carolingian dissertation
TRANSCRIPT
1
LAY NOBLES AND CAROLINGIAN POLITICAL THEORY IN THE EARLY
NINTH CENTURY
WORD COUNT: 10,416
CANDIDATE NUMBER: T12313
KING’S COLLEGE LONDON, 2014
2
The Carolingian Empire dwarfed other early medieval polities with the breadth of
territory and the ambition of its rulers. In the ninth century, Charlemagne and Louis
the Pious enjoyed command of a realm whose geographical boundaries would not be
matched until a millennium later, while lacking the state bureaucracy and
organization that developed in similarly geographically large states seen before in
Europe and Asia.1 In addition, Carolingian monarchs and their intellectual supporters
launched an impressive programme of reform and transformation that sought to
create a perfect Christian state on Earth in which all sectors of society were expected
to play their part.2
One of the most important social groups within medieval Europe was the lay
aristocracy; free men with land, power and influence. The ninth century was not an
exception. These lay magnates were instrumental not only for Carolingian rulers to
exert influence from their palaces and royal estates into the localities; they also
served to promote Carolingian ideology and theology and became active participants
within them. For the most part, these aristocrats did not need to be controlled through
coercion and force; rather the situation was beneficial for both parties.
This arrangement was stressed in the years of chaos following the rebellions of 830
and 833 leading to the division of the Empire in 843. The pressures placed on many
lay magnates forced them to choose between remaining faithful to their king or
emperor, or to protect their land and influence, break their oaths either retreating into
the localities or switching allegiances.
Contemporaries were not shy in expressing their concerns, and works written by lay
intellectuals reflect this. Nithard, a political figure who was personally involved to a
great extent in the chaos of the early 840s ends his histories at the close of 843 with a
dismal view on the state of affairs, where ‘dissension and struggle… want and
sadness are rife.’ 3 Dhuoda, whose family were at the heart of the Imperial court at
the start of the crisis, opens her Liber Manualis by writing that ‘the wretchedness of
1 Chris Wickham, The Inheritance of Rome: A History From 400-1000, (Penguin, 2010), 387 2 Mayke De Jong, The Penitential State: Authority and Atonement in the Age of Louis the Pious, (Cambridge, 2009), 4 3 Nithard, Histories, Book IV, 7 tr. Scholz, Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and Nithard’s Histories (Ann Arbor, 1970), 129-174, 174
3
the world grew and worsened’ in order to impress upon her audience the importance
of her advice.4 Later works, such as Hincmar of Rheims’s treatise on how to order
the realm reflected an attitude that what had previously been good was now
‘corrupt’.5
The historiography of the Carolingian era has not been kind to lay magnates. Earlier
historians blamed the disintegration of the Empire on aristocratic selfishness. The
underlying assumption has been that strong imperial rulership and institutions bound
unruly, shortsighted aristocrats together into the Frankish polity.6 Echoing the
improvement of Louis the Pious’ later years within historiography, there has been a
movement to rehabilitate the Carolingian aristocracy. De Jong and Stone have shown
how aristocrats were not troublesome, petty tyrants who paid lip service to the tenets
of Carolingian reform. Rather, they were active participants within the self-correcting
Christian culture of Carolingian intellectualism.7 This paper will move to reinforce
this position, showing how Carolingian lay potentes were involved in the Carolingian
political structure and how they adhered to it.
Keeping this in mind, this dissertation will first establish some of the parameters of
lay aristocracy and their role within the Carolingian plan in order to develop a broad
sense of Carolingian political theory as it applied to aristocrats, whilst focusing on
the mechanisms that promoted Carolingian thought and kept aristocrats part of the
Frankish empire. Secondly it will examine whether the crises of the 830s and 840s
caused these to change by using works produced both during and after this period of
political instability.
Lay Aristocracy
Defining lay nobles is difficult. Power alone is not enough. Within early medieval
Europe, there was no divide between political power wielded by a layman or a cleric.
At court, or in the localities, potentes could be clerical; abbots of rich monasteries,
4 Dhuoda, Liber Manualis, Prologue, Neel (trans.) Handbook for William: A Carolingian Woman’s Counsel for her Son, (Washington, DC, 1991), 1-42, 6 5 Adalhard of Corbie/Hincmar of Rheims, De ordine palatii, in Dutton, Carolingian Civilization A Reader (Toronto, 1993), 485-499, 499 6 François-Louis Ganshof, Frankish Institutions Under Charlemagne, (Providence, 1968) 7 De Jong, Penitential State, 113
4
bishops of high-ranking sees and others participated in the same arenas of political
and social activity as counts and dukes. To some extent, within the mechanics of
administration, there was little difference between powerful clerics and powerful
laymen. In addition, the definition between social rank could be unclear. There were
also divisions between noblemen, lay and clerical, and those of lower social rank.
However, the breadth of its application could vary drastically depending upon
geographical location within the Carolingian Empire. In some regions, the term
nobiles was applied more broadly then others, such as in Bavaria.8 Contemporary
differentiation is visible in Thegan’s Gesta Hludowici imperatoris. Thegan is
virulently against raising un-free individuals upwards through society, blaming much
of the events of the 830s on ungrateful ‘slaves’, such as Ebbo.9 As Airlie asserts,
‘nobiles were potentes, but not all potentes were nobiles.’10
Some distinction can be observed. Capitularies make clear the divide between
clerical and comital position and authority, as seen in 823-5’s Admonitio ad omnes
regni ordines.11 Within his letters Einhard changes how he addresses a figure, and
refers to himself, depending on the recipient. When Einhard a lay abbot, writes to a
priest, he refers to himself as a 'sinner’, demarcating himself.12 Books of advice to the
laity are full of assurances that one can still be an effective lay actor and attain
paradise; this is one of the concerns addressed by Alcuin who offers advice for those
of this ‘occupation’.13 While clergy intermittently participated in warfare, such as
during the siege of Paris, warfare was considered to fall within the lay sphere and
was the remit of free laymen.14 The importance of military activity to noble identity
can be observed in rituals of penitence where a person’s transformation from lay
8 Warren Brown, Unjust Seizure: Conflict, Interest and Authority in an Early Medieval Society, (Ithaca, 2001), 29 9 Thegan, Gesta Hludowici imperatoris, in Dutton (eds.), Carolingian Civilization: A Reader (Toronto, 1993), 226-302, 151 10Stuart Airlie, ‘Bonds of Power and Bonds of Association in the Court Circle of Louis the Pious’, Collins, Godman, (eds.) Charlemagne’s Heir: New Perspectives on the Reign of Louis the Pious (814-840) (Oxford 1990), 191-204, 204 11 Admonitio ad omnes regni ordines, MGH Cap. i:150 12 Einhard, The Letters of Einhard, 43 in Dutton (eds.) Carolingian Civilization: A Reader, (Toronto 1997) 283-310, 152 13 Alcuin, De virtutibus et vitiis, R. Stone tr., forthcoming in The Heroic Age, 1 14 Rachel Stone, Morality and Masculinity in the Carolingian Empire, (Cambridge, 2012), 86
5
political actor to neutralized religious penitent was marked by divesting them of
sword and belt, as happened with Louis the Pious in 833.15
With regards to gender, there is no clear-cut difference between male and female lay
aristocrats in terms of managing local power. It is not viable to speak of equality
within Frankish society, but at the same time, there is not much evidence to suggest
that female aristocrats wielding power were problematic.16 In this paper, I will avoid
issues of gender in terms of the way a lay potentes worked within the wider programs
of conveying reform and Christian authority; however, the presence of Dhuoda
shows that this discussion extended across gender barriers and indeed her writings
show her importance as a proponent of aristocratic fidelity in the 840s.
Possel concludes that it is difficult to clearly define a noble aristocrat. Instead, she
suggests core functions of an aristocrat rather than defining lines.17 This dissertation
will refer to this sector of society as lay magnates, potentes, aristocrats and nobles.
These free, noble, powerful land owners were expected to provide political support
for Church and Emperor, both militarily and through administration. They were also
advised by the ecclesiastical sector of Carolingian intellectualism to be able to
perform the duties expected of them in order to attain eternal life and favour in God’s
eyes within a developed framework.
