the carolingians in central europe

7/31/2019 The Carolingians in Central Europe

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-carolingians-in-central-europe 1/566



THE CAROLINGIANS IN CENTRAL EUROPE,THEIR HISTORY, ARTS AND ARCHITECTURE



CULTURES, BELIEFS AND TRADITIONSmedieval and early modern peoples

Editorial Board:

w illiam b rinner, University of California at Berkeleyf lorike e gmond, Leiden University

g ustav h enningsen, Danish Folklore Archivesm ayke de j ong, University of Utrecht

m iri r ubin, Pembroke College, Oxford Universitye li y assif, Tel Aviv University

VOLUME 18



THE CAROLINGIANSIN CENTRAL EUROPE,THEIR HISTORY, ARTS AND ARCHITECTURE

A Cultural History of Central Europe, 750-900

BY

HERBERT SCHUTZ

BRILLLEIDEN • BOSTON

2004



This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataSchutz, Herbert, 1937-

The Carolingians in Central Europe, their history, arts, and architecture : cultural historyof Central Europe, 750-900 / by Herbert Schutz.

p. cm. — (Cultures, beliefs, and traditions ; v. 18)Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 90-04-13149-31. Carolingians. 2. Europe, Central—History. 3. Civilization, Medieval. 4. Culture

diffusion—Europe, Central. 5. Art, Carolingian. 6. Architecture, Carolingian. 7. Learningand scholarship—History—Medieval, 500-1500. I. Title. II. Series.

DJK4.S38 2003943'.0009'02—dc21

2003052330

ISSN 1382–5364ISBN 90 04 13149 3

© Copyright 2004 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored ina retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written

permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that

the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910

Danvers MA 01923, USA.Fees are subject to change.

printed in the netherlands



To my brother Hart



This page intentionally left blank



CONTENTS

List of Illustrations ...................................................................... ixList of Maps ................................................................................ xxiForeword .................................................................................... xxiiiAcknowledgements ...................................................................... xxix

Introduction ................................................................................ 1

Part A The Carolingian RealmsI. Reaching for the crown—Continuity and change

in the realms of the Franks ...................................... 17II. Towards Empire ........................................................ 49III. Charlemagne’s successors .......................................... 82IV. Towards the partition of the Empire ...................... 113V. The emerging pro le of Central Europe ................ 118

VI. The last uni cation of the Empire .......................... 125Part B Books, Gems and Ivories

VII. The recapitulation of origins .................................... 135VIII. Carolingian scribal culture ........................................ 147IX. Religious literature .................................................... 171X. Secular literature ...................................................... 203XI. The cloister arts ........................................................ 216XII. Illuminated manuscripts—Evangelists ...................... 221XIII. Illuminated manuscripts—Ruler Portraits ................ 248XIV. Illuminated manuscripts—Christ in Majesty .......... 261XV. Illuminated manuscripts—Narrative style ................ 264XVI. Engraved crystals ...................................................... 277XVII. Ivories ........................................................................ 281XVIII. Gems, precious metals and bronzes—

Liturgical art .............................................................. 299

Part C Palaces and BasilicasXIX. Architecture—Palaces ................................................ 323XX. Architecture—Wall painting .................................... 333XXI. Architecture—Basilicas .............................................. 340



viii

Conclusion .................................................................................. 369

Selected Bibliography ................................................................ 391

Index ............................................................................................ 397



LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Color Plates

(Pls. 1a–33c can be found in Part B, between the pages 224 and 225)

Plate 1a. Picto-poem of Christ the Savior from Hrabanus Maurus’ De laudibus sancti crucis , Fulda. Inv. Codex 652, fol. 6v. (Vienna, Öster-

reichische Nationalibliothek).Plate 1b. Dedicatory page from Hrabanus Maurus’ De laudibus sancti crucis , showing Hrabanus and Alcuin presenting the book to Otgarof Mainz, Fulda. Inv. Cod. 652, fol. 2v. (Vienna, ÖsterreichischeNationalbibliothek).

Plate 1c. Dedicatory page from Hrabanus Maurus’ De laudibus sancti crucis showing the emperor Louis the Pious as Soldier in Christ. Fulda.Inv. Cod. 652, fol. 3v. (Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek).

Plate 2a. Display initial of the 51. Psalm, Folchart Psalter, c. 864/872.Inv. Cod. 23, fol. 135. (St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek).

Plate 2b. Irish Gospel, c. 750, confronting pages showing a crosspage and an initial page. Inv. Cod. 51, fols. 6, 7. (St. Gallen, Stifts-bibliothek).

Plates 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d. Irish Gospel, c. 750, the Evangelists John andMarc, Matthew and Christ. Inv. Cod. 51. fols. 2, 78, 208, 266. (St.Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek).Plates 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d. Codex millenarius , the Evangelists Matthew, Inv.Cim. 1, fol. 17v, 18r. and Marc, Inv. Cim. 1, fol. 109v, 110r) withtheir emblems. (Stiftsbibliothek, Kremsmünster) (Millenarius: PhotoP. Amand Kraml, copyright Stift Kremsmünster).

Plates 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d. Codex millenarius , the Evangelists Luke, Inv.Cim. 1, fol. 174v, 175r. and John, Inv. Cim. 1, fol. 276v, 277r. withtheir emblems. (Stiftsbibliothek, Kremsmünster).

Plates 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d. Enthroned Evangelists with tetramorphs fromthe Godescalc Gospels,c. 781–783, Palace School of Charlemagne,



x

Aachen—Matthew, Inv. lat. 1203, fol. 1r, Marc, Inv. lat. 1203, fol.1v, Luke, Inv. lat. 1203, fol. 2r, John, Inv. lat 1203, fol. 2v. (Paris,

Bibliothèque Nationale de France).Plate 7a. Enthroned Christ, from the Godescalc Gospels , c. 781–783,Palace School of Charlemagne, Aachen. Inv. lat. 1203, fol. 3r. (Paris,Bibliothèque Nationale de France).

Plate 7b. Fountain of Life, from the Godescalc Gospels , c. 781–783,Palace School of Charlemagne, Aachen. Inv. lat. 1203, fol. 3v. (Paris,Bibliothèque Nationale de France).

Plate 8a. Fountain of Life, from the Gospel from Saint-Médard,Soissons, Palace School of Charlemagne, Aachen. Inv. Lat. 8850,fol. 6v. (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France).

Plate 8b. Veneration of the Lamb, from the Gospel from Saint-Médard, Soissons, Palace School of Charlemagne, Aachen. Inv. lat.8850, fol. 1v. (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France).

Plate 8c. Canon Table, from the Gospel from Saint-Médard, Soissons,

Palace School of Charlemagne, Aachen. Inv. lat. 8850, fol. 7v. (Paris,Bibliothèque Nationale de France).

Plate 9a. Evangelist Marc with lion emblem, from the Gospel fromSaint-Médard, Soissons, palace School of Charlemagne. Inv. lat. 8850,fol. 81v. (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France).

Plate 9b. Initial page to the Gospel of St. Mark, from the Gospelfrom Saint-Médard, Soissons, Palace School of Charlemagne. Inv.lat. 8850, fol. 82r. (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France).

Plate 10a. Writing gure, 6th century (Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale).

Plate 10b. The Four Evangelists with tetramorphs, from the AachenGospels, Palace School of Charlemagne. fol. 14v. (Domkapitel Aachen.Photo: Ann Münchow).

Plates 11a, 11b, 11c, 11d. The Four Evangelists from the ‘Ada’Gospels—Matthew, Marc, Luke and John, Palace School of Charle-magne. Hs. 22 Ada, fol. 15v, fol. 59v. fol. 85v, fol. 127v. (Trier,Stadtbibliothek).

Plates 12a, 12b, 12c, 12d. The Evangelists Matthew, Marc, Lukeand John, from the Coronation Gospels , Palace School of Charlemagne,



xi

Aachen. Inv. SKXIII/18, fol. 15, fol. 76v, fol. 117, fol. 178v. (Vienna,Kunsthistorisches Museum, Treasury).

Plate 13. Charles the Bald as King David, miniature preceding theBook of Psalms,Vivian Bible , c. 845/46. Inv. lat. 1, fol. 215v. (Paris,Bibliothèque Nationale de France).

Plate 14a. The enthroned emperor Lothair I, from the Gospels of Lothair , c. 850, Tours. Inv. lat. 266, fol. 1r. (Paris, BibliothèqueNationale de France).

Plate 14b. The enthroned emperor Lothair I, from the Psalter of

Lothair , Palace School of Lothair, c. 850. Inv. Add. 37768, fol. 4.(London, British Library).

Plate 15a. Dedication page showing the enthroned Charles the Baldreceiving the Vivian Bible , c. 845/46. Inv. lat. 1, fol. 423r. (Paris,Bibliothèque Nationale de France).

Plate 15b. St. Gregory from the Metz Coronation Sacramentary, c. 870,Palace School of Charles the Bald, St. Denis (?). Inv. lat. 1141, fol.3r. (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France).

Plate 15c. Ruler anked by bishops, probably Charles the Bald, Metz Coronation Sacramentary, c. 870, Palace School of Charles the Bald, St.Denis (?). Inv. lat. 1141, fol. 2v. (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale deFrance).

Plate 16a. Dedication page showing the enthroned Charles the Bald,Codex Aureus from St. Emmeram, Palace School of Charles the Bald.Inv. Clm. 14000, fol. 5v. (Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek).

Plate 16b. Veneration of the Lamb, Codex Aureus from St. Emmeram,Palace School of Charles the Bald. Inv. Clm. 14000, fol. 6r. (Munich,Bayerische Staatsbibliothek).

Pate 17a. Cruci xion, showing Ludwig, the German, embracing theCross. Psalter of Louis the German. Inv. Ms. Theol. lat. fol. 58,120r. (Berlin, Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Staatsbibliothek).

Plate 17b. Initial page of Psalm 1 of the Psalter of Ludwig theGerman, before c. 850, Saint-Omer. Inv. Ms. Theol. lat. fol. 58, 3r.(Berlin, Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Staatsbibliothek).

Plate 17c. Christ in Majesty, Vivian Bible , c. 845/46. Inv. lat. 1, fol.329v. (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France).



xii

Plate 18a. Christ in Majesty with pagan references, Metz CoronationSacramentary, c. 870, Palace School of Charles the Bald, St. Denis (?).

Inv. lat. 1141, fol. 6r. (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France).Plate 18b. Ornamented capital initial T with cruci ed Christ, Metz Coronation Sacramentary,c. 870, Palace School of Charles the Bald, St.Denis (?). Inv. lat. 1141, fol. 6v. (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale deFrance).

Plate 18c. Cruci xion from the Gospels of Otfrid von Weissenburg,c. 868. Cod. 2687, fol. 153v. (Vienna, Österreichische National-bibliothek).

Plate 18d. Christ in Majesty with seraphim, Metz Coronation Sacramentary,c. 870, Palace School of Charles the Bald, St. Denis (?). Inv. lat.1141, fol. 5r. (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France).

Plates 19a, 19b, 19c, 19d. Ornamented capital Initials C, D, C andT, Drogo Sacramentary, c. 850–855. Inv. lat. 9428, fols. 24v, 58r, 71v,15v. (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France).

Plate 20a. Story of Adam and Eve. Garden of Eden scenes fromthe Grandval Bible , Tours, c. 840. Inv. 10546, fol. 5v. (London, BritishLibrary).

Plate 20b. Stag allegory, with Psalm 41, 2, Stuttgart Psalter , c. 820–830,Saint-Germain-des-Prés. Inv. Cod. bibl. fol. 23, 53v. (Stuttgart,Württembergische Landesbibliothek).

Plate 20c. Annunciation, with Psalm 71:6,Stuttgart Psalter , c. 820–830,Saint-Germain-des-Prés. Inv. Cod. bibl. fol. 23, 83v. (Stuttgart,

Württembergische Landesbibliothek).Plate 20d. The Three Kings, with Psalm 71:10–11, Stuttgart Psalter ,c. 820–830, Saint-Germain-des-Prés. Inv. Cod. bibl. fol. 23, 84v.(Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek).

Plate 21a. Cruci xion, with Psalm 68:22,Stuttgart Psalter , c. 820–830,Saint-Germain-des-Prés. Inv. Cod. bibl. fol. 23, 80v. (Stuttgart,Württembergische Landesbibliothek).

Plate 21b. Weighing the souls, with Psalm 9:5,Stuttgart Psalter , c. 820– 830, Saint-Germain-des-Prés. Inv. Cod. bibl. fol. 23, 9v. (Stuttgart,Württembergische Landesbibliothek).



xiii

Plate 21c. Christ triumphant, with Psalm 90:13, Stuttgart Psalter , c. 820– 830, Saint-Germain-des-Prés. Inv. Cod. bibl. fol. 23, 107r. (Stuttgart,

Württembergische Landesbibliothek).Plate 22a. The prophet Samuel anoints David, Golden Psalter , c. 890.Inv. Cod. 22, fol. 59. (St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek).

Plate 22b. Joab’s campaign, Golden Psalter , c. 890. Inv. Cod. 22, fol.140. (St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek).

Plate 22c. Siege and surrender of a city, Golden Psalter , c. 890. Inv.Cod. 22, fol. 141. (St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek).

Plates 23a, 23b. Obverse and reverse, Enger reliquary, before c. 785.Inv.-Nr.: 88, 632. (Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Kunstgewerbe-museum).

Plate 24. Reliquary associated with St. Stephen, c. 830, Aachen. Inv.SCHK XIII/26. (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Schatzkammer).

Plate 25a. Tassilo Chalice , c. 768/69, perhaps later (Kremsmünster,Stiftsbibliothek). (Photo Elfriede Mejchar, copyright Stift Kremsmünster).

Plate 25b, 25c, 25d. Ornamental detail of the Tassilo Chalice (Krems-münster, Stiftsbibliothek).

Plate 26a. First (back) Cover of theLindau Gospel , c. 770–830. Inv. MS1(New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, Photography: David Loggie).

Plate 26b. Second (front) Cover of theLindau Gospel , c. 870. Inv. MS1(New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, Photography: David Loggie).

Plate 27a. Direct view of the golden, gem encrusted gospel cover of the Codex Aureus of St. Emmeram, c. 879, featuring the ‘architecture’of the gospel cover of the Codex Aureus of St. Emmeram, c. 870. Inv.Clm. 14000, VD. (Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek).

Plate 27b. Oblique view of the golden gem encrusted gospel coverof the Codex Aureus of St. Emmeram, c. 879, featuring the ‘architecture’of the gospel cover of the Codex Aureus of St. Emmeram, c. 870. Inv.Clm. 14000, VD. (Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek).

Plate 28. Portable altar, the Arnulf Ciborium, c. 870 (Munich,Schatzkammer der Residenz, Bayerische Verwaltung der staatlichenSchlösser, Gärten und Seen).



xiv

Plate 29. St. Johann, exterior, Müstair, Graubünden, Switzerland.

Plate 29a. Mural, Ascension, St. Johann, Müstair. Inv. LM-11990.(Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, Zürich).

Plates 29b, 29c, 29d. Murals of gures from the north wall. Muralin the Apse with majestas.Mural of Peter and Paul before Nero; St.

Johann, Müstair. (Stiftung Pro Kloster St. Johann in Müstair, FotoS. Fibbi-Aeppli).

Plates 30a, 30b, 30c, 30d. Murals of St. Gregory (top right), ogging of the Philistines (bottom left), founder portraits (bottom right). St.

Benedict, Mals, valley of the Adige, Italy.Plates 31a, 31b, 31c, 31d. St. Gregory, Christ anked by cherubim,St. Stephen in niches. Religious and secular patrons between theniches. St. Benedict, Mals.

Plate 32a. Mural of cattle. St. Prokulus, Naturns.

Plate 32b. St. Paul being aided in his escape from Damascus. St.Prokulus, Naturns.

Plate 32c. Gated hall at the abbey at Lorsch.

Plate 32d. Rotunda, St. Michael’s, Fulda.

Plate 33a. Palace Chapel, interior, Aachen. (Domkapitel Aachen.Photo: Ann Münchow).

Plate 33b. Legendary pelican feedings its young with its own heart.19th century mosaic. Interior, Palace Chapel, Aachen. (DomkapitelAachen, Photo: Andreas Herrmann).

Plate 33c. Octagon interior, upper level, marble throne, marblesheeted pillars, porphyry columns. Palace Chapel, Aachen. (DomkapitelAachen. Photo: Ann Münchow).

Figures

(Figs. 1–39b can be found in Part A, between the pages 64 and 65)

1. Hollow altar with Carolingian candle sticks in the crypt of Regensburg Cathedral. Formerly the high altar of the Carolingiancathedral.



xv

2. The emperor shown leading the horse of the pope to support thepapal claim of the Constantinian donation. Fresco in the oratorium

of St. Sylvester in Santi Quattro Coronati, Rome. (Bildarchiv FotoMarburg).

3. Inscribed lead plate found in a sarcophagus, 8th/9th century,pointing to the missionary activity of Fulda. The inscription readsOTTO XPIAN DE PAGANO ONO OCT , meaning Otto become Christiandied on the nones (7th) of October.(Fulda, Dommuseum).

4a. Christ with the emperor Constantine and pope Sylvester I. Re-stored mosaic originally installed by pope Leo III. Lateran Palace, Rome(Photo P. Wilson).4b. St. Peter with Charlemagne and pope Leo III. Restored mosaicoriginally installed by pope Leo III. Lateran Palace, Rome (PhotoP. Wilson).

5. Roman marble sarcophagus showing the mythical abduction of Proserpina, c. A.D. 200, taken to have been Charlemagne’s coffi nfor 400 years. It was probably among the columns and other classicalobjects transported north following his campaigns in Italy. (Aachen,Treasury of the Cathedral).6. Idealized royal gures of the Hungarians. Budapest (Photo H.Hermann).7. Porphyry column and Corinthian capital. Aachen, cloisters of theCathedral.

8. The Lord’s Prayer from the Abrogans , an Old High German dic-tionary. Codex Sangallensis 911. fol. 320. (St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek).

9. Genesis scenes from the Bamberg Bible , c. 850. Inv. A.I.5, fol. 7v.(Bamberg, Staatliche Bibliothek).10. Illustration to Psalm 38, showing a crowned personage, Utrecht Psalter , c. 820, Hautvillers. (Utrecht, University Library).11. Illustration to Psalm 77, showing a crowned personage, Utrecht Psalter , c. 820, Hautvillers. (Utrecht, University Library).12. Illustration to Psalm 1, a man in meditation day and night sit-ting under a fastigium, Utrecht Psalter , c. 820, Hautvillers. (Utrecht,University Library).13. Illustration to Psalm 23, itemizing all details of the text, Utrecht Psalter , c. 820, Hautvillers. (Utrecht, University Library).



xvi

14. Illustration to Psalm 43, analogy of a besieged city,Utrecht Psalter ,c. 820, Hautvillers. (Utrecht, University Library).

15. Illustrations to Psalm 12, pictorial interpretation of text, Utrecht Psalter , c. 820, Hautvillers. (Utrecht, University Library).

16. The Lothair crystal, carved with the story of Susanna, c. 865,Vausort. Inv. 1855, 1201.5. (London, British Museum).

17. Cruci xion crystal, c. 867, St. Denis. Inv. 1855, 0303.1. (London,British Museum).

18. Crucixion crystal, c. 850/870. On loan Erzbischö iches Diozösan-museum. Inv. DM-K013/D (Freiburg, Augustiner Museum).19. Ivory throne of St. Maximian, early 6th century. (Ravenna,Archiepiscopal Palace).

20. Angel, ivory panel, 11th century copy, style of Palace School of Charlemagne, Aachen. Inv. Kg: 102. (Darmstadt, Hessisches Landes-museum).

21. Ivory front cover, Lorsch Gospels , Three Kings before Herod andwith the Virgin and Child, c. 810, Aachen (Rome, Museo SacroVaticano, Bildarchiv Fotomarburg).

22. Ivory back cover, Lorsch Gospels,Nativity, c. 810, Aachen. Inv. JX 856 (London, Victoria and Albert Museum).

23. Scenes following the Resurrection of Christ, ivory diptych, c. 810,Palace School of Charlemagne, Aachen. (Domkapitel Aachen. Photo:Ann Münchow).

24. Ascension, c. 810, Palace School of Charlemagne, Aachen. Inv.Kg. 54:217. (Darmstadt, Hessisches Landesmuseum).

25. Christ in majesty, ivory panel, c. 900, Maastricht/Liège. Inv.Kg. 54:208. (Darmstadt, Hessisches Landesmuseum).

26. Cruci xion Ivory, covering panel of the Book of Pericopes of HenryII , c. 820/30. Inv. Clm. 4452, fol. VD (Munich, BayerischeStaatsbibliothek).

27. The Temptation of Christ, ivory book cover of the DrogoSacramentary, c. 850, Metz (Frankfurt a. M., Liebighaus).

28. Liturgical ivory comb, c. 850, Metz, from St. Heribert in Cologne(Cologne, Schnütgenmuseum, Rheinisches Bildarchiv Köln).



xvii

29. Christ in Majesty, front ivory book cover from the Tuotilo Gospels ,c. 900, St. Gallen. Cod. 53. (St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek).

30. Ascension of Mary, back ivory book cover from the Tuotilo Gospels ,c. 900, St. Gallen. Cod. 53. (St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek).

31. Ivory panel book covers from Würzburg, after c. 850. Inv. M. p.th. f. 67 (Würzburg, Universitätsbibliothek).

32. Ivory pyx with nativity. Inv. ANSA X42 (Vienna, KunsthistorischesMuseum).

33. Reliquary casket of walrus ivory, 8th century, from Gandersheim.Inv. MA58 (Braunschweig, Anton-Ulrich-Museum).

34. Scenes from the life of Christ, ivory casket, c. 880. Inv. MA59(Braunschweig, Anton-Ulrich-Museum).

35. Scenes from the life of Christ, ivory casket, c. 880. Inv. MA59(Braunschweig, Anton-Ulrich-Museum).

36. Silver beaker from Pettstadt, late 8th, early 9th century (Nürnberg,Germanisches Nationalmuseum).

37. Detail from the roof of the Arnulf Ciborium, c. 870 (Munich,Schatzkammer der Residenz, Bayerische Verwaltung der staatlichenSchlösser, Gärten und Seen).

38. Portable red porphyry altar from Adelhausen. Earliest of itskind, c. 800, made of oak, silver, cloisonné and niello on goldfoil. Inv. 12133. On loan Adelhauserstiftung. (Freiburg, Augustiner-museum).

39a. Equestrian statue of a Carolingian emperor, 9th century, oneof the Palace Schools, Metz. Inv. OA8260. (Paris, Musée du Louvre).

39b. Equestrian statue of a Carolingian emperor, 9th century, oneof the Palace Schools, Metz. Inv. OA8260. (Paris, Musée du Louvre).

(Figs. 40a–83 can be found in Part C, between the pages 352 and 353)

40a, 40b, 40c. Main portal door panels and details of the co ff eredsections. Aachen, Palace Chapel.

41. Roman bronze casting of a ‘wolf ’ in the entrance to the PalaceChapel, Aachen.



xviii

42. Bronze pinecone in the entrance to the Palace Chapel, Aachen.

43a, b, c, d. Sections of railing from the upper level of the interioroctagon of the Palace Chapel in Aachen. (Domkapitel Aachen. Photo:Ann Münchow).

44a, b, c. Sections of railing from the upper level of the interioroctagon of the Palace Chapel in Aachen. (Domkapitel Aachen. Photo:Ann Münchow).

45. Foundations of the Carolingian (bottom) and later palaces atPaderborn. (Paderborn, Kaiserpfalzmuseum).

46. Fragments of a Carolingian sandstone capital from the churchnave (Paderborn, Kaiserpfalzmuseum).

47. Decorated plaster, palace walls, c. 799 (Paderborn, Kaiser-pfalzmuseum).

48. Suggested reconstruction of the Pfalz at Ingelheim. according toA. Corboz, Frühes Mittelalter , p. 5.

49. Damaged Corinthian capital from the palace at Ingelheim. Inv.S469 (Mainz, Landesmuseum).50. Decorative stone panel showing a winged horse from theCarolingian palace church, St. Wigbert, at Ingelheim. Inv. S3023.(Mainz, Landesmuseum).

51. Remains of a window architecture, limestone and sandstone7th–8th centuries. Inv. S3027a–d. (Mainz, Landesmuseum).

52. Plan of the Pfalz at Aachen according to Corboz, Mittelalter ,p. 183.53a. Restored Carolingian colonnade, Aachen.

53b. Original masonry of the palace complex at Aachen.

54. Suggested reconstruction of the westwork of the Palace Chapelat Aachen according to Corboz, Mittelalter , p. 53.

55. Flanking angels. St. Prokulus, Naturns, valley of the Adige, Italy.

56. Einhard Basilica, Steinbach. Model.57. Einhard Basilica, Steinbach. Plan with indication of crypt andaltar screen, according to Corboz, Mittelalter , p. 112.



xix

58. Einhard Basilica, Steinbach, present interior view of the nave.Note the walled-in arcades.

59. Einhard Basilica, Steinbach, present exterior view. Note thewalled-in arcades near the entrance.

60a. Einhard Basilica, Seligenstadt. Exterior view of the nave.

60b. Einhard Basilica, Seligenstadt. Interior view of the nave,Carolingian brickwork laid bare.

61. St. Justinus, Höchst. Carolingian colonnades and capitals.

62. St. Justinus, Höchst. Detail of a Carolingian capital.63. Carolingian composite capital, Aachen, cloisters of the Cathedral.

64. Fragment of ornamental altar stone, c. 800–840, Lorsch. Inv.Pl. 33:4. (Darmstadt, Hessisches Landesmuseum).

65. Original plan of the Benedictine abbey at Lorsch, according toCorboz, Mittelalter , p. 34.

66. Gated hall at the abbey at Lorsch. Note the gentler slope of theoriginal roof and the ornamental details.67a, 67b. Gated hall at the abbey at Lorsch. Detail of the arches,capitals and pilasters.

68a. Altar screens from St. John, Müstair, Graubünden, Switzerland.

68b. Altar fragment from Lauerach. (Bregenz, Vorarlberger Landes-museum).

68c. Carolingian altar screen from the convent at Frauenchiemsee(Munich, Archäologische Staatssamlung, Museum für Vor- undFrühgeschichte).

68d. Carolingian altar screen from St. Johannis, Mainz. Recoveredfrom the church oor. Inv. S3090 (Mainz, Landesmuseum).

69. Corvey. Proposed appearance of the original westwork accord-ing to Corboz, Mittelalter , p. 50.

70a. Corvey. Present appearance of the westwork.

70b. Close-up and consecrating inscription on the westwork.



xx

71. Corvey. Crosscuts of the westwork—lower level (rt.), upper level(lt.) according to Corboz, Mittelalter , p. 76.

72a. Corvey. Columns and pillars of the ‘crypt’ at the lower level.

72b. Corvey. Spacial arrangement of the chapel of St. John at theupper level.

72c. Corvey. Traces of wall painting—the chapel of St. John.

73a, 73b. Corvey. Composite foliage capital and cornice.

74a. Carolingian capitals, after 744, comparable to the column cap-

ital in the crypt at St. Michael’s in Fulda. From the monastery churchfounded by Sturmius at Fulda. (Fulda, Dom Museum).

74b, c. Carolingian capitals from the nave of the Ratgar Basilica,c. 800 (Fulda, Dom Museum).

75a. St. Michael’s chapel, Fulda. Exterior view.

75b. St. Michael’s, external view of the rotunda section.

76. Supporting column in the crypt of St. Michael’s, Fulda.

77. St. Michael’s, Fulda. Reconstructed crosscut, according to Corboz, Mittelalter , p. 174.

78a, 78b, 78c, 78d. Capitals from the rotunda, St. Michael’s, Fulda.

