertha, which the Frankish monarch segarded as an insult. As with the failed Byzantine mazriage, the tesult was a break in relations and political tension between the two monarchs.” ‘The embassy which the Byzantine emperor Michael I sent to Charle- magne in 812 to recognise his accession to the imperial dignity may also have come to negotiate a Frankish marriage for Theophylact, son of the facieds. If so, the proposal met with no success.77 We should also include as diplomatic exchanges concerned with dynastic affairs most of the embassies which passed between Louis the Pious and his sons, and between the sons themselves, during the periods when they were in revolt against their father (from 830 and especially after 835).78 In examining the votives which prompted diplomatic exchanges and negotiations, it will be convenient to give separate considetation to the exchanges between the Carolingians and the popes, who had been allies in fact, if not in form, ever since 754. Under Pippin IIT, and during the eatly patt of Charlemagne’s seiga, dealings between the Carolingians and the papacy were largely concerned with the threat from the policies pursued by the Lombards and the pope’s constant appeals to the Frankish monarch for help. At a later stage these were supplanted as the major topics by the pope’s scheme for securing recognition of his authority over the duchy of Spoleto and his conflicts with the duchy of Benevento.8* 170‘The Frankish monarchy and its external relations But there were other matters which demanded an exchange of embassies between the two powers, usually initiated by the pope: territorial prob- lems arising in Italy;% the threat presented by the alliance between the duke of Benevento, Byzantium, and Adalgis (son of Desiderius, the last Lombard king);* the independent attitude towards Rome adopted by the archbishops, clergy and lay notables of Ravenna (with discrect back- ing from the Frankish court); the defence and recovery of the Sabine patrimony. We hear also of embassies whose errand was of a different character, for example to announce the accession of a new sovereign pontiff,** to bring the pope news from Charlemagne of important decisions ot events,* to scotch false tumours.” Again, there were naturally matters of a strictly religious and ecclesiastical nature which called for an exchange of embassies between the Frankish monarch and the head of the Church, Lastly, it should be-noted that as Pairicius Romanorum (Pippin TL and Charlemagne), and later as emperor (Charlemagne, Louis the Pious and Lothar), the Frankish monarchs were under an obligation to protect the papal state which gave them some authority over it. Missi who made a long sojourn ia Rome sometimes had political or even military business to attend to, in addition to their diplomatic mission. ‘The scope of missions and negotiations concetned neither with dynastic questions nor with some matter chiefly of interest to the head of the Carolingian state and the Holy See is defined for us in the Ordinatio Inperii of 817, which distinguishes between maiores causae meaning principally the conclusion of peace, the declaration of war and the acquisition or surrender of powers over cities and castles, and savsae Jeviores.®° "The following account will touch briefly on some of these topics, and one or two more besides.** ‘To start with the more obvious maiores causae. Embassies wete received by the Carolingians from foreign powers claiming the restitution of sutrender of territory to them, and also from subordinates of foreign rulers, offering the Carolingians territorial bribes in return for help in overthrowing their master. We heat that Pippin IL, when approached by a Byzantine emperor anxious to recover the former exarchate of Ravenna, replied by despatching an embassy to discuss. the matter.% Governors of Muslim territories in Spain tried to lute Charlemagne (sometimes with success) into attempting conquests in the north of the peninsula." Louis the Pious resisted demands from the king of Denmark for the cession of Frisia and the Abodrite country. Negotiation was _ sometimes seen as a way of preventing border incidents from developing into more serious conflicts and of composing the situation by a peaceful settlement: this was often the reason which prompted the Carolingians to ~ negotiate with the Avars*® and the Danes.% Similar motives might lead toa negotiated partition or demarcation of disputed territories; agreements of this type are recorded with the Byzantines,”” the Bulgars®® and the Danes.