The Carolingian Renaissance
Having discussed lay nobles, this dissertation will now investigate the Carolingian
Plan or Project. This refers to the collective systems of government, intellectual
movements and religious doctrines that were spread throughout the Empire during
the reigns of Charlemagne and Louis the Pious and beyond.18 This will gather the
various forms of correctio, societal development, encompassing programmes of
reform, and capitularies, etcetera in order to identify idealized images of aristocrats
15 Thegan, Gesta Hludowici, 151 16 Stuart Airlie, ‘The Aristocracy in the service of the state in the Carolingian Period, Airlie’, Phol, Reimitz, (eds.)Staat im fruhen Mittelalter (Vienna, 2006), 98 17Christina Possel, ‘Authors and Recipients of Carolingian Capitularies: 779-829’, Godman, Collins, (eds.) Charlemagne’s Heir: New Perspectives on the Reign of Louis the Pious (814-840) (Oxford 1990), 270 18 Thomas Noble, ‘Secular Sanctity: forging an ethos for the Carolingian Nobility’, Wormald, Nelson, (eds.) Lay Intellectuals in the Carolingian World (Cambridge, 2001) 8-36, 9
6
within it, and demonstrate that Carolingian writers possessed a collective, conscious
awareness of the changes happening within society.19
The chief tenets of the Carolingian project can be described as follows: first the
continuation of the collective polity that comprised the Carolingian Empire and its
collective sub-kingdoms, along with the continued dominance of the Carolingian
dynasty itself; secondly was the propagation and spread of Frankish culture in
intellectual and theological thought; thirdly was the establishment of a ministerium in
order to bring about a perfect Christian state wherein everyone could be pleasing to
God, who might then bestow good fortune upon the state and the people within it and
in order to avoid clades or divine punishment.20 To achieve this, individuals would
observe and correct each other. This ministerium was rooted in earlier theological
work, such as Bede’s commentaries but rose to a fever pitch during the reign of Louis
the Pious.21 It was most forcefully expressed in the 823-825 capitulary Admonitio Ad
Omnes Ordines that spoke of a collective responsibility for all under the king.22 De
Jong refers to this as a ‘Penitential State’ characterised by ‘a sense of responsibility
for the common good and the knowledge that one would be held accountable by God
for the way in which one had carried out one’s ‘ministry’.’23
All three of these tenets fed into each other; the dissemination of Frankish thought
would lead to people trying to act in the correct manner, policing each other with
admonitio in order to avoid sin; by associating breaking oaths and other breaches of
public behaviour with scandalum, the very act of rebelling would endanger the
immortal souls of the rebel and threaten those under him.24 This also served to sustain
the links between the various different peoples and cultures of the Frankish domain
within a God-pleasing hierarchy with the Carolingian Imperial family conveniently
on top.
19 Paul Dutton, The Politics of Dreaming in the Carolingian Empire, (London, 1994), 1 20 De Jong, Penitential State, 151 21 Matthew Innes, ‘Charlemagne, justice and written law’, Rio (eds.) Law, Custom, and Justice in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (London, 2011) 155-203 167 22 MGH Cap. i:150, 3, Rio (trans.) 23 de Jong, Penitential State, 113 24ibid, 151
7
Historians must be wary of establishing anachronistic patterns of behaviour and
thought on societies of the past; the phrase ‘Carolingian Renaissance’ has commonly
been used.25 Although the term is questionable, the movement itself is not. Several
historical studies on the development and advancement of Carolingian theological
and political theory indicate that many intellectuals in Frankish society were
conscious of a programme to accomplish these goals.26 Walahfrid Strabo, within his
Libellus de Exordiis et incrementis quarundam in ovservationibus, presents a
comparison between the secular and clerical offices of Carolingian society. Each
office in the church is given a counterpart in lay society and ‘What counts or prefects
do in the secular world, the remaining bishops do in the church.’27 Strabo lists the
hierarchy of society from popes and caesars to the domestic servants of counts and
bishops, ianitores and ostiary.28 Within this model, ‘Christ’s one body is formed by
all members of His offices’ who contribute products for the benefit of all... if one
member glories, all the members rejoice with it; if one member suffers anything, all
the members suffer with it. Therefore, that harmony must be held until we all attain
to perfect manhood, “so that God may be in all”.’29 Similar concepts of unity can be
observed in other texts intended for lay audiences. The proliferation of Latin lay
mirrors in the early ninth century suggests that literacy was not unusual among lay
magnates. In addition, the high quality of works that emerge from the laity in this
period, such as Dhuoda’s Liber Manualis, Nithard’s Histories and the works of
Einhard indicate that aristocrats made up an important part of the intellectual
community from which these ideas arose. How then are they reflected in this political
theory?
The Role of Aristocrats in the Carolingian Empire and the Localities
Several key themes keep appearing within Carolingian literature across genres during
the early ninth century. Lay mirrors, admonitory letters and other works provide 25 Janet Nelson, "On the limits of the Carolingian renaissance", Nelson (eds.), Politics and Ritual in Early Medieval Europe, (London, 1986), 49-64 26 Dutton, Politics of Dreaming, 114 27 Walahfrid Strabo, Libellus de Exordiis et incrementis quarundam in ovservationibus, Harting-Correa, (trans.) Libellus de Exordiis et incrementis quarundam in ovservationibus: A Translation and Liturgical Commentary, (Leiden, 1996) 193 28ibid, 195 29ibid, 197
8
models of what was expected of a secular figure by the Carolingian intelligentsia
both in behaviour and contributions towards the Empire. Military activity played a
major part of noble identity and was an important function of lay magnates in the
absence of the Emperor as seen with Duke Baldric in 820.30 However, this
dissertation will focus on the administrative function of lay magnates rather than
military activity. When divest of moral authority and stripped of the political and
economic mechanics, an early medieval emperor or king is just a man trapped within
his own power base unless other individuals chose to obey him. As Mann notes, the
state ‘does not possess a distinctive means of power independent of… economic,
military and ideological power.’31 In order to gain influence, Carolingian rulers
allowed aristocrats to use these for their own interests and in return spread their
control over the realm. This can be observed in lay potentes and their judicial
activities.
Judges and missi
Carolingian identity and reform were brought to the localities through lay judges.
Capitularies under both Louis the Pious and Charlemagne repeatedly commented on
the duty of local counts and missi to provide good justice in accordance to
Carolingian legislation. Lay mirrors, a genre that emerged within this period, often
written by churchmen after being asked by the laity for advice and widely distributed
both at court and the localities highlighted the importance of this role. Perhaps the
most successful lay mirror was Alcuin’s De virtutibus et vitiis written at the turn of
the turn of the ninth century.32 The importance of good judicial practice in regards to
Aristocratic behaviour is shown by Alcuin dedicating an entire section on instruction
on being a good judge; reflecting on the effect of unjust judges not only in temporal
matters, but also upon the spiritual health of judged and judge. Injustice is spoken of
in martial terms, ‘Unjust judges are worse then the enemy. Enemies are often avoided
by flight, [but] judges because of their power cannot be fled.’ 33 Performing one’s
30 The Astronomer, Vita Hludovici, Noble (eds.) Charlemagne and Louis the Pious: the lives by Einhard, Notker, Ermoldus, Thegan, and The Astronomer (Philadelphia 2009), 226-302, 260 31 Michael Mann, ‘The autonomous power of the state: its origins, mechanisms and results’, Archives Européennes de Sociologie 25, 1984, 185-213, 188 32 Stone, Morality and Masculinity, 1-2 33 Alcuin, De virtutibus et vitiis, 14
9
duties well and dispensing good justice is celebrated. Wielding judicial power and
giving good council appears to be as crucial as wielding a sword, in regards to the
conceptual idealized image of a lay noble.