79a. Westwork of the Palace Chapel at Aachen.

79b. Octagon of the Palace Chapel at Aachen.

80a. San Vitale, Ravenna. Exterior view of the octagon.

80b. San Vitale, Ravenna. Interior view of choir.

80c. San Vitale, Ravenna. Interior view of niches.

81. Lower (l.) and upper (r.) levels of the Palace Chapel at Aachen,according to Corboz, Mittelalter , p. 52.

82. Cross-section of the Palace Chapel at Aachen, according toCorboz, Mittelalter , p. 53.



LIST OF MAPS

Map 1. The Carolingian Empire ............................................ 31Map 2. Secular Locations in the Carolingian Empire .......... 58Map 3. The Partition of the Carolingian Empire

following the Treaty of Verdun 843 .......................... 115Map 4. The Partition of the Carolingian Empire

following the Treaty of Meersen 870 ........................ 117Map 5. The Partition of the Carolingian Empire

following the Treaty of Ribémont 880 ...................... 128Map 6. Religious Establishments under the Carolingians ...... 167



FOREWORD

The literature concerning the Carolingians has reached nearly unassess-able proportions. An attempt to off er a comprehensive treatment willbe frustrated. Even though the sources concerning this period aremuch less archeological and more decidedly literary, new directionsand approaches, new specializations, new emphases, even new nd-ings have lent to the body of traditional knowledge a kaleidoscopicquality. Since this book is a continuation of much previously pub-lished work, especiallyThe Germanic Realms in Pre-Carolingian Central Europe, 400–750 and Tools, Weapons and Ornaments, Germanic Material Culture in Pre-Carolingian Central Europe , the conditions preparing theadvent of the Carolingians have already been outlined. The bookcontinues to be an investigation into the material culture against anintroductory background to historical developments tracing the for-mation of the Carolingian realm, at the end of which the beginnings

of a coherent cultural history of Central Europe will begin to crys-tallize. The attempt will be made to trace the consolidation of theirholdings, observe their establishment of the realm, their very com-plex attempts to expand, unify and maintain it as a Christian domin-ion, only to accommodate the internal and external crises by resorting to an administrative partition of their empire in order to maximizethe available regional resources. Only as a result of the partition willthe eastern kingdom evolve towards an identi able Central Europeanentity. As was pointed out earlier, the advent of the Carolingiansalso entails a horizon in the funerary inventories: with the completedChristianization the funerary inventories have been discontinued. Asa result the material evidence has changed. In contrast with the pre-vious volumes, which dealt primarily with artifacts and generallyunwritten evidence, this book will examine pictorial aspects of theilluminated literature. Instead of the earlier portable art, which waspart of grave inventories, the emphasis now rests on the products of the more private cloister arts deposited in the libraries and treasuriesof Central Europe. These represent primarily the portable arts of the monastic, scribal culture—largely religious, illuminated manu-scripts, surviving examples of secular literature, and such examplesof Carolingian liturgical art as is represented by ivories, engraved



xxiv

crystals, gems and work with precious metals in the service of agrandiose idea. A reform of the church, the priesthood and of the

liturgy was to help realize the Imperium Christianumon earth. However,the church hierarchy was a branch of the aristocracy and hencerestrictions were imposed as barriers to the laity, limiting the accessand participation to those in the service of the church. The widerpublic had to be content with architecture, such public edi ces asthe interiors of churches, basilicas and any wall paintings to helpthem bring key images of their faith to life while at the same timealtar screens and ring crypts denied the common folk close involve-ment with the mass and with the saints and their relics other thanas distanced spectators. The splendor of the palace interiors wouldagain have been reserved for the select few.

The attempt is made here to focus as much as is possible on thecontributions of the eastern parts to the whole of the Carolingianempire, on those parts, which will come to constitute the East FrankishKingdom. This attempt will not be totally successful owing to themuch greater availability of West Frankish resources. Because of itspast, the west was the much richer part. In some sectors the east

was to come to play important roles. In such areas as the supply of human and material resources and the provision of staging areas of operation, in the thrust of eastward expansion, missionary work andthe consolidation of the economic utilization of and the urbaniza-tion in the new eastern territories, the east rendered its share. Inthe establishment of new missionary and civilizational centers there,and the interrelationship among these eastern centers, their contri-bution to the advancement of Christianity, literacy, scholarship, schol-arly and diplomatic leadership for the entire realm was mani-fold.The eastern monastic establishments shared in the preservation, mul-tiplication and distribution of the Classical literary heritage and madenoteworthy original contributions to the secular and vernacular lit-erature of the East Frankish Kingdom.

Contained within the historical mantle this book off ers an illus-trated investigation of the artistic, literary and architectural activitiesin Carolingian Central Europe. The choice of illustrations was madein accordance with certain themes and materials, without any claimto completeness. Nor can the claim be made that all of the objectsdiscussed originated in Central Europe. Some of the portable objectsare clearly West Frankish and have merely ended up in the EastFrankish realm owing to their own particular circumstances. Archi-



xxv

tectural examples were of course limited in this regard to CentralEurope, though links and in uences to other locations can be demon-

strated. In some instances the evidence itself provided the lead. Atall times it was considered that the individual surviving object borea tremendous responsibility, that as individual examples they couldnot convincingly be regarded as typical, yet had to serve that pur-pose. In view of problematic communications it remains an openquestion what in uence the various objects could have had on oneanother over time and distance, what e ff ect the words and thoughtsof theologians and politicians could have had on the artists and theirworks, and to what extent they responded to current events.

This book is arranged in three parts. Part A deals with a histor-ical overview concerning the Carolingian rise to power, their aim toestablish the Imperium Christianumby means of a recon guration of the imperial idea as a realization of the Heavenly Kingdom on earth,culminating in the coronation with a Christian imperial dignity ratherthan that of the Rome of the Caesars. This recon guration includedthe elevation of the ruler to the majestic representation of the sac-erdotal personage. A blending of the Christian and secular elements

encouraged a recapitulating continuity of many cultural facets fromthe Germanic and Classical past, in part a restoration, renovationand con rmation of these traditions resulting in the generation of amodi ed, even original Carolingian identity, the so-called CarolingianRenaissance , an often questioned term. The continuing existence inthe population of the earlier Roman and Germanic cultural elitesfavored this process of transmission and transformation, which includedliturgical, cultural and secular reforms. These included the empha-sis on the heritage of a legitimate continuity of the dynasty, want-ing to see in it the intervention of the divine will. The eff ort endedwith crises and the ultimately unsuccessful attempt to establish thesuccession of a single heir to the throne. For administrative reasonsCharlemagne’s grandsons divided the unwieldy empire between them.There were occasional reuni cations, but the idea of the unitedChristian realm weakened as it lost its practicality and ability torespond to internal and external threats. Nevertheless it was too earlyto see in the eastern part of the realm the beginnings of Germany,even when one of its rulers was called ‘the German’.

Part B deals with the con rmation of a cultural identity by engag-ing in a search for an established heritage. It was appreciated thatdeveloping a basis in education was the priority. Beginning with the



xxvi

acquisition of such book making skills as the preparation of parch-ment as a writing surface, of inks and pigments, and nally its bind-

ing as a book. Since all this could not be done by any one enthusiasticindividual, a cost effi cient context had to come into being with time.Only some monasteries evolved to provide the hierarchical infra-structure, which could secure the materials with which to make abook, the human resources to inscribe it and the technical skills tobind it. In general there were no resources outside the monasticenvironment to accomplish this task. In time the monasteries devotedtheir available skills to the illumination of gospel pages, including whole picture pages of evangelists and rulers, and the making of pre-cious book covers, mainly of such liturgical art as gospels, sacra-mentaries, lectionaries and psalters—ivories re ected antique models,space lling engravings and gem encrusted metal surfaces. Astonishing is the available supporting wealth and its opportune con uence withmuch extraordinary talent to carry out such work. In the west thecourt and the speci c interest of members of the imperial familypromoted the work in the arts. The need for self-justi cation along with the desire to claim continuity with previous traditions may have

contributed to this sponsorship. While this need was less urgentlyexpressed in the East Frankish realm, within a relatively short timethe interrelation between the monasteries there were capable of mak-ing major contributions in all these elds.

Part C concentrates on the architectural achievements that canstill be identi ed. Palatial architecture can only be reconstructed bymeans of the identi cation of foundation outlines and the occasionalarchitectural fragments. Owing to the continuing exercise of the faith,church architecture demonstrated greater endurance and thus pro-vides a better residual picture as religious structures have survivedentirely or at least in signi cant identi able parts. In some instancesparts or even all of the decorations of the interiors were preserved.Architecture was well suited to illustrate the intellectual and liturgi-cal concerns about the continuity of style from late Classical toCarolingian times, as the Classical orders of columns and capitalswere either imported from the south or replicated. As stone struc-tures in a world of wooden construction, their interiors projectedwell the idea of a celestial dimension on earth.

It is not the intention to examine the theoretical texts of the dayfor their statements concerning the cultural objectives. Rather it is



xxvii

the purpose of this project to examine the cloister arts and craftsfor their visual statements and themes and to see if these ‘wordless

texts’ supported the educational expectations of an intellectually andspiritually projected Imperium Christianum.



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my thanks to Brock University for giving meoffi ce space and secretarial help to prepare my manuscript. I owespecial thanks to Dean Rosemary Hale and to Prof. J.M. Miller, ourAssociate Vice-President, Research, for making available to me such nancial support as was possible.

Once again I would like to recognize my colleague, Professor Barry Joe, for courageously facing each electronic challenge with which Ipresented him and also for preparing the nishing details of thisbook. I am greatly indebted to my cousin A.G. Kahlert, Korneuburg,Austria, who many years ago coordinated my thousands of pho-tographs by means of an eff ective, cross-referenced, computerizedindex, facilitating greatly the veri cation and classi cation of objects,their provenance and present location. My thanks also go to Ms.

Julia Babos for much computer imaging during the preparation of

the manuscript.I am also grateful to the staff of the Interlibrary Loan Departmentof our Library for its effi cient assistance in obtaining essential sources.I would like to thank Dr. Bruno Reudenbach, Professor of Art Historyat the University of Hamburg, for his quick clari cation concerning the Godescalc Gospel. I would like to regognize the hospitality Ireceived in the Manuscript Collection of the Österreichische National-bibliothek, when examining the work of Hrabanus Maurus. I amindebted to the two anonymous readers for Brill Academic Publisherswhose suggestions greatly helped to improve this volume.

I am grateful to Mr. Julian Deahl, Editor, for his interest in thisproject and for accepting this book for publication, and to his edi-torial staff at Koninklijke Brill Academic Publishers, Leiden, for guid-ing the manuscript through the production process. Once again Iam especially grateful to Ms. Marcella Mulder, Assistant Editor, forall of her help and encouragement. I would also like to thank Ms.Ingrid Heijckers for meticulous attention to detail.

My wife Alice, an active scholar in her own right, has accompa-nied me on the necessary journeys. In the many months which ittook to complete this book I could at all times count on her for-bearance. Without her patient and constant support, her nancial



xxx

compromises, this work would have been much more diffi cult tocomplete.

I dedicate this book to my brother Hart, whose surgical expertiseand that of his associates has made me physically capable to devotethe hours required to this book.

The completion of an illustrated book depends extensively on thegenerosity and active support of museums and libraries. Withouttheir cooperation, deadlines could not be met. I am grateful to thosedirectors who generously off ered corrections and permitted me touse my own photographs. I appreciate the effi ciency of the manyarchives which made their materials available for this book. I thankDr. Georg Minkenberg, Domkapitel Aachen. (Plates 10b, 33a, 33c;Figs. 23, 43a, b, c, d, 44a, b, c); the Staatsbibliothek Bamberg (Fig. 9);the Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique, Brussels (Plate 10a); N. Ludwig,Bildarchiv, Preußischer Kulturbesitz. (Plates 23a, 23b); D. Lange,Handschriftenabteilung, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin. (Plates 17a, 17b).Dr. R. Marth, Herzog Anton-Ulrich Museum, Braunschweig. (Figs.33, 34, 35); Dr. H. Swozilek, Vorarlberger Landesmuseum, Bregenz;Dr. Th. Jülich, Hessisches Landesmuseum, Darmstadt; Städtische

Gallerie, Liebighaus, Frankfurt. (Fig. 27); Dr. D. Zinke, AugustinerMuseum, Freiburg (Figs. 18, 38); S.E. Weihbischof J. Kapp, BistumFulda (Plate 32d); Manuela Beer, Curator, Schnütgen Museum, Köln;Dr. Hauke Fill, P. Petrus Schuster Benediktinerstift, Kremsmünster.(Plates 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 25a); The British Library,London. (Plates 14b, 20a, Fig. 8); The British Museum, London.(Figs. 16, 17); the Victoria and Albert Museum, London. (Fig. 22);Dr. Heide, Landesmuseum Mainz; Bildarchiv Foto Marburg, (Figs.2, 21); Dr. van Endert, Archaeologische Staatssammlung, München;Dr. M. Teichmann, Bayerische Verwaltung der staalichen Schlösser,Gärten und Seen, München. (Plate 28, Fig. 37); Dr. Montag, BayerischeStaatsbibliothek, München. (Plates 16a, 16b, 27a, 27b, Fig. 26);R. Sennhauser, Stiftung Pro Kloster St. Johann, Müstair, (Plates 29a,29b, 29c); the Pierpont Morgan Library, New York. (Plates 26a,26b); Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Nürnberg, (Fig. 36); Prof. Dr.M. Wemhoff , Museum in der Kaiserpfalz, Paderborn; BibliothèqueNationale de France, Paris. (Plates 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b,8c, 9a, 9b, 13, 14a, 15a, 15b, 15c, 17c, 18a, 18b, 18c, 19a, 19b,19c, 19d); Musée du Louvre, Paris, (Figs. 39a, 39b); StiftsbibliothekSt. Gallen, (Plates 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 22a, 22b, 22c. Fig. 8, 29,30); Württembergische Landesbibliothek, Stuttgart. (Plates 20b, 20c,



xxxi

20d, 21a, 21b, 21c); Dr. R. Nolden, Stadtbibliothek Trier, (Plates11a, 11b, 11c, 11d); Dr. K. Van der Horst, University Library, Uni-

versiteit Utrecht (Figs. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15); KunsthistorischesMuseum, Wien. (Plates 12a, 12b, 12c, 12d, 24, Fig. 32); Öster-reichische Nationalbibliothek, Wien (Plates 1a, 1b, 1c, 21d); Dr.H.-G. Schmidt, Universitätsbibliothek Würzburg. (Fig. 31); A. Condrau,Schweizerisches Landesmuseum Zürich (Plate 29d).

Author’s plates and gures: (Plates 25b, 25c, 25d, 29, 30a, 30b,30c, 30d, 31a, 31b, 31c, 31d, 32a, 32b, 32c. Figures 1, 3, 6, 7, 19,20, 24, 25, 28, 40a, 40b, 40c, 41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 53a,53b, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60a, 60b, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67a, 67b, 68a,68b, 68c, 68d, 70a, 70b, 70c, 72a, 72b, 72c, 73, 74a, 74b, 74c, 75a,75b, 76, 77b, 78a, 78b, 78c, 78d, 79a, 79b, 80a, 80b, 80c).

I am indebted to Patricia Wilson for obtaining Figs. 4a and 4b,while in Rome, and to Helmut Herrmann for photographing Fig. 7,while in Budapest.



INTRODUCTION

This representation of the cultural history of Carolingian CentralEurope from 750–900, is part of an extensive investigation and thecontinuation of four earlier books published as The Prehistory of Germanic Europe, The Romans in Central Europe, The Germanic Realms in Pre-CarolingianCentral Europe, 400–750 and Tools, Weapons and Ornaments, Germanic

Material Culture in Pre-Carolingian Central Europe, 400–750 . The term‘Central Europe’ has been used deliberately in all of my work becauseit does not correspond with any traditional political or national bound-aries or histories. Modern ‘Frontier Studies’, but also works of CentralEuropean synthesis, including catalogues of international exhibitions,endorsed and sponsored by Central European governments, indicateclearly that boundaries, commonly understood to be national limits,have not been and are once again no longer clear lines of demar-cation between peoples and certainly not between cultures.

The material investigation of the earlier periods is to be contin-ued in other areas as the study of Germanic artifacts has been pre-sented previously and does not warrant a new e ff ort. The lives of the ‘people’ providing the background to the earlier investigationsand the lives and the artifacts themselves, such as Frankish pottery,did not undergo so signi cant a physical change in style during theCarolingian period that the di ff erentiations with earlier periods couldbe made visible. It has been demonstrated elsewhere that the con-tinuity of lifestyles with their accomplished cultural and socio-politicalachievements of earlier times did not actually merit the designation‘barbarian’. The isolation of a historical era runs the risk of pro-moting the view of an increasingly arti cial encapsulation. In thiscase all sorts of diverse substantial and ornamental elements livedon from early Celto-Germanic times, while the so-called migrationperiod generated a Romano-Germanic inventory of authentic objectsof striking beauty, which in their Merovingian guise passed into theCarolingian period, just as Carolingian aspects did not suddenly end

with the rise to power of the Ottonians. In Central Europe theCarolingian centuries t not only into a continuous dynastic sequence,but also into a cohesive, but changing stylistic continuum—the sequen-tial phases of Roman inspired Romanesque: experimental Carolingian,



2

maturing Ottonian, assured Salian and Hohenstaufen Romanesqueas re ected in the stylistic progressions of architecture, wall painting

murals, illuminations, ivories, bronzes, bejeweled gold and the portablearts with their various manifestations in the cloister and secular forms,making it quite clear that something di ff erent, new and multiculturalwas crystallizing. Without aiming to present the activities of the sur-

viving Gallo-Roman, Merovingian, related Carolingian culture car-rying elites exclusively, there is no deliberate attempt here to dealequally with a cross-section of Carolingian society.

The existence of a synthesis of the ‘language’ of important objectsand the language of signi cant primary and secondary texts hasalready been demonstrated in earlier work. In the Carolingian con-text, this language will nd expression in various ‘dialects’ and becomearticulated in various stages of development when considering theilluminated manuscripts, ivories and gem encrusted book covers. A dialogue is required in which the viewer is invited to participate opti-cally, mentally and emotionally, and to respond to the extent thatthe objects speak to his condition. Symbolic representations of theheavenly Jerusalem, whether in art or architecture, will fall short of

their ideal and will require a grasp of their pictorial vocabulary andsyntax, before they can become the intellectual projection of thematerial image into the abstract, dematerialized visionary idea. As asymbol it can never be in reality what it is as a symbol, an ideabeyond itself.

Furthermore, it is the aim here to continue, to the extent possi-ble, the emphasis on Central as opposed to Western Europe and toapproach the diversity of the cultural contributions of the regionfrom an interdisciplinary perspective and to attempt to show thecon uence of some areas of specialization usually considered in nearisolation. This is most evident in the extant architecture, which isin the public domain. However, owing to architecture’s incompleteand unrelated record, the simplistic language is that of an early ini-tiative and not entirely articulate. Too many buildings have beenlost, remodeled, razed and rebuilt, to provide us with a coherentstylistic statement. Though much has also been lost in the cloisterarts as well, this is less the case in the portable arts, preserved inmuseums and in church and state treasuries, such as the rare man-uscripts and illuminations, which are secured in state and universitylibraries. Europe is the bene ciary of its regionalism in the sense



3

1 N. Staubach, REX CHRISTIANUS, Hofkultur und Herrschaftspropaganda im Reich Karls des Kahlen. Teil II: Die Grundlegung der ‘religion royale’ (Cologne, Weimar, Vienna1993), pp. 2 ff . for a comprehensive review of the pertinent discussion in the literature.

that many of its regional centers house collections of great impor-tance by artists working with such luxuries as parchment, precious

stones and metals, with portable and monumental art, with colorsand forms, and in wood, stone or bronze which indicate a conti-nuity of their own within a widely ranging diversity of the culturalinventory, but a discontinuity with the Roman past.

The Carolingian period re ects a complex, fertile and often para-doxical process, full of creative tensions, because of its continuing proximity to antique Classical models, its sensitivity to its Germanicheritage and the requirements of Christianity. Great political vio-lence and individual cruelty coexisted with cultural and spiritualintentions of the highest order. The investigation of the latter tendsto eclipse the former until a civilizational mosaic is achieved in whichCelto-Germanic attitudes and approaches were reconciled with theChristian classical heritage. A search of the literature reveals thatolder discussions of the period were satis ed to have found a reduc-tionist common denominator in the Caroliongian link with the Classicalpast. While one had once sought historical change as the e ff ectivenessof the ‘great man’, one had similarly attributed the astonishing phe-

nomenon of the Carolingian Renaissance , to the presence of one ‘greatman’ and his ‘great family’, with the individual and collective insightto value the link with the Christian Classical past. That literaturewas judgmental and burdened with the ‘barbarian’ concept whichdenied the ‘Germanic’ contribution to the early Middle Ages anymerit. In the search for continuity they saw new artistic work asderivative and unoriginal and sought the validation of the Carolingianperiod in its rediscovery of late Roman dynamics, classical values,rather than as an attempt at social reform by means of educationalreform, hence the emphasis on the component ingredients of the so-called Carolingian Renaissance .1 The very varied regional evidence doesnot allow a simplifying label, but despite the nature of the hetero-geneous evidence a con uence can not be observed. Instead thedependence on an obvious classical heritage was overly emphasized,occasional similarities were termed indebtedness to the past, and theevidence was over-interpreted to support the single-minded histori-cal purpose that, intent on the creation of a worldly empire, the



4

Carolingian courts sponsored only a derivative, self-serving pro-Romanagenda, which justi ed the means and intentionally channeled all

military, political and cultural activity toward an end which aimedto establish a uni ed, homogeneous, Carolingian, sacerdotal, mono-lithic state in this world, by means of a ‘Roman Revival’, of a reno-vatio imperii within a ‘unifying renaissance’ as an end in itself withina given time. One may well ask, how extensive and penetrating thisradiant brilliance of the courtly environment actually shone on thepopulace, or whether the patronage was the reserve of a relativelysmall circle of initiates. It did not endure for long. The a ffi nity withthe Christian Roman Empire was not entirely appreciated in the lit-erature, while the inspirational contribution toward an independent,innovative theological Carolingian inventiveness was largely over-looked. Admittedly the rupture with late antiquity was not that com-plete, and a residual admiration of things Roman remained among the descendant Roman populations, such as that of the surviving Christian basilicas. But for it to be ‘reborn’, an unlikely and intenseattachment to the past would have had to exist which demandedsuch a renaissance to happen. The indications are that the medieval

inhabitants of the old Roman sites were not so awed by the Romanedi ces around them that they did not use them as quarries, in orderto obtain building materials for the chapel in Aachen, for instance,and dismantle even the forti cations of cities for their content of iron cleats, which instead of mortar, were holding the building stonestogether, as they did with the Roman gates in Trier. Had St. Simeonnot walled himself into the ‘Porta Nigra’, later to be transformedinto a church, it would not still be standing.

Since the late 1980s new studies have been prepared, which showthat the available material, especially essential documentary evidencehas been subjected to a kaleidoscopic twist and that makes appar-ent that the Carolingian objective, including the conquests and theeducational reforms, aimed for the establishment of a reformed uni-

versal Christian society on this earth based on spiritually ecclesiasti-cal Christian values, the Imperium Christianum, toward which the culturalcomponents constituting the so-called Renaissance were only a facili-tating means. Following St. Boniface’s subordination of the EastFrankish church to papal Rome, it follows that the Roman heritagein its Christian guise would be a strong in uence on East Frankishcultural developments. It appears that the intention to channel allcreative e ff orts into the realization of a Christian realm became a



5

realizable pursuit in Charlemagne’s mind following his assumptionof sole power in the realm, toward the middle of the 770s, well

before the start of his political and military actions. To achieve thisend a determined Charlemagne assembled about his own person allof the activating spiritual, material and energized human resourcesavailable to him—the saints as ‘Soldiers of Christ’, religious leaders,theologians, scholars, especially teachers and designers of curricula,artists and architects, builders, craftsmen, and all those inspiring orga-nizers, implementers and facilitators who could give impetus andcoherence to the ideas and ideals and perform the required peda-gogical task and who would contribute their motivating energies tothe realization of his grandiose design. Charles himself acted as intel-lectual catalyst to promote its success. The inherent weakness andpractical vulnerability lay in its dependence on the initiator. Thestrengths rested on the e ff ective organizational support given to theeducational reforms by the church. The brilliance of the culturalresults was so great that it allowed the objectives and achievementsto be considered a self-su ffi cient phenomenon to such an extent thatsubsequently Charlemagne’s actual purpose, the ideal Imperium Christia-

num, was eclipsed by the reality of these achievements. In that viewthe Biblical associations of Carolingian names, the association of theFranks with the new people of Christ, the Populus Christianus , of Aachenwith a new Athens, a new Rome, a New Jerusalem even, the ele-

vation of an adapted San Vitale in Ravenna to represent the Heavenly Jerusalem in the palace Chapel of Aachen, were held to be a curi-ous vanity. Once the idea of an Imperium Christianumon earth isaccepted as a coherent intention, the vanities are no longer curious,but integral components of the grand cathartic design to reform andedify society. That it was deemed a success is veri ed by the cul-mination of Charlemagne’s coronation as emperor within the Christianrealm. Unfortunately Louis the Pious was not able to cope with thechallenge to the long term detriment of the united realm.