*” yrThe Frankish monarchy and its external relations The foregoing were all diplomatic exchanges of major importance, relating in the words of the Ordinatio Imperii to the cession ot acquisition of powers over cities and castles. We turn now to actions to which the Ordinatio ascribes equal importance, those likely to result in the outbreak of wart When the Carolingians wanted to deliver an ultimatum to a threatening enemy, they did so through their /aga‘i, who no doubt had to perform this duty more frequently than the occasional mention of it in the sources suggests. We heat of ultimata despatched by Pippin IIL to the duke of ‘Aquitaine! and the king of the Lombards by Charlemagne to the duke of Gascony!® and Tassilo II of Bavaria, and by Louis the Pious to the Breton leader Morman.1® Formal notice of the termination of a peace treaty came to much the same thing as the delivery of an ulti- matum: Louis the Pious appatenily twice took this step vis-l-vis the emir of Cordova, in 815 and again in 820.108 Among the maiores causae patticularised in the Ordinatio, first place is given to acts of diplomacy leading to the restoration of peace. We hear of a number of suck acts:1% the peaces Charlemagne and Louis the Pious concluded with the duchy of Benevento, which in each case led to the duchy’s submission, though with a large measure of factual independence, which eventually became complete;!® the peaces Charlemagne concluded with the kings of Denmark; the peace, admittedly shortlived, which Charlemagne concluded with the emir of Cordova; the peace which Louis the Pious concluded with the Breton leader Wihomarcus, who for a short while submitted to his authority;4 the peace Louis the Pious concluded with king Horich of Denmark." We fear of embassies being despatched to supe-vise the implementation of newly concluded peace treaties. The negotiations between the Carolingians and the Abbasid caliphs of Bagdad can also be classed as concerned with issues of peace and war. Although no hostilities had developed between the two, it was still important to establish and maintain regular and friendly relations between the leading Christian power of the west and Islam’s chief ‘commander of the faithful.’ Embassies were exchanged between Pippin III and caliph Aboa Djafar al-Mangotr™ with what precise object is unknown. They probably had the same purpose as the similar exchanges between Charlemagne and the most illustrious of the Abbasid caliphs, Harotn at-Rachid"*, namelyto arrange for the despatch and unimpeded distribution of material assistance to Christians, above all pilgrims, who found them- selves in lands ‘under the Crescent’, the Holy Land in patticulat."* This was also the chief zeason why Charlemagne maintained contact through his missi with the patriarch of Jerusalem, who at one stage appears to have played the part of mediator in Charlemagne’s negotiations with the caliph. Contacts with the patriarch continued under Louis the Pious. Charle- ayThe Frankish monarchy and its eocternal relations magne and the caliph must have come to an agreement!® which was presumably renewed by the ambassadors from caliph Al Mimoia received by Louis the Pious in $31.4 Charlemagne also sent ambassadors, for the teasons indicated above, to Muslim rulers in North Africa, He is known to have received legates from the emir of Fostat.?9 We hear of some embassies whose mission was wholly or in part of a strictly religious character. Others were concerned with the improve- ment of ttading telations ot their te-establishment after a tuptute; some examples have alteady been mentioned. A more unusual mission was the one entrusted to an embassy to Louis the Pious, requesting facilities for an English king on his passage through Francia as a pilgrim to Rome.™® So far as theit objectives are concerned, I would place the embassies heads of the Carolingian state exchanged with kings and rulers who were their actual or legal inferiors in a class apart. Under this heading I include, for example, embassies concerned with administrative problems in the kingdom of Italy (the embassy from Bernard, king of Italy, to his uncle Louis the Pious in 815; the embassies Louis the Pious despatched to his rebellious son and co-empetor Lothar in 836 and 837). T would also include on the one hand embassies from Slay or Avar populations who came to solicit favours from the head of the Frankish state, or to invite him to settle the conflicting claims of rival pretenders, and on the other personal appearances of native leaders accused of infidelity, sum- moned to submit to the decision of the Frankish king (or emperor) and the diet.»% Lastly, there were the many embassies sent to Louis the Pious by ptetendets to the shaky throne of Denmark, that is from Hariold on the one hand and the sons of Godfted, the former king, on the other. Hariold in fact twice came in person to ask the emperor for military aid; the opposing party did everything they could to see that the request was not granted and that the emperor made the peace with them.