There is a further element to the role of aristocrat as judge. Much has been written of
the programme of capitularies and reform that characterized the Carolingian empire
from other early medieval polities. As mentioned above, the nature of power within
the Carolingian empire was not imposition but negotiation.34 There was no modern
legislative reform through written codices to provide a modern legal code.35 But lay
potentes played a crucial role in bringing these local laws into line with royal
authority and imposing Imperial authority upon the localities. Studies on dispute
settlement and legislation across different regions of the Frankish dominions
demonstrate that aristocratic co-operation with Carolingian legal codes and the
imposition of Royal justice came about when it was beneficial for the local potentes,
with the authority of the count or missi stemming from Imperial authority but really
supporting local power.36 Looking at a series of disputes that arose in 822, Brown
shows how missi were only appointed by Louis the Pious to deal with a series of
disputes that arose as a result of capitulary legislation sent out in 821. After this
dispute over royal lands was resolved, missi disappeared from the surviving records
until 829.37 The evidence presented within these studies suggests that Brown’s
statement that ‘what Louis the Pious said and did only mattered in Bavaria insofar as
his policies benefited someone’ reflects the reality on the ground.38 To be appointed a
missi did not automatically convey authority, but could give one an edge.
This was not beneficial for all lay potentes. Aristocrats rarely act as one body even
within localities. In the aftermath of Bavaria’s absorption into the Frankish Empire,
Brown notes that aristocrats from the same kin groups were often on different sides
of disputes bringing them in conflict with one another, some engaging with
34 Airlie, ‘Aristocracy in the Service of the State’, 95-99 35 Innes, ‘Charlemagne, Justice and Written Law’, 157 36 Janet Nelson, ‘Dispute Settlement in Carolingian West Francia’, Fouracre, Davies, (eds.) The Settlement of Disputes in Early Medieval Europe, (Cambridge, 1986), 45-64, 48 37Brown, Unjust Seizure, 149-152 38 ibid, 151
10
Carolingian justice, others resisting it.39 In addition Nelson questions whether judges
were truly representative of the localities, noting the rarity of success of coloni and
other less powerful figures in contesting against their landowners under Imperial
Law.40
Despite this, these local disputes did not endanger broader Carolingian interests;
some degree of opposition and non-compliance could be tolerated. What mattered is
that good justice was conducted. Capitularies helped to form reference points to join
other sources of law and authority enabling Carolingian judges to act according to
God’s will. Much of what was laid out in capitularies is broad and repetitive, serving
as reference to missi and counts as opposed to prescriptive rules.41 Possel identifies
that while certain aspects of identity were not affected, it did have an impact on the
exercise of public power; individuals saw themselves as a group of Imperial power
holders with the Emperor at the apex.42 This resulted in a movement towards
respecting the material interests of Imperial bodies such as the Emperor and the
Church within Francia and the promotion of a Christian society where inappropriate
behaviour was punished.43 Correcting the behaviour of those within Carolingian
society to that envisioned by clerical and royal authorities relied on people within the
localities to enforce and educate.44 Priests dealt with matters of religious instruction
and education while comites and other laymen had their own areas of responsibility.
In return, they could use Imperial office to support them in their disputes.
Much as wielding weapons in support of the Emperor was seen as part of an
aristocrat’s role within Carolingian society, wielding justice in the name of the
Emperor and King was also praiseworthy. This is reflected in the Song of Count
Timo, where the actions of the count who gave ‘justice to the good forcing the bad to
justice in the kingdom where the little field of Noricum lies’ are said to be pleasing
39 ibid, 101 40 Nelson, ‘Dispute Settlement’, 50 41 Possel, ‘Authors and Recipients of Carolingian Capitularies’, 273 42 ibid 270 43 Innes, ‘Charlemagne Justice and Written Law’ 168 44 Carine van Rhijn, ‘Priests and the Carolingian Reforms: The Bottlenecks of local correctio’, Goodman, Collins (eds.) Charlemagne’s Heir, Texts and Identities in the Early Middle Ages, (Oxford 1990), 221
11
the king, for ‘it is a kingly thing to thwart wrongdoers’. 45 Unless on campaign, both
Charlemagne and Louis the Pious rarely strayed from Aachen, the Seine valley and
the middle Rhine valley.46 It fell to the Counts and missi dominici to oversee disputes
and dispense Royal justice in the name of the Emperor or the King in their absence,
extending their authority into the peripheries.
Bad judicial practices were denounced as damaging the connection between the
Emperor and the rest of Carolingian society. In an admonitory letter to Matfrid of
Orleans written in 827, Agobard of Lyons chastises the Count of Orleans, stating that
‘in the regions bordering us… in many people, the fear of the king and the laws has
grown so silent that man currently suppose that no one need be feared… with these
others placed in the way, the one who is to be feared, shall not see our foolishness.’47
Ineffective judicial practices, especially the taking of bribes, turns aristocrats into ‘a
wall between the emperor and [the people].’48 This indicates the vital role of judges
in promoting Imperial interests out into the wider Empire in exchange for prestige
and authority in local disputes.
Fidelity and Personal Networks
In addition to providing military support or extending the king’s justice out into the
localities, lay magnates joined their clerical counterparts in providing a further
service. In the Carolingian world, much relied on the personal networks of
individuals bound by oath directly to the Emperor, a practice solidified in the 802
Programmatic Capitulary which set out how ‘every man in his entire realm, whether
ecclesiastical or layman… Who has previously promised fidelity to him in the name
of the king is now to make that promise in the name of Caesar.’49 Within early
medieval society, these personal networks were the means through which political
45 Song of Count Timo, Dümmler (eds.), Poetae Latini Aevi Carolini II (Berlin, 1884), 120-124, Rio (trans.) 46 Stuart Airlie, ‘The Palace as Memory: The Carolingian Court as Political Centre’, Jones, Marks and AJ Woodbridge, (eds.), Courts and Regions in Medieval Europe, (York, 2000) 1-20, 2 47Agobard of Lyon, On Injustices to Mathfrid, North (trans.) Agobardi Lugdunensis Opera Omnia, Opusculum XIII, Van Aacker (eds.) Corpus Christianorum 52 (1981), 225-227, 226 48 ibid 49 MGH CAP 802, King (trans.) Charlemagne: Translated Sources (Kendal, 1987), 202-268, 233-234
12
and economical activity was conducted.50 This is arguably the factor that made the
Carolingian Empire an Empire. Through these networks, the Carolingian Court was
connected by these lay magnates to their dependents and downwards through society
thus binding each man to the Emperor personally. The Collected Letters of Einhard
demonstrates how this functioned. This collection shows how through him,
individuals from all ranges of Carolingian society, lay, clerical, free, unfree, noble
and base, were given some level of access to each other, such as the case of Letter 5
where Einhard, on behalf of ‘this man of my country, David’ asks a court member to
‘procure him the opportunity to appeal to our lord the emperor.’51 All manner of
business can be observed as taking place through this system, economic, judicial,
dispute-settlement, political and personal all mingled together.
As with judges and missi, older historiography on the Carolingian Empire conceived
of it as an entity wherein strong Imperial figures imposed their will upon the
peripheries and the diverse peoples that inhabited the territories that came under
Charlemagne’s control during his reign. 52 Modern studies now perceive a
relationship where power is not imposed but negotiated with either side receiving
benefits from the arrangement.53 Aristocrats who were not part of courtly life could
attach themselves to these networks and acquire resources and connections through
them, which brought them in line with Imperial and Court policy.54
However, while they did not need to be coerced, aristocrats are still self-interested
actors in a highly competitive political environment. Participating in this society was
motivated by the rewards one could gain. Mirroring their engagement with
Carolingian law, counts and other potentes had influence both through their own
connections and with Imperial courts within fidelity networks. The concept of the
50 Gerd Althoff, Family, Friends and Followers: Political and Social Bonds in Early Medieval Europe, (Cambridge, 2004), 66 51 Einhard, Letters, 285 52 Gerd Tellenbach, ‘From the Carolingian Imperial Nobility to the German Estate of Imperial Princes’, Reuter (eds.) The Medieval Nobility: Studies on the Ruling Classes of France and Germany from the Sixth to the Twelfth Century (Amsterdam, 1978) 203-242, 204 53 Matthew Innes, State and Society in the Early Middle Ages: The Middle Rhine Valley, (Cambridge, 2000), 124 54 Marios Costambeys, Matthew Innes, Simon Maclean, The Carolingian World (Cambridge, 2011), 315
13
missi dominici as outside enforcers of royal authority has fallen away to this new
model where locally important people were selected to be invested with this royal
authority. Within Bavaria, Brown comments that ‘a great many, if not all authority
figures involved in disputes… whether missi, counts or judges, belonged to kin
groups present… before the Carolingian takeover’ pointing towards Counts Gerold
and Reginhard as strong examples of this phenomenon.55
Those at the centre of these fidelity networks could employ their influence at court to
protect those within their networks from others using Imperial authority. In one of
Einhard’s letters, he speaks on behalf of ‘our men’, possibly some of his personal
fideles who were being punished for not being where they were ordered to be.