It is the intention here to continue the exploration of the com-plex blending of the religious and secular relationships in their diver-sity set against an historical background. These diverse and apparentlydiverging intercultural relationships are re ected in some of the extantarchitecture, the arts and crafts commissioned primarily within thecontext of the culture conscious court and by the culture-carrying institutions and the various levels of society as the cultural heritageof the Christian Roman Empire and of the Celto-Germanic north



6

were each recon gured by the other. That is not to say that a uni-form set of directives for focused artistic production issued from the

courts, however Charlemagne’s will was to constitute the catalyst forthe creative crystallizations. Except for the underlying will of theking, it was rather a pluralistic, loosely coordinated recapitulating expression of the diverse social interests, which made up the culture-carrying elites. Its apparent coherence is a product of history. During the Carolingian Period the centuries-old, non-verbal Celto-Germanicdecorative styles, which already had adapted Roman, chip carved,ornamental patterns, are replaced only gradually. Instead of contin-uing the largely incomprehensible, ornamental northern intertwineof abstract, curvilinear, vegetative and animal complexes of surfacecovering and spacelling ornamentation, already found on someRoman military metal work, Germanic personal ornaments andportable art, the Celtic, Anglo -Saxon and other Germanic Stylesfound use on the largely ‘private art’ of Christian religious vesselsand in the exquisitely illuminated gospels containing the continuoustexts of the evangelists, and sacramentaries containing the texts of prayers and ritual directives of the mass. The so-called Carolingian

recapitulation blurred the contours of the component northern,Christian and Classical elements till there developed comprehensi-ble, often original, creative summarizing emphases on the imaging principles of representational art for educational purposes. These,however, were not on behalf of learning for learning’s sake, but onbehalf of learning for the sake of the Christian People, for Christianity’ssake. The cultural inventory could be recycled if its utility within thegrandiose design was no longer evident. Heavily in uenced by theadmiration of the art forms of the Romano-Mediterranean cultures,this discovery and recovery served a wide range of cultural activi-ties, or better Renovatio.It favors the didactic, pedagogical use of aninnovative, anthropomorphic, homocentric, representational narrative.It is engagé , message-oriented religious, Christian, and political art,best illustrated on coins after 804 and cut seals, as part of a Mediter-raneanizationduring the Christianizing revolution of the Carolingianand later Ottonian ‘renaissances’. The Christian message, of course,was primarily based on the spoken and written word, hence theemphasis on the sumptuous page covered with the precious andsacred Word , thereby presenting the reader with a reciprocity of over-whelming visual and edifying intellectual e ff ects. As part of the litur-gical reform, Christian religious art, the images of Christ and the



7

Evangelists, was intended to help focus the attention of the ChristianPeople on the audible message of Christ’s death for the sake of their

salvation, a dogma proclaimed through the Word in the Scriptures.A central factor was the reform of the worldly and hence faltering Merovingian Frankish church toward that end and the replacementthrough the Romanization, or what was perceived to be the Romanrite, of the Merovingian liturgical practice as part of the Carolingianliturgical reforms and their e ff ect on all aspects of an individual’scultural, physical and spiritual life, on ideas concerning death andon all society. The Carolingian church, especially in the Easternrealm, even in Bavaria, was to be the chief support of the state ina symbiotic relationship. Hence the key factor for the Renovatiois tobe found within this reform. It was to provide the recapitulating framework within which the diverse cultural pluralism could evolveits particular divergent ways. A total rupture with the past had notoccurred. A directed program, promoted by a few individuals atcourt, conceiving an undivided political and cultural entity is notnecessary, to praise the cultural accomplishments during the Carolingianperiod. That is not to say, that a universalist vision, derived from

the admiration of Romano-Christian examples, played a motivating role, for not all held that vision. Such political unity as came intobeing within the complex framework of the Carolingian realm allowedfor considerable originality, as well as the recapitulatory continuityand relative freedom to modify the cultural diversity within it. Inthe eastern parts of the Frankish realm there can be no question of a rebirth, as one can observe adoption, adaptation and innovationbecause there was little commensurate indigenous substantive her-itage on which to draw, other than a probable Germanic worldview.Yet the region to the east of Austrasia and the Rhine was not acultural void. It had encountered Christianity on various occasions.Those regions, which had once been part of the Roman Empire,retained pockets of Christianized Latini . Tribal areas within theOstrogothic sphere of in uence will have introduced the various tribalgroups to Arianism. Subsequently integrated into the Merovingiankingdom Christianity was reintroduced by the individual e ff orts of such peregrinating Hiberno-Scots as Columban, Kilian and Gallus,until displaced by successfully coordinated Anglo-Saxon missionariesand the comprehensive missionary church organization of St. Boni-face, sanctioned by the papacy. Open to a variety of in uences, theregion’s link with Christian Rome was consolidated. Interspersed by



9

ivories were the Carolingian rediscovery of an abandoned Romanart form. Already queen Theodelinda’s gospel cover had provided

evidence of the conversion to a classical sense of rational and con-trolled surface ornamentation. The Vitae of saints, missionaries andking/emperors followed earlier classical examples; the symbolism of catacomb and basilica art as well as the pagan (Roman) personi cationswere adopted, actually reinvented by the Carolingians in such Christianart as the ivory carvings. The style of representing majesty or ele-

vated status was borrowed from the mosaics of Roman prototypes;the transfer of the idea of the Cosmocrator from Roman imperial rep-resentations to the Majestas effi gies of Christ, as illustrated on theLombardic helmet band of king Agilulf, and the return of this Romanrepresentation of the imperial pictorial image under the heirs of Charlemagne and to a Byzantine version under the descendants of Otto I. The introduction of the abstract sacerdotal concepts in thenew and universal Imperium Christianumdisplaced the concrete Mero-

vingian notion of the kingdom as personal property. The strategy of applying such symbolic practices as the anointing of the Carolingianimperial head, of Charles the Bald, for instance, who was never actu-

ally shown to be ‘Bald’, was a deliberate attempt to develop at ahigher level the continuity associations with the Old Testament kings, rst appreciated by those around his grandfather Charlemagne. Theliturgical imperial acclamation formulas echoed Germanic/Romantribal/military practices, while the ever-increasing emphasis on a bril-liant, o ffi cial, iconographic depiction of imperial ‘ruler portraits’ onpropagandistic display pages in manuscripts and on coins. Theseserved to elevate the image, the ideal of the medieval imperial rulerin the tradition of the Roman emperors and reestablish earlier ideasof the sacerdotal essence of the ruler, in the Imitatio sacerdotii . In theFrankish realms the Gallo-Roman cultural elites had survived in thechurch and come to dominate its institutions where they succeededin the transmission of at least some of the Classical ideals of cultureand civilization in their Christian end phase, resulting in that syn-ergetic collaboration between church and state, so that already inMerovingian times the scriptoria of the great monasteries could sup-ply the rulers with resplendent, dedicated manuscripts.

Charlemagne appears to have attempted to emphasize the legiti-macy of his rule and its continuity from earlier imperial times bydrawing links with Theoderic the Great, Roman Patricius and Viceroyof the emperor in Constantinople, and transporting his equestrian



10

statue along with the Classical porphyry columns and the generalsymbolic plan of the Byzantine church of San Vitale in Ravenna,

named after the bishop Vitalius, the last capital of the West RomanEmpire, to Aachen, Charlemagne’s own capital. All were erected inthe new palace complex, the church to become his palace church.These concerns found expression in other architectural examples aswell. Later emperors deliberately emulated Charlemagne and fos-tered this show of continuity with him, with the late Roman emper-ors Constantine, Theodosius and Justinian and especially with favorablerulers of the Old and New Testaments. Nor is there evidence thatCharlemagne intended to renew the Rome of the early Caesars, andhe had no consistent policy in place to promote the cohesive pro-gram of a Roman restoration. These are just some of the themes,which were seen to have contributed to the intellectual concerns of the Carolingian Renewal . Were the concerns for continuity and legit-imacy the motivating factors for the generous patronage, which sup-ported the Renovatio? While other intangible considerations were mostprobably involved, the concerns over legitimacy o ff er an acceptablerationale, especially if clothed in the motivation aiming to establish

the Imperium Christianum. To bolster the concerns over the justi cationof the usurpation of the Frankish throne, the possibilities providedby tradition and the glory of association with such an admirable goalas a projected glorious society on earth, which included the inspi-ration o ff ered by Classical Christian examples was seen to have ledthe dynasty to use and emulate past achievements. It is signi cantthat hitherto the support of the arts had been attributed to the imme-diate members of the dynasty, of the Carolingian courts and theirrespective creative centers, the so-called Palace Schools, of the Caro-lingian church and its foundations. The ‘court’ may not deserve tobe singled out as the sole driving force of the renewal. This is par-ticularly the case when considering the proli c court school of Charlesthe Bald and its catering to his representationally amboyant tastes,when compared to the modest taste of his brother Ludwig, theGerman, a designation given him by the much later Humanists. The attering image of the enthroned Charles created by the artists whosupposedly surrounded him is in marked contrast to his vengeful,cruel and barely mediocre deserts as a monarch. Ludwig will appearto be the much better ruler, despite a lack of image making. In theservice of the dynasty is it therefore just to speak of ‘CarolingianArt’? A need for image, to express continuity with past greatness



11

and to use it as a means to claim and promote new greatness mayhave spurred a nostalgic sense of heritage in the search for equal-

ity with Classical Rome. Role models were readily available, as wasthe talent to be assembled with which to implement the transferfrom Roman times. Classical texts and their copies preserved in themonasteries provided the necessary directives for use in an inventiverediscovery of early Christian antiquity. As the copies were passedfrom site to site, they became models and stimulated imitation andemulation. For some early works the models appear to have beenlost, though stylistic comparisons point to their former existence. Onefrequently, perhaps needlessly, looks for them in Byzantium or north-ern Italy. The same question is often raised concerning the originof the artists.

In at least one sense the idea of a classical renewal was a (mod-ern?) intellectual trap. On the one hand the nostalgic wish to redis-cover the splendid past and mold it to establish continuity with it,became a dominant cultural preoccupation of modern historians. Onthe other hand, latent contrary, discontinuous and divergent ten-dencies remained to surface at unexpected moments, to be registered

with surprise. With these one tried to make the case for disconti-nuity brought on by the Germanic recon guration of the successorkingdoms, recurrences of style, the recall of heroic generation myths,made to equal those of the Romans, a dissociation from the distantpagan Roman Empire, the former Imperium Romanum, and for a newGermanic Imperium Christianum, in which the Franks had displacedthe Romans and now played the select role of ‘the chosen people’,the people of the ‘New Covenant’, of the ‘New Israel’. In more orless subtle ways these tenacious, seemingly contrary tendencies didnot let themselves be extinguished but remained as the combinedforces, which provided the justi cations for the Carolingian empire.Erroneously it is frequently seen as an attempted end phase of theRoman Empire and confused with the later Holy Roman Empire,as if the three were a continuum. The Carolingian empire is quitedistinct from either. Each of them placed its own particular accents.

The idea of a centralized Carolingian empire, equally uni edthroughout is something of a ction, which was only the intentionof some and did not survive its own inner tensions. It should notbe overlooked that since Merovingian times, tribal law codes, suchas those of the Bavarians, Alemans and Lombards provided the legalbasis for regional identities, so that the divisions did not resemble



12

chaotic disintegrations. The circumstances of an early withdrawalfrom the active world and a series of premature deaths made Charle-

magne and Louis the Pious sole successors, not a deliberate design.Subsequent regional problems in an overextended realm requiredregional responses, for instance, to deal with the very many coinci-dent attacks by Scandinavians, Slavs, Hungarians and the forces of Islam. As a result of the inner weaknesses, which in part invited theexternal attacks from the north, east and south, the center of Europewas reconstituted by division into sub-kingdoms in order to deal withthe needs of each region more e ff ectively within the construct of theunited empire. The persuasion that even kingdoms were again per-sonal property to be treated accordingly when needs of inheritancewere to be met, as well as the need for regional administrativeeffi ciency played a signi cant role in the various partitions. Theobjective was the welfare of the whole and its community of inter-ests through the e ff ective rule over its parts. Similar to its Romanpredecessor, the Carolingian empire bene ted as long as its econ-omy received such infusions as spoils of conquest could provide.While looting the Saxons will have contributed relatively little, with

the transfer of the entire and immense treasure of the Avars intoFrankish hands, the bene ts will have been extensive, especially con-tributing to the upward mobility within the ranks of the aristocracy.Expansion by conquest, too much, too quickly, destabilized the socio-economic and social structures. When the conquests were halted,these structures revealed their weaknesses as the inadequate andoverextended system of communications failed, and as the centralauthority lost its power of territorial apportionment to its great lords,who now in nearly hereditary positions turned on one another, asparticular interests gained priority over those of the realm and asthe uncoordinated regions became vulnerable. Strong enough toharass one another, left to their own resources, they lacked adequatehuman, material and communicative means to respond e ff ectively toattacks from outside. The idea of the universal empire survived asImperium Christianum, in which the pope came to play the role of Pontifex maximus , the supreme ruler.

Against a generally familiar historical background, but with a viewto presenting an interdisciplinary study of the social and culturaldevelopment of Central Europe up to the beginning of the 10th cen-tury, it is the purpose of this study to discuss the material with thescribal cultural evidence from Carolingian times, 750–900, as pre-



13

served in that area of Central Europe which had once constitutedthe Carolingian empire and its spheres of in uence and to suggest

that at its end, a coherent cultural entity began to come into being.It is this material evidence, which is fundamental to my methodol-ogy of reading and interpreting the “language” of signi cant objectsas a complementary commentary on the language of signi cant texts.While objects are characterized by certain disinterestedness, texts areprone to be tendentious. The inventories are rich with the archeo-logical evidence of rural and urban settlements deposited in muse-ums, the churches and museums contain extensive and masterfulcollections of decorative friezes, portals, gures, animals and columncapitals in the round and as reliefs, on altar screens, for instance, of such religious portable art as altars, gem-encrusted crosses and book covers, reliquaries, monstrances, enamels, utensils, ivories and wallpaintings. In the libraries su ffi cient rare illuminated manuscripts havebeen preserved to allow extensive insights into the work of the greatscriptoria of the area and of the individual masters working east of the river Maas and north of the Alps to proclaim the early gloria et victoria of their imperial, royal or religious patrons. Even fragments

of secular texts have survived to indicate a direction taken by thatliterature. Owing to the circumstance that the portable arts using ivory, parchment, pigments, gems and precious metals are mostclosely linked with the very complex and expensive production of religious books, such could not be produced as a whim, but requireda supportive network of patrons and sponsors. As will become appar-ent below, some exemplary books were prepared as royal and epis-copal commissions, others as gifts for the princes of the state andchurch by wealthy individuals, many others were prepared by thenetwork of monastic scriptoria from available manuscripts as copiesrequested by other religious institutions, coupled with an advancedsupply of raw materials. This was a very elaborate process indeed.The artistry of the scribes, illuminators, the gold- and bronze smithsand the ivory- and glass carvers, as well as the architects, have leftspectacular examples of their skills in the service of the church, thestate and their representatives. A review, analysis and discussion of these works attempts to provide a basis for stylistic comparisons inorder to suggest an image of the period. Because the scribes wereoften identical with the illuminators, the terms will be used inter-changeably, though the work of the scribes, some of them are evenknown by name, the script, in the production of a manuscript is not



14

our concern, while the work of the illuminator/miniaturist invari-ably is. It is on the pages of text, however, that the coexistence of

Celto-Germanic ornamentation of the capital display initials of theincipit pages of the Coronation Gospels, for instance, appears in thecontext of classical lettering of the text.

Secular architecture in stone is extant in only a few meager exam-ples from the period under investigation. Wood was the usual build-ing material of choice. By tracing the excavation of stone foundationsarcheology has been able to rediscover the outlines, but can onlyconjecture about the superstructures, mainly of the royal residences.However, even these were subject to neglect and decay, or chang-ing tastes. The earlier forti cations, called mottes , consisting of raisedmounds surrounded by wooden palisades and moats have generallynot survived as such, having been abandoned and hence eroded orbeen integrated into later forti cations. By necessity then, stone archi-tecture in the service of the church and its institutions will bear theemphasis of the discussion allowing for the fact that the surviving examples seem to be examples of immature abilities which havecome to bear perhaps an undue burden of responsibility. Stone archi-

tecture is, of course, an evident link with Rome.This representation of cultural history tries to discuss the coexis-tent arrangement of this vast, complex array of material. The mod-ern tendency has been the presentation of specialized studies of illustrations, art or architecture, or political history and so forth,allowing stand-alone investigations to exist in isolation. This inter-cultural/interdisciplinary study, dealing with the socio-cultural his-tory of this central region, especially in the context of the recon guredUnited Europe—mainly eastern France, Germany, Italy, and Switzer-land—aims to examine many aspects pertaining to this period of about one hundred and fty years. The teaching and writing of History is drifting away from the preoccupation with chronology andnational histories.

The book is organized in several parts dealing with a selection of the available evidence associated with the Carolingians. As a depar-ture from the method of the previous volumes, this book will notreturn to such aspects of the everyday culture as revealed by anyarcheological evidence. The book begins with an historical overviewof the period, raising such issues as pertain to the historical signi canceof the emerging collaborative relationship between church and stateand the manner in which the various agencies contributed to the



15

development. Once the Carolingian empire is shown to have beenstabilized within its dimensions, once the problems of existence and

rudimentary organization are shown to have been overcome andtime, energy and the necessary resources had become available, thediscussion will turn to an analysis of the contributions made by theCarolingians to the cultural consolidation of the political imperialideal through their generous patronage applied to the general cul-tural themes and particular contexts. Alcuin had recommended theimage of the Temple of Christian Wisdom for which the Christianizedliberal arts provided the essential seven pillars. 2 The arts, as exam-ples of con uent pre-existent realities, were a suitable means to tes-tify to a higher end, a divine purpose. Generous patronage encouragedthe recapitulation and application of the northern and Mediterraneanheritage and the rediscovery and emulation of Biblical and Classicalexamples and the search for a degree of glory by association withthe Classical Christian past. With the support of the growing scribalculture, religious and secular literature, the cloister arts, wall paint-ings, book illuminations of a religious and secular nature, the devel-opment of narrative techniques in literature and the arts, the religious

portable arts such as the precise glass engraving and the nearly per-fect ivory carvings, spectacular gem encrustations, outstanding metalwork and remarkable architecture were able to ourish. Thus thisbook will outline the Carolingians’ creation of their political and cul-tural power base and their claim and ascent to the royal throne of the Frankish realms outlining the transition from Merovingian toCarolingian times and illustrating the elements of cultural continu-ity within the context of the Imperium Christianum. As prime exam-ples of the nobility’s upward mobility, the deliberate, propagandisticattempts by the Carolingians to distinguish their superiority from the‘inferiority’ of their Merovingian predecessors by depicting themunjustly as underdeveloped, illiterate ‘pagans’ and through their ownsponsorship of the Christian dominion strengthen their own claimto legitimacy in order to use and further the promotion of visibleconnections with the late, Christianized Gallo-Roman parts of theempire and the Old Testament. The interests of the ecclesiasticaland secular orders in the renewals, continuities and innovations inthe style and subject matter of religious literature and art, and the

2 J.J. Contreni, Carolingian Learning, Masters and Manuscripts (Gower House, Brook eld1992), pp. I, 11; III, 71; IV, 85; VI, 4.



16

liturgical and architectural links with Roman imperial traditions willultimately characterize the enduring e ff ects of the Carolingian ‘Renais-

sance’ and the relative appropriateness of this term. While they over-looked the wide range of deep roots in fertile Merovingian traditionsand practices, they did know how to attract a signi cant number of idealists and pragmatists, of men of vision and insight, of intellectand re ned tastes, of talent and skill, to help bring about the Renovatio.



18

From that perspective the overthrow of the Merovingians would notbe usurpation, but a justi cation. What sustained the belief in the

Merovingian ‘sacred kingship’? Its basis rested on the mythical ori-gin of the dynasty from a territorial pagan maritime divinity in theshape of a bull, the Quinotaur and the magical power hidden inthe long hair as well as the ‘Trojan’ origin of the Franks. 1 Part of the Roman heritage was the belief in the separation of person andfunction, which implied the acceptance of the o ffi ce holder withoutregard to that person’s e ff ectiveness. Personal qualities did not mat-ter. Like Constantine, the Merovingian king was considered there ection of God on Earth. The succession to the kingship couldnever be anything but the expression of a higher will, of the cog-nition of a revealed, divine truth, since there were no other proce-dures in place to identify the heirs. In a divinely ordained world,kingdoms and empires were pre-existent truths, which did not needto be ruled by monarchs who personally wielded political power.Their function was considered to be symbolic. What was necessarywas that they existed. However, in the real world the divinely ordained,symbolic power was seen to diminish until it was lost, as the youth

and inherent vulnerability of too many of the later Merovingian kingsstrained the acceptance of this symbolic function and power, andpromoted the gradual marginalization of the royal personages. Cer-tainly the pagan basis had waned as well as the pagan symbolismwas replaced by a Christian symbolism. The fact that Charles Martelcould leave the royal throne unoccupied by a Merovingian woulddemonstrate this transition. The process was facilitated by the Mero-

vingian understanding that the realm was a personal possession, whichcould be dealt with subjectively and divided more or less arbitrarilywithout regard to any natural processes of cohesion of any of theparts. On the other hand royal in uence and power were depen-dent on the kings’ favors and his distribution of gifts in the form of temporary rewards quite subject to recall. In other words, the king was the realm. Royal impotence and impoverishment called the king-dom into question. The idea of the realm as a political entity, whichexisted apart from the person of the king, was not considered by

1

J.L. Nelson, The Frankish World, 750–900 (London, Rio Grande 1996) provides acompact overview of the period in the Introduction to the book of her essays. Seeespecially the Ch. 10, ‘Rewriting the History of the Franks’, pp. 169 ff . H. Schutz,Germanic Realms in Pre-Carolingian Central Europe, 400–750 (New York, Berne, Frankfurta. M. 2000), pp. 152f., 218 ff . See also H. Schutz, Tools, Weapons and Ornaments (Leiden 2001).



19

these kings. Real political and administrative power, which respondedto political and administrative needs, was promoted through the

advancement of an alternate infrastructure of political power in the gures of the mayor palatii , or mayor domus , the ‘Mayor of the Palace’, 2

the steward of the respective palaces. This was not a position of uni-lateral power, but one, which was mitigated by a ‘council’ of thepowerful on whose support the steward depended. 3 More or lesstogether, they ruled over the realm. Royal competence must haveseemed disinterested and hence inadequate and nally so irrelevantthat the ‘sacred kingship’ must have appeared to be quite transfer-able to those with a more pragmatic and e ff ective approach to thekingship and the state.

The inadequacy found expression in the Carolingian assessmentsof the Merovingians. The Carolingians and their supporters distortedthe problems by exaggeration, lessened the achievements of the recentFrankish past and denied the Merovingians most credit to have dealtwith problems as competently as conditions permitted. If the Caro-lingians wanted to be seen to represent the only true Christian val-ues, then the Merovingians could not be allowed to seem to be much

better than heathens. Yet already Dagobert (623–638) in his Ostpolitik insisted on the coordination of missionary activity with the militaryand political eastward expansion of Frankish power and in uence.Aside from any idealistic pursuit of the Christianization, there wasa Realpolitik on the part of the crown and the Austrasian magnates,as during the expansion monastic as well as military outposts wereset up to secure the new territories. Dagobert appears to have beenthe rst to appreciate the need for this policy of collaboration if thenew faith propagated by the state church was to triumph over pagan-ism. In fact, the Carolingians built on earlier Merovingian successesas they consolidated their own newly conquered territories with thoseacquired from their predecessors. It is generally accepted that theanti-Merovingian campaign was designed to raise Carolingian pres-tige and thereby justify the usurpation of the Frankish throne byPepin III. The Carolingians’ exercise of real power in the realm hadgiven them a certain pre-legitimacy to reach for the crown. 4

2

R. Collins, Charlemagne (Toronto, Buff

alo 1998), p. 16f. for an account of thefunctions of the o ffi ce.3 R.E. Sullivan, Aix-la-Chapelle in the Age of Charlemagne (Norman 1963), pp. 102 ff .4 R. McKitterick, ‘Political ideology in Carolingian historiography’, in Y. Hen,

M. Innes (eds.) The Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages (Cambridge 2000), pp.162–174.



21

ing their select, preordained status by expressing clearly the Carolingianpolitical ideology, founded on a perceived glorious heritage 8 and

justi ed by the grandiose intentions behind the Imperium Christianum.In ful lling the divine plan every Carolingian ruler determined themanner in which his sons were to follow him into positions of author-ity by issuing ordinations. 806 was to be the year of the proclama-tion of the Divisio regnorum, the administrative apportionment of therealm among his tree sons. During the later 9th century the con-cern increased as the principle of succession based on primogeniturewas not an established principle but more often the result of pre-mature deaths, or rather of ‘God’s Will’, as was the case in 814 withLouis the Pious, having survived his older brothers. During the lasttwenty years the Carolingian dynastic situation became ‘Merovingian’as the thrones came to be occupied by sons of illegitimate sons ormaternal lines of descent.

As early as the reign of Brunehildis in the decades around 600,she had to counter the opposition of her Austrasian nobles, chief among whom were the Arnul ngians/Carolingians, Arnulf, bishopof Metz and Pepin the Elder. Her failure and nal destruction was

largely due to the family politics and desertion of those seeking toestablish their own hegemony in the shadow of the Neustrian king Chlothachar II. The Austrasians Pepin the Elder became the newmajor domus and Arnulf the kings’ spiritual guide. The Austrasianmagnates also prevailed on the king to entrust his son Dagobert toArnulf and Pepin the Elder until he became the Austrasians’ king in 623. Their appointments re ect the growing economic and polit-ical importance of eastern Austrasia. It was to become the region inwhich the con icts helped new forces and new conceptions of ruleto crystallize. The military setback su ff ered by Dagobert against theSlavs in 631/32 reduced the royal Merovingian interest along thatfrontier. The Austrasian magnates were not inclined to favor a strong royal military presence in their midst, especially since Neustrian advi-sors had risen to prominence around the king. Despite Austrasianprotests the eastern Austrasian provinces were joined administrativelyto Neustria. When the opportunity arose, the campaign against theSlavs, the Austrasian aristocracy did not support the Slavic cam-paign. In historical retrospect the struggle between the crown and

8 Schutz, Germanic Realms , pp. 218 ff .



22

the nobility was an attempt on the part of the latter to gain con-trol over the monarchy and to introduce ‘constitutional’ principles

with which to limit the kings in the exercise of their personal rule.At the same time each new ruler gathered his own entourage, whichoff ered the nobles a degree of ascendancy to prominence. However,throughout the Carolingian period the respective ‘kingdoms’ did not

yet constitute self-contained entities with an aristocracy bound to aparticular crown. Its allegiances could transcend the boundaries of any one realm, though maneuvering for more favorable conditionsand higher positions was always a risky possibility. Changing oppor-tunities could raise or end the fortunes of a noble family. On theother hand membership and ascendancy in the hierarchy of thechurch proved advantageous, though a celibate career here wouldalso lead to the extinction of a family. At the time the local aris-tocracy was too vulnerable to be truly adventuresome, as its eco-nomic and political power rested with the close allegiance to theking. Proximity to the person of the king, Königsnähe , was sought if the bene ts of royal patronage were to be realized. This can be wellillustrated with the ascendancy of the family of Charlemagne’s wife,

Hildegard, or with the Welfs, the family of Louis’ the Pious wife Judith and Ludwig’s wife Hemma, Judith’s sister. The favor, secu-rity and fortune of entire kin-groups depended on the skill with whichone could judge the outcome of dynastic developments, not confronta-tion about ‘constitutional’ points. Removal from o ffi ce and positionwas only too likely. 9 The Carolingians had no scruples to annihilatethe hereditary Alemanic nobility, among whom there had been crit-icism earlier of the Carolingians, or nd grounds to remove even theirrelative, duke Tassilo of Bavaria, and to replace them with Franks of lesser origin who, as an emerging service nobility, aware of its vul-nerability but anticipating rewards and a rise in status, could be of greater service to their families as well as to the crown. Changes inthe leading names of the kin-groups re ected the changing fortunes. 10

Marriage could o ff er a quicker social improvement than service.Following the death of Dagobert I, the increasing marginalization

of the kings was accompanied by the attempt on the part of the

9 M. Innes, State and Society in the early Middle Ages (Cambridge 2000), p. 212, provides examples.

10 See Werner, in Reuter, Medieval Nobility, p. 151, for an extensive discussion of leading names.



23

magnates to regulate the single rather than the traditional Merovingianmultiple succession to the thrones of the divided realm. It was in

Pepinid interest to have only a sole major domo, controlling only oneking and only one court and thereby the only center of power.However, the Neustrian leadership did not want the Austrasian major domus to determine again a united royal policy and to use the king as an instrument through whom to rule a united Frankish kingdom.The tension between these two parts of the realm escalated into awar which was won by the Carolingian Austrasian major domo, PepinII, grandson of Pepin the Elder, but only dux Austrasiorum, at the bat-tle of Tertry, 687. The decisive victory determined and consolidatedthe supremacy of Austrasia and assured the ascendancy of the Caro-lingians. Following this victory the designation major domus recededin favor of princeps . Following the murder of the Neustrian stewart,Pepin II was now de facto, yet still only nominal ruler over a unitedMerovingian realm and he maintained the illusion of Merovingiankingship by taking king Theuderic III under his protection. 11

Quite clearly the supremacy of the Carolingians was the result of a carefully prepared, progressive rearrangement of the power struc-

ture. Following the acquisition of wealth, including the con scationof church holdings, and vast property and through a widely extendednetwork of family relations, the empowerment of a supportiveautonomous nobility, the Carolingians also established good relationswith the papacy. While the Merovingians’ military and monasticinterests in the eastern area receded, this was not the case with theCarolingians who enlisted the Benedictines, and now established asecond phase of missionary colonization. 12 As part of this policy theCarolingians were not loath to discredit and remove legitimate triballeaders in Thuringia/Bavaria and to replace them with one of theirown and then to falsify the accounts of the events to justify theirdeeds and to portray themselves as having introduced an improvedrule in the form of a Carolingian-Thuringian duchy. A similar duchywas created in Carolingian dominated Austrasian Alsace. SimultaneouslyCarolingian Frankish monasteries in Austrasia were granted posses-sions in the eastern parts of the realm, sta ff ed by loyal missionaries.The Carolingians were the most distinguished builders from among

11 Schutz, Germanic Realms , p. 216.12 R.E. Sullivan, Christian Missionary activity in the Early Middle Ages (Aldershot,

Brook eld 1994), pp. 705–740.