™ So far as the Carolingians were concerned, receiving Danish pretenders and their embassies and despatching Frankish missi to Denmark ot its borders was on a par with the treatment they meted out to the Slav and Avar tribes; under Louis the Pious the aim was perhaps to turn Deamark into some- thing like a Frankish protectorate. By contrast, when we hear of Charle- magne’s intervention in English affairs, as in 808 when he and the pope sent #missi to restore a deposed Northumbrian king to his throne, his action should not be interpreted as a demonstration of hegemonial authority or a move towards acquiring it: in the circumstances, the emper- or’s personal ptestige was apparently such that he could use diplomatic means to satisfy his sense of what was right Tt is not uncommon for sources—annalistic sources in patticular—to mention the teception ot despatch of an embassy by the Carolingians in terms which give little or no indication of its purpose: all that will be 173The Frankish monarchy and its external relations said is that gifts were brought and peace and friendship demonstrated, promised, of requested. If the embassy is meationed in no other source, as is sometimes the case, we can come no closer to discovering its purpose. Bringing presents and displaying signs of peace and. friendship could naturally have been reasons enough in themselves. We can also imagine that embassies of this nature provided opportunity for the exchange of views on subjects of mutual interest. Embassies might have the genetal character just described and yet have some more particular purpose in view.# When ambassadors brought gifts to Louis the Pious (as king of Aquitaine) and Charlemagne from the king of Asturias, it was presumably to show his gratitude for help against the Saracens, but they may well have taken the opportunity to ask for further assistance. We know that Louis the Pious received a number of Byzantine embassies)#® whose main object must surely have been to confirm, on the accession of a new emperor (of for a second time in the course of the same reign), the agreement between the two empires reached under Charlemagne: and this was presumably the cofcrete purpose of the gifts and the declarations of peace and friendship mentioned in the sources.!* Carolingian ambassadors wete furnished with certain documents for their travels abroad. One document they carried, the éractoria, is already found under the preceding dynasty. Te was a royal diploma belonging to the writ category, ordering all agents of the king to provide the bearer with food, means of transport and lodging. As we have it, the text of one éracforia of the kind cartied by ambassadors (known in Merovingian times as a fractoria ligatariorum) dates from the seventh century, but since it appears in slightly modified form in a formulary of the Carolingian petiod, it can be used as evidence of the institution at that date.” Foreign ambassadors on their way to or from the Frankish monarch were also provided with a suctoria, unless they were accompanied by a royal missus thus equipped. Jn this tespect Frankish and foreign ambassadors received the same treatment as sissi dominici engaged on internal missions.** The food and transport-needed for missi were requisitioned ftom local inhabitants, though some contsibution, in Charlemagne’s day at least, was expected from the counts, from the estates which formed the en- ,dowment of theit office; royal estates, however, were exempt.4? Local populations found these requisitions a heavy charge and tried to evade them. Louis the Pious sanctioned dispensations in certain cases.” ‘The éractoria was natutally only valid while ambassadors were travelling within the Regawm Francoram (which for this purpose can probably be taken to include tre Regn Langobardorum), but there must have been some atrangement for providing Frankish ambassadors with food and transport once they had left Frankish territory. I think it unlikely that Frankish ambassadors on missions to foreign 174The Frankish monarchy and its external relations rulers zegulacly carried written instructions, though this certainly happened on occasion: anotableexample is the letter from Charlemagne to Angilbert, instructing him on certain aspects of his mission to the new pope, Leo III! But in the great majority of cases ambassadors received only oral instruc- tions. Frankish ambassadors on foreign missions, and foreign ambassadors received by the Carolingian heads of state, often carried documents which the sources usually allude to metely as epistole, Hitterae ox apices, without entering into details. To form a clearer idea of them we must go to the surviving collections of letters, above all the Codex Carolinus, ‘They were in fact letters, addressed by