Einhard, himself a missi and having issued similar orders in his letters writes that it
‘does not seem fair to me that men, who were exactly where the emperor himself had
ordered them [to be], should have to pay the herban [fine for not appearing when
summoned.]’56 Both parties are using the authority of Imperial office in this instance
to try and strengthen their position, with Einhard interceding on behalf of his fideles.
The lay aristocracies were not just bound to the Empire by oaths and networks of
fidelity; a religious connection was promoted in parallel.
Ministerium
Within this system of good judging and keeping faithful to one’s lord, the wider
cultural and spiritual world in which the Carolingian aristocrat resided must be
considered. The ideology of the Carolingian ministerium relied heavily upon the
participation of lay magnates in order to have any chance of being effective. Much
has been written on the capitulary legislation of Louis the Pious in this regard where
the development of a highly Christianised Carolingian society was outlined, along
with the obligations of members of this society.
The methodology and intention of the Carolingian system of ministerium,
admonition and correctio is outlined in de Jong’s The Penitential State.57 Within this
system, power is seen to have been bestowed upon individuals by divine authority.
55 Brown, Unjust Seizure, 103 56 Einhard, 139 57 de Jong, Penitential State, 151-155
14
However, this power also meant that one was responsible not only for one’s own
salvation. By not acting properly, whether in terms of personal behaviour or in the
execution of public duties, one could threaten the salvation and eternal life of the
people under you.58 Acting in a manner displeasing to God could bring about divine
punishment, or clades. Clades could take the form of natural disasters, plagues and
illnesses or military reversals such as the series of defeats suffered in 827. This
system extended through Carolingian society with both lay and clerics acting as
vicars in their ministerium. As the head of this structure, the Emperor was responsible
for everyone within the Frankish realm; bishops and counts were responsible for
those within their territories, sees and pagus continuing down through the lower
strata of society.
Lay and clerical figures were placed on the same level, each member keeping their
eyes on the other, ‘And if ever by the negligence of an abbot, abbess or count, if they
create an obstacle for you any difficulties, you should let us know at the time.’59 They
were imbued with royal authority to report any perceived misdoing to the Emperor to
correct their behaviour. As Wallace-Hadrill comments, had this system been as
successful as intended, it would have resembled an early medieval police state. 60
However, while it was potentially restrictive, this system of admonition played a
large role in nascent Carolingian political discourse. As long as one presented one’s
work as an admonition towards Christian behaviour, there was freedom to critique
powerful figures. As mentioned above, Agobard of Lyons’ On Injustices is a perfect
example of the admonitory literature that was inflicted upon aristocrats in the period.
Stone raises the question of whether this was an unattainable standard or a reflection
of reality.61 It is very unlikely that these tenets represent an average noble’s
behaviour, but failing to adhere to them could have consequences.
The 825 Capitulary reveals how correctio could impact the careers of lay magnates.
Within is a series of offences that one could perform that bring damage upon
Imperial authority. Committing violence, dishonoring the King and Kingdom,
58 Timothy Noble, ‘Secular Sanctity: Forging an Ethos for The Carolingian Nobility’, Wormald, Nelson, (eds.) Lay Intellectuals in the Carolingian World, (Cambridge, 2007), 8-36, 9 59 MGH Cap. i:150, 4 60 J Wallace-Hadrill, The Frankish Church, (Oxford, 2001), 299 61 Stone, Morality and Masculinity, 9
15
refusing to give the Emperor good horses annually and other crimes are bestowed
with a spiritual dimension. Furthermore, punishment for causing scandulum, or
public offence to God, whether through conduct or politics was seen as a critical part
of correctio. The threat was clear: ‘We want it noted that those who were meant to
take care of the legates and to do this on our behalf should not presume to neglect
this…. We, nor our kingdom, [do not] want him to have any honour’.62 Here, honour
refers to honores, or office. As mentioned above, bestowing honores frequently came
with the allocation of benefices from the fisc or Imperial estates.
Bestowing or removing these honores could make or break an aristocrat. In the late
820s in the case of Hugh, Matfrid and other aristocrats who, after a series of military
upsets in Spain and North Francia, were accused of negligentia and stripped of their
benefices; here the course of reform and imperial politics meshed together.63 This
was the grandest example of public correctio prior to the 830s and was attempting
ameliorate the clades suffered in the three defeats of 827. However, in 830, those
who had been stripped of office through correctio attempted to do the same to the
Emperor.
Aristocrats Askew?
The final years of the reign of Louis the Pious have been seen as a destructive period
in Carolingian history with Charlemagne’s single empire fractured between Louis’s
sons. Recent historiographical movements have rehabilitated his reputation by
emphasising his recovery from his deposition in 833 and referring to earlier attempts
to divide the realm. Charlemagne himself had inherited a divided realm and had
planned to divide his dominions.64 The danger to royal authority may have been
exaggerated, but for lay nobles the situation was precarious.
The crisis of the 830s arose due to several connected factors. Following the disasters
of 827, Louis the Pious stripped Count Hugh of Tours and Count Matfrid of Orleans
of their honores. This forced them to find an alternative nexus of power, which they
62 MGH Cap. i:150, 18 63Hans Hummer, Politics and Power in Medieval Europe: Alsace and the Frankish Realm: 600-1000, (Cambridge, 2005), 156 64Janet Nelson, ‘The Last Years of Louis the Pious’, Goodman, Collins (eds.) Charlemagne’s Heir: New Perspectives on the Reign of Louis the Pious (814-840) (Oxford, 1990), 48
16
found in Italy in the court of Lothar. The need to allocate the young Charles the Bald
territory of his own caused upset among the Emperor’s other sons, particularly Lothar
and Louis the German, in addition to threatening the personal lands of Hugh and
other nobles.65 This prompted Lothar, supported by this group of disgruntled
noblemen to rebel against the Emperor. They turned the doctrine of correctio against
Louis the Pious and the Empress Judith, accusing them of having threatened the
spiritual health of the entire realm through personal transgressions. Empress Judith
was accused of adultery with Bernard of Septimania, and Louis of forcing his fideles
to endanger their immortal souls through perjury by establishing Charles as a
Carolingian monarch.
In 833, this resulted in a confrontation between the Emperor Louis and his rebellious
sons with Pope Gregory IV present. With the most important secular and
ecclesiastical leaders of Western Europe present, the histories show the bulk of the
Emperor’s army deserting him as he awaited battle, either fleeing for their own lands
or defecting. The drama of the moment serves to drive home the crucial point. Louis
the Pious was captured by his rebellious sons because most of his faithful men did
not remain faithful; they moved away from the Carolingian plan in this respect and
abandoned their Emperor on the Field of Lies. It could be possible to see this as a
military failure, however, it moves beyond a purely military matter in that it was a
collapse of the principal of fidelity that resulted in Louis’s capture.
Most extant histories of the period are negative in their portrayal of Hugh and
Matfrid and those who joined them in their revolt, opposing royal attempts to impose
correctio upon them; but we can infer why they moved against Louis.66 Having
suffered correctio and endured their honores stripped from them, these high-ranking
men who were at the very heart of Carolingian political life now found themselves on
the fringes. Their followers as well were now separated from the network of
connections and favours, which they had previously enjoyed, damaging Hugh and
Matfrid even further as without this, aristocrats lost influence and prestige; they had
lost their position as judges, as missi and access to benefices.67
65 Hummer, Politics and Power, 160 66 ibid 67 De Jong, Penitential State, 39
17
The importance of lay networks in times of strife is revealed within the Annals of St-
Bertin. After falling away from the Emperor, we are told that the ‘some of these
men’, among which were important courtly figures, that had deserted Louis the Pious
on the Field of Lies, were able to survive reprisal from the seemingly successful
rebels by fleeing into the localities in which they had influence, taking themselves ‘to
the lands of their friends and kinsmen and of their faithful men.’68 They provided a
safe refuge for them to weather out the political chaos, a path of action followed by
Bernard of Septimania in 833.