24

the lay aristocrat families, who themselves may have had their ownmodest, proprietary foundations as part of their estates. 13 In this they

were eventually to be ably assisted by such Anglo-Saxon missionariesas St. Boniface and his groups of proselytizing monks and nuns, suchas his Bavarian follower Sturmius and his Anglo-Saxon relative, thenun Leoba, 14 intimate of the empress Hildegard, who supported aCarolingian political and religious expansionism. The building pro-gram of the Carolingians was an integral part of that policy. Wherethe Carolingians held sway, saints, as residents of the heavenly king-dom, were named as rolemodels for the faithful in Christ and as ghters to support the realm, monasteries and convents were foundedas locations where a pious puri ed Christian life could be led. Of course they were also deliberate expressions of their Klosterpolitik inthe expansion and consolidation of their Hausmacht , the demonstra-ble power base of the family re ected in terms of aristocratic depen-dencies, property and economic strength. Something of a sequenceemerged, when monks rst erected small churches, perhaps on for-mer pagan sacred sites, to be followed by more ambitious edi ces,such as Fulda, housing schools for the education and training of new

converts and missionaries. These foundations were not a continuationfrom the earlier Roman agricultural estates. In return for rents andlabor on the proprietor’s estates, tenant farmers cultivated a smallportion of the estate for themselves. These estates could be very largein terms of area, workers or distances covered. The monasteries of Lorsch or Prüm probably had 2000 dependent households each ontheir holdings. Fulda has been calculated to have owned 12 000households. Geographic dispersion was intended to anticipate failuresand shortfalls of yield and these distances had organizational impli-cations for storage of goods, their distribution and transportation byland and water, for markets and commerce and especially for thesupply of the central estate with agricultural produce and manufac-tured objects. 15 This networked supply system was one of severalsuch connecting systems. It was complemented by interlocking mil-

13 Innes, State and Society, p. 25.14 T.F.X. Noble and T. Head, Soldiers of Christ. Saints and Saints’ Lives from Late

Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (University Park PA 1995), pp. 165–187, 255–277,for their respective Vitae . See also R. McKitterick, Books, Scribes and Learning in the Frankish Kingdoms, 6th–9th Centuries (Gower House, Brook eld 1994), p. IV, 301.

15 M. McCormick, Origins of the European Economy, Communications and Commerce, A.D.300–900 (Cambridge 2001), p. 7f.



26

century known as martellus , the Hammer—Charles Martel—to wina series of battles against the Neustrians at Amblève (716) and Vincy

(717), against the Saxons (718) and in the nal battle against theNeustrians at Soissons (719). He forced Plectrudis to yield the regencyand from the family’s power base in Austrasia secure his father’sdominions. Despite his power he did not yet consider ruling in hisown name and recognized the Neustrian Chilperich II as king andsecured his succession as mayor domus . He was to be the last life-long ruler on behalf of the Merovingians, but abrogated to himself theauthority to dispose freely of the royal treasure, estates and power,as well as to issue royal decrees in his own name. In e ff ect, long before being crowned kings, the Carolingians had established a non-royal lordship over the Franks. 18 With him also began the use of thename ‘Charles’ as the dynastic name for the kings of the Franks,hence Carolingians.

Beginning in 720 Charles’ rule was again threatened on twofronts—the Saxons in the north and the Saracens in the south.Following two successful campaigns against the Saxons (720/724) hisrule over the northern and eastern realms of the Franks was largely

assured. Since 720 the Arabs, exploiting dissension among the Franks,had attacked Aquitaine across the Pyrenees and by 732 had reachedcentral Gaul. Near Poitiers Charles Martel defeated them in 732and thereby gained control over Aquitaine. 19 During the next few

years he broke their alliance with the Burgundians and with the helpof the Lombards, drove them out of most of southern Gaul. During 733–36 he con rmed his rule over Burgundy, Frankish sovereigntyover Aquitaine and the Provence, 737/38. Carolingian counts assumedthe administration of these regions.

In Austrasia and Neustria Charles Martel had to reverse a hos-tile process of increasing self-determination by some of the dominantkin-groups. Hostile accounts accuse Charles of having taken advan-tage of his power. During some twenty years their holdings had cometo be considered hereditary and included bishoprics and royal monas-teries and these he was seen to have bestowed on his own support-ers without regard of their worthiness for the o ffi ce. Since theinstallation of bishops was by royal appointment, some disloyal bish-

18 Werner, in Reuter, Medieval Nobility, p. 174.19 Collins, p. 30.



27

ops were demoted. Some bishoprics remained vacant or were amal-gamated. In some instances Charles resorted to earlier Merovingian

practices and distributed their wealth and property among his ownsupporters in the form of bene ces.20 This practice proved an e ff ectivemeans to replenish the material power, the Hausmacht , of the familyin the face of declining resources owing to the granting of proper-ties to supporters. Laying claim to church holdings counteracted thisdiminution of resources available for distribution. Each king couldcreate his own nobility. This point illustrates a ‘spoils system’ andshows how serviceability provided new groups of aristocrats with theopportunities for enrichment and the rise to status in the entourageof a new ruler, of a new dynasty. Royal favoritism could easily reverseall social and political gains. Similarly the withdrawal of aristocraticsupport could quickly expose the vulnerability of the royal position.The collaboration between the nobility of state and its branch in thechurch was nearly able to dismember the precarious imperial positionof Louis the Pious. The Reichsadel , the high imperial nobility, was tobe less vulnerable. Death in battle and diseases contracted on cam-paigns or during sieges jeopardized the continuity of families. 21

Contrary to appearances for Charles Frankish and Christian expan-sion were two sides of the same coin. Utilizing the church for polit-ical purposes becomes an administrative practice. Extending thein uence of the church e ff ected the improved control of the newlyconquered regions of the realm. In two campaigns (733/734) he sub-dued the still pagan duchy of the Frisians, 22 while in 738, with thehelp of the pagan Slavic Wilzi to the east, he campaigned once moreagainst the heathen Saxons in order to free northern Hesse andThuringia from their continuing threats. It was part of Charles’ defen-sive policy to enlist the cooperation of such Anglo-Saxon missionar-ies as Willibrord, 23 but especially of Wynfrid, better known as St.Boniface, for whom, however, Charles was rather a hindrance. 24 In

20 See Fouracre, in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History, p. 91f.21 K. Schmid, ‘The structure of the nobility in the earlier middle ages’, in Reuter,

Medieval Nobility, pp. 37–59.22 Schutz, Germanic Realms , pp. 393–400, for a brief summary of the pre-Carolingian

Frisians.23

H.-J. Reischmann, Willibrord, Apostel der Friesen—Vita Willibrordi Archepiscopi Traiec-tensis Auctore Alcuino(Darmstadt 1989). See also Noble and Head, Soldiers of Christ ,pp. 189–211, for a translation of his Vita .

24 Noble and Head, Soldiers , pp. 107–164, for a translation of his Vita . P.J. Geary, Before France and Germany. The Creation and Transformation of the Merovingian World.



28

contrast to the largely ine ff ective conservative representatives of theFrankish church, these representatives of Anglo-Saxon monasticism

were the sober and disciplined carriers of a spiritual church reform,originally inspired by pope Gregory the Great. The Anglo-Saxonchurch had been systematically organized by Rome and consequentlyit operated with papal endorsement and with a hierarchical organi-zation, though the conversion of England to Christianity was not yetcompleted. 25 While the Irish missions proceeded along individual linesfrom the bottom up, in keeping with the idea of ascetic perigrinatio,the Anglo-Saxons, while accentuating the positive, worked from thetop down, by establishing and then implementing organizational struc-tures. The missionary zeal, which took them to the continent, how-ever, was not a coordinated e ff ort, nor did they enter a paganwilderness. Few of these nuns and monks converted even a singleheathen. Their contribution supported and augmented the existing religious infrastructure, prepared earlier by the Hiberno-Frankish mis-sions. Both Willibrord and Wynfrid, whose background includes astrong Irish in uence, described as peregrini pro Christo, rst obtainedecclesiastical rank and papal legitimization (719) by going to Rome

and thereby introduced a departure from the Irish model, beforethey began their work. Boniface 26 was named thus by pope GregoryII and became the protégé of Charles Martel and with the knowl-edge of that support Boniface, sometimes called Apostle of Germany,utilized his organizational talents to lay the foundation of the Germanchurch, consolidate its position through extensive missionary activi-ties in Thuringia, Hesse, Bavaria and lastly in Frisia, founded monas-teries, convents and bishoprics, and most important for the future,bound the church of the Germanic eastern part of the realm toRome. When pope Gregory II made him bishop, Boniface drew sup-port from the knowledge that he had the support of Rome in allcon icts encountered with the recalcitrant Frankish bishops, such as

(Oxford, New York 1988), pp. 214 ff . Gerberding, p. 135, indicates that relationsbetween Charles Martel and St. Boniface were not unproblematic.

25 R. McKitterick, ‘Anglo-Saxon Missionaries in Germany: Personal Connectionsand Local In uences’, in The Frankish Kings and Culture in the Early Middle Ages , pp.

4, 27.26 See McKitterick, ‘Anglo-Saxon Missionaries’ in Frankish Kings and Culture , pp.8ff . for a summary of his career. See also J.M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Frankish Church(Oxford 1983), pp. 143 ff . concerning the creation of the church in the East Frankishlands.



29

the bishop of Mainz, who resented an Anglo-Saxon mission as redun-dant interference. 27 The foundations for later church reform were

laid at this time by missionaries like St. Boniface, as the MerovingianFrankish church was transformed into the Carolingian church 28 dur-ing the reign of the early Carolingians. They submitted it to a reformby means of the introduction of organized, xed and stable Roman-style structures, bishops and monastic establishments, restricted thebarely semi-literate monks to their monasteries and replaced themin the communities with monk-priests, with a better educated clergy,better quali ed to preach and to instruct its ocks. They bolsteredthe church with the physical importation of Roman saints and theirrelics and the displacement of the venerated Gallic martyrs and Mero-

vingian saints and their individualistic, itinerant, peregrine Hiberno-Scottish predecessors. The saints, as residents of the divine kingdom, tted with the enormous power delegated to them by God and per-formed by them 29 provided the spiritual foundations of this newChristian realm on earth. The symbolic presentation of the key tothe tomb of St. Peter and sections of his chains was intended to rep-resent the change of focus and the new bond with Rome. New

Frankish religious centers linked to the original site of their reliccould be created at will. 30 This was to contribute signi cantly to thefortunes of the Carolingians and their power base, though not to St.Boniface’s own popularity among the Frankish bishops. The link withpapal Rome was to open the Eastern Carolingian regions to a clearorientation toward Christian Roman orientation. Other capable mis-sionaries complemented the work of Boniface in other parts of theeastern realms, all at least initially or in principle in the service of Charles Martel and his family. The Carolingian Hausmacht estab-lished itself rmly also in those parts of the realm consolidated by

27 R. McKitterick, The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms 789–895 (London1977), p. xix.

28 Innes, State and Society, p. 43f., for an explanation of the concept of ‘reform’in response to changing realities a ff ecting the church. See T.L. Amos, ‘Monks andPastoral Care in the Early Middle Ages, in T.F.X. Noble and J.J. Contreni, (eds.)Religion, Culture and Society in the Early Middle Ages. Studies in Honor of R.E. Sullivan(Kalamazoo 1987), p. 171f.

29

Noble and Head, Soldiers , p. xv.30 Wallace-Hadrill, pp. 1–93, for a review of the Merovingian Frankish church,its foundations and saints. See P.J. Geary, Furta Sacra. Theft of Relics in the Central

Middle Ages (Princeton 1978), and P.J. Geary, Living with the Dead in the Middle Ages (Ithaca, London 1994), pp. 171 ff . Also Geary, Before France and Germany, p. 217f.



30

proprietary monastic foundations, Eigenklöster ,31 royal monasteriesfounded and virtually owned by them. Some of them, such as Lorsch

and Fulda became pillars of economic and socio-political power withextensive networks, through prayer-associations, for instance, Gebets-

gemeinschaften. It should not be overlooked, that Charles and his fam-ily tired quickly of conversion to Christianity by sermon and persuasion.They readily resorted to the use of force. Those found still engag-ing in pagan practices were dealt with severely. By means of thesword the hesitant were assured that the Christian paradise was themore desirable choice. Pockets of paganism, where often a veneerof Christian sainthood had been placed over the persistent belief inthe old, pagan divinities, among the Alemans for instance, were nowmade more fully familiar with Christianity. Still, compromise wasnot unusual and accommodation of some pagan practices was tol-erated. In general, Frankish society may not have been that thor-oughly Christian. 32 The missionary activities of the Anglo-Saxons willbe discussed more fully below.

When Theuderic IV died (737) Charles Martel no longer troubledto appoint another Merovingian king. He had his own son, Pepin

III, adopted by king Liutprand of the Lombards, thereby cleverlyraising him to royal rank. Charles died in 741. Willibrord’s successor,the abbot of Echternach noted ‘October 741, Death of king Charles’. 33

Charles Martel bequeathed his realm to his three sons. To Carlomanhe left Austrasia, Thuringia and Alemania. To Pepin III, later knownas The Short, he left Neustria, Burgundy and Provence. Aquitaineand Bavaria were assigned loosely to their joint administration. Theirhalf-brother Grifo was to inherit less clearly de ned domains withinthe realm, but Carloman and Pepin challenged the legitimacy of hisinheritance, crowded him out of his holdings in Thuringia and impris-oned him. 34 The ascent of the Carolingians was not inevitable as

31 Eigenklöster—eigen= to be the property of, Kloster, pl. Klöster = cloister, monastery,convent.

32 McKitterick, Frankish Church, p. 80f. See also R.E. Sullivan, ‘The Context of Cultural Activity’, in “The Gentle Voices of Teachers”, Aspects of Learning in the Carolingian

Age (Columbus 1995), p. 75. See J.C. Russell, The Germanization of Early medieval Christianity(Oxford 1994), pp. 192 ff . for a summary of Boniface’s correspondence

concerning accommodation.33 J. Verseuil, Les Rois fainéants, de Dagobert à Pépin le Bref (Paris 1996), p. 215.34 B.W. Scholz, B. Rogers, Carolingian Chronicles—Royal Frankish Annals , Nithard’s

Histories (Ann Arbor 1972). Quotations from the Royal Frankish Annals are taken fromthis edition and indicated as Annals with the year thus Annals 741.Quotations and



Map 1. The Carolingian Empire.



32

uprisings followed the death of Charles Martel in Aquitaine, Saxony,Alemania and Bavaria whose dukes were loyal to the Merovingians

and although the revolts were put down by armed intervention, theyaccomplished that on Odilo of Bavaria’s insistence the Merovingianthrone had to be reoccupied by one of the ‘long-haired kings’, theobscure Childeric III (743–751). Odilo retained his duchy. A lastattempt to rise in Alemania ended in a bloodbath at Cannstadt (746)where the remnants of the Alemanic nobility were annihilated andreplaced by Frankish counts. Since the Alemanic population was stillpartly pagan, these measures could be put in a justi able light. Ale-mania ceased to be an independent duchy. Subjection and conversionwere the objectives of the campaigns in Saxony. Though the con-

versions were not of duration, archeologists are still nding cast o ff

simple metal crosses in the river fords, even in Saxony the uprisingsended with the consolidation of Carolingian control.

From the beginning of their rule Carloman and Pepin solicitedthe assistance of Boniface and his followers in integrating politicallyand assimilating culturally the eastern reaches into the Frankish realm.Boniface, as legate of pope Zacharias in Germany, even missus of

St. Peter, could also provide the needed assistance to the reformproject. The rst Austrasian reform Synod (21–04–742), convenedby Carloman, circumvented the Frankish bishops and placed Bonifaceat the head of the Austrasian church and its new missionary bish-oprics. 35 The church lands, which Charles Martel had con scatedand distributed disrespectfully, however, were not returned, becauseCarloman needed them to maintain the military structures and theloyalty of his magnates, in view of the unrest in the realm. Thisapproach was to create a lasting bond between the Carolingians andthe Frankish aristocracy. While the Synod of the following year rec-ognized the principle of church ownership, it also established thatthe lands were held on loan against the payment of rents and thatwith the death of the ‘owner’ the land would revert but also leaveopen the option that it could be reclaimed by the ruler, for in its

references taken from Nithard’s Histories are also taken from this edition and citedas Nithard with chapter number. The Annals are interspersed with revisions of dis-

puted authorship. The unsympathetic Annals specify that Grifo’s mother, Swanahilde,a niece of duke Odilo, incited Grifo to seek control of the whole realm. See Collins,p. 31, for contrary argument.

35 Wallace-Hadrill, pp. 157 ff . Also Collins, pp. 104 ff . concerning the doctrinaland disciplinary interests of the church.



33

redistribution lay the ruler’s wealth, military power and authority.In the implementation of the reform Boniface often encountered the

resistance of the uncooperative, worldly, largely senatorial Gallo-Roman and aristocratic Frankish bishops who saw in him and theother Anglo-Saxons a threat to their secular life-style and an infringe-ment on their rights. However, he encountered no insurmountableopposition when it came to the merger of the Frankish with theRoman church. When a Frankish willingness to entertain reformsbecame apparent, and when Pepin began to deal directly with thepapacy concerning aspects of canon law, Boniface receded into thebackground. The support of the nobility, when combined with itslink with the church in Rome, proved to be most opportune polit-ical factors when Pepin III reached for the Frankish crown. Thiswas facilitated when in 747 Carloman withdrew to a monastery, per-haps guilt ridden over the massacre he ordered following the battleof Cannstadt. ( Annals 746 ) According to Einhard, Carloman desireda retreat from the world and became a monk. 36 Einhard claims notto know why, but may have hidden a power struggle between thebrothers, which Carloman lost. When a continuing stream of Frankish

visitors, probably his former nobles, ‘spoiled’, perhaps compromisedhis retreat on Monte Soracte, near Rome, he ultimately sought seclu-sion on Monte Cassino. Once more he was to become politicallyactive when he tried to intervene on behalf of Aistulf, king of theLombards, only to be sent o ff to a monastery (754). Once againGrifo had created turmoil elsewhere while Pepin was occupied inthe northeast. During the next six years Pepin attempted reconcili-ations with him. While crossing the Southern Alps into Italy, Grifowas killed in 753 by Frankish border guards. 37 Already by 749 adegree of order had been returned to the realm. However, the sit-uation had become such that already in 751, before its nal reso-lution, Pepin could contemplate assuming the kingship for himself.Deposing the last Merovingian king, Childeric III, and assuming the

36 L. Thorpe, Einhard and Notger the Stammerer, Two Lives of Charlemagne , translatedwith an Introduction by Lewis Thorpe (Harmondsworth, New York 1981), p. 56.Also P.E. Dutton (ed. and transl.) Charlemagne’s Courtier. The Complete Einhard (Peter-

borough 1998). See Fouracre, in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History, p. 96.See Collins, p. 32f. for considerations pertinent to Carloman’s withdrawal and theshort-lived negotiated succession of his son Drogo.

37 Collins, p. 32, refers to a battle at Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne in which two of Grifo’s counts were also killed.



34

crown himself may have eliminated the last bases from which hecould be challenged in his primary position. Evidently Pepin’s rise

to single rule was not uncontested and not the inevitable result inthe ‘unanimous’ political processes represented in the partisan, pro-Carolingian literature. The stability of the realm was not so threat-ened that a dynastic change was necessary.

The legitimate Merovingian king, Childeric III, was not likely tocontest the claim. He was deposed, his long hair shorn and he wassent to a monastery. Einhard, in his Vita Karoli Magni , left a scur-rilous caricature of the last of these ‘do-nothing long-haired kings’.Since history is recorded by the victors and since Eginhard/Einhardwas a high o ffi cial at the Carolingian court, 38 it is easy to under-stand the pathetic image of Childeric created by him. He justi esthe action by pointing erroneously to the order of pope Stephen II,rather than Zacharias, and the family’s earlier loss of power andpossessions, retaining only the empty title of king. 39 Content to bean enthroned gurehead with owing hair and beard, his royal func-tions had been reduced to receiving ambassadors and parroting coached answers. Completely dependent on the discretion of his

Mayor of the palace he had nothing of his own but a poor estatewith just a few servants about him. Einhard mocks his manner of travel in an ox-drawn cart with a cowherd to goad them, as heattended the palace and the annual business meetings of the popu-lar assembly. 40 Einhard may have cast aspersions on the Merovingiansby denigrating a ritual mode of travel quite unjustly, since it is knownthat already Tacitus described this ritualistic mode of travel for thefertility goddess within the northern Nerthus cult. Cow-drawn bigaswere also the means of transport for the moon goddess Selena of Greek mythology. The deplorable image of a miserable, unkempt,longhaired individual with a tangled beard is only too clearly a biasedmeans of ridicule, designed to justify retroactively the coup d’état , theusurpation of the Frankish throne. 41 Having organized the Hausmacht

38 Dutton, Courtier , p. xiif.39 See Collins, p. 33f., 35, who points out that the biographies of both popes

make no mention of the resolution.40 Thorpe, p. 55. D.A. Bullough, Carolingian Renewal: sources and heritage (Manchester,New York 1991), p. 123f.

41 Collins, p. 34f. argues that the whole event may be most questionable andmore literary than actual.



35

of the family and its vast range of dependents, and with the full sup-port of the court poets and the reformed Frankish church, the

Carolingians orchestrated a propagandistic body of opinion. It createdan e ff ective, both mystical and heroic scenario around the Carolingianking and also laid not only the religious groundwork of the over-throw, but also the basis for the grandiose design of the ImperiumChristianum, later to be supported by the cultural invigoration by cel-ebrating the family’s deeds, quali cations and suitability to lead theChristian peoples. Even the liturgy was modi ed to accommodatethe king’s glori cation. 42 A reference in Book V of St. Augustine’sCity of God , and a sentence found in Isidore’s of Seville Etymology, rex a regenda , made it clear that the word ‘royal’ is related to the word‘reign’. It is an active concept and there were Germanic precedents,which allowed for the removal of the inept.

Why was this justi cation in Christian terms necessary? Traditionalnotions of royal descent and consecration stood in the way of a sim-ple assumption of regal power. With the Christianization of theFranks, pagan perceptions of the king’s charisma, of his felicitas of his Heil , had already once before been sancti ed through the inter-

vention of the church. Chlodovech’s conversion, the change to anew god had been most hazardous, because it jettisoned the mytho-logical divinity of origin of the royal family and jeopardized theGermanic perception of its Heil , the king’s select quali cations, hisquasi-supernatural status, his legitimacy. To the Gallo-Romans hehad had to demonstrate his felicitas . Both groups had to be shownthe prerequisites of rulership. Chlodovech’s conversion to Christianitymade these requisites for legitimacy problematic because conversionand baptism meant the surrender of pagan rituals and beliefs, of anymystical sacerdotal functions, and especially the pledge of obedienceand submission to the church, unless substitute guarantees could beprovided. The assured presence of the Trinity at the baptism guar-anteed the support of the Christian God through the agency of thechurch and thereby assured the continuing e ff ectiveness of the king’sHeil , to be understood as the intransmutability of the semi-sacredbloodline through the generations of the Merovingians. 43 Whetherthe sancti cation was transferable to a new family, in the form of a

42 Sullivan, ‘The Context of Cultural Activity’, in Gentle Voices , p. 65f.43 Schutz, Germanic Realms , p. 152f.



36

new union of religion and politics, must have been a troubling ques-tion. The learned courtiers did not fail to win the king’s favor by

making this point in their songs of praise, till the sharing of thebene t of the Heil was possible, even if only through the willing par-ticipation of an authority higher than all earthly authority, the coop-erative church with its presumed right to guide society and all culturalactivity through monasticism, the episcopacy and the papacy. 44 Owing to the ‘Roman’ reform of the Frankish church and the closer tiesestablished by Boniface between the Franks and the papacy, Pepincould now also seek advice from pope Zacharias concerning the‘reform’ of the monarchy. The church was to nd itself in a bar-gaining position. In time it would collect from the Carolingians.

If the papal consultation took place, it was a coincidence that anew king of the Lombards, Aistulf, renewed Lombard claims to ter-ritories, which the papacy also claimed. 45 This Lombardic intentionwas a distinct threat to Rome when Pepin’s emissaries, Fulrad, theabbot of St. Denis and Burchard, bishop of Würzburg, supposedlyarrived in Rome in 750. They posed the question whether it wasgood or not that in the realm of the Franks kings ruled who did

not wield the regal power.46

Pope Zacharias must have realized anopportunity to strengthen his position toward the Lombards by gain-ing an ally. The Lombard threat to the papacy de nitely motivatedthe pope to charge the envoys to inform Pepin that it was better tocall him king who had the royal power than the one who did not.( Annals , erroneously 749 rather than 750 ) In order that the naturalorder, identi ed by St. Augustine in the 19. Book of the City of God ,not be disturbed, he based his response on St. Augustin, and by

virtue of his apostolic authority ordered that Pepin should be king. 47

Quite evidently question and answer addressed the principle of suit-ability for the o ffi ce as the preferred determining criterion over theprinciple of dynastic legitimacy. This suitability was expressed by thenovel act of the consecration of Pepin. Divine authority was invoked

44 Sullivan, ‘The Context of Cultural Activity’, in Gentle Voices , pp. 66 ff .45 See Collins, pp. 59f.46 Wallace-Hadrill, pp. 165 ff . But see Collins, p. 35, who suggests that the event

may be

ctitious.47 P. Riché, The Carolingians. A family who forged Europe (Philadelphia 1993), p. 68.See J.L. Nelson, ‘kingship and empire’, in R. McKitterick, Carolingian Culture: emu-lation and innovation(Cambridge 1994), pp. 54 ff. , concerning the possible motivationbehind the pope’s reply.



37

to sanction through the pope the rupture with a pagan, super ciallyChristian legitimacy by means of a clear act of usurpation. The for-

mal election by the Frankish nobility of Pepin as king of the Franksand of his wife Bertrada as their queen, followed in Soissons, 751.How could the nobility have done otherwise! Selection, anointing,elevation and homage were the decisive o ffi cial acts, repeated in 754.This Biblical ritual accented the discontinuity and pointed to thegrowing, new perception at the Frankish court that the Franks hadrelieved the Israelites as the select ‘People of the Book’ and the com-munity of interests of Frankish clergy and aristocracy disguised theusurpation resting in Pepin’s ascent of the throne. 48 Despite the factthat Pepin and Bertrada had both been anointed, as a consecrationof the new dynasty, for many years to come their heirs felt very vul-nerable, hence the repeated justi cations and coronations of the sameking. The references, in the psalters, for instance, to the Biblical pastas a foretelling of the Carolingian present, the consecration and thereanimation of things ‘Classical’ during the reign of the Carolingiansand their willingness to protect the popes against the Lombards, hadmuch to do with bolstering the Carolingians’ debatable claims to

continuity and legitimacy. The emphasis on Israel49

and the OldTestament contributes a distinguishing accent to the Carolingianrecon guration as being something other than just an attemptedRenaissance 50 of a pagan Classical antiquity.