the Carolingian head of state to his foreign counterpart or some other potentate, and vice versa. Mote will be said of them later, when we deal with their delivery to the head of state to whom they were addressed. All that needs to be noted here is that the letter might contain a clause commending the bearer to the recipient, requesting him to accept the ambassador’s oral communication in good faith and to instruct his collaborators to do the same: clause, in fact, which gave the letter the character of a letter of credence. So far as I am aware, in this explicit form the clause is not at all common. It is sometimes difficult to visualise the circumstances in which negotia- tions were initiated and conducted, as this is a matter on which the sources, and the narrative sources in particular, are oftea very inexplicit.# Report- ing a submission, they will simply record that the chiefs of the people concerned, or their delegates, handed over hostages and gave assurances, pethaps under oath, of future good behaviour and loyalty; or it is baldly stated that such and such a population submitted to their conqueror, which means that we often have no means of knowing whether it was a submission preceded by negotiation ot a surrender arbitrarily imposed on a tertorised or defeated enemy.#? ‘This said, we can now try to establish how ambassadors arriving at a foreign court set about accomplishing their mission. We know that foreign ambassadors might be kept waiting before the Carolingian monatch received them in audience. The delay was sometimes to suit the monarch’s personal convenience,“ but there could also be a political motive: a Bulgar legation which arrived in Bavaria shortly before Christmas 824 (new style) was not received by Louis the Pious at Aachen until the middle of May 825, because he wanted first to gather more information about the situation in the Danube region. It should be said, however, that this was tather unusual treatment. We have no information about similar delays which may have been inficted on Frankish embassies to foreign powers, but it seems likely that they sometimes occucred. ~.On their way through Frankish territory foreign envoys had to be treated with respect, #0 and it can be presumed that on their meeting with the king’he was bound to! accord them an ‘honourable’ and ‘benevolent?’ 15The Frankish monarchy and its external relations reception The procedure was governed by protocol, Having been introduced by the estiarixs or coutt usher (undet Louis the Pious by the magister ostiariorum, or chief usher)! the legates would find the king o emperor attired in ceremonial dress. This was one of the few occasions when Charlemagne appeared in robe of cloth of gold and bejeweled shoes, his mantle fastened with a gold fibula, his head adorned with a gold diadem, and it was the only time he consented to abandon his workaday sword for one witha baldrick and hilt fashioned of gold and silver." The Carolingians undocbtedly expected the same honour and good will to be shown to their own ambassadors, and we know that on some occasions at least their expectations were fulfilled. On their reception the foreign ambassadors would present to the Frankish head of state the gifts sent by their master. This practice, which was wide- spread, was no mete formality but a gesture indicative of friendship and esteem; to have refrained would have been a sign of hostility. Thus when the sources report the reception of a foreign embassy, they generally mention the presentation of gifts," and those which made a particularly strong impression ate enumerated, or described in detail. Among the most memorable wete offerings brought by the /egati of great ecclesiastical powers: the keys to the ‘Confession of St Peter’ and the standard of the city of Rome which Pope Leo TIT sent to Charlemagne in 796, the relics from the Holy Sepulchre which the patriarch of Jerusalem sent in 799, and his gifts of the following yeat—a standard, and keys to the Holy Sepulchre, to the precincts of Calvary and the Mount of Olives, and to the city of Jerusalem. We hear of other remarkable gifts brought by foreign ambassadors: in 757 the Byzantine emperot Constantine V sent Pippin IIT an organ!®* and in 797 or 798 /gati from Alfonso II the Chaste, king of ‘Asturias, brought as gifts booty captured in a taid on Lisbon—Moorish slaves, mules, cuirzsses, and a magnificent teat which had belonged to a Saracen chief. The most spectacular gifts of all were those which arrived from caliph Harotin ar-Rachid in 801, which included an clephant:!