It can be argued that this was an example of aristocratic selfishness. Unsure of who
was going to emerge from the conflict the victor, aristocrats could suffer heavily if
they supported the wrong royal.69 A clear example of how a lay magnate responded
to this period of uncertainty is within Einhard’s letters. Several letters within this
collection, addressed to members of the Carolingian royal family in the 830s, are
concerned with Einhard’s attendance at court and his continued fidelity to the
competing interests with Einhard assuring Louis the Pious, the Empress Judith,
Lothar and Louis the German that he is their faithful man. However, he refused to
attend their courts and excused his absence with the discomfort of travel, illness such
as ‘pain in my kidneys and spleen’ and his duties as lay abbot.70
Further letters are sent by Einhard, often addressed to a ‘Friend’ asking them to
‘intercede on my behalf with our most pious Lord and Emperor.’71 These letters are
clearly intended to ask the centres whether the ruler in question is friendly towards
Einhard and to maintain their favour while at the same time keeping a safe distance
as he waited to see who emerged victorious from the struggle. During 833, Einhard
addressed both Louis the Pious and Lothar as ‘Emperor.’ While Lothar had been
crowned sub-Emperor in 817, the date of the letter and Lothar’s deposition of his
father and assumption of the Imperial title point to Einhard’s letters reflecting his
politically flexible nature.
68 Annales Bertiniani, 833, Nelson (trans.), The Annals of St Bertin: Ninth-Century Histories, Vol.1, (Manchester, 1991) 69 Karl Werner, ‘Noble Families in Charlemagne's Kingdom’, Reuter (eds.), The Medieval Nobility: Studies on the Ruling Classes of France and Germany from the Sixth to the Twelfth Century (Amsterdam, 1978), 137-202, 166 70 Einhard, 151 71 ibid
18
Other nobles’ concerns are evident in these letters. Several counts and other laymen
appear to be concerned about their own status and standing as they try to
accommodate the competing Imperial interests. A number of letters within the
collection address the problems of nobles who held territory within regions under the
control of different Carolingian monarchs. Each letter asks that the person for whom
Einhard is interceding be allowed to hold onto the benefice until the time where they
can travel to pay homage and renew their oaths of fidelity. One asks permission for a
member of their family to become the fides of another Carolingian monarch, in
whose territories the family’s benefices now lay as ‘unless it is done they lose their
benefice lying beyond the Rhine.’72 Prior to the 830s, benefices could be awarded
across the entire Frankish Empire, after 833 lands lying within the realm of another
Carolingian ruler were liable to be seized and redistributed to lords who supported
that King.73
Ignoring the ideological and theological elements, the political consequences for
backing the wrong side in this struggle were dire. The Annals of the monastery of St-
Bertin laid out what awaited nobles who chose poorly or were unable to secure
protection. ‘Those who had tormented or favoured conflict were justly punished for
their crimes, some by loss of property, others by exile.’74 Other punishments lurked:
tonsuring, blinding and execution were common in the 830s. With these intense
pressures upon the Carolingian aristocracy, maintaining their position as potentes and
ensuring one was seen to be faithful to the correct monarch was of prime importance.
This uncertainty continued into the civil war of the 840s and the manner in which lay
nobles conducted themselves within Nithard’s Histories would suggest that lay
aristocrats were no longer interested in the Carolingian project, but rather moved to
protect themselves, ‘since each goes his separate way.’75 As previous addressed, lay
nobles participated in this system because they could benefit from adhering to the
Carolingian political framework. Now benefit seemed to lie from moving away.
Nithard records at the beginning of Book II of his Histories that upon the death of
72 ibid 142 73 Charles West, Reframing the Feudal Revolution: Political and Social Transformation between Marne and Moselle: 800-c.1100 (Cambridge 2013), 42 74 Annales Bertiniani, 839 75 Nithard, Histories, Book IV, 7, 173
19
Louis the Pious, Lothar ‘promised that he wished to grant everyone the benefices
which his father had given and that he would make them even bigger’ if they moved
to support him.76
On the ground in the localities, Innes shows that the struggle over retaining control
over land and benefices in this period extended beyond king and nobles into local
struggles as regional power brokers were made and destroyed through divesting or
granting land.77 The distribution of public property for private use and stripping
honores from those who refused to lend support are seen in Nithard where Lothar
‘deprived Charles’ emissaries’ of their lands because ‘they did not want to break their
fealty.’78 This led to a local redistribution of land, such as the practice of granting
gifts of land to monasteries and ecclesiastical institutions in order to prevent its
seizure, using the privileged position of Church land against royal power, seen in
Bavaria and the Middle Rheine.79
The nobility were faced with a dilemma; do they continue to support the king they
were under, or do they change sides and support another king in the hope of receiving
a greater reward? This in turn raises another question: with the Carolingian rulers
endangering many aristocrats with their squabbles, would it be safer to disengage
from the Empire and pursue their own interests instead? Having examined how
Carolingians aristocrats fitted into the Empire and the pressures that were upon them,
how then did the lay aristocracy react ideologically?
Askew… But still on the hinges? Retaining their Carolingian Ideas
In this context, the record of Einhard’s correspondence is quite striking. It is thought
to have been intended as a model for letter writing.80 However, the fact that these
letters not only have been preserved, but collected within a single volume, suggests
Einhard’s efforts to keep himself away from any one court at this time was not seen
as disgraceful or damaging. The model may have been for letter writing, but perhaps
76 Nithard, Histories, Book II, 1, 77 Innes, State and Society, 202 78 Nithard, Histories, Book II, 2 79 Brown, Unjust Seizure, 126 80 David Ganz, ‘Einhardus Peccator, Lay Intellectuals in the Carolingian World’, Eds Wormald, Nelson, (Cambridge, 2007), 37-50, 38.
20
it was also intended to serve as an example of how to act without disgracing oneself,
a fact noted by Walahfrid Strabo.
At no time can one say that Einhard had broken his fidelity outright and moved away
from the Carolingian model. Even when he was negotiating this delicate political
situation, the letters contain constant assurances to the claimant in question that he
was faithful to them and his service to Louis the Pious. One can contrast Einhard here
as someone who successfully negotiated the rough political landscape of the 830s
with Nithard’s gloomier outlook presented in Book IV of his histories. Nithard,
having ended up much poorer in 843 than he had been in 840 and very much
removed from his position as a potentes, presents a very bleak view of the situation, a
tone that does not exist in Einhard.
This poses the question: did the unrest that came about as a result of Lothar, Hugh
and Matfrid’s actions cause aristocrats to abandon their roles and all the trappings of
the Carolingian project that came with them in order to pursue their own interests,
retreating from public life into the localities? Or was there a continued perception
that maintaining the principles that had been established before 830 was still the
correct thing to do? When examining the situation in the 830s, there is no evidence
suggesting of a movement to destroy or break from the Carolingian Empire from
within the aristocracy. The rebels are seen as acting through a member of the
Carolingian royal dynasty, Lothar. Pro-Louis histories accuse them of giving him bad
advice or pushing him to further their own agenda, but, pertinently, not of breaking
from the framework.
It is important to note the manner in which they attempted to depose the Emperor.