In the understanding of the church, it was Christ himself, throughhis Vicar, who had raised Pepin to the throne. Thus the Frankswere initially the ‘special people of the pope’. 51 To compensate thenew king for his lack of royal blood, a bishop, perhaps even thepapal vicar and legatus Germanicus Boniface ( Annals 750 ), but, in viewof the di ff erences between Boniface and Pepin, more likely Chrodegang of Metz, anointed him in order to furnish him with the appropriatesacred dignity and the dynasty with a new consecration. 52 Henceforth

48 Collins, p. 36, questions the historicity of the circumstances surrounding theclaimed event of 751.

49 M. Garrison, ‘The Franks as the New Israel? Education for an identity fromPippin to Charlemagne.’ in Hen and Innes, The Uses of the Past in the Early Middle

Ages (Cambridge 2000), pp. 114–161.50

Sullivan, Gentle Voices , pp. 3ff

., concerning a review of the ‘Renaissance’ in theCarolingian context.51 Garrison, ‘The Franks as the New Israel?’ in Hen and Innes, Uses of the Past ,

p. 124.52 K.-U. Jäschke, Bonifatius und die Königssalbung Pippins des Jüngeren, in Archiv für



38

he was gratia Dei rex , king by Divine Grace. The Biblical precedentmust have been appreciated in which the prophet Samuel displaced

king Saul by the anointed David. 53 The legitimization of Pepin wasaccomplished. It raised him into the line of Old Testament kings, a rst step along the grandiose design, which was to characterize theCarolingians. Already Pepin’s ancestors had been compared to heroesof the Old Testament. Pepin, selected as the anointed of the Lordwas raised into the vicinity of God. This selection was an innova-tion, which reinforced the act of election immensely. However, itintroduced and con rmed a vital dimension. Men could place thecrown, but by Old Testament analogy, only the church could anoint.In what amounted to a mutual bond, three years later, 754, popeSteven II re-anointed Pepin and his two sons and forbade the Franks,under pain of excommunication, to elect a king from outside theline of Pepin’s descendants. The reanointment may have been intendedas an act of cleansing himself of his several broken promises andperjuries. 54 It may well have been the only coronation of Pepin.Childeric III was shorn and sent to a monastery to conclude therehis shadowy existence. The pope made it clear that this was not just

the replacement of one king by another but that through God’schoice a new dynasty had been called and that the sanctity of abloodline would continue in its legitimate Christian guise. 55 By chanceand by intent the Carolingians initially established a single line of legitimate succession in which a personal kingship had been replacedby a family institution. In addition the monarchy gained legitimacyand focus through its Rome oriented Christianization. In the westSt. Peter and many other Roman martyred saints and their relics,bones and objects, were assembled in the Carolingian churches asa fundamental necessity and as part of a deliberate policy. Relicswere the link between heaven, the residence of the saints, and the

Diplomatik, Schriftgeschichte, Siegel- und Wappenkunde , vol. 23 (Cologne, Vienna 1977),pp. 25 ff . for a discussion concernig this dispute. He nds that no other Annals men-tion the involvement and Jäschke concludes, p. 52f. that not Boniface but Chrodegang of Metz was involved.

53 A. Angenendt, Das Frühmittelalter. Die abendländische Christenheit von 400 –900

(Stuttgart, Berlin, Cologne 1990), p. 283f.54 B. Kasten, Königssöhne und Königsherrschaft (Hannover 1997), p. 127, n. 270. Butsee Collins, p. 36.

55 See D.H. Miller, ‘Sacral Kingship, Biblical Kingship, and the Elevation of Pepin the Short’, in Noble and Contreni, Religion, Culture and Society, pp. 131 ff .



39

material world. 56 They were given the deepest cultic reverence bythe court as well as by the high nobility of the realm. The popu-

lace would have only remote access to them. It became the aim thatall churches should shelter relics, despite the problems associatedwith their availability. Concerned about possible forgeries, in 794Charles demanded a strict examination of the relics. 57 Being physi-cally visible, in altars for instance, (Fig. 1) the relics became the cen-tral focus of religious devotion, even jeopardizing the cult of anabstract Christ. This policy helped control the creation of new sacredsites.58 This process established a religious network of ties and depen-dencies between the realm of the Franks and Rome. With the des-ignation of the Carolingians the papacy signaled its recognition of anew focus on western, Frankish authority and signaled its turning away from the authority of the Eastern empire. Already pope GregoryIII had sent Charles Martel the keys to the grave of St. Peter andhad indicated his willingness to renounce the emperor and transferdominion to the Carolingians. With the support of the papacy theFrankish Christian realm of the Carolingians could begin turning away from the Greek Christianity of Byzantium, toward its own

Imperium Christianum.It will be shown that in their architectural and artistic intentionsthe Carolingians were never free of their need to demonstrate theirlegitimate continuity with Christian Rome and continuing legitimacythrough the church. Charlemagne had his long-term reasons for be-ing strongly motivated to include the formula Dei gratia in his title.

Papal political thinking proved correct when the expansionist king Aistulf and the Lombards threatened Rome itself, 753. Not restrainedby religious scruples he attempted to unify all Italy. The Byzantineswere preoccupied with the forces of Islam so that Rome could turnto no other source of support than Pepin and the Franks. It was inthis context that the curious but only preliminary bond between theuniversalist papacy and the particularistic Franks was to nd its begin-nings. Pope Steven II rst visited Aistulf in Pavia, to negotiate therestitution of the disputed territories, but unsuccessful with Aistulf, hecrossed the Alps in winter to visit Pepin’s court at Ponthion in order

56 Noble and Head, Soldiers , p. xvii.57 Noble and Head, Soldiers , p. xxxvii.58 See McCormick, pp. 283 ff . concerning collections of relics at Sens and Chelles.

See Geary, Living with the Dead , pp. 166f., 185f.



40

to gain assurances of support for the papacy. The royal anointment,which was to take place during this visit, indebted Pepin to the pope,

and the latter would be able to rely on Pepin’s support. While Pepininitially disappointed the pope by not coming to meet him himself,sending his six year old son Charles instead, and making the popecome to him all the way, Pepin received the pope on bended kneeand taking the pope’s horse by its reins, led the pope some cere-monial distance to the palace (6.1.754) and in the name of his sons,Pepin swore to St. Peter, represented by the pope and his succes-sors an oath promising defense and assistance. It was probably areciprocal oath. Pepin ignored the opposition within the realm, includ-ing his brother’s, and in 755/56 launched a campaign into Italy andguaranteed, quite unjustly, the transfer of the Exarchate of Ravennaand the Roman duchy, legally still Byzantine enclaves, to a thirdparty, the Roman papacy. Again the pope anointed Pepin’s familyas assurance against Byzantium and any possible challenges byclaimants to the throne, including Carloman or his sons. All wereconsigned to monasteries. Perhaps with the emperor’s approval thepope bestowed on Pepin the title patricius Romanorum, previously borne

by the representatives of the emperor, including the exarch of Ravennafor all of Italy. If he proclaimed Pepin on his own authority, thenthe pope had assumed the emperor’s authority. By combining therole of king of the Franks with the role of patricius Romanorumhemade him protector of Rome, merging in his person the secular andreligious elements. When Pepin now moved against Aistulf, he appearedin that role and the latter quickly submitted to Frankish overlord-ship and promised the restitution of all his conquests. However, sincehe did not accept the ‘Romans’ as legitimate negotiators, he renegedon his promises. The pope’s appeal brought Pepin into the eldagain and this time Aistulf was forced to surrender his acquisitions.Pepin documented the transfer to the church, thereby creating thePapal States. The opposition to Pepin’s designs 59 may have antici-pated the consequences of an Italian policy. The Pepinid Donation,

59 K. Brunner, Oppositionelle Gruppen im Karolingerreich(Wien, Köln, Graz 1979),

deals mainly with references to variant instances of opposition during the 9th cen-tury but the discussion has bearing on all such examples. Since the dissensions andconspiracies usually involved members of the imperial family, the annals were loathto mention them. Changing fortunes and grievances among the high nobility pro-

vided many such occasions.



41

perhaps in exchange for Pepin’s coronation and the various titles,was supported by one of the most signi cant and successful forgeries

ever, 60 the Constitutum Constantini , the ‘Donation of Constantine’ accord-ing to which in Constantine’s Edict of Milan, 313, the emperor Con-stantine was claimed to have received a divine hint when he hadentered a dream as a pagan and emerged as a convert to Christianity,then retired to Byzantium out of respect for the religious supremacyof the Bishop of Rome, after having given to pope Sylvester impe-rial rank, the right to ride a white horse like the emperor, (Fig. 2)and the power to bestow the crown on his choice of emperor, tohave dominion over Rome and all the provinces of Italy and thewest, all as a reward for having been cured of leprosy by Sylvester.Already Constantine was claimed to have held Sylvester’s stirrupsand led his horse by the reins. 61 The pope had become more thanthe emperor’s representative. The Franks may have had foreknowl-edge of this claim precisely because it was in their interest. Pepinneeded imperial con rmation to ascend the Frankish throne. Centuriesearlier Chlodovech had been crowned with imperial authorization.Into the 7th century Byzantium had represented the empire as such

in Frankish eyes. With the 8th century a new perspective was estab-lishing itself. The pope now also had such imperial authority tocrown Pepin. By the end of the century the Franks will have gainedthe insight that the papacy was perhaps just a transition and thatthey had the merit to claim the reign over a western empire in theguise of an Imperium Christianum. The territorial transfer of Byzantineterritory into the hands of St. Peter thus became legal. Out of grat-itude Pepin was included in the liturgy of St. Peter’s, as it had onlybeen done for the emperor. Furnished with imperial authorities, thepope as head of the Christian church was raised high above thehead of any emperor and deference to the Byzantine emperors fadeda bit more. This policy was to burden Central European historywith a huge mortgage. In the six centuries to come the papal claim

60 P.E. Dutton, The Politics of Dreaming in the Carolingian Empire (Lincoln Neb. andLondon 1994), p. 37, supposes that it was composed c. 760 by a Roman clericmotivated by rather elusive intentions. Dutton elaborates on Constantine’s supposed

dream, which provided the foundation.61 J.J. Norwich, A Short History of Byzantium(Harmondsworth, London 1997), p. 119.See also Angenendt, Frühmittelalter , p. 286. Ohnsorge, Ost-Rom und der Westen(Darmstadt1983), pp. 60 ff ., argues that pope Leo III was the author of this document. SeeNelson, ‘kingship and empire’, in McKitterick, Carolingian Culture , p. 70.



42

to primacy was to evolve into a continuing cause for much grief andpolitical turmoil. The defensio ecclesia Romanae became the responsi-

bility and primary function of what came to be known as the HolyRoman Empire . At the time Pepin had not much of a choice, for asthe anointed of God and with his royal powers deriving directly fromGod and king of a chosen people, the Franks, his position in Chris-tendom was made evident by his service to the throne of St. Peter,demonstrated in his oath to St. Peter, not the pope. 62 It was notanticipated that the new temporal power of the pope would makethat position a desirable possession for all manner of ambitious indi-

viduals. The popes became the instruments of interest groups, espe-cially of the aristocracy of Rome, requiring the frequent interventionof the pertinent rulers to come to the pope’s assistance. The papacycame in need of protection.

Pepin had been able to concentrate on Lombardic and papal con-cerns because east-rhenish a ff airs were relatively settled. However,while Pepin was able to consolidate Frankish control over all of Gaul,the attempts to gain control over the northeast proved premature.The political and religious control over Frisia and Saxony was not

progressing well. Willibrord’s missionary accomplishments had beenrolled back by a resurgence of Frisian paganism under their king Radbod who died in 719. Attempts to Christianize the Frisians there-after proved unsuccessful and when in the autumn of 753 Bonifacereturned to Frisia, he and fty-two of his missionizing companionswere struck down at Dokkum (754) by Frisian pagans. Any furtherprogress would have to await the complete conquest of the NorthSea coast.

Following the ‘battle’ of Cannstadt (746) and the elimination of the duchy by Carloman, the Alemanic aristocracy had been liqui-dated in a bloodbath and with the installation of Frankish counts allducal and aristocratic property had either passed into Frankish handsor been redistributed to those friendly with the Franks. Again Frankishmonastic foundations consolidated the gained lands as the realmexpanded further eastward. There the Bavarian duchy had rehearsedan armed uprising as it tried to implement independent administra-tive policies and assume a special position within the Frankish realm.

62 W. Mohr, Die Karolingische Reichsidee (Münster 1962), p. 21. See J. Nelson, ‘king-ship and empire’, in McKitterick, Carolingian Culture , pp. 53 ff .



43

It was their fortune that the duchy remained in Agilol ngian hands,but then they were linked with the Carolingians. Pepin’s sister Chil-

trudis was married to the Bavarian duke, Odilo. Upon his death in748, his seven-year-old son Tassilo III was declared of age underthe guardianship of the Carolingians and succeeded to the duchy.Beginning in 743 a category of royal vassals had been created inBavaria and in 757, at age sixteen, Tassilo paid homage to his uncleking Pepin and swore his vassal’s oath into his hands and those of his sons. ( RAF 757 ) According to the Annals he also swore on thebodies of several saints that he would remain faithful all his life. 63

His magnates also swore this with him. If these oaths were not aninvention, just a later, anachronistic insertion by the chronicler jus-tifying a later course of action, then this evidently was not just asymbolic personal act, but must have expressed a very particularCarolingian concern about the loyalty of the Agilol ngian TassiloIII, a Carolingian on his mother’s side, for it was at the same timethe rst constitutional dependency agreement between ‘states’. Bavariawas on its way to lose its independence. This royal vassalage was toprove to be the great hurdle when Tassilo tried to cast o ff his own

vassalage from the Carolingians. The original noble families regardedthe growing strength of these Frankish dukes with reservations inany event. Tassilo reputedly behaved questionably when in 763 he“brushed aside his oaths and all his promises and sneaked away ona wicket pretext, disregarding all the good things which king Pepin,his uncle, had done for him”. ( Annals 763 ). The violation of his dutiesas vassal would have been a serious felony. Again, the later chron-icler’s tone suggests at least a tendentious interpretation for Tassilo’sreturn home. 64 To Tassilo the situation favoring independence musthave seemed opportune. Without repercussion for his supposedly bro-ken oath, he ruled quite independently till 781. Owing to the long-standing family relationship with the Lombards, 65 enhanced perhapsby the proximity of the Lombard and Bavarian dialects, 66 Tassiloreceived support from the Lombard king Desiderius (756–774) whoreturned Alpine regions to him, lost earlier to Liutprand. On the

63 See Collins, p. 81f.64

Collins, p. 82.65 Schutz, Germanic Realms , pp. 281–316.66 W. Jungandreas, Die Einwirkung der Karolingischen Renaissance und das mittlere Rheinland

(Stuttgart 1986), pp. 105, 126 ff . where he asserts the linguistic similarity of theGermanic dialects and their mutual comprehensibility.



45

Passau, Salzburg and Freising. These, however, remained under the jurisdiction of Boniface, most loyal to the Carolingian cause, although

he was not named archbishop for Bavaria. Odilo had succeeded tohave pope Zacharias withdraw the jurisdiction over the Bavarianchurch from Boniface and to transfer it to a special papal legate, asif it could be presumed that the Franks would surrender their suzeraintyover Bavaria. Upon Carolingian insistence this legate had to with-draw. The Frankish presence in the Bavarian church was gaining inimportance. As was indicated above, Odilo’s attempt at indepen-dence was put down in 743 and Virgil was appointed bishop of Salzburg in 745. Sensitive to the elevated cultural standards of hisduchy, Tassilo seems to have returned to the idea of an independentBavarian church. The number of Bavarian monasteries rose to fty.

Just as the Carolingians used monasteries as bases for their missions,so the Agilol ngians founded monasteries as bases for their projectedoperations. Owing to the patronage, which they enjoyed from themighty in the land, re ected in their growing wealth from their hold-ings in land, scattered over large areas, and their memberships inextensive networks of other monastic foundations, the local dynas-

ties created a system of support that could not diminish. And justas the Carolingians had sought to gain, sustain and elevate theirkingship by means of the backing of the pope, so now Tassilo soughtto obtain papal support for himself and his family. In 772 Tassilohad his eldest son Theodo baptized in Rome by pope Hadrian I.Nine years later, in 781, Charles was to have the same pope bap-tize his son Pepin in Rome. Quite evidently Tassilo tried to estab-lish a spiritual base with the pope to support his eventual reach fora crown. 70 It was not to come to that.

When in September of 769 Pepin died his male heirs and undis-puted successors were identical. There were no other contending claimants of the throne. His sons Charles (747–814) and Carlomanassumed the crowns over a divided Frankish realm. 71 According tothe Annals (768 ) Charles on October 9 at Noyon, and Carloman atSoissons. Considering that the Carolingians were Austrasians, bothlocations are in Neustria. Tassilo may have supposed an opportunityfor his ambitions in the tensions, which accompanied the division.

70 Angenendt, Frühmittelalter , p. 302.71 See Wallace-Hadrill, pp. 181–204, for a detailed biographical discussion of

Charlemagne.



47

But not this time. According to the Annales (787) the extensive treat-ment of some insigni cant issue between the duke and his king raises

suspicions. In what appears to have been recorded as an orches-trated occasion, Hadrian took Charles’ side and scathingly chidedTassilo for his obstinacy and that if he were not to submit, thenCharles and the Frankish armies would be free of all sins when theyfell with re and sword upon the Bavarians. 76 Charles was now freeto summon Tassilo to Worms and when he refused to attend, threearmies marched against him in 787—one from the north, Charleswith the main army from the west and the vice-roy of Lombardyassumed a hostile position toward the Tirol in the south. 77 Partlydeserted by his supporters, Charles had been able to draw many of the Bavarian magnates to his side, Tassilo had no choice but to sur-render without a ght. Outside of Augsburg Tassilo once againrenewed his vassalage and was pardoned. Once returned to his res-idence in Regensburg and supposedly goaded by his ‘rancorous’Lombardic wife Liutpirc, ‘a woman hateful to God’ according to thechronicler ( Annals 788 ), he resumed his rebellious ways and suppos-edly even negotiated with the eastern Avars. Informed, perhaps

betrayed, by Bavarian nobles loyal to the Carolingians, Charles sum-moned Tassilo to the diet at Ingelheim. According to the records,with his family rounded up, not surprisingly, Tassilo confessed histreasonable activities, surrendered his treasure, was deposed and wascondemned to death. But since the Carolingians could not executeone of their own, he was pardoned in 788 and sentenced to end hislife as a monk in the monastery of Jumièges, near Rouen in Normandy.His two sons were sent somewhere else 78 He died there between 794and 800. He and his sons were probably blinded rst. Liutpirc wasexiled and the whole family disappeared behind monastery walls— his daughter was cloistered at Chelles—and from the accounts. Thiswas very much of a trumped up charge and it has also been sug-gested that his original oath of loyalty was reinterpreted as his oathof vassalage, even though he had not become Charles’ vassal till 787and that it was now that the court remembered his desertion of thecampaign in 763 and that it was this act of broken fealty that now

76 See Collins, p. 85, for a version of the pope’s outburst.77 Stollenmeyer, Der Kelch des Herzogs Tassilo, p. 11.78 Riché, Carolingians , pp. 101f. See Nelson, ‘kingship and empire’, in McKitterick,

Carolingian Culture , p. 63. See Collins, p. 87.



48

brought the death sentence upon him. 79 His wife and children werealso con ned in convents and monasteries. As was mentioned, it is

possible that Tassilo was blinded, as was customary. Henceforth hismemory was condemned as he and his family disappeared from therecords. The damnatio memoriae was suspended over them. Other hos-tile magnates were banished and the duchy was abolished and sub-divided into jurisdictions administered by Frankish counts. 80 It wasultimately joined to Italy and placed under the rule of Charles’ sonPepin. Tassilo had been hauled once more before the great Synodin Frankfurt (794), where he again had to renounce all claims topower. It must have mattered to Charles to have the duchy handedover to him by its last duke. Henceforth counts replaced the dukesand Bavaria and Carinthia were incorporated into the Carolingiankingdom. 81 His territorial possessions were distributed, to monasticestablishments, for instance, 82 Tassilo’s monasteries were entrusted toFrankish bishops. Salzburg was now elevated to an archbishopric.Bavaria had lost its distinct status. In telling this tragic story a num-ber of historical facts have not been mentioned while others havebeen anticipated. The establishment of Carolingian power, reorga-

nization and ensuing Franki cation of the realm involved the sup-pression of particular interests, including conspiracies to assassinateCharles. 83 Covered up in the pro-Carolingian records, these eventsappear to have been an early expression among others of the Carolin-gians’ ambitions, their intentions and methods. The grandiose designof an Imperium Christianumallowed the succession through only onedynastic line. Because of his descent Tassilo’s children might haverisen to be serious rivals. Having been blinded, he and his weredisquali ed, as was customary among the Byzantines.

79 Angenendt, Frühmittelalter , p. 302.80 B. Arnold, Medieval Germany, 500–1300. A Political Interpretation(Toronto, Bu ff alo

1997), p. 2, suggests that the motive was the con scation of Bavaria in order tosecure the eastern frontiers in preparation for a campaign against the Avars.

81 B. Arnold, Princes and Territories in medieval Germany(Cambridge 1991), p. 93, joins other voices when he attributes the failure of the Carolingian empire to itsrejection of an open aristocratic formation with the dukes at its head, in which mil-itary, economic and political services to the crown would be forthcoming on the

basis of autonomous commands and jurisdictions in the regions.82 Geary, Remembrance , p. 117, who notes the land transfer to Benediktbeuren.83 Brunner, Oppositionelle Gruppen, pp. 40 ff . Collins, p. 88, emphasizes the tradi-

tional ruthlessness with which the Carolingians pursued the elimination of the ducalfamilies with any residual Merovingian ties.



50

Brief reference has been made to Lombard ambitions to unifyItaly under their rule, to annex the Byzantine enclaves and Rome

(772). Evidently the pope recognized the possibility of becoming subject to the interests of the Lombards close by and preferred the lord-ship of the distant Franks. Pope Hadrian appealed to Charles tohonor the promised responsibilities, which the royal house of theFranks had accepted toward the papacy, and to carry out the roleof defender of the Roman church. Following a long siege the starvedout the Lombard capital, Pavia, 87 surrendered in June 774, Desideriuswas deposed, not usual practice, and Charles himself immediatelyassumed the unconstitutional succession to the Lombard throne. Anyopposition by the heir presumptive, Adalgis, and by the duke of Friuli in 776 was quickly struck down. This move by the Carolingianshad a dual e ff ect: Charles undermined the basis of the relationship,which existed between the Bavarians and the Lombards. By attract-ing Bavarian nobles to his cause, Charles weakened Tassilo’s posi-tion. As king of the Lombards, Charles’ role as patricius Romanorumassumed a di ff erent guise and as rex Francorum et Langobardorum atque

patricius Romanorumdid not hesitate to take seriously his role as pro-

tector of the Papal states, though it was not till 781 that Charlesrecognized some of pope Hadrian’s territorial claims. Relations withthe imperial court in Constantinople drew closer. At Easter 781 thepope anointed Charles’ sons Carloman, henceforth called Pepin, andLouis, aged 3, kings and though they were still not of age, Charlesentrusted Pepin with the provincial kingship in Italy, including Bavaria,and Louis with Aquitaine. 88 The intention evidently was the consol-idation of the realm through the reintegration of Bavaria and theintegration of the newly conquered regions into a uni ed realm. Withhis son Charles, heir to the Frankish core lands, Charles may haveplanned to put the tri-partite administration of the realm into placeearly. A generation later these plans were to cause serious problemsin the succession. Gradually the Frankish nobility—Franks, Burgun-dians and Alemans—assumed powers in Italy. The Frankish courtretained administrative control over the young kings and their gov-ernment. They remained delegates of the central authority. That

87 Collins, p. 61f. stresses the presumptions re ected in the unusual sequence of events following the victory over the Lombards.

88 Nelson, ‘Carolingian Royal Ritual’, in Frankish World , pp. 102 ff .



51

same year he expanded his relations with the eastern empire throughthe engagement of his daughter Rotrud with the future emperor,

perhaps as a means of de ning the contours of the ideal Frankishrealm. Beginning in 774 Charles became the most powerful ruler inthe west and an e ff ective partner of the papacy in the formulationof imperial policy. 89 The justi cation for calling him ‘Great’ wasbecoming evident. Already in about 777 a poem attributed to Paulinusof Aquileia anticipates the much later nal conquest of the Saxons,while it glori es the political use of terror in their conquest andenforced conversion. The poem bestows on Charles a Messianic aurafor having overcome the evil, barbaric and unteachable demon wor-shippers. 90 As most Christian protector of the church, as king of theFranks and Lombards, the enthusiasts could propagate the notionthat Charles was God’s chosen to rule an empire and as God’s rep-resentative protect and guide all Christendom, and beside whom asChrist’s rst servant, the bishops could occupy only secondary rank.Surprising in this context is the level of sophistication of Romanlegal reasoning, which Charles had in his service.

This august position in Christendom attracted Charles to inter-

vene in problems arising on the periphery of his kingdom. His cam-paign into Moslem Spain (778), actually against Christian Basques,hoped to incorporate some Christian enclaves into his realm butproved unsuccessful. ( Annals 778 ) The loss of his rearguard during the retreat from Spain in an attack by Basques in the Pyrenees, inthe valley of Roncesvalles, did lead to one of the great tales of medieval heroism, the Chanson de Roland . To anticipate possible unrestin Aquitaine and to secure this region for the kingdom by recog-nizing its distinct status, Charles appointed his son Louis, to be knownas ‘the Pious’, to the provincial kingship there in 781, at the sametime as his son Pepin was crowned ‘king’ of Italy. Charles’ majoreff orts, however, were to be directed once again against the Saxonsin the north. The Avars in the east were to be the last to attractthe attention of the Franks. 91 Both were considered to constitute aserious threat to the eastern regions of the Frankish kingdom.

89 Mohr, p. 40.90 Garrison, ‘The Franks as New Israel?’, in Hen and Innes, Uses of the Past ,

p. 149.91 W. Pohl, Die Awaren, Ein Steppenvolk in Mitteleuropa, 567–822 n.Chr.(Munich 1988).



53

them in 772, according to the Annals 772 launched from Worms,had more the character of a punitive expedition to secure adjoining

Frankish lands against Saxon raids. This campaign has assumed alegendary character and stands out because of the capture of thelarge forti ed Eresburg and the destruction of an idol, a column,the Irminsul , sacred to Wodan/Odin, the most venerated pagan cul-tic ‘tree’ which supported the world and the symbol of Saxon tribalcohesion, erected on an elevation visible from afar. It was a sanc-tuary at which great treasure had been deposited and blood sacri ceswere claimed to have been performed. The justi cation of the actwas given by a water miracle, which provided the thirsting army ondrought-stricken terrain with an amply owing stream. Charles dis-tributed the treasure among his followers, so that the sacred hoardwas lost. 94 It is not surprising that this violation of tribal identity forthe sake of Christianity should have caused embitterment, demandsfor revenge and have roused the Saxons to utmost retaliatory resis-tance. 95 According to the records, only in response to that treach-erous resistance did Charles mobilize his extensive and persistenteff orts to nalize the conquest and the Christianization of the Saxons

by means of his ‘sermons with an iron tongue’ and their total inte-gration into the realm of the Franks. 96 New rules and procedureshad to be implemented for the task. It is fair to wonder whetherSaxon resistance to Christianity was really the only cause, whichsolicited the Frankish military e ff ect. About sixty years after thecon ict began, Einhard presents the rationale in the 7th chapter of his Vita Karoli Magni .97 No war undertaken by the Franks was moreprolonged, more full of atrocities or more demanding of e ff ort. It isworth noting what a severe dividing line Christianity was. Thoughfrom Thuringia himself, a Christian Einhard shows no a ffi nity withhis pagan Saxon neighbors when he writes that they, like almost allthe peoples living in Germany, are ferocious by nature, much givento devil worship and hostile to ‘our’ religion, thinking it no dishonorto violate and transgress the laws of God and man. Along the Franco-

94 K. Hauk, Überregionale Sakralorte und die vorchristliche Ikonographie der Seegermanen,(Göttingen 1981), p. 211. See Collins, p. 47f. who suggests that the location of this

idol may have had to do with erecting a challenge to the Christian God.95 Collins, p. 45f., indicates that Frankish sources consistently interpret Saxonresistance as rebellion and a breaking of the faith.