®° even the assortment of Inxury articles, some of them very costly and strange, which were brought by his legation of 807, paled in comparisoa.1*" Most of these objects found their way into the Treasury. We are naturally not so well informed about the reciprocal gifts the Carolingians must have despatched to fore!gn monarchs 1% On theif reception the forcign ambassadors would also present to the moaarch any letter they had brought from their master. The sources mention that letters (apices, epistola, litterae) passed between the Carolingian monarchs and other heads of state and potentates,* and some ambassadors had even more substantial communications to deliver. As might be expected, we hear most about such letters in connection with foreign powers representing a relatively advanced civilisation. ‘The texts of many of the popes’ letters to Carolingian rulers, down to the 176The Frankish monarchy and its external relations death of Pope Hadrian I in 795, are presetved in the Codex Carolinus; the texts of some other letters, written by Hadrian I and subsequent popes, have survived independently.16? A few of these letters give details of the mission entrusted to the ambassadors, but in most cases little is said beyond a statement of its bare objective. A letter from the Byzantine emperor Michael to Louis the Pious, known to us only in its Latin translation, has a gteat deal to say on religious problems but very little on political issues.1® ‘When we turn to Charlemagne’s letters, we find they vary considerably in the amount of detail they give. Among the more explicit we can cite a letter to Offa of Metcia, presumably written after the reconciliation between the two monarchs in 796, and a letter of 813, to Emperoz Michael I, aimed at perfecting the understanding between the two empires. Others are less revealing, giving little clue to the content of the message entrusted to its beater.170 It will be clear from what has been said that the essential part of a diplo- matic mission took the form of an oral communication, and the same would apply to any negotiations which ensued. The soutces bear this out: they will say, for example, that the Carolingian monarch heard the message brought by the ambassadors," ot that the Carolingian ambassadoss spoke to the head of state or potentate concerned.” Letters brought by papal ambassadors (and, so it seems, by some Byzantine ambassadors), stress the paramount importance of the oral communication, and of the oral negotiations the ambassadors were empowered to undertake.” The point is made explicitly: the ambassador speaks in place of his master, and on his behalf.27* Once the ambassadors had delivered their oral message, negotiations could get under way, although the two parties, the ambassadors on the one hand and the foreign head of state or potentate on the other, might need sevetal days to complete their deliberations. Negotiations usually pro- ceeded without interruption, apart from temporary suspensions duc to the occurrence of some fresh event. ‘The monatch might wish, for one reason of another, to delay his eply; the ambassadors then had no choice but to wait, it might be for a con- siderable time. Both Carolingian’ and foreign ambassadors!” were subjected to these delays. In 817 ambassadors to Louis the Pious from the son of the Umayyad emit of Cordova had to wait three months before they could return to Spain.” Departure of a mission could natutally be delayed for other reasons.17* Tt seems that having delivered his reply, the Carolingian monarch formally dismissed the foreign ambassadors, that is to say he gave them leave to teturn to their master; foreign courts no doubt followed a ‘similar procedure.” Departing ambassadors would normally receive the monarch’s oral reply to the message they had come to deliver." They might also be given a letter for their master,! which the oral reply would 77The Frankish monarchy and tts external relations enable them to enlarge upon,}® and perhaps some other document to take back, for example a treaty or draft treaty.'* There seems to have been a fairly general custom of giving departing ambassadors presents for their masters, with no doubt something for themselves as well% Dismissing an embassy or ambassador without an answer was tantamount to an insult, and could easily lead to a rupture in relations and eventual hostilities.16° We know of sevetal cases in which Frankish ambassadors either ac- companied the departing foreign ambassadors ot followed them not long after, in order to continue at the foreign court the negotiations whose first phase had just been completed, or to see that what had been agreed was put into effect.1*” There were also occasions when the position was reversed and Frankish ambassadors were accompanied or followed at a short distance by ambassedors from the power they had just visited.4% It seems doubtful whether this was a general practice, even when an embassy departed with honour." We hear of some foreign degati for whom the