The revolts of 830 and 833 were all conducted within the system of correctio and
admonition with the lay members of the forces arrayed against Louis the Pious
presenting themselves as victims of the Imperial couple’s behaviour and Louis as ‘a
creator of scandal, a disturber of the peace and violator of oaths…’ who ‘broke…the
pact that had been struck for the sake of the empire’s peace and concord.’81 The
Report of Compiegne lists the various crimes of which the Emperor was accused,
including, as mentioned earlier, forcing his fideles to perjure and therefore
81 Bishops’ statement from Compiègne 833, de Jong (trans.), The Penitential State (Cambridge, 2009), 271-279, 275
21
endangering their immortal souls by his actions. The language is typical of admonitio
texts of the period and reflects the tenets of the Carolingian ministerium in their
accusation of Louis not living up to the standards of royal behaviour he himself had
set.82 This can be further seen in Paschasius Radbertus’ Life of Wala, where
Radbertus justifies the actions of Wala of Crobie during 830 and 833 as trying to
correct an Emperor who was following the advice of men who had ‘shattered and
defiled everything and emptied every royal dignity… completely altered everything
so that no orderly arrangement may exist.’83 These vehement words are followed by
the complaints of the aristocrats, ‘The best of men… Soon neglected authority to act
because no one… had any convenient way to secure or retain honours or whatever he
might wish or desire than to what the tyrant… Preferred.’84
Even if these revolts are opportunistic grabs for power, the lay members of these
conspiracies justified their actions in the language of admonitio and correctio and
worked through the authority of bishops, not their own. While these accusations were
all refuted by supporters of Louis the Pious once the Emperor had regained power,
the fact remains that the rebels sought the authority they needed from the political
and theological thought that underpinned the Carolingian project. They drew their
authority from the same ideological well as Emperors and it was with this language
that they ‘deceived the people who had come with the lord emperor, by evil
persuasions and false promises’.85
In essence the events of the 830s exposed the underlying mechanics of the
Carolingian project and like a machine burning itself out, pushed them to the
extremity of failure. The political and theological mechanisms of control and order
were turned against the authority they were meant to support. Those mechanisms and
beliefs were not themselves spurned; rather the rebels used them to hold the Emperor
to these standards.
82Janet Nelson, ‘Bad Kingship in the Earlier Middle Ages’, Haskins Society Journal 8, 1999, 1-26, 22 83 Paschasius Radbertus, Epitaphium Arsenii, Cabaniss (trans.) Charlemagne’s Cousins: Contemporary Lives of Adalard and Wala (Syracuse, 1967) Vol.2, 147-204, 159 84 ibid 85 Annales Bertiniani, 833
22
Lay Views from Magnates
The 840s produced two important works from lay authors; Nithard’s Histories and
Dhuoda’s Liber Manualis. Polanchika and Cilley have connected these works as they
reflected interest in family and promoted their families within history to support their
authors’ positions in this time of unrest and uncertainty.86 Both reflect the dire state
of the Empire in this time; Nithard more so.
Books I and II of the Histories were written to bolster both his and Charles the Bald’s
position. Book IV was written after he had withdrawn to his monastery and
demonstrates his belief that fidelity had been broken and this was why the situation
had become so dire. Nithard still considered fidelity to be important and had done so
throughout his work, noting Bernard of Septimania’s shortcomings after he held back
from the Battle of Fontenoy.87 To this end, he expresses how things were so much
better for the realm in the time of Charles the Great. His despair must be brought
into the correct context; Nelson makes the point that Nithard was one of the losers of
the 840s as his lands lay within the territory that was ceded to Lothar in 842 and 843
at Verdun.88
This would account for his bitter condemnation of Adalhard, a central figure at
Charles the Bald’s court, ‘who cared little for the public good…’ and the way in
which he presents the division of territory.89 Airlie makes the point that both
Adalhard and his actions that resulted in the division of the realm appear more
reasonable when they are viewed in context of the political situation at the time.90
With the losses he suffered over the course of the civil war, one would presume that
he would have been completely disenchanted with the Carolingian project but this is
not the case. He ends his Histories by informing the reader ‘how mad it is to neglect
86 D. Polanichka and A. Cilley, ‘The very personal history of Nithard: family and honour in the Carolingian world’, Early Medieval Europe 22:2 (2014), 171-200, 199 87 Nithard, Histories Book II, 156 88 Janet Nelson, ‘Public History in the Work of Nithard’, Nelson, (eds.) Politics and Ritual in Early Medieval Europe, (London, 1986) 224 89 Nithard, Histories Book IV, 173 90 Stuart Airlie, ‘The World, the Text and the Carolingian’, Wormald, Nelson (eds.) Lay Intellectuals in the Carolingian World (Cambridge, 2007), 71
23
the common good and to follow only private and selfish desires, since both sins insult
the Creator so much…’91 Here at the end of Book IV we also see a stage in the
development of Charlemagne from the flawed, albeit very successful, ruler presented
in the earlier histories of the man into the one who symbolizes a golden age where
‘peace and concord ruled everywhere.’92 For Nithard, the situation had become so
bad because kings and nobles have moved away from Carolingian political theory,
the ‘one proper way, the way of the common welfare, and thus the way of God.’93
This theme can be seen quite widely throughout the lay literature of the 840s beyond
Nithard. Dhuoda’s Liber Manualis has the importance of fidelity as a central theme.
Within the Liber Manualis fidelity to one’s lord is not just a political advisable act or
an example of good behaviour; it takes on a spiritual dimension. William has Charles
as his Lord because ‘God and your father, Bernard, have chosen him for you to serve
at the beginning of your career.’94 Here, remaining faithful and keeping fideles is
transformed from a reciprocal temporal act and becomes a way to attain eternal life, a
means to ‘reach the celestial goal.’95
Dhuoda offers William advice for his later career where he may be ‘found worthy to
be called to the council of magnates…’ three chapters in Book III are dedicated to
this area alone. Perhaps this is in response to the view points discussed above where
kings were led astray by poor counselors, but if Dhuoda’s handbook is aimed at a
broader audience it becomes a long section of advice on the importance of offering
‘worthy and appropriate comment…’ on attaching oneself to ‘good men seeking after
worthy goals’ and the dangers of poor counsel or judgment, as ‘there are no riches
where stupidity reigns’ aimed at these counselors. Again, as with fidelity, this
behaviour makes someone ‘worthy to receive fitting reward both from God and in the
secular world.’96
Dhuoda also promotes the sense of a broader Carolingian community. She presents
an example of harts crossing a river, drawn from Psalm 41, guiding and supporting
91 Nithard, Histories, Book IV, 174 92 ibid 93 ibid 94 Dhuoda, ‘Liber Manualis’, 25 95 ibid, 27 96 ibid, 27-31
24
each other as they ‘begin to cross seas or wide streams with churning waters.’97 For
Dhuoda, this shows ‘that human beings too must have the brotherly fellowship of
love for greater and lesser men alike, in all ways and in all circumstances.’ 98 The
text here is reminiscent of Louis’ 825 Capitulary in the universality and sense of a
single community with bonds of fidelity and correctio. This may have extended only
to those within Charles the Bald’s realm, but still demonstrates a sense of unity as
Carolingians, sharing the same set of values. 99
Like Nithard, Dhuoda’s family has suffered a loss in status and reputation during the
830s and in the 840s, both William and Bernard of Septimania would lose their lives
in opposition to Charles the Bald.100 However, for Dhuoda the principle of fidelity
and loyalty to one’s lord, both as the Christian thing to do and also as the means of
advancement show that Dhuoda does not see retreating away to the localities as
proper reaction to this crisis; going contrary to her husbands action in 833. This may
be justifying selfish behaviour; keeping a close link to powerful figures was always
an advantage, especially in times of uncertainty. This may also be an expedient
duality as Dhuoda herself was away from the court but connected through William.
She still assertion that one is able to balance one’s secular and religious duties,
similar to Alcuin, sustaining this earlier tenet of Carolingian Aristocracy.101 This is
being framed in a morale dimension where it is a universal good, not just something
to make one’s own position better at the expense of all.
With the division of the realm, there no longer existed a centralized court that was
able to award lands across the entire regnum. However, individual lay magnates still
needed the connections of the smaller Frankish kings and their courts in order to
advance their own interests. The world may have shrunk, but the principles that had
been established under Louis the Pious and Charlemagne continued to be promoted
by the lay aristocracy itself which became the chief repository for these ideals,
disseminating them within the nobility. 97 ibid, 36 98 ibid 99 Stuart Airlie, ‘Bonds of Power’,192 100 Karen Cherewatuk, ‘Speculum Matris, Dhuoda’s Manual’, Florilegium 10, (1988–91), 49-64, 61 101 Janet Nelson, ‘Dhuoda’, Wormald, Nelson (eds.) Cambridge ‘Lay Intellectuals in the Carolingian World’, (Cambridge 2007), 106-120, 112
25
From Outside the Laity
The ideology that underpinned much of what can be collectively termed the
Carolingian Project emerged from outside the lay sphere but became part of it. Prior
to the 830s, ecclesiastical authors often wrote with laymen as their audience. The
clerical response to the 830s and 40s shows how the intellectual world outside of the
laity was responding to the political uncertainty of the time with regard to lay
activity.