96 Collins, p. 48f. for some strategic details.97 Thorpe, Einhard , p. 61f.



54

Saxon border, which Einhard represents as a clear line of demar-cation, murder, robbery and arson were constant occurrences and

that nally the time had come to stop retaliatory strikes and set outon full-scale war against the Saxons. In this war of thirty yearsEinhard regrets the great loss of life, especially among the Saxons,but blames them for their faithless violations of promises, submis-sion, rejection and return to ‘devil worship’, his designation for theGermanic cults, followed by their acceptance and rejection of Chris-tianity, and vacillation between surrender and de ance. With somepride he points out that Charles was relentless in the pursuit of his

vengeance on them for their per dy, resorting in the end to thedeportation of many thousands of Saxons to Gaul and other partsof Germany. Place names are vestiges of such relocations, the mostobvious being Sachsenhausen on the southern edge of Frankfurt.Finally conditions imposed by Charles were accepted by the Saxonswho agreed to give up their ‘devil worship’, their old beliefs, andother inherited malpractices. Once they had adopted the Christiansacraments, they were to become one people with the Franks.

Einhard mentions no names other than that of Charles, nor does

he specify the atrocities committed by either side. He does not men-tion speci cally that throughout the military actions the founding of churches, monasteries and administrative counties, sometimes evenentrusted to Saxons, kept pace and that Saxon hostilities were directedrepeatedly against these colonizing establishments. Wehrkirchen, forti edchurches, probably also located in larger forti cations, will have beencharacteristic features of this conquest and conversion. It was appre-ciated that these foundations were latent centers of political powerand control. Evidently the Saxons, led by one of their chiefs, Widukind,were ghting a guerilla war conducted by some resistance groups,‘freedom ghters’, among the Saxons. The Saxon guerilla tacticswere interpreted as sneak attacks by the chroniclers of the Franks.Einhard does not mention that the Saxons under Widukind 98 took advantage of Charles’ campaign in Spain to revolt. ( Annals 778 ) Theseannals report victories, which, however, require frequent repetitions.Submissions have to be renewed. On at least one occasion, in 782,a Frankish force was annihilated along with some thirty courtiers

98 Collins, p. 50f., speculates that as in other duchies, Widukind may indeed rep-resent a ducal family installed earlier among the Saxons by the Merovingians, butwho had come to share the community of interests with their people.



55

and nobles. This catastrophe caused much shock in the kingdom.The Annals for the year 782 speak of a large assembly along the

river Lippe, attended by Norse representatives, envoys of the Avars,and of all the Saxon chiefs except for Widukind. Son-in-law of Siegfried, the Danish king, Widukind was able to rely on the sup-port of the Danes and saw no need to be one of the friends of theFranks. Not yet. At that assembly a law had been passed which pre-sumed the land of the Saxons to be integrated into the Frankishrealm, divided into Frankish counties administered by Saxon noblesand subject to severe Frankish laws. 99 The imposition of death sen-tences was a frequent punishment. Widukind easily found a willing following within the tribe to rise with him against the Franks.

The Annals indicate that the Saxons defeated a Frankish force thatwas actually intended to be a thrust (unmotivated?) against a fewde ant Slavic Sorbs on the upper Elbe River. Upon hearing of theSaxon revolt they changed the assignment to attack the Saxons. Therecords don’t seem to deal with the defeat and rather than report-ing the truth, claim a victory with the death of only two magnates.The Revised Annals for that year tell of an incompetent campaign,

hampered by jealousies among the Frankish leaders, which led tothe disaster and the losses indicated. Part of the Frankish force wassurrounded by the Saxon battle line and cut down almost to a man. 100

The accounts may be a cover-up. Charles’ response has left a blem-ish on his reputation. In the autumn of 782 he entered Saxony andat Verden, where the rivers Aller and Weser join, the loyal Saxonscame to submit to the authority of the king and handed over 4500malefactores , ‘evildoers’, to be punished. The number seems high andis probably typically in ated. 101 There is, however, no mention of hostages or of binding agreements. Charles seems to have reachedthe end of his patience. In a single day he had all of them beheaded.Widukind had escaped to the Danes. A year later, the Saxons resumedtheir rebellion. Einhard did not mention the event.

99 See Collins, p. 52f., for details of the severe pronouncements contained in theclauses proclaimed against pagan practices among the Saxons. The document alsooff ers insights into the (economic) terms under which churches were established.

100

Collins, p. 54.101 Fouracre, in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History, p. 103, speaks of 4000 decapitations, which may well have prolonged Saxon resistance. See Collins,pp. 54f., 57, who draws a parallel with the destruction of the Alemans as an e ff ectivepower at the battle of Cannstatt forty years earlier, in 745/46.



56

Who were these Saxons on whom Widukind, his name meaning ‘Wodan’s child’, could rely for support? The simple answer would

suggest the simple folk, the conservative elements of the populationwhich rejected what was foreign and new, because it was not easilyunderstood positively, who were more closely concerned about thepossible loss of familiar traditions and values, of their religious iden-tity and their traditional divinities, all those levels of society whichare most vulnerable to socio-political changes, whose imagination canmuch more easily envisage losses but not readily perceive the poten-tial gains. Not so the Saxon nobility who had seen the opportunityto realize a community of interests with the Franks a long time ear-lier and had begun to establish marriage ties to the highest Frankishnobility, economic links with Frankish towns and cities even beyondthe Rhine, to the Christian church. This group did not provide thecore for the Saxon resistance. As was mentioned above Saxon no-bles were sharing in the distribution of the power structure in thoseareas over which the Franks were gaining control. Charles knew howto attract the Saxon nobility to his cause by means of assurancesconcerning property and the promise of royal protection. Already

earlier, Anglo-Saxon missionaries had been rescued by Christian sym-pathizers among the Saxons, and evidently Charles could count onSaxon support when he asked that the responsible ‘evildoers’, ‘free-dom ghters’, ‘terrorists’ be surrendered. The request doesn’t seemto have led to turmoil among the Saxons as it is likely that the vic-tims were selected from among the unfree and lesser free who onlyhad material value and were handed over as a form of payment,the Wergeld . There will not have been any nobles among the exe-cuted malefactores.The gentle king serving his gentle God had losthis credibility. Was it a divine judgment that rst his beloved wifeand then his mother died within a few months after the executions?Hereafter the Saxon wars entered a new dimension as resentmentsand resistance really ared up. Even the eastern Frisians joined in.Once again Widukind assumed the leadership. ‘Terrorism’ prevailedon both sides. Three campaigns of destruction in as many years,including a devastating winter campaign in 784/85, were necessaryto bring about the surrender, baptism and reconciliation of Widukindin 785 at Attigny. He chose Charles to be his godfather. 102 Contrary

102 See J.H. Lynch, ‘ Spirituale Vinculum: the Vocabulary of Spiritual Kinship inEarly medieval Europe’, in Noble and Contreni, Religion, Culture and Society, pp. 181 ff .



57

to more customary practices Widukind was not ‘deprived of his eyes’but was rewarded with vast estates near Enger. The Enger Reliquary,

reputedly Charles’ gift to Widukind, is interpreted to be a symbolof his Christianization. According to the chronicler, writing a few

years later, the whole of Saxony was then subjugated. ( Annals 785 )Contrary to this assertion the popular uprisings continued for nearlyanother twenty years, even without the active participation of Widu-kind. 103 It is conceivable that his baptism was a ploy to ease the lotof his Saxons. Later, having become an integral part of the powerstructure in church and state, the Ottonian line of Saxon kings wasproud of the dynastic link with Widukind.

The Saxons were ultimately to be integrated into the Frankishrealm. To bring this about ‘martial law’ was introduced in 785,which made it clear that conversion by force was the best methodto achieve Saxon submission to Frankish rule. Under these laws, theCapitulatio de partibus Saxoniae , perhaps already issued in 782, ruthlessconversion on pain of death was mandatory. Any violation of churches,church property, of the clergy and obedience to the church, wasmet with the death penalty. Resisting baptism, eating meat during

lent, were punishable by death. Cremating the dead drew the deathpenalty. A breach of loyalty to the king entailed the death penalty. 104

A Frankish administration, as well as a church structure were imposedon the Saxons. The payment of tithes was introduced as a priorityand rigorously enforced, while the religious work among them wasneglected. Mass baptisms were no substitute for personal spiritualconversions, (Fig. 3) but there was no substitute for the shortage of missionaries. With Charles away ghting the Avars, the Saxonsresponded with another popular uprising in 792/93, which involvedthe whole region. In 794 Charles was able to restore order, only thelands between the Weser and Elbe Rivers, as well as northern Trans-Elbia toward Holstein remained in revolt. During the next ve years,and then again in 802 and nally in 804 Charles took the eldagainst the opposition to his rule. By means of devastation, depop-ulation, resettlement and the replacement through Slavic popula-tions he did gain control over the Saxons. 105 In 804 a depopulated

103 Collins, p. 55f.104 Riché, p. 104. See Wallace-Hadrill, p. 413f. for excerpts from the rst Saxon

capitulary.105 See Collins, p. 163, n. 20.



59

North-Elbia was ceded to the Slavic Abodrites who advanced as faras Hamburg.

Thanks to the mitigating in uence of Anglo-Saxon legal advice,the revised Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae had been issued in 797 asthe Capitulare Saxonicum. Then in 802 the Lex Saxonumwas issued,which created a synthesis of traditional popular law and Carolingianlaw. 106 Within a framework of Frankish aspects, Saxon practices andstructures remained essentially in place. It contributed directly to themerging of Franks and Saxons, which by the 10th century was tolead to the formation of medieval Germany. Most signi cant was tobe the work of the established monasteries of the realm, which placednew foundations into Saxon lands, thereby integrating the new ter-ritories into the Frankish kingdom. Bishoprics were created in Münster,Osnabrück and Bremen and in 795 were placed under the new arch-bishopric of Cologne. Others had already been integrated into a net-work under the archbishopric of Mainz in 782/83. Many of thelocations, like Paderborn, had begun as forti ed Frankish sites during the wars with the Saxons. The Christianization of the Saxons wasneither individual nor voluntary. Rudimentary Christian instruction

followed by mass baptisms was imposed by force of Frankish arms.The Elbian north was not to come to rest just yet, as in 808Danish land and naval forces began to lay claim to the northerncoastlines and lands. A trading center, later known as Haithabu, wasto anchor west-east trade across Jutland. The Franks responded withthe erection of a fortress at Itzehoe, as well as the renewed exten-sion into northern Elbia and perhaps even the construction of theLimes Saxoniae.A war with the Danes was averted when their king was murdered (810) and the possible reversion of the Saxons topaganism was avoided. Hamburg became Saxon again in 811. Danishsouthward expansion remained a factor for several centuries to come.It marked the up beat for what was to become the turmoil broughtby the Scandinavian Vikings, an uncertain designation, which the9th century English used for the pirates, perhaps intended to iden-tify the ‘men from Viken’, the region of the Oslo Fjord. Most sourcesspeak of Nortmanni .107

106 Riché, p. 106f.107 See Collins, pp. 167 ff . Also B. Sawyer, P. Sawyer, Medieval Scandinavia from

Conversion to Reformation circa 800–1500 (Minneapolis, London 1993), p. 52f.



60

Towards eastern Elbia the Carolingians established several stronglyforti ed control points, such as Bardowick, and Magdeburg, where

the W-E trade routes crossed the River Elbe. They also appearedto have tried to transform the Elbe-Saale river system into some-thing of an eastern frontier in the form of the former Roman Rhine-Danube limes , extending via Bamberg and Regensburg to the Danube.The experiment, however, failed, owing to the lack of sustainablelong-term Frankish power along the Elbe. There seems to be nomention of an attempt to link the river frontier between Elbe andDanube. 108

Having incorporated Lombardy, Bavaria, and with the conquestof Saxony well under way by 790, Charles could turn to the lastthreat to his frontiers from the east, the Avars. 109 These Avars nolonger represented the power, which they once were in earlier cen-turies. They had compacted their domains territorially and were nolonger expansionist. When in 788, the Annals speak of a last aggres-sive and expansionist phase in which they reputedly threatened Bavariaand northern Italy and were repulsed, the sources may very wellhave disguised the Franko-Bavarian eastward expansionist aggression,

a compensation for Bavaria’s loss of its duke, Tassilo III, and of itsrelative independence in 788. In 788 two Avar armies moved west-ward, but were both repulsed. In 790 Avars tried to negotiate theirwestern border and it appears that the Franks made territorial claimsto which the Avars would not agree. Charles’ moves in 791 mayalso have been intended to secure the territorial claims, though sup-posedly they were a response to the supposed threats of the Avars,or also possibly represented as a punishment for their willingness toassist Tassilo, when in 781 an Avar army had appeared on Bavaria’seastern border as though to support Tassilo. Once again expanding Christianity may have contributed to the cause. 110 The campaignproved ine ff ective at rst. The Annals 791describe the campaign insome detail and the elaborately spectacular religious preparations for

108 M. Hardt, ‘Hesse, Elbe, Saale and the Frontier of the Carolingian empire’ inPohl, et al. The Transformation of Frontiers From Late Antiquity to the Carolingians (Leiden,

Boston, Cologne 2001), p. 231.109 Pohl, Awaren, p. 310f. for a discussion of Bavarian and Avar relations during the 8th century based on archeology. See Collins, pp. 89 ff .

110 Collins, p. 93, considers Bavarian missionary activity a possible factor for thefrictions along the border.



61

the encounter. From Regensburg the army marched along both banksof the Danube while the supplies were transported on the river. 111

Before this army the Avars withdrew, leaving abandoned regions tothe Franks. A disease killed o ff most of their horses. The Frankishaccounts appear to have exaggerated the ‘triumph’, because the Avarsavoided a pitched battle and all that could be reported was widescale devastation and pillage. The vast treasures of silver and goldwere elsewhere. The weaknesses of the Avars had been made evi-dent. For a war of conquest, however, greater preparations werenecessary. Charles stayed in Regensburg where he became receptiveto the idea that a canal could utilize the existing navigable river sys-tem to link the Rhine River with the Danube and such a canal wasstarted. It was not to be completed because the marshy terrain undidover night what had been achieved during the day. The idea wasto be revitalized periodically and in the 1980s became a reality, butis only moderately successful. Perhaps relying on the Avars, revoltserupted between 792 and 795 among Saxons, Frisians and Slavs andthe emir of Cordoba saw opportunities and with family strife to boot,Charles was forced to transfer his attention away from the Avars. 112

In 795 and 796 more extensive preparation and sporadic campaignsbrought success to the Italian preemptive strikes, under the leader-ship of Eric of Friuli and Pepin, Charles’ son, sub-king in Italy,respectively. ( Annals 788 ) Slavs had assisted Eric and together theycaptured the treasure of the Avars and sent large amounts of it toAachen, with some going to St. Peter’s in Rome. ( Annals 796 ). Thelong-term e ff ects of the campaign of 791 revealed the inherent weak-ness of the Avars, as tribal tensions pulled their realm apart. By 796the rulers of the Avars had submitted to the Franks and acceptedChristianity and Frankish overlordship. 113 In the end eight years of campaigns were so successful that the Avars ceased to exist as a peo-ple, their lands left nearly vacant. Einhard tells us this and also thattheir nobility was completely eliminated and that all of their wealthnow passed into Frankish hands. Never before had a war so enriched

111 Pohl, p. 316, mentions that the records name the presence of a Nibulunc .

Vestiges of this campaign may have provided basic elements for the later Nibelungenlied ,the great German medieval epic. See Collins, p. 93f. for details concerning thepreparation for the campaign.

112 Pohl, p. 318.113 Pohl, p. 319.



63

‘the German’, was the East Frankish kingdom again able somehowto put several armies into the eld simultaneously. 118

Already some fteen years before his imperial coronation in 800Charles came to be seen in terms of his greatness and assumed some-thing of the triumphant role of the Roman emperors. 119 Alcuin hadargued that Christ had reserved the sovereign status for Charleswhich outstripped the powers of the papacy and of the Byzantinecourt. He wielded not only the temporal power, but the religiouspower as well and it is fair to argue that despite the military pre-occupation, he intended to create the Imperium Christianum, of whichAlcuin had spoken earlier, a theocracy of the realm, which he hadinherited from his father. By means of a reform of the Frankishchurch, Pepin and Boniface had laid the groundwork for such anedi ce. Charles, however, had departed from the norm and risen toa higher plane of support by placing the resources of the realmbehind the reform e ff ort, equating church and state, 120 intent on cre-ating the Imperium Christianum. It was a strategy of grandiose intent,which culminated in his imperial coronation. The great events, cul-tural initiatives and accomplishments of his reign fall into these two

decades and point clearly to the realization of his grand objective.Literacy and learning from authentic, correct and unambiguous texts,true faith and devotion, victory and conquest, loyalty, art, architec-ture and the participation of all in the one great vision were themeans by which a free people tended to its spiritual well-being andunited in its Christian faith, supported by an army of saints, inhab-iting a united, sancti ed Christian realm, could be consolidated andprepared to assume its great, singular, Christian role. The Admonitio

generalis was to bring this about. His coronation in 800 was a logi-cal conclusion, though not, apparently, his overriding objective. Hewas to derive the idea that he was a new Moses, a new David nowleading his chosen people to salvation. In 789 the Admonitio generalis recalled the Old Testament king Josiah and although Charles modestly

R. Collins (eds.), Charlemagne’s Heir, New Perspectives on the Reign of Louis the Pious (814–849) (Oxford 1990), pp. 391–405.

118 T. Reuter, Early Medieval Germany(London, New York 1991), p. 90.119

Fouracre, in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History, p. 104. See alsoArnold, pp. 78 ff .120 T.F.X. Noble, ‘From Brigandage to Justice. Charlemagne, 785–794’, in C.M.

Chazelle (ed.), Literacy, Politics, and Artistic Innovation in the Early Medieval West (Lanham,New York, London 1992), pp. 51 ff .



64

rejected the association, he did emulate that king by personally tend-ing to the needs of the realm through his tours of inspection. Probably

not generally perceived, this association was yet another indicationhow much the Carolingian court sought not only the image of theroyal role-models of the Old Testament, 121 but the extent to whichBiblical history was taken to be an allegory, replicable as contem-porary history, as if it was God’s divine plan to transform the ‘NewChosen People of the Franks’ into the ‘Chosen People of Israel’. 122

The Moses association recommended itself for Charlemagne who isseen to be leading the Christian people into the realm of universalChristendom, the new ‘promised land’. The pedagogy of school andpulpit bore this responsibility. It will be demonstrated below howmuch Carolingian art re ected and supported this association. Artof the illuminations was to make visible the renewal, the Revelatiowithin the Restauratio, Renovatio, and Reformatio.123 One sought the mir-ror image, the emphasis on deeds in addition to the signs of spiri-tual dedication. Later when pope Hadrian I wanted him to cede thepromised lands in Italy, he appealed to Charles to act as a newConstantine. Following his father’s lead, Charles took special inter-

ests and acted decisively in the reforms of the church, its texts, itsorganization, its foundations, the standardization throughout the realmof the liturgy concerning the Sacraments in Roman terms, such ques-tions of Theology as dogma concerning the identity of Christ asGod, and the cult of images. All point to the traditional identi cationwith Christian Rome as the pure source. 124

121 Garrison, ‘The Franks as the new Israel?’ in Hen and Innes, Uses of the Past ,p. 120, indicates that it was Charlemagne’s non-Frankish entourage who was respon-sible for the promotion of the idea. However, see Noble, ‘Brigandage’, in Chazelle,Literacy, Politics , pp. 55 ff . See also Contreni, Carolingian Learning , p. III, 64, for themodest, practical, educational demands. Also pp. V, 75f.

122 Mohr, p. 41f. See Nelson, ‘Carolingian Royal Ritual’ in Frankish Worlds ,p. 108f. D. Janes, ‘The world and its past as Christian allegory in the early MiddleAges’, in Hen and Innes, Uses of the Past , p. 103. argues that the Bible was used“as a succession of allegories”. See also M. de Jong, ‘Religion’, in R. McKitterick,The Early Middle Ages, Europe 400–1000 (Oxford 2001), p. 138f. suggests that thisequation was only an early analogy drawn by the Franks and that by 820 thisequation had been replaced by the idea of a ‘church of the Peoples’. See alsoCollins, pp. 109 ff . for a discussion of the ecclesiastical character of the prescrip-tions, many reissued.

123

Wallace-Hadrill, p. 196.124 Sullivan, Aix-la-Chapelle , pp. 175–186, discusses the royal legislation pertinentto facilitating the episcopal administration. See H. Schneider, ‘Roman Liturgy andFrankish Allegory’, in J.M.H. Smith (ed.), Early Medieval Rome and the Christian West (Leiden, Boston, Köln 2000), p. 344.



65

From that dispute on the distinction between the eastern and west-ern church appears to have become a consideration re ected in the

Libri Carolini , 790–93, formerly attributed to Alcuin, but actually,owing to the many Hispanicisms, edited and commented by theVisigoth Theodulph of Orléans. 125 This was a collection of papal let-ters collected by Charles in which his distinct religious and opticalrole was emphasized as an indication of the congruence of religiousand political considerations, which motivated him. Generally speak-ing, Charles returned to the theme of the Admonitio generalis and hisconcern with his program of educational reform to promote thequali ed membership in the Christian realm, the ‘new Israel’, ruledby the ‘new David’. Speci cally the collection is to be considered asa royal response to the Second Council of Nicea of 787, concern-ing the Byzantine veneration of icons and the charge of idolatry,which in the 720s had caused the Byzantine Iconoclasm, the destruc-tion of icons. Eventually the dissension extended to a concern forthe return of some Byzantine possessions in Italy and consequentlystrained relations with the papacy and the Carolingians owing totheir respective territorial ambitions. In 787 the empress Irene con-

vened the Council at Nicea, which was intended to restore the con-ditions preceding the Iconoclasm. 126 Since pope Hadrian I wasrepresented, his representatives returned with a Greek account of theproceedings, which were subsequently not only poorly translated intoLatin, but ‘improved’ by the translator. 127 A faulty translation causedmisunderstandings of the Council’s decision and great upset whenthe rendition seemed to order all Christians to venerate images andthreaten all those who did not comply with excommunication. Such

125 See A. Freeman, Opus Caroli Regis contra Synodum (Libri Carolini) Monumenta Germaniae Historica (Hanover 1998), pp. 12 ff ., 17 ff . According to Collins, p. 135.Alcuin was away in Northumbria during most of the period. See L. Nees, ‘CarolingianArt and Politics’, in Sullivan, Gentle Voices , p. 194. Also T.F.X. Noble, ‘Traditionand Learning in Search of Ideology’, in Sullivan, Gentle Voices , pp. 227 ff ., for areview of the considerations concerning this source. Also Noble, ‘Brigandage’, inChazelle, Literacy, Politics , pp. 61 ff . for a summary of the text.

126 Freeman, pp. 1 ff . See Noble, ‘Tradition and Learning’, in Sullivan, Gentle Voices , pp. 229 ff . Also Nees, Early Christian Art , p. 146f. for a background to the

Iconoclasm. See W.J. Diebold, Word and Image. An Introduction to Early Medieval Art (Boulder 2000), pp. 99 ff . Also C.M. Chazelle, The Cruci ed God in the Carolingian Era (Cambridge 2001), pp. 39 ff .

127 D.S. Sefton, ‘The Popes and the Holy Images in the Eighth Century’, inNoble and Contreni (eds.), Religion, Culture and Society, p. 120f.



66

a copy somehow reached Charlemagne. Using the works of the earlyChristian authorities, 128 Theodulph had begun a well-intentioned,

occasionally sarcastic response to the Second Council of Nicea in790/91 and parts of this response had been forwarded to the pope,entitled Capitulare adversus synodum, who in 792 rejected it angrily pointby point. The unexpected response ended the discussion and a riftwas avoided. Hadrian had sponsored the Council himself in the hopeof bridging the gap between eastern and western Christians con-cerning the veneration of images and thereby contributing to thereconciliation of the two churches. Hadrian appeared to accept thedecision at Nicea as orthodox. In Rome it was misunderstood thatthe Franks were not opposed to images, only to their veneration.Veneration was reserved for God. The educational value residing inthe admiration of saints and in edifying pictures, as means of thebeauti cation of interiors, was entirely acceptable. To the Franks thepope’s dictum to comply with the Byzantine decision did not re ecttheir faith. Accommodation to it was necessary. 129 Deuteronomy 6:13and Matthew 4:10 provided the basis in Scriptures. Repeatedly theLibri challenged the Greek attempt to equate their images with truly

holy objects. Almost nished, the Libri were abandoned on the eveof the scheduled Synod of Frankfurt in 794 and the agenda wasmodi ed. Charles could not publish his manifesto. The Carolingiansmay have pursued a di ff erent agenda in their objections, to estab-lish their claim to be the true successors of the Biblical kings andnot the Byzantine emperors. 130 Only four copies of the Libri Carolini are extant. 131

It would appear that Charles accepted the principles outlined inchapter 24 of St. Augustine’s De civitate dei , on the felicity of Chris-tian emperors. According to Einhard, Charles preferred to be read toat mealtime from ‘The City of God’. 132 Augustine had stressed thatthe earthly kingdom was merely a re ection of the eternal kingdomof God. 133 While God’s kingdom was eternal, the earthly kingdom

128 See Freeman, pp. 51 ff . for a review of the authors Theodulph used.129 Freeman, pp. 8f., 25.130 Noble, ‘Brigandage’, in Chazelle, Literacy, Politics , pp. 62–65.131

Freeman, pp. 67ff

. also Noble, ‘Tradition and Learning’, p. 332. See Chazelle,Cruci ed God , pp. 69 ff ., for a discussion of the in uence of Theodulfs work.132 Thorpe, p. 78.133 Riché, p. 130. G. Brown, ‘The Carolingian Renaissance’, in R. McKitterick,

Carolingian Culture: emulation and innovation(Cambridge 1994), p. 25.



67

changed its rulers in accordance with God’s purpose. Thus God’sfavor for Saul was withdrawn and transferred to David. Thus the

Byzantine emperors had forfeited their select status, which was nowto be transferred to Charles as God’s chosen. Hence the equationbetween king David and king Charles. Since Christ was of the houseof David, the realization of the kingdom of Christ became the pur-pose of the idea of the Frankish kingdom. It accounts for the rejec-tion of the Roman, formerly pagan, tradition. For Augustine, Romewas to be equated with the Whore of Babylon, now linked withByzantium. In Augustine, the kingdom of David is represented as areform, which redirects it toward the new and eternal kingdom of Christ. 134 Rather than referring to the Imperium Romanumof the east-ern emperors, one contrasted it with the Imperium Christianum. Thepapal letters of the Libri Carolini were the voice of the church, andre ected the voice of St. Peter himself concerning these questions.The letters indicate that the popes elevated Charles to the position,which he now claimed for himself.

The Synod of Frankfurt (794), the most signi cant synod in Charles’reign and the counterpart to Nicea II, supports this claim. It had a

deliberately ecumenical appearance, which the Frankish sourcesstressed as a synodus universalis.The Annals 794 speak of the greatcouncil of Gallic, German and Italian bishops. The rst three itemson its agenda were the theological dispute about Adoptionism, theSecond Council of Nicea 135 and the Tassilo a ff air. The Synod rejectedthe ‘spurious’ council of the Greeks at Nicea as ‘not universal’ and‘entirely invalid’, but the matter of images was dropped. Among other things, the king as rex et sacerdos emerges as the supreme lordof the church. 136 As such it became his function to combat the visible

134 Mohr, p. 44.135 Freeman, p. 9. Also Noble, ‘Tradition and Learning’, in Sullivan, Gentle Voices ,

p. 235. See also T.F.X. Noble, ‘John Damascene and the History of the IconoclasticControversy’, in Noble and Contreni, Religion, Culture and Society, pp. 95 ff . Also D.S.Sefton, ‘The Popes and the Holy Images in the Eighth Century’, in Noble andContreni, pp. 117 ff . Concerning other heresies, see Sullivan, Aix-la-Chapelle , p. 187f.