Carolingian monarch arranged an escott, but only as far as the frontier.19° Boundary disputes, when they atose, were sometimes deemed to require an investigation on the spot; or the actual negotiations might take place on the frontier or in its immediate neighbourhood, as for example the negotiations conducted in the Bardengau with Nordalbingian Saxons, Abodkites and Wilzes.A more obvious exampleis provided by the frontier negotiations between the Franks and the Danes,! recorded as taking place in 809 (without result), 811, 813, 825,and 828 (again without result). These negotiations usually took the form of a diplomatic conference, with an equal number of delegates from each side (most of the Frankish delegates were counts); in 811 the number was twelve from each side, in 813 sixteen. The numbers were presumably so large because each delegate was required to possess local knowledge of some part of the terrain under dispute. We can presume that on completion of a mission Carolingian legates reported orally to their master. In some instances they must also have been asked for a written report; a fragment of one of these reports, prepared for Charlemagne, has survived.1% We know that certain questions were the subject of negotiations which dragged on for years, engaging the attention of several monarchs and theit ambassadors. The most important of these was the relationship between Chatlemagne and the Byzantine empire after the impetial cotonation of 25 December 800, which Byzantium naturally regarded as a usurpation. ‘The case is worth going into in some detail, as an excellent illustration of what has already been said of the external relations of the Frankish mon- archy under, the Carolingians. Constantinople feared the Franks intended an attack on Byzantine Sicily, and the initiative in opening negotiations with Charlemagne appears to have come from the empress Irene.!"7 In 802 Leo the spatharins was sent to Charlemagne from Byzantium, his mission being to re-establish tela~ 178The Frankish monarchy and its external relations tions on a footing of peace and friendship. The overture was welcomed by the western emperor, who sent Leo back to Constantinople accompanied by an embassy of his own, which had orders to carry negotiations for the resumption of good relations a stage further; Charlemagne’s ambassadors were bishop Jesse of Amiens and count Helmgand.1** Irene had meanwhile been deposed, and they wete received by the new BaotAevs, Nicephorus I, who appears to have agreed to their proposals in principle. In 803, when Charlemagne’s missi reported back to him at Salz on the Saale, they had with them ambassadors from Nicephorus: the metropolitan Michael, abbot Peter, and a ‘candidate’ named Calistos. The emperor gave the Byzantines the written draft of a treaty and a letter for Nicephorus to take back to Constantinople, which they reached by way of Rome.!% It appears that Nicephorus had objections to some of the more important provisions of the draft treaty. At all events, the negotiations were not pursued. Over the next few yeats Charlemagne brought pressure to bear onthe Byzantines; his agents fomented disturbances in the Venetian lagoon, which was an autonomous Byzantine territory; in $04 Francophile doges seized power in Venice and stirred up revolt in towns on the Dalmatian coast, which in the following year joined Venice in submitting to Charle- magne. Between 806 and 809 the operations of a Byzantine fleet brought a temporary restoration of the legitimate order, but after some reverses the Acet was forced to withdraw. In 810 King Pippin of Italy occupied islands in the lagoon, including the Rialto, but his attempt to regain a footing on the Dalmatian shore was frustrated by Byzantine naval action. ‘The pressure exerted by the Franks brought results. In 810 a Byzantine ambassador, Arsafius the spathariis, appeared at Aachen with a message and a letter for Charlemagne from Nicephorus; the real destinary was Pippin of Italy, but he had meanwhile died and the mission had been diverted to the emperor. The proposals of 810 were apparently accepted in principle as the basis for further negotiations, from which some agreement emerged. On his return home, Atsafius was accompanied by a Frankish embassy with authority to convey Charlemagne’s assent to the proposed convention, and perhaps to explote its precise terms and implementation. ‘The Frankish ambassadors were bishop Heito of Basel, count Hugh of Tours, and Aio, a Lombard from Friuli. They took with them a letter from Charlemagne to Nicephorus, the text of which has been preserved.200 When they artived, the ambassadors were received not by Nicephorus but by Michael I Rangabe, his son-in-law, who on 2 October 811 had succeeded him as emperor. ‘The conversations with