The two major histories of the life of Louis the Pious were written by Thegan and a
person known as the Astronomer. His true identity is unknown, but it is likely he was
a member of the Church rather then a layman. Recently, Booker has suggested he
was Walahfrid Strabo.102 Thegan wrote his Life of Louis in 837 and the
Astronomer’s work has been placed circa 840. However, from their histories, it is
possible to discern how they perceived aristocrats through examining their views on
these lay potentes, the mechanisms that controlled them and if these under went
change.
Within the Vita Hluodowici, the Astronomer shows time and time again that the
system of swearing oaths of fidelity, as discussed above, was continuously employed
by Louis the Pious to bind his rebellious sons. The brothers divide the empire despite
‘the people having already been bound together by oaths’. When in 834, Lothar was
forced into submission and came to his father, ‘Louis upbraided him verbally, bound
him and his nobles with such oaths as he wished.’103 In addition to attempting to
secure the allegiance of Lothar’s magnates in 837, within the province of Neustria,
‘the nobles… who were present gave their hands to Charles and bound themselves by
oath to be faithful and those who were absent later did the same.’104 Thegan,
similarly, notes how Lothar and his nobles were bound by these oaths, ‘After this,
Lothar swore fidelity to his father… then the rest swore.’105
102 Courtney Booker, Past Convictions: The Penance of Louis the Pious and the Decline of the Carolingians (Philadelphia, 2009), 293 103 The Astronomer, Vita Hluodowici, 281 104 ibid, 287 105 Sedulius Scottus, ‘On Christian rulers’, Doyle (trans.), Sedulius Scottus: On Christian rulers and the Poems (Binghampton, 1983), 51-94 pg 68
26
The record of these oaths reinforces the concept that even if the oaths of fidelity are
not effective in preventing Lothar, and more importantly, his magnates, from acting
against Louis the Pious, this method of securing loyalty was considered viable. Even
if it failed, the swearing of oaths was considered important enough to be insisted
upon. Thegan and the Astronomer sought to shame Lothar’s noblemen by showing
them as frequently breaking their fidelity with the Emperor, a theme they share with
Nithard.
Looking at the later Carolingian period, allowing for sufficient passage of time to
reflect any major changes that may have occurred after several decades of political
and spiritual reflection on the events of the 830s and early 840s, clerical authors are
still promoting a role for aristocrats that is comparable to that seen before 830.
Within Sedulius Scottus’s ‘On Christian Rulers’, securing aristocratic cooperation
remained an important role in good rulership. In Chapter 10, he writes on the many
pillars which support the kingdom of a just prince, among these are ‘the friendship
and exaltation of good men… the equality of justice between rich and poor.’106
When Hincmar of Rheims was composing his treatise for Carloman, On the
Governance of the Palace he borrowed heavily from the work of Adalard of Corbie
written in roughly 812 and focused upon Charlemagne’s court, not upon Louis’.107
The question is often posed whether this is an accurate reflection of the framework of
Carolingian politics during the reign of Louis the Pious or Charlemagne or whether it
merely serves as an idealized mirror created by Hincmar to demonstrate his own
talents and knowledge to Carloman. The two works stress the need for counts and
judges who reflect the decency of the king and the connections made between
locality and centre through appointments of royal officials in order to facilitate
‘access to the palace… for all subjects, since they recognized that members of their
own families or inhabitants of their own region had a place.’108 The text also calls for
rulers to be aware that as God has given them their authority, they will be punished in
the future world unless ‘he corrects the sinners placed under him.’109
106 Sedulius Scottus, ‘On Christian rulers’, 68 107 Janet Nelson, ‘Aachen as a Place of Power’, de Jong, Theuws, van Rheijn (eds.) Topographies of Power in the Early Middle Ages (Brill, 2001), 217-241, 227 108Adalhard of Corbie/Hincmar of Rheims, De ordine palatii, 491 109 ibid, 489
27
The tenets of good justice, fidelity and ministerium are all present here. If this is in
fact just an idealized model, then even if the reality didn’t match the vision, this
image resembles the role laid out for lay nobles prior to the second penance of Louis
the Pious and indeed, Hincmar states that these institutions have ‘decayed’.110
However, that he is presenting this system as the model for Carloman to adopt
reveals how the position of aristocrats within the idealized plan of the Frankish world
survived the crisis: even if the Empire had decayed, the idealized image of the
Frankish world and the roles of the people within it had survived.
CONCLUSION
Over the course of this dissertation, the key functions of Carolingian lay aristocracy
in the administration of the Empire and the propagation of the ideals of the
Carolingian Renaissance have been discussed, and the judicial role in which
Carolingian ideology was promoted, the fidelity networks where oaths bound people
directly to the Frankish Emperor and the collective responsibility in which nobles
operated and were held in account in the ministerium of the Frankish community
examined. It then demonstrated that the crises of the 830s and 840s, while caused by
problems of fidelity and ministerium, did not cause Carolingian political theory to
shift or fracture radically. In particular, post 834 voices from within lay aristocracy
highlighted the political and spiritual importance of the mechanisms that still bound
people to the Frankish world.
This work set out to show how the localities interacted with the centre. The major
authors of the lay intellectual world are all connected heavily with the centre despite
writing from the localities; Nithard tried to reframe his position as a lay abbot at St
Riquer after losing his benefices.111 Dhuoda wrote her Liber Manualis from outside
of the court sphere and Einhard insisted that he is focused upon his monastery and his
saints.112 The centres were important to all of these writers and they were able to
engage with them to various degrees of success.
When I started my dissertation, I held the belief that the lay aristocracy of the
Carolingian period has been under-studied compared to other aspects of the
110 ibid, 499 111 Nelson, ‘Public Histories’, 224 112 Ganz, ‘Einhardus Peccator’, 37
28
Carolingian World. I still believe this. Most of the work I have read deals with
aristocrats in relation to something else; De Jong discusses laymen and their role in
Louis the Pious’ ‘Penitential State’ and Brown touches on them when they appear
within the cartulary evidence of Bavaria. Other works discuss certain dimensions of
lay magnates, such as Stone’s Morality and Masculinity or Nelson’s vast body of
work on medieval sociology but remain limited to their areas of study. Although
Stuart Airlie’s upcoming book may redress some of the deficiencies, there remain no
large-scale studies or works encompassing aristocrats across the Frankish World as
exists with Emperors and the Frankish Church. Perhaps the variation and size of the
task makes it an unfeasible work but it is a noticeable gap in Carolingian
Historiography.
After the death of Louis the Pious, his sons attempted to seize the polity over which
Louis had presided, but ultimately were unable to do so, settling for the division,
although conflict continued until the collapse of the Carolingian dynasty at the end of
the century. But the division of the realm did not mark the end of the Carolingian
Project. Division had been planned before the death of Charlemagne and only the
deaths of Louis the Pious’ brothers gave him the regnum he enjoyed. The lesson of
833 was not lost on the competing Imperial claimants and throughout their struggles,
they endeavored to keep their aristocrats and potentes on their side, threatening and
bribing in order to accomplish this. The stresses placed upon the Carolingian
aristocracy were massive and it is quite possible that without this ideological
framework, there would have been further disintegration of the Carolingian Empire
beyond the division of the realm.
The later Carolingian period seems bereft of lay authors such as Einhard or those
writing in the 840s. The pressures that aristocrats were under in the 830s and 840s
may have prompted Nithard and Dhuoda to speak, but commentary on an aristocrat’s
position in society and what service they offer the king in late ninth century was
mostly ecclesiastical in its origin. Perhaps this accounts for the more idealized vision
of society during the early years of Louis the Pious that emerges in the late ninth
century, but still nothing appeared to have radically changed. The wider political and
social environment changed for the Carolingian aristocracy following the division of
the Empire. However their roles and positions as lay potentes and aristocrats and the
29
expectations placed upon them persisted. This dissertation has suggested and shown
evidence that lay nobles continued to be guided by the tenets of Carolingian political
theory beyond 840, surviving as a model into the latter part of the ninth century.