136 Angenendt, p. 351f. See J. Nelson, ‘kingship and empire’ in McKitterick,Carolingian Culture , p. 61, who cites Alcuin’s quotation to pope Leo III: “Our job is

the defense of the church and the forti

cation of the Faith; yours to aid our war-fare by prayer.” Braunfels, p. 125, suggests that in 794 Charles stopped being theitinerant ruler on horseback and became the residential ruler seated on a throne.Collins, p. 128, suggests that this synod may have been the most important eccle-siastical council of Charles’ reign. Collins lists some of the attendees and items on



68

enemies of the Christ, while the bishops employed the spiritualweapons of prayer on his behalf against the invisible enemies. 137 The

exercise of his function makes the task of the church possible. Thisdivision of powers becomes the basis of the idea of empire. The king rules the visible kingdom of which Christ is the invisible Lord. Thepower for both church and state derives from God. As the visiblerealm was a re ection of the invisible realm of God, and as Godstands above Christ, so the king stands above the representative of the spiritual authority, for the bishop as representative of Christ isin second place. 138 Einhard tells us that Charles was personallyquali ed to assume the leadership in such a creation as an ImperiumChristianum, in Alcuin’s words. 139 Einhard speaks of Charles’ greatpersonal devotion and piety, his concerns for religious proprieties,the generosity of his gifts in gold and silver to his cathedral at Aachen,his attention to reforms in the liturgy, his disinterested charity withinhis kingdom and all Christians beyond papal Rome, the church of St. Peter in Rome as well as the pope himself were not only toenjoy his protection but bene ted particularly from his treasury, espe-cially from the treasure of the Avars. According to Einhard, the city

of Rome was intended to regain its previous position of splendor.140

In view of his accomplishments he came to be credited with hold-ing a position bestowed on him by God, to rule the Christian world.According to Alcuin, who was most probably the author of Charles’letter to the new pope Leo III, (795–816) welcoming him to his posi-tion, Charles claimed for himself both the outer and inner guidanceof the church, while the pope was to restrict his activities to sup-portive prayer. As king, God had armed him with the Two Swordsof the Two Authorities of royal power and priestly authority withwhich he was to protect the church from false doctrine and theattacks of all heathen and unbelieving enemies and to con rm theChristian faith through knowledge of the doctrine. The pope was

the agenda. Concerning Adoptionism, see Collins, pp. 129 ff . and other sources. SeeNoble, ‘Tradition and Learning’, in Sullivan, Gentle Voices , pp. 237 ff ., for a sum-mary of the content and organizational logic of the Libri Carolini . Also Sefton, in

Noble and Contreni, p. 124f.137 See Arnold, p. 81.138 Mohr, p. 50.139 Löwe, p. 155. See also Riché, p. 119.140 Thorpe, pp. 79 ff .



69

restricted to support any struggle through his power of prayer. 141

With these ideological considerations in mind Charles had convo-

qued synods to combat the spread of heresies and had taken a verystrong stand in the disputes concerning the worship of images, insist-ing that the pope Hadrian excommunicate the emperor. In 796Alcuin termed him ‘Lord and Father, King and Priest, the Leaderand Guide of all Christians’. Already pope Gelasius I (492–496) hadproposed a division but also a coexistence of competencies to rulethe world—the higher power of the hallowed sanctity of the bish-ops, auctoritas , and the imperial power, potestas . Church and state wereto share authority on earth without strife. 142 Pope Hadrian hadattempted to abrogate some of the king’s powers to himself. Thougha source of con ict during the later periods, at this time the TwoAuthorities were seen to be of relatively equal value. 143 Owing tothe strength of his own personality Charles personi ed both Author-ities. He never deferred to the pope or approached him as the higherauthority. Charles was able to play the role of the king-priest, rex-sacerdos , more e ff ectively than the Byzantine emperor, than hisCarolingian successors. To Alcuin Charles was the appointed of

Christ to lead the Christian people. Earlier notions of Eternal Victory/Eternal Empire had been adopted and adapted by the ImperiumRomanumin its Christian guise. 144 The uni cation, order and peace,which Charles had brought to his Christian realm, were taken to bea most signi cant portent and proof that the new Aachen had replacedold Constantinople. In 795 Leo III had succeeded to the papacy.He presented the situation, which invited the implementation of thenew order. The Libri Carolini prepared the way to empire. 145 Withthe support of his scholarly entourage, by the middle of the decadeCharles had implemented the components of an ideology which con-solidated the realm internally and externally, which created the pri-macy of the Carolingian realm and established the primacy of thewestern church and which gave Charles a pastoral role at the head

141 Angenendt, p. 352. Also Sullivan, Aix-la-Chapelle , p. 140.142 S.C. Easton, H. Wieruszowski, The Era of Charlemagne, Frankish State and Society

(Princeton, Toronto, London, New York 1961), p. 166f. From a letter of pope Gela-sius to emperor Anastasius, 491.143 Angenendt, p. 69.144 Schutz, Germanic Realms , p. 188.145 Noble, ‘Tradition and Learning’, in Sullivan, Gentle Voices , p. 249.



70

of state and church. Through his sponsorship of learning, of the artsand architecture he provided the emphasis on the holistic idea of

the Imperium Christianumin which all the peoples of the regnum Francorumhad become the congregation of ‘Franks’ upon whom had beenbestowed the role of the ‘chosen people of God’. Its salvation wasthe primary, even the sole purpose of the realm. 146 We shall seebelow how the artists who prepared the illuminated manuscriptsinterpreted this political theory into artistic representations.

A con uence of events and circumstances prepared the way forthe creation of an empire with Charles as emperor. In 797 theByzantine palace revolution had created a vacuum in the easternempire. Einhard used the opportunity to tell Charles that the wel-fare of the Christian churches rested upon him. But Charles appearsto have proceeded only with deliberate haste. Two years later, accord-ing to Einhard 147 the inhabitants of Rome had seized the new pope,Leo III, and had blinded him by putting out his eyes and cutting out his tongue, forcing him to ee to the king, his ‘protector’. Theattempted mutilation was not entirely successful. The cause for theRomans’ anger lay in that Leo had unilaterally accepted the new

idea of the Christian realm and had sent Charles the banner of Rome with the promise of loyalty and the request for Frankish emis-saries to come and receive the Romans’ oath of allegiance. He quiteclearly placed his papal rule under that of Charles and dated hisproclamations by the years of Charles’ reign. For good measure hewas also charged with sins of the esh and perjury. According tothe Annals 799, he had been ambushed, mutilated and left lying inthe street, naked and half-dead. The duke of Spoleto provided himwith shelter and when Charles heard of this indignity he asked thatLeo be brought to him at Paderborn with full honors. This was arather great distance, which Charles did not see t to shorten, bymeeting him half way. The Annals do not reveal the conversationsand report only the pope’s return to Rome in full honors whileCharles returned to Aachen. The terms of a future relationship mayhave been detailed at this time. Leo may have urged Charles toaccept the imperial role. 148 The Annals for that year also report the

146 Noble, ‘Brigandage’, in Chazelle, Literacy, Politics , p. 67.147 Thorpe, p. 81. See also Collins, pp. 141 ff .148 Riché, p. 151.



71

coincident arrival of a monk from Jerusalem who brought blessingsand relics of the Lord’s Sepulcher to Charles from the patriarch of

Jerusalem. The next year Charles dismissed the monk and sent himand Zacharias, a priest of the palace, back with rich gifts for theHoly Places.

Einhard does not mention this monk, nor an Italian campaignagainst the Beneventans. Einhard quickly and soberly comes to theheart of the matter and reveals that Charles really came to Rometo restore the ill state of a ff airs of the church, spending the wholewinter there. By way of preparation pope Leo had a mosaic pre-pared which made visible his idea of the order of the Christianrealm. In an apse of the Lateran palace, in a recessed arch, he hada representation of the enthroned Christ giving the keys and ban-ner to St. Peter; to the left he gives the imperial standard to theemperor Constantine in the presence of pope Sylvester I (Fig. 4a),both of them kneeling at the feet of Christ; to the right St. Peterhands the pallium to pope Leo and the banner of the city of Rometo Charles, both of them kneeling at the feet of St. Peter. 149 Herewithpope Leo gave expression to a religious and political context, as if

determined by the highest authority. (Fig. 4b) A convergence of impe-rial and papal ideas was projected, showing the partnership of popeand emperor jointly doing the work of Christ, a symbolic distanc-ing from the Byzantine Empire.

The Annals 800 indicate that Charles was greeted with an impe-rial reception and elaborate how pope Leo sent the banners of Romeand large crowds of townspeople and pilgrims to meet Charles somedistance outside of Rome, to line the streets and acclaim the king on his arrival. Pope Leo, surrounded by clergy and bishops, awaitedthe king on the steps of St. Peter’s and welcomed him when he dis-mounted and ascended the stairs of the church and accompaniedby the chanting of the multitude the pope led Charles into thechurch. This was an imperial reception with which Leo recognizedthe position of the king before he crowned him emperor. On December1, 800 Charles convened an assembly in order to deal with the a ff airsof the church and set himself to examine the charges against thehumiliated pope Leo. Charles was expected to function in his Davidic

149 Angenendt, p. 353f. Mohr, p. 55. See Braunfels, p. 102. Also Nees, Early Medieval Art , p. 190, who points to the clear political message.



72

capacity. By virtue of his vocation by God, the king and no longerthe emperor in Constantinople has the Christian empowerment to

set the a ff airs of the church in order. Pope Leo purged himself of the charges by oath in the name of the Trinity on December 23.Perjury had been one of the charges levied against him. No one hadcome forward to reiterate the pope’s crimes. In any case the Symma-chean forgeries (501) prevented that a pope could be put on trial,unless 72 witnesses could support the accusation. The Annals reportthat that same day the priest Zacharias returned from Jerusalem withtwo monks sent by the patriarch who brought for Charles the keysof the Lord’s Sepulcher and of Calvary, also the keys of the cityand of Mount Zion along with a ag. The keys of the city mayhave been a token sent by the Caliph of Baghdad, Harun-al-Rashid,the other objects were likely ecclesiastical tokens of recognition of his elevated status over the Christian church. An evident honor andan inescapable link with king David and his city and an allusion tothe kingdom of God. Einhard mentions none of this. The arrival of the gifts from Jerusalem could not have been more opportune. Theymarked the ‘Fullness of Time’. Charles had probably orchestrated

the events.The Annals 801record what happened next very succinctly. OnChristmas Day (800), when the king rose from prayer in front of the shrine of St. Peter, pope Leo, in a Byzantine inspired gesture,placed a crown on his head, and he was hailed by the whole Romanpeople: ‘To the august Charles, crowned by God, the great andpeaceful emperor of the Romans, life and victory!’ After the tripleacclamations of the Romans and the laudes of the clergy, the popedropped to his knees and addressed him in the manner of the oldemperors. Instead of patricius , he was called imperator et augustus.It islikely that Charles did not appreciate the practical signi cance of this event. A new empire had been created, but one with a skewedpurpose. Once again Einhard has no comments to make concerning the sequence of events, other than to express Charles’ reservationsand that he would not have entered the cathedral at all, had heknown the pope’s intentions. 150 Einhard is more intent on commenting

150 Thorpe, p. 81. W. Ohnsorge, “Neue Beobachtungen zum Kaisertitel Karlsdes Großen”, in W. Heinemeyer, K. Jordan (eds.) Archiv für Diplomatik, Schriftgeschichte,Siegel- und Wappenkunde (Köln, Wien 1975), p. 2f. argues that Charles felt himself tobe king and that the imperial title was only an additional dignity for him, and that



73

on the hostility and jealousy of the other ‘so-called Roman Emperors’.Einhard may not be the de nitive source concerning this event. No

Christian ruler could have missed mass on Christmas Day. Therecan be little doubt that Charles had the event arranged. That hecould not admit to such a plan may have lain with his attempt toavoid any accusation of having manipulated yet another usurpation.

Why was Charles so reticent and displeased? Probably not becauseof the title and the coronation itself, but because of the implicationswith which it was performed. Charles had probably not been sur-prised and deprived of the initiative. Had his father Pepin III notalready been anointed like a new David, had he not had a new pro-logue written for the law code in which the Franks were identi edas God’s chosen people, and had the Carolingian kingdom not beenbased on papal Davidic ideas? 151 He clearly did not want his coro-nation to be seen as a mere translation of the old Roman imperialtradition. 152 The Roman imperial proclamation clearly contravenedhis ideas of the new Imperium Christianum. He wanted to rule overthe Christian people, the populus Christianus , and wanted to have hisimperial dignity to derive from the Biblical David and hence from

God. Not from the Caesars and not as the choice of the populus Romanus . As his chosen he felt answerable to God for the welfare of his people. In this he saw the saints to be his spiritual and the bish-ops to be the worldly supports of his reign. According to the delib-erations above, Charles saw a di ff erent basis for his proclamationthan the words with which he had been proclaimed. However, Alcuinhad begun to use the term Imperium Christianumsome time earlier, 153

but had also honored him with the name David. It is accepted that

he did not feel himself to be any more than Theoderic the Great, viceroy of theByzantine emperors, had been. Fouracre, in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History, p. 105, suggests that Einhard resorted to the device of showing the humil-ity natural to great and good personages. See also Collins, pp. 144 ff . concerning the claimed reluctance about the imperial coronation. It had been previously approvalby a council on November 30, 800. Also L. Nees, A Tainted Mantle (Philadelphia1991), pp. 112 ff .

151 Mohr, pp. 21 ff . Enters into this question at great length, beginning with theargument put forward by pope Stephen II that the Carolingians were predestined

by God and that Pepin was a new Moses and a brightly shining king David. SeeWallace-Hadrill, p. 189.152 See the arguments advanced by Collins, pp. 147 ff ., that the inclusion of Saxony

in the realm required a new constitutional basis.153 Nees, Mantle , p. 114f.



74

the Franks as ‘chosen’ people did not want to become Romans andthat Charles had not wanted the Romans to act as primary people

of the realm since it was the Franks who had secured the rule andthe realm. Although Charles had visited Rome, as a pilgrim would,repeatedly before his coronation, he was never to return to Rome.What had mattered was the memoria there of his own person andthat of his dynasty. 154 Hence Charles refused pointedly the title impera-tor Romanorumfor he evidently was not willing to suggest any rivalrywith the disquali ed emperor in Constantinople, nor see himself assuccessor to the pagan Romans. Nor was he content for the popeto have performed the act of coronation since it suggested that thepope thereby assumed and gained primacy over the emperor. Afterall, until the break with Byzantium in 803, Rome was still underthe titular jurisdiction of the Byzantine Empire. Perhaps the popemerely wanted to compensate for his humiliation two days earlier.On the other hand, the myth of the Constitutum Constantini , gave himthe imperial authority to perform the act. Charles was equally unhappythat the city of Rome assumed the primacy over Aachen. It wouldappear that Charles was sensitive to the signi cance of precedents.

The coronation resembled an investiture. In view of the Synod of 794, the coronation reversed the authorities, at least by implication.Charles’ imperial title was to be serenissimus augustus a Deo coronatus magnus paci cus imperator, Romanum gubernans imperium, qui et per miseri-cordiam Dei rex Francorum et Langobardorum.155 Calling him magnus paci cus imperator may be the basis for the name by which posterity was tocall him Carolus magnus , corrupted in time to Charlemagne. 156 Thetitle makes it clear that referring to the Carolingian empire as ‘HolyRoman Empire’ is quite premature. Furthermore, the Romans areonly to be governed, steered by him, who by the grace of God seeshimself primarily as king of Franks and Lombards. Aachen was the‘New Rome’ to him. Repeatedly the idea surfaces, that Charleslooked upon his coronation and title as a personal honor paid to

154 F. Andrews, ‘Introduction: Rome and Romanitas: Aspects of Transition’, inSmith (ed.), Early Medieval Rome , p. 14.

155 Löwe, p. 158. Ohnsorge, ‘Kaisertitel’, p. 8f. argues that Charles had already

been Romanum gubernans imperiumon behalf of Byzantium since 781, a formula usedoccasionally in 6th century Ravenna. See also Collins, p. 150, on this point.156 By c. 875 his other ‘biographer’, Notger Balbulus, the Stammerer, entitled his

work De Carolo Magno.Nithard, in his Histories , (before 845), spoke of his grand-father Charles as rightfully called ‘the Great’.



75

his person, rather than as a dynastic aspiration. 157 But what impor-tance did he see in the equestrian statue of the Ostrogothic king,

Theoderic the Great, to go to the great exertion to have it broughtnorth? What fascinating association did he see with Theoderic? Bothbore the title patricius . The statue may actually have been of theByzantine emperor Zeno. At least as enhancing an association. After803 Charlemagne abandoned the designation Romanum imperiumandreplaced it with Renovatio Romani imperii as he slipped into the impe-rial role. In 812 the Byzantine emperor recognized Charlemagne asemperor in the west. Byzantium also nally renounced all claims tothe territories surrounding Rome.

Charlemagne insisted that his empire was a new Christian Empirenot related to the old pagan empire and stressed the use of the termRenovatio Romani imperii.It was renewed in a distinctive Latin speak-ing Christian faith and neither an expansion nor an extension of theGreek speaking Byzantine Empire.

With the 25th of December 800 Europe entered a new historicalphase. The contemporaries will not have noticed the watershed event.For Charlemagne the date marked the pinnacle of his life. He had

coordinated a cohesive Christian realm in which questions of terri-torial expansion were displaced by attempts to implement concernsabout the administrative and legal systems, fealty to God and him-self, the cultural heritage, a more intensive reform of the church,social measures to protect the powerless and to prevent their declineinto economic dependency, legislation to protect slaves and serfs, thecontrol of feuds and the maintenance of the peace of the realm.Oddly enough, the realm began to show centrifugal tendencies andearly signs of weariness. In his last years he had reasons to believethat the execution of the body of his reforms had not been entirelysuccessful. Of course he could not know what his contribution tothe advent of the new age was. Originally he had followed theFrankish tradition of treating the realm as his personal property anddivided it among his sons. Especially the implementation of the illu-sory realm along Davidic and Augustinian lines did not advancewell. A number of practical problems deprived him of his free-dom of action and a lack of resolve began to appear. In 806, moti-

vated by administrative concerns, the Divisio regnorumreverted to the

157 Dutton, Politics of Dreaming , p. 115.



77

over to meetings of aristocratic bishops, who now regained signi -

cant preeminence, and who did not hesitate to express themselves

critically about the emperor’s government. Perhaps in anticipationof diffi culties over the succession, the resolutions contained more thana hint of the increasing expectations of the church in the realm.

With the conclusion of the expansive conquests, it seems that theoverriding concerns for the unity of the vast and overly extendedrealm were no longer to be expressed in terms of military force andadministrative terms. Instead of a well-organized bureaucracy, a pas-toral consolidation of the realm was to be entertained, by means of the recruitment of priests, their heightened doctrinal education andthe pastoral training of the clergy. 161 However, this was soon to beunderstood as the implementation of a religious realm on earth. Forthe better part of the century the bishoprics were to represent theroyal intentions as they issued and collected legal and disciplinarydirectives, theological and liturgical texts and by means of simplesermons assisted the individual parishioner within his community tocontribute under pastoral guidance to the realization of the Christiankingdom 162 locally, while thinking in the larger designs and inten-

tions of the realm. Such Christian rituals as baptism, marriage, themass, its liturgy, sermons, communion, penance, prayer and com-munal chanting were intended to bring this about simultaneouslywith the displacement of pagan cultic practices. In the recently con-quered tribal areas abjuration of heathenism and a mere and moreor less communal acceptance of the new faith will have precededthe actual personal conversion to it. A participatory ritual commonlypracticed throughout the realm would have contributed to the develop-ment of a commonly felt membership in the mysteries of the Christiancult. It follows that puri ed, standardized texts would be a co-require-ment in the consolidating process. Nevertheless, despite contempt forthem, some pagan practices were assimilated or even absorbed byChristianity. The Diet of 813 expressed an apolitical and illusory,theoretical, religious idealism, which was intended to maintain therealm by means of the unanimity of spiritual and worldly positions

161

Sullivan, Aix-la-Chapelle , p. 150. See Wallace-Hadrill, pp. 195ff

. concerning thecourt’s understanding of study and education. Collins, p. 120, comments that thishad already been a serious concern to Charlemagne.

162 See McKitterick, Frankish Church, pp. 80–114. Also Collins, p. 114f. concern-ing Charles’ attention to the standardization of the liturgy.



78

among Christians. The imperial ‘state’, never completely uni ed, cen-tralized or even provided with a well functioning bureaucracy, was

to become Ecclesia , universal Christian humanity embraced withinthe universality of the faith, founded on the belief in one father,God in heaven, one mother, the church, one faith and one bap-tism, 163 proclaimed by means of one language, spoken and writtenLatin, in which the emperor occupied the primary place. The churchwas to be the conscience of the realm, the emperor’s support butnot his master. An indecisive Louis, sincere in his faith and his piety,could not help but feel subordinate to the church. In general theinterest groups were expecting more pro-active policies if the idealwas to be implemented and looked to Louis for leadership.

In September of 813, at the Diet in Aachen cathedral, withoutany papal presence, Charlemagne himself crowned his only surviv-ing son Louis co-emperor, till then no more than the designatedsub-king of Aquitaine. The Annals 813state simply that the emperorinvited his son Louis to a general assembly at Aachen, placed thecrown on his head and shared the co-regency of the empire withhim, at the same time passing on to him the nomen imperatoris .164 He

quickly sent him back to Aquitaine. Einhard does not reveal that hehimself openly acclaimed Louis as co-emperor, thereby representing certain interests of the nobility. Louis’ acclamation as imperator andaugustus by the Frankish magnates followed. Clearly the Franks werethe new people of the realm. This coronation was distinct from theone on Christmas Day 800 in Rome, just as clearly an anti-Romangesture. However, in 816 the Annals inform us that Louis still agreedto have the pope, Stephen IV, crown and anoint him emperor dur-ing his hastily arranged visit to Louis in Reims in 817. Einhard 165

informs us that the coronation of 813 was performed with the agree-ment of all who attended and was accepted with great enthusiasm,‘for it seemed to have come to him as a divine inspiration for thewelfare of the state’. Louis may not have been convinced of the

validity of his coronation by his father and submitted to the pressures

163 E. Boshof, ‘Einheitsidee und Teilungsprinzip unter Ludwig’, in Godman andCollins, p. 175.

164

Riché, p. 139. Löwe, p. 160, indicates that Louis took the crown off

the altarand placed it on his own head. Mohr, p. 74, wonders whether this act should beconsidered to have more a symbolic rather than any real signi cance. It may noteven have been a coronation in any real sense. See Wallace-Hadrill, p. 189.

165 Thorpe, p. 83.



79

exerted on him by representatives of the church. While Charlemagnehad ordered the succession of his sons in 780, with their papal coro-

nation taking place in 781, he con rmed it in 806 as a result of which his three sons were to succeed him in a tripartite succession— Charles, actually his second son, set up in the core lands, Pepin inItaly and Louis in Aquitaine—, the premature death of two of hissons and the accidental survival of only one son was interpreted asa divine judgment. It made of Louis the ‘Chosen of the Lord’ anda realization of the Davidic kingdom as a universal principle. 166

Einhard adds that this ‘increased Charlemagne’s authority at homeand at the same time it struck no small terror into the minds of for-eign peoples’. If we could take Einhard at his word, then the par-ticularism of the regions of the realm was reconciled. It was also tobe the exceptional instance in Carolingian history that the monarchdesignate was to inherit an unpartitioned realm in what was seen tobe God’s own intervention. Yet the process of division of the polit-ical realm was to return during his reign, even though its parts, suchas the east-rhenish lands, were to experience signi cant consolida-tion. 167 The Imperium Christianumwas not a ff ected.

In January 814, Charlemagne came down with a fever, accom-panied by a pain in his side, which Einhard identi ed as pleurisyand on January 28, 814, Charlemagne died. 168 According to Einhardmany portents had preceded his death. Charles had ignored or deniedthem all. Actually Einhard had condensed events from over a six-

year period. Charles was buried the same day in a Roman sar-cophagus of the 2nd century, ornamented with the story of the rapeof Proserpina in his palace church at Aachen. 169 (Fig. 5) Three yearsbefore his death Charles had distributed all of his possessions.Charlemagne’s Last Will and Testament is extant. Einhard recordedit in all details, deploring that Charles had started it too late andhad not been able to nish it. Einhard informs us that Louis, ‘who

166 See Nelson, ‘Carolingian Royal Ritual’, in Frankish World , pp. 103 ff . for adetailed analysis of the concepts involved.

167 See Innes, State and Society, p. 195, who sees in the arrangement of establish-ing sub-kingships a means of retaining dynastic control over the various integralparts of the vast realm. The permanent partition appears when hindsight is applied

from a future perspective.168 The English translation speaks only of ‘a week-long illness’, Riché, p. 139.The German translation mentions pleurisy as the cause of death.

169 J.L. Nelson, The Frankish World, 750–900 (London and Rio Grande 1996), pp.223–242. Braunfels, p. 379.



80

succeeded him by divine will,’ 170 was its scrupulous executor. InChapter 22 of his Vita Hludowici , Astronomus 171 informs us that ‘as

Lord Louis read what was written, he ful lled all those things, duti-fully performing the task’. 172

Despite Charlemagne’s initiative, the succession had not been reg-ulated permanently. Louis’ accession of the throne was not unprob-lematic despite the perceived choice of God. Already during hislifetime his sons, supported by magnates of the church, contested hisauthoritative position. Louis’ coronation of 813 was not accepted asabsolute despite the anointment, the substantiation of the legitimacyof his rule through pope Stephen IV and the proclamation that hewas a ‘new Clovis’ at Reims and not in Charlemagne’s Aachen.Clovis had been baptized at Reims yet Louis’ visit to Reims in 816and his renewed coronation there had not removed all challengesto that legitimacy. His nephew Bernard, Pepin’s illegitimate son, yetsub-king/ subregulus of Italy, at rst loyal follower of the king, wasmaneuvered into contesting the succession and he revolted in 818. 173

Quickly overcome, the increasingly customary dynastic punishmentby blinding, through the loss of eyes by gouging, of all his accom-

plices as well, killed him within three days.174

At the same time Louishad his illegitimate stepbrothers and presumptive rivals tonsured andplaced in monasteries. In 822 his remorse led him to recall them tocourt from where his illegitimate stepbrother Drogo was to begin abrilliant career in the church as bishop of Metz, as early as 823,marked in art by his Psalter.

At the Diet of Aachen, 817, the Ordinatio imperii introduced futureproblems while it tried to adhere to the illusory principles of con-stitutional unity. Louis tried to argue that being the only one chosen

170 Thorpe, p. 90. Also Nithard, Histories , ch. 2. See Wallace-Hadrill, p. 235f. fora biographical note. However, Collins, p. 158, quarrels with Einhard’s claim.

171 A. Cabaniss, Son of Charlemagne, A contemporary life of Louis the Pious , translationof Anomimus’ Vita Hludowici imperatoris , in Monumenta Germaniae Historica (Syracuse1965). Ch. 22.

172 See R. McKitterick, The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987 (London,New York 1983), p. 160 refers to sources, which question this assertion. See alsoWallace-Hadrill, p. 204.