the Baowdeds which followed the delivery of Charlemagne’s letter presumably resulted in oral agtecment to the treaty.. When the Frankish embassy departed for home, it was accompanied by a Byzantine embassy consisting of Michael, metro- politian of Philadelphia, and Arsafius and Theognostos (both of them described as spatharius)2 At Aachen, which they probably reached in 179The Frankish monarchy and its external relations April 812, the Byzantines were greeted with jubilation. First they presented gifts to the emperor, Next came a ceremony in the palace chapel, at which the emperor handed the leader of the embassy the copy of the treaty destined for the Baoweds, taken from the altar. Then the Byzantine ambassadors, following the rites of their own court, chanted in Greek, in Charlemagne’s honour, the imperial dazdes which attributed to him the Greek titles of aciders and umepéresp (inperator), By doing so, they declared the eastern emperor's official recognition of the king of the Franks and Lombards as western emperor. ‘The Byzantines broke their homeward joutney at Rome where, at a ceremony in St Peter’s, Pope Leo TII handed them a second copy of the treaty, probably one he had himself subsctibed.2% ‘The presumption is that the Venetian lagoon was restored to Byzantium, that the Venetians were made to pay tribute to the western emperor-but were allowed privileges in the empire, and that the western emperor, even if he kept Istria and part of the Croatian interior, acknowledged Byzantine overlordship over the whole of the Dalmatian littoral. The one thing which temained to be done to make the treaty a foedur (frmitsinun® was for Charlemagne to receive his own copy. In the spring of 813 an embassy consisting of Amalarius, bishop of Triet, and Peter, abbot of Nonantula, was despatched to Constantinople. They took with them a letter, whose text has survived, which declared Charlemagne’s satisfaction with the agreement and requested Michael I to hear the message brought by his ambassadozs and to deliver to them the copy destined for himself, taken from the altar.265 The embassy was received at Constantinople by Leo the Armenian (Leo V), who had deposed Michael I. When he dismissed the Frankish ambassadors he sent with them ambassadors of his own, Christopher the spatharius and a ceacon named Gregory, to whom he. entrusted the copy of the treaty destined for Charlemagne. By the time the two embassies reached Aachen Charlemagne was dead, and it was Louis the Pious who received the imperial gifts and the copy of the treaty intended for his father,206 Louis settled a number of questions with the Byzantines and sent them away loaded with gifts. They were accompanied by a Frankish embassy consisting of Notkert, bishop of Reggio in Emilia, and Ricoin, count of Padua, the point of their mission being to convey to the Byzantine emperor “Louis’s personal agreement to the treaty, by way of confirmation. On theit return in 815 the Jegati brought Louis a corresponding document on behalf of the Paoweds.*” If we include this last phase, the negotiations took fifteen years in all to complete.20 ‘The diplomatic relations which have been desctibed in this article were not without their attendant difficulties. Monarchs were at times left for long periods without news of their ambassadors; despatches might be opened en route; miss? could act in ways prejudicial to the success of 180,The Frankish monarchy and its external relations their mission In the absence of expert translators, written messages were liable to be misinterpreted.2* ‘There were times and seasons when travelling was impossible or certain seas unnavigable #4 there was the risk of accident.™45 A mission toa place as distant as Bagdad could take up to four years to complete. The eastern climate had its hazards for westerners: two of the three Frankish ambassadors who set out in 797-8 died in the course of their mission, the only survivor being the Jew Isaac. One of the Frankish ambassadors who ‘went out in 802-3 died shortly aftet his return in 807.2"? At sea ambassadors might be captured by enemy ships ot pirates ,2!