30
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Admonitio ad omnes regni ordines, MGH Cap. i:150 Rio (trans.)
Alcuin, De virtutibus et vitiis, R. Stone tr., forthcoming in The Heroic Age,
Agobard of Lyon, On Injustices to Mathfrid, North (trans.) Agobardi Lugdunensis Opera Omnia, Opusculum XIII, Van Aacker (eds.) Corpus Christianorum 52,
(1981), 225-227
Annales Bertiniani, 839, Nelson (trans.), The Annals of St Bertin: Ninth-Century Histories, Vol.1, (Manchester, 1991)
Astronomer, The, Vita Hludovici, Noble (eds.) Charlemagne and Louis the Pious: the lives by Einhard, Notker, Ermoldus, Thegan, and The Astronomer (Philadelphia
2009), 226-302
Bishops’ statement from Compiègne 833, de Jong (trans.), The Penitential State (Cambridge, 2009), 271-279
Einhard, The Letters of Einhard, in Dutton (eds.) Carolingian Civilization: A Reader, (Toronto 1997)
of Corbie, Adalhard, of Rheims, Hincmar De ordine palatii, in Dutton, Carolingian Civilization A Reader (Toronto, 1993)
Dhuoda, Liber Manualis, Prologue, trans Neel, Handbook for William: A Carolingian Woman’s Counsel for her Son, (Washington, DC, 1991)
Nithard, Histories, tr. Scholz, Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and Nithard’s Histories (Ann Arbor, 1970)
Radbertus, Paschasius Epitaphium Arsenii, Cabaniss (trans.) Charlemagne’s
Cousins: Contemporary Lives of Adalard and Wala (Syracuse, 1967) Vol.2, 147-204
Thegan, Gesta Hludowici imperatoris, in Dutton (eds.), Carolingian Civilization: A Reader (Toronto, 1993), 226-302
Strabo Walahfrid , Libellus de Exordiis et incrementis quarundam in ovservationibus, Harting-Correa, (trans.) Libellus de Exordiis et incrementis quarundam in ovservationibus: A Translation and Liturgical Commentary,
(Leiden, 1996)
31
Secondary Sources
Airlie, Stuart, ‘Bonds of Power and Bonds of Association in the Court Circle of Louis the Pious’, Collins, Godman, (eds.) Charlemagne’s Heir: New Perspectives
on the Reign of Louis the Pious (814-840) (Oxford 1990) 191-204
Airlie, Stuart , ‘The Aristocracy in the service of the state in the Carolingian Period’, Airlie, Phol, Reimitz, (eds.) Staat im fruhen Mittelalter (Vienna, 2006),
93-11
Airlie , Stuart, The Palace as Memory: ‘The Carolingian Court as Political Centre’, Jones, Marks and Woodbridge, AJ (eds.) Courts and Regions in
Medieval Europe (York, 2000), 1-20
Airlie, Stuart, ‘The World, the Text and the Carolingian’, Wormald, Nelson (eds.) Lay Intellectuals in the Carolingian World (Cambridge, 2007) 51-76
Althoff , Gerd, Family, Friends and Followers: Political and Social Bonds in
Early Medieval Europe, (Cambridge, 2004)
Brown, Warren, Unjust Seizure: Conflict, Interest and Authority in an Early Medieval Society, (Ithaca, 2001)
Booker, Courtney, Past Convictions: The Penance of Louis the Pious and the
Decline of the Carolingians (Philadelphia, 2009)
Cherewatuk, Karen, ‘Speculum Matris, Dhuoda’s Manual’, Florilegium 10, (1988–91), 49-64
Costambeys, Marios, Innes, Matthew, Maclean, Simon, The Carolingian World (Cambridge, 2011)
de Jong, Mayke, The Penitential State: Authority and Atonement in the Age of
Louis the Pious, (Cambridge, 2009)
Dutton, Paul, The Politics of Dreaming in the Carolingian Empire, (London, 1994)
Ganshof ,François-Louis, Frankish Institutions Under Charlemagne, (Providence, 1968)
Ganz, David, ‘Einhardus Peccator’, Wormald, Nelson, (eds.) Lay Intellectuals in the Carolingian World, (Cambridge, 2007), 37-50
Innes, Matthew, State and Society in the Early Middle Ages: The Middle Rhine
Valley, (Cambridge, 2000)
Innes, Matthew, ‘Charlemagne, justice and written law’, Rio (eds.) Law, Custom, and Justice in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (London, 2011)
32
Mann, Michael, ‘The autonomous power of the state: its origins, mechanisms and results’, Archives Européennes de Sociologie 25, 1984
McKitterick, Rosamund, ‘The Palace school of Charles the Bald’, Charles the Bald: Court and Kingdom, ed Gibson, Nelson, (Aldershot 1990),326-39
Nelson, Janet, ‘On the limits of the Carolingian renaissance’, Politics and Ritual in Early Medieval Europe, (London, 1986) 49-68
Nelson, Janet, ‘Public History in the Work of Nithard’, Politics and Ritual in
Early Medieval Europe, (London, 1986) 195-238
Nelson, Janet, ‘Dispute Settlement in Carolingian West Francia’, Fouracre, Davies (eds.) The Settlement of Disputes in Early Medieval Europe, (Cambridge, 1986)
45-64
Nelson, Janet, ‘Peers in the early Middle Ages’, Stafford, Nelson, Martindale (eds.) Law Laity and Solidarities: Essays in Honour of Susan Reynolds (Manchester, 2001),
27-46
Nelson, Janet ‘Aachen as a Place of Power’, de Jong, Theuws, van Rheijn (eds.) Topographies of Power in the Early Middle Ages (Brill, 2001)
Nelson. Janet, ‘Bad Kingship in the Earlier Middle Ages’, Haskins Society
Journal 8, 1999, 1-26
Nelson, Janet, The Last Years of Louis the Pious, Goodman, Collins (eds.) Charlemagne’s Heir: New Perspectives on the Reign of Louis the Pious (814-840)
(Oxford, 1990), 48
Nelson, Janet, ‘Dhuoda’, Wormald, Nelson (eds.) Cambridge ‘Lay Intellectuals in the Carolingian World’, (Cambridge 2007), 106-120
Noble, Timothy, ‘Secular Sanctity: Forging an Ethos for The Carolingian Nobility’, Wormald, Nelson, (eds.) Lay Intellectuals in the Carolingian World,
(Cambridge, 2007)
Noble, Thomas, Secular Sanctity: forging an ethos for the Carolingian Nobility Wormald, Nelson, (eds.) Lay Intellectuals in the Carolingian World (Cambridge,
2001)
Possel, Christina, ‘Authors and Recipients of Carolingian Capitularies: 779-829’, Godman, Collins, (eds.) Charlemagne’s Heir: New Perspectives on the Reign of
Louis the Pious (814-840) (Oxford 1990)
Polanichka D. and Cilley, A., The very personal history of Nithard: family and honour in the Carolingian world, Early Medieval Europe 22:2 (2014), 171-200
Tellenbach, Gerd, ‘From the Carolingian Imperial Nobility to the German Estate of Imperial Princes’, Reuter (eds.) The Medieval Nobility: Studies on the Ruling
Classes of France and Germany from the Sixth to the Twelfth Century (Amsterdam, 1978) 203-242
33
van Rhijn, Carine, ‘Priests and the Carolingian Reforms: The Bottlenecks of local correctio’, Goodman, Collins (eds.) Charlemagne’s Heir, Texts and Identities in
the Early Middle Ages, (Oxford 1990)
Wallace-Hadrill, J The Frankish Church, (Oxford, 2001)
Werner Karl, Noble Families in Charlemagne's Kingdom, Reuter (eds.), The Medieval Nobility: Studies on the Ruling Classes of France and Germany from the
Sixth to the Twelfth Century (Amsterdam, 1978)
West, Charles Reframing the Feudal Revolution: Political and Social Transformation between Marne and Moselle: 800-c.1100 (Cambridge 2013),
Wickham, Chris, The Inheritance of Rome: A History From 400-1000, (Penguin, 2010)