173

Werner, in Godman and Collins, pp. 42ff

. argues extensively that it was theempress Irmengard herself who intrigued against her illegitimate nephew.174 Astronomus, ch. 30:1, indicates that Louis could have imposed a much harsher

sentence, death, rather than just blinding. Nithard, ch. 2. See also Brunner, Oppositionelle Gruppen, pp. 96 ff .



81

by God also signaled God’s approval of the inviolate unity of therealm. 175 Louis saw no inconsistency in the unity principle and the

skewed tripartite division of his realm among his three sons. Thiswas to prove to be the failure of the principles of unity and ush-ered in the eventual natural disintegration of the realm. Louis reg-ulated the succession among his three sons along the approximatelines of the Divisio regnorumof 806 in which the oldest son was toreceive the larger Frankish core area with the imperial title as wellas the dominance over his younger brothers. Lothair (I.), the oldestson, was crowned co-emperor and raised over Ludwig, 176 later called‘the German’, rex Germaniae , in Bavaria and over Pepin of Aquitaine.It was in this context that no mention was made of Bernard, king of the Lombards. His kingdom was incorporated in that of Lothair.It was to transpire that the Carolingians were to emulate the Mero-

vingians in fratricidal animosity. For years to come, oppositional andhereditary interest groups, removed from o ffi ces, wronged by injus-tices, expropriations and con scations fanned discontent and focusedon the old Frankish and tribal nobilities. These readily formed aroundthe middle-aged sons and presumptive heirs, who resented perceived

preferences on the part of the father and were eager to assume theauthority in their own right. The oath of allegiance introduced byCharlemagne 177 and demanded repeatedly of all by Louis the Piouswas intended to counteract any such inclinations.

Beginning in 817, Louis’ generosity toward the church in the con-text of the Renovatioof church and state caused the empire to loseground vis-à-vis the papacy.

175 J. Semmler, ‘Renovatio’ , in Godman and Collins, p. 132. See J. Fried, ‘TheFrankish kingdoms, 817–911: The East and Middle kingdoms’, in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History, pp. 142 ff .

176 J.L. Nelson, Charles the Bald (London, New York 1992), p. 2, points out thatonly the West-Frankish writers called him thus. To avoid confusion the form ‘Ludwig’will be used for the German kings with the name Louis. W. Hartmann, Ludwig der

Deutsche (Darmstadt 2002), pp. 1–6, for a discussion of the justi

cation of the name.177 See Sullivan, Aix-la-Chapelle , p. 116. Also Innes, State and Society, p. 187, seesthis oath to be a consequence of the intrigue of 785. See also Collins, p. 126f.,who suggests that the oath of loyalty rst surfaced in 789 and may be a conse-quence of the di ffi culties with Tassilo.



83

In 778 Hildegard, she was only 13 when he fell madly in lovewith her, Charlemagne’s third wife, gave birth to twins who were

named Louis and Lothair. She had already borne two sons, Charlesand Carloman (Pepin) and two daughters Adelheid and Rotrud, of whom Adelheid died soon after birth in 774. Questions have beenraised, why Charles would give his sons such unambiguously Mero-

vingian names. 182 One consideration proposed is that their two olderbrothers had already been named with the two Carolingian royalnames. The link with the great names of the Merovingians may havere ected a deliberate dynastic association with the ‘long-haired kings’.The Carolingian concerns for maintaining the perceptions of legiti-mate continuity with the previous dynasty of the Merovingians mayhave weighed heavily on Carolingian minds following their usurpa-tion of the throne. Lothair may have died in 779. She was to givebirth to three more daughters, Bertha, Gisela and Hildegard. 183 Theirolder sister Rotrud was to be a ffi anced to the Byzantine imperialheir Constantine VI. The marriage did not come about.

Charlemagne had four or ve wives, Germanic women all, andat least four concubines. In order to exclude his rstborn son, Pepin,

the Hunchback, a condition that evolved during his youth perhapsthe result of a vitamin B de ciency or of sclerosis, 184 from the suc-cession, his mother, Himiltrud, may subsequently have been degradedto the level of concubine. Only those physically sound could be heirs.Only a legitimate wife could be the mother of heirs. The process of exclusion took eleven years at the end of which Pepin rebelled, wascondemned to death but then sent to the monastery at Prüm. Hissupporters were publicly beheaded, or cruci ed, or scourged anddeported. 185 The annals come to negate Pepin’s existence. His name

182 See K.F. Werner ‘ Hludovicus Augustus , Gouverner l’empire chrétien—Idées etréalités’, in Godman and Collins (eds.), pp. 21 ff . who argues extensively that whilethe royal Carolingian names were ‘Pepin’ and ‘Charles’, the names Hludovicus andthat of his twin brother Hlotarius were chosen deliberately as a link with theMerovingian names Clovis and Chlotachar. Louis was to be a ‘new Clovis’ whowas born in Aquitaine and hence justly and intentionally named sub-king there aschampion of Catholicism. Louis’ son was hence named Lothair. Carloman had beenrenamed Pepin for that same reasons. Other names, such as Drogo, Hugo and

Bernard were reserved for the natural off

spring.183 Boshof, pp. 23 ff .184 Kasten, pp. 139 ff .185 Braunfels, p. 61. See Collins, p. 126, concerning a conspiracy to put him on

the throne.



84

was given to Carloman, the third son. His Lombard wife bore nochildren before her repudiation. Hildegard, an Aleman, gave birth

to the heirs. Fastrada, a Saxon, had two daughters. His marriage toLiutgard, another Aleman, remained childless. After she died in 800,he did not remarry. From his concubines—Madelgarda, Gersuinda,Regina and Adallindis—Charles also had a number of illegitimatesons and daughters. Charlemagne was particularly attached to hisdaughters and did not let them leave the court. 186

It is an ironic twist that in the end the successor was to be Louis,with the Merovingian name. At the age of 3, surrounded by men-tors and advisors, Charlemagne yielded to aristocratic pressure andsent Louis to Aquitaine as its sub-king. His mother died in 783.With his energetic stepmother Fastrada he appears to have had goodrelations. She was present when he was invested with his sword asa sign of having come of age at the Diet of Regensburg in 791, pre-ceding the advance against the Avars. He was entrusted with hercare when her health was failing. She died in 794. Most probablyit was she who instigated the removal of Pepin the Hunchback fromthe succession, in favor of the sons of Hildegard, though her motives

are obscure.187

In Aquitaine Louis appears to have enjoyed most ‘leplaisir de gouverner’, concentrating on hunting, and naively com-mitted some administrative blunders, perhaps as an expression of hisgenerosity or more likely, owing to a lack of experience, such as thediminution of the royal possessions as gifts to the magnates of thekingdom, or the remission of all scal demands, the requirements of fodder, wine and grain in all the northern districts of Aquitaine.Charlemagne recti ed such mistakes, taking care not to cause theimpoverished Louis to lose prestige and authority among his nobles. 188

Being sub-king in Aquitaine may have been the height to whichCharlemagne had intended Louis to ascend.

It would appear that the loss of his stepmother was made goodby his marriage that same year, 794, to Irmingard, from the houseof the Arnul ngians. Liaisons with one or two concubines gave hima daughter whom he named Alpais, the name of the mother of Charles Martel, and a son, whom he named after the founder of the dynasty, Arnulf. Perhaps he, with the Merovingian name, wanted

186 Braunfels, p. 998.187 Kasten, p. 150.188 Boshof, pp. 56 ff .



85

to assert the Arnul ngian origins of his family. Already a year later,795, Irmingard gave birth to Lothair, named after Louis’ own deceased

twin brother, to Pepin, 797 and to Louis/Ludwig, 806, later to beknown as Ludwig the German. 189 Two daughters, Rotrud andHildegard were born in 800 and 802/4. The marriage provided sta-bility to the court in that Irmingard tended to all domestic a ff airs,allowing the king to deal with the a ff airs of state.

In 806 Charlemagne had ordered the succession and the inheri-tance among his three sons, Charles the Younger, 190 Carloman-Pepinand Louis. The succession of the three kings secured the dynasty.Charles was the designated and recognized successor, as if ‘ rstborn’.According to the Annals 806 the tripartite jurisdiction of the realmassigned to each son the government and protection of his part,while the fraternal links ensured reciprocal benevolence and a ff ection.Pope Leo III gave his consent and a ffi xed his signature. The Annals ,with their propagandistic argumentation, aimed at their nobles, andin support of the select and preordained Carolingians, may havebeen composed to persuade the Carolingian nobility that their alle-giance and bene ts lay with the ruling dynasty, even if it meant

manipulating the sources.191

What was not resolved was the question concerning the legitimacyof the imperial title in the west. The identity of the future emperorwas secondary. Death solved the problem when Pepin died in 810and Charles the Younger in 811. The underlying question concernedthe co-emperorship, which had no fundamental basis in the westand where Charlemagne’s emperorship was still only a rst andperhaps unique case. Whether Louis would succeed to the imperialtitle was not established. Only in Byzantium was this an establishedpractice. Help came when the Byzantine imperial envoys acclaimedCharlemagne as basileus , as emperor. In 813 Charlemagne was freeto recognize Louis. That he was the sole survivor was interpretedas God’s choice and hence he was the uncontestable heir to the

189 Riché, p. 145. Hartmann, p. 1f. indicates that the name was not completedwith ‘der Deutsche’ until the 19th century, although already in the 9th century hewas referred to as rex Germanicus along with other derivatives.

190

Kasten, p. 151, argues that the court records completely ignore the fact thaton December 25, 800 a double coronation took place, the imperial coronation of Charlemagne as well as the royal coronation of Charles the Younger. Only Alcuinmentioned it.

191 Hen, ‘Annals of Metz’, in Hen and Innes, Uses of the Past , p. 187f.



87

concubines and courtiers, be cleared away. 197 Charlemagne may haveanticipated this situation. His disposition of 806 had given them the

choice between a monastic life or appropriate marriages and in hisLast Will and Testament, Einhard informs his readers of the emperor’swish to provide some economic security for the sons and daughters,which his concubines had borne him. 198 He had left it too late andhence un nished. Among Louis’ rst acts was the con nement of his life asserting, unmarried sisters in convents, to restrain their phys-ical exuberance. Not unlike his father, he may not have wanted toentertain the possibility that their marriages to Frankish magnatesmight introduce legitimate princes and princesses who might growup to be dynastic contestants. When unrest arose in the realm, heeventually also forced his half-brothers to enter monastic orders andend their days in monasteries, in case they chose to side against himand ask for their share of the realm. It did not take long for himto put the a ff airs of the realm in order.

However, in retrospect, it was to become apparent that Louis wasthe wrong son to inherit the empire. Sincerely pious, kind and vir-tuous, his talents did not lie in the area of any Realpolitik . There

were no external enemies to threaten seriously the security of therealm and after many years of exhausting wars his reign was markedby external peace. 199 During his reign relations with the court inConstantinople remained generally unproblematic. In the north theSlavic Abodrites were the cause of concern owing to disputes inthe tribal succession, especially when they allied themselves with theDanes. These too were involved in inner con icts until Abodrites,reinforced by Danes, invaded northern Elbia, only to be repelled bythe Franks. Inherited problem zones were located in Brittany in thewest and in Gascony and the Spanish March in the south. Theseconditions should have favored internal social and administrative

197 Dutton, Politics of Dreaming , p. 58f., suggests that Louis instituted a very wide-ranging investigation in the capital to identify any moral turpitude at all, even inthe imperial family. One of his sisters’ lovers was executed, another was blinded,while other sentences were commuted, see Werner, in Godman and Collins, p. 30,n. 100.

198 Thorpe, p. 87. Riché, p. 134. See Nelson, pp. 236 ff . for a discussion of the

women at the court of Charlemagne and their unoffi

cial role, in

uence and authority.199 Fouracre, in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History, p. 105, suggests thatliving in peace was not a Frankish inclination and that it was the energy of Charlemagne’s will and the exercise of military force, which had created the empire.Such was now needed to maintain it.



88

reform, political consolidation and general stabilization. Supportedby his advisers Louis saw this consolidation in the only manner avail-

able to him, in the attempt to reconcile the Christian kingdom onEarth with the kingdom of Heaven, to create the Imperium Christianum.Of such a symmetrical realm Louis wanted to be emperor, a clearlydiff erent empire than that of ancient pagan Rome. It was to be onein which Rome, as represented even by the papacy, was to be rel-egated to a subordinate position. In due course, the realistic con-tours of the political empire receded behind the spiritual projectionof a Christian community. The synthesis of political realities withspiritual idealities was not to be possible and instead, insensitive tothe gradual alienation of his support, internal enemies arose during his reign, who contributed to the internal dysfunctional situation,which led to the gradual regional crystallizations within the empire.

The actual realm, which Louis inherited from his father, was very vast—over a million square kilometers—regionally and ethnicallydiverse, un nished, decentralized, unevenly settled, developed, con-trolled and at peace. According to the preamble to the reforms of 819, the emperor looked upon these years of peace as a gift from

God, an opportunity to complete, improve, to undertake what wasnecessary to assure the well being of the church and the commonweal at the moment and in future. The God of victories could bebest served by giving the rst place in the Imperium Christianumto thechurch, which, however, excluded the preeminence of the papacy inRome. Louis was concerned about the assessments of his contem-poraries and of the future. He wanted to contrast life at his courtfrom that of his father and introduced greater morality, discipline,eff ectiveness and e ffi ciency to counteract disorder, carelessness, crim-inality and corruption. It has become a modern commonplace thatnew administrations blame existing conditions on the malpracticesof the previous administration. Louis and his administrators behavedsimilarly. One should not imagine that the administration was anextensive apparatus, which ruled the realm e ff ectively from Aachen,the ‘capital’. 200 Certainly toward the eastern parts of the realm com-munications were very tenuous and any sense of belonging to theempire must have been rather limited, if not for the high nobility,

200 Reuter, Germany, pp. 24 ff ., discusses at length the administrative responsibili-ties of the palace, the chancellor and the chapel, the rule by means of capitular-ies, counts and their counties, and the missi dominici .



89

then certainly for the common farmer, craftsman and other labor-ers. At rst he energetically pursued the administrative supervision

through the missi dominici , the royal emissaries, 201 which Charlemagnehad instituted to tour the lands, inspect counts and judges for anypractice of oppression, address abuses and remedy unjust conditionsand especially to pass judgment according to the written law andnot personal inclinations. It was understood that the implementationof measures required the consent and co-operation of the nobility.These royal emissaries were gradually to lapse in e ff ectiveness, if indeed they had ever been really e ff ective. Although the subdivisionof the kingdom into counties continued to maintain the administra-tive link with the central authority, vast tracts lost this connectionin the long term, even where vice-regal authorities were placed incharge. Viceroys, counts, administrators and royal emissaries couldnot be relied upon to forego their own interests.

New ideas appeared at court with the new corps of Aquitainianadvisors who now generally replaced Charlemagne’s counselors.Among these some had previously surrounded Louis in formerly Visi-gothic Aquitaine. As was mentioned above, they appear to have

sponsored an estranging attitude toward Rome. These formative expe-riences may account for his lifelong dependence on his entourage of advisors and exposed him to the charge of weakness and paralysis.As of 819 the court chapel was under the direction of Hilduin (died840/44) who stressed the o ffi ce as that of the arch-chaplain whoconducted the religious services at court as an Old Testament Highpriest. A counselor of superior skill, who represented the idea of imperial unity, he turned away from Louis in 830 and lost his o ffi ce.An actively functioning chancellery came into being as that of Charle-magne was expanded under the capable archival talents of theAquitainian Helisachar (died before 840) and the uni ed imperialsystem was maintained. As an administratively e ff ective instrumentit was to consolidate the diversity of the realm. For Louis this wasa sincere concern. Eventually an administrative hierarchy dealt withthe a ff airs of state, allowing those at the top of the hierarchy to riseto higher positions at court with greater political power over gov-ernmental decisions. In the process they became abbots and acquired

201 Innes, State and Society, p. 162f. Innes points out that a complex system usedrelay stations.



90

abbeys and other church properties. Helisachar was followed in 819by Fridugis, an Anglo-Saxon pupil of Alcuin’s, who displayed excep-

tional administrative skills and survived the upheaval of 830. 202 Einhardappears to have maintained his position at court, but it was pri-marily Benedict of Aniane, actually Witiza, a Spanish Visigothicnoble, who rose to prominence. 203 He assumed the name Benedictin emulation of St. Benedict and renewed the strict observances andascetic Benedictine Rule in his new foundation at Inden/Korneli-münster, near Aachen. Raised at the court of Pepin III and Charle-magne, Louis entrusted to him the monastic reform in the realm.Kornelimünster was to serve as rolemodel. Already in 816 Benedictwas charged to introduce the Benedictine Rule in all monasteriesand convents as the only valid rule. The regula mixta established inMerovingian times was henceforth superseded. Benedict died in 821.

Three other Aquitainians o ffi ciated at Louis’ side. Ebo, his for-mer librarian, was raised to the highest bishopric, the archbishopricof Reims in 816. In that capacity he cared not only for the spiri-tual well being of his congregations, but also retained an active rolein imperial politics, and took charge of the northern missions. In the

struggles about the constitutional unity or traditional administrativepartition of the realm he at rst sided with Louis, but in 833 it washe who in the name of his fellow bishops forced Louis to do pub-lic penance. When he lost his archbishopric he nally sought refugewith Ludwig, the German, who made him bishop of Hildesheim,from 845/47 till his death in 851. Jonas of Orléans remained loyalto Louis to the end. He represented the fundamental thoughts con-cerning the reform of church and realm: the idea of the dualism of powers within the uni ed Corpus Christianumand the freedom of thechurch in spiritual matters. The welfare of the realm depended onthe total acceptance of the Christian way of life and on the free-dom of the church from secular domination to ful ll its task of bring-ing salvation. Smaragdus, abbot of St. Mihiel, on the river Maas,NE of Verdun, formulated the idea early that the o ffi ce of the rulerwas a ministry bestowed by God, for the execution of which anaccount must be rendered to God. Evidently, Louis took this teaching

202 Angenendt, pp. 363 ff .203 Boshof, pp. 102–107. See also Noble and Head, Soldiers , pp. xxxviii, 213–254,

for a translation of his Vita.



91

very much to heart. 204 It formed the preamble to the reforms of 819.Louis’ ‘constitutional’ concerns therefore were concentrated on the

ideas borne by the Imperium Christianum, which depended on the livedand practiced Christian faith as expressed by Jonas and Smaragdus.Because of the uncertainty of life, the king above all and his sub-

jects below him, had to live a daily life pleasing to God. The king’sreign represented the responsible leadership toward spiritual ful llmentfor which he was responsible to God, though not to the pope. Inthis new context the king/emperor bore the responsibility towardthe people in his care. The king pleased God when he cared for hispeople. This care was demonstrated as justice, piety and humilitybefore all his people. Not by right of inheritance from his father,but by God’s grace did he act as protector and guide of the churchand reign over his people. For Louis the reign was a task set himby God and for which he was responsible to God. It was also achallenge for it depended on the correct ful llment of the service toGod. This concept readily led to a close association between thecrown and the princes of the church, for it was they who knew whatwas Christian and most pleasing to God. Already under Charlemagne

the church had come to be ever more intricated in the a ff airs of state and secular society as well as in the a ff airs concerning the reli-gious and moral life. During Louis’ reign the church came to assumeincreasingly the right to reserve the ‘correct view’ and to play a rival,though still codetermining role in these a ff airs. 205 In any case thechurch was an arm of the aristocracy, which helps account for thesegregation of the common people from some of the religious prac-tices. However, the relationship with the papacy lost its preeminenceand the church reforms were advanced without special reference toRome. 206

In uenced by Benedict of Aniane, Louis’ pious disposition saw inthe monastic and canonical reform of the church the greatest pri-ority for the organization, stabilization and maintenance of the empire.Continuing the reforms begun under Charlemagne in 813, he intro-duced, as of 816, embracing religious and secular reforming rules

204

Angenendt, p. 364f.205 Angenendt, p. 363.206 J. Fried, ‘Ludwig der Fromme, das Papsttum und die fränkische Kirche’, in

Godman and Collins, pp. 231 ff . for details of the distanced imperial contacts withRome.



92

and regulations. The energetic reforms addressed the clear de nitionsand aristocratic distinctions between laymen and priests, monks and

cannons and their submission, despite their reluctance, to the speci crules concerning daily practices. 207 He demanded the strict adher-ence to the Benedictine Rule. The reforms were to be implementedwithin one year. From 814 onward he bestowed immunity on churcheswhile granting royal protection at the same time. The latter was anaspect of vassalage and the ensuing obligations of service, including military service by designated lay retainers. In exacting its positionthe nobility was not loath to abuse its priests and appropriate churchproperty. 208 The reforms applied in a very complex manner not onlyto the foundations created by the Carolingians. This as well as theadherence to the one valid rule could only tighten the bond betweenchurch and realm. Since it was the objective for all secular life tobe permeated by the principles of Christianity, to realize the con-stitutional unity of Christendom, even of the common people withinthe Frankish empire, in order to establish God’s kingdom on earth,all aspects of the church hierarchy from highest bishop to lowestparish priest had to be mobilized. 209 To realize the Imperium Christianum

all aspects of the faith, knowledge of the scriptures, the minute detailsof the cult and its duties—baptism, penance, marriage—were to becarried to the common people in every parish. This was the imple-mentation of Charlemagne’s ideas about the theocratic state, the OldTestament, Davidic notions discussed above, which saw the illusorybasis for the uni ed state in the reality of one father, God in heaven,one mother, the church, one faith and one baptism. The idea of theuni ed realm was to make of the ethnic diversity one Christian peo-ple, the populus Christianus , subject to one Christian law based on theOld Testament, a clear departure from the traditions of the paganRoman Empire. The Benedictine Rule was one of the unifying monas-tic components. These considerations did not include surrendering

207 Nelson, ‘Wealth and Property in the Carolingian church’, in Frankish World ,pp. 146 ff ., for a list of domestic duties expected of priests dependent on a lord if removed from a bishop’s canonical jurisdiction. Also on the economic conditionsof monks and priests.

208

Angenendt, p. 369, points out that at the abbey of Prüm a substantial com-ponent of the domain and the farms was not subject to the control of the abbot,but under the control of the military vassals. See Boshof, pp. 120–126.

209 Reuter, Germany, pp. 37 ff . discusses church functionaries, dioces, Eigenkirchen,Eigenklöster , monasteries, councils at greater length.



93

the social hierarchy, nor the emperor’s authority over the papacy,though gradually the popes’ claim to crown the emperor was real-

ized. Many other principles became established for which the Curia in Rome had an excellent long-term memory.

In the political dimension Louis introduced a disruptive element.Following a small accident in 817 documented as if a triviality inthe Annals 817 , more fully reported by Astronomus, ch. 28: 1, ashoddy, worn out and rotted wooden arcade connecting the palacewith the church had collapsed on top of him, injuring him slightly,he acted perhaps too quickly and issued the Ordinatio imperii , by meansof which his succession was to be regulated, with Lothair as theintended consort and imperial successor. Something very new wasemerging. Benedict of Aniane may well have stood in the back-ground. Louis tried to synthesize two mutually incompatible princi-ples—the indivisible empire and the divisible inheritance of the Franks.Initially Louis showed no concerns for the establishment of the suc-cession. But then following the practice established by Charlemagnethe indivisible empire was to be entrusted to his three sons, the old-est son Lothair, to rule the newly created kingdom of Bavaria, while

the younger sons were to rule nominally their parts of the empirein a vice-regal fashion, subject to the rule of the older brother, Pepin(19) in Aquitaine and subsequently Ludwig (10) in Bavaria. Lothairwas to succeed upon his father’s death. Not until about 825 werethey allowed to share in the father’s tasks. A rank ordering was being established among the sons of Irmingard. Future divisions were tobe forbidden for all time, for just as the church was indivisible, sothe empire was to be indivisible. The ‘unity party’ had apparentlytriumphed over the partitionists. 210 In accordance with Charlemagne’s

Divisio regnorumof 806 he still divided the realm according to thenumber of his sons, contrary to seeming administrative logistics, butprobably in accordance with the realization that to maintain thewhole, the e ff ective administration of the parts was essential. Thedecision concerning Bernard’s rule in Italy was left for another occa-sion. In Louis’ Ordinatio imperii illusory concerns for the unity of theChristian Empire were pre-eminent, based on the logic that the con-stitutional unity of the empire was divinely ordained through God’schoice of Louis and a re ection of the encompassing body of Christ

210 Boshof, p. 131. Also Kasten, p. 168f.



94

represented by the holy church. Only Christianity could maintainthe spiritual unity of the realm. To that end the purpose was the

realization of an eternal peace for the Christian people and at the sametime the precondition for the living faith. 211 Peace among the broth-ers and the protection of the church were the objectives of theOrdinatio imperii , which thus became not his personal testament, butthe realization of the new order of the realm. In 817 Louis renewedthe agreements, which Pepin and Charlemagne (756, 781, 787) hadmade with the papacy concerning the so-called ‘Constantinian dona-tion’. The later Humanists were to prove it a forgery. 212 With thedeath of pope Leo III in 816, the question arose anew, whether thenewly elected pope needed the emperor’s con rmation. Previouslythis had been the jurisdiction of the emperor in Constantinople.Now, with the existence of an emperor in the west, what was thenature of the protocol going to be? As long as the Franks had kings,these were merely informed. An approval of the elected pope wasnot usual. A change in the person of the pope happened for the rst time during the reign of Louis. It will be recalled that popeStephen IV visited Louis in Reims in 816 and crowned him and his

wife emperor and empress. The real reason given for the visit in theLiber ponti calis was the con rmation of peace and the unity of God’sholy church. 213 Pope and emperor appear to have agreed on mutu-ally satisfactory points, burdening the relationship between futureemperors and the papacy. Louis’ coronation may well have sealedthe negotiations. The pact is no longer extant. It was renewed in817, when a new pope, Paschalis I, succeeded to the papal throne.

This order was to be challenged by Bernard, Pepin’s son and sub-king of Italy, who was manipulated into playing the rival and refus-ing to subject himself to his cousin Lothair following his exclusionfrom the Ordinatio imperii of 817. 214 We saw above, that in 818 hisuprising was struck down surprisingly quickly and Bernard was blinded.The resentment and narrow dynastic thinking of his Arnul ngianwife, Irmingard, may have been in uential in the machinations and

211 Boshof, p. 132. See also Riché, p. 147f. and Kasten, p. 174.212 See Arnold, Medieval Germany, p. 77.213

A. Hahn, Das Hlodiwicianum, Die Urkunde Ludwigs d.Fr. für die römische Kirche von817 , in Archiv für Diplomatik , vol. 21 (Cologne, Vienna 1975), p. 23.214 Boshof, pp. 142 ff . See also Werner, in Godman and Collins, p. 41. See also

J. Nelson, ‘The Frankish kingdoms, 814–898: the West’, in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History, pp. 212 ff .



95

in the severity of the punishment. He died from the ordeal. In accor-dance with Charlemagne’s plans for a Carolingian Italy, at the Council

of Aachen of 813, Louis had been sworn to respect and protect thisnephew. Perhaps quite innocent, he was now overwhelmed withremorse and when his wife, Irmingard, died that same year, October3, 818, his sense of guilt and grief was such that he considered abdi-cation. How could he not think that her death was divine punish-ment? His advisors dissuaded him and tried to distract him byintroducing him to a series of potential brides. He was to be spell-bound by Judith, the daughter of the Alemanic count Welf—aFrankish family which originated around Metz—, 215 a name to gainin importance over the centuries. He married her in February 819.Louis became very vulnerable to her in uence. She was a beauty inwhom intelligence and activity were joined. 216 Ermoldus Nigellusdevotes extensive space to her in his verse biography of Louis thePious of 828. Just a few months later Walahfrid Strabo pays homageto her in his poem De imagine Tetrici , in which he draws an analogy rst between Judith and her a ff ection for her son Charles and theBiblical Rachel, Jacob’s second wife and her