* the dangers preseated by certain overland routes were often no less great. It was appatently generally accepted that while travelling on territory subject to the head of state or potentate they were visiting, ambassadors should be immune from attack. In practice this rule was not always observed. We hear that wisi of Charlemagne’s were harassed while travelling in the duchy of Benevento in 788, and that in 818 a papal am- bassador, the exorcist Leo, was in such danger while in Prancia that Pope Paschal I had to remind Louis the Pious of his duty to see the ambassador suffered no iniwria. A conference held on the Frankish—Danish frontier in 828, at which Frankish ambassadors were negotiating with envoys sent by claimants to the Danish throne, had to break up because one claimant invaded the territory of the others, who in turn attacked the Franks, in the belief that they were party to the aggression.22t In 825 Louis the Pious denounced thefts from ambassadors’ baggage and assaults on their person as acts prejudicial to the honour of the empire.” Notwithstanding this pronouncement, in 836 Danish ambassadors were murdered not far from Cologne, in the very heart of the empire. For this shameful act Louis the Pious meted out a heavy punishment. The foregoing account of diplomatic relations under the Carolingians has dealt with the main aspects. The subject of treaties has been left to one side, since it seemed best reserved for another occasion. It is hoped that this present study, for all its gaps and imperfections, will be a useful contribution to our understanding of an important but little explored department of Frankish monarchical institutions and to the medieval history of international law. NOTES * ‘Les relations extérieures de la monarchie franque sous les premiers souverains catolingiens’, Avnali di Storia del Diritto, Rasvegna Intervationale, v-vt (1961-2), 1-53 (published 1964). 1, ‘Metowingisches Gesandtschaftswesen’, Aus Gesehichte and Landeskunde, Forschungen und Darstellungen Frang, Steinbach cue. 65 Geburtstag gewidmet 6 181The Frankish monarchy and its external relations py 2 y 182 (Bonn, t96c); ‘De internationale betrekkingen van het Frankisch Rijk onder de Merowingen’ (with French resumé: ‘Les relations extérieures de ln monarchie franque a Pépoque mérovingienne’), Meded. d. Kon. Via. Acad, ». Wet, Ki. Lett., xxu1 (1960), no. 4, For af excellent guide to the movement of ideas see the altogether outstanding work by B. Paradisi, Storia del dirétto internazionale nel Medio Evs, 1 (and edn, Naples, 1956). . For convenience, the terms ‘king’ and ‘kingdom’ are used of the Frankish rulers throughout this article, even when the events referred to took place after the reve Francorum had become emperor. ‘This practice has the further merit of being consistent with contemporary usage: _ Fos the negotiations of 754 berween Pippin Ill and Stephen Tat Ponthion, St Denis and Quierzy, sce L. Levillain, L’avtnement de la dynastic carolingienne of les origines de Pétat pontifical (Bibliotheque de Ecole des Chartes, Xcrv, 1933), whose interpretation of the sources and chronology I acoépt. For the meetings between Charlemagne and Leo III at Rheims, Quierzy and Aachen, see ARF, 804; Louis the Pious and Stephen IV at Rheims, ibid., 8x6. . Undertakings given to Pippin IIT by the Lombard king Aistulf while besieged in Pavia, ARF, 755; Hariold of Denmark visits Louis the Pious at Aachea and Ingelheim, ibid., 814 and 826 (in 804 Godfred of Denmark had promised to meet Charlemagne on the border between their two kingdoms but failed to appcat, promisit ... se ad conlaguiume imperatoris veninram, sed... non accessit, ibid, 804); in 777 the vali of Saragossa, in revolt against the emir of Cordova, meets Charlemagne at Paderborn, ARF, 77, both texts; talks held at Aachen in 797 between Chatlemagne, an uncle of the emir and governor of Barcelona, said to be ready to surrender his city, ARF, 797, both texts; cf. B. Lévi-Provengal, Histoire de !’ Espagne musulmane, x (2nd eda, Paris and Leiden, 1950), 152 and 179. . Spoleto: duke Hildebrand’s meeting with Charlemagne at Verzenay (near Rheims), ARF, 779, both texts; Bavaria:,Tassilo [W's two submissions, to Pippin IM at Compiégne and to Charlemagne at the Lechfeld (near Augsburg), ibic., 757 and 787, both texts; for 787 see further Hinhard, 17K, xi. Brittany: submission of Wihomarcus and other Breton primores to Louis the Pious at Aachen, ARF, 825. Venice: the doges’ visit to Charle- magne at Aachen, ibid., 806. Avars: ‘Theodore, the Avar khan or Khagan twice visits Charlemagne at Aachen, first alone, ARF, 805, and later with the éagur, ibid., 311; the #udur of the Avars makes his submission to Charles in person during the campaign of 796, ibid., 79. Transelbine tribes: royal claimants from the Wilzes visit Louis the Pious at Frankfutt in 823 and an Abodrite duke and Sorb chieftain come to him at Compiégne in 823 and at Ingelheim in 826, ibid., 823 and 826, For the submission of the Saxon chieftains to Charlemagne in person see my account in Lot, Pfister and Ganshof, Les destinies de ’ Bmpire en occidenit de 395 @ 888 (2nd edh, Paris, 1940-1), pp. 450-9. . "The vali of Sategossa in 777 and Hariold of Denmark in 814 (see above, n. 4); Tassilo of Bavaria in 757 and the Breton leaders in 825 (see above, n. 5). Pippin Il: envoys from the Byzantine emperor at the diet of Compiégne, ARF, 757, both texts. Chatlemagne: envoys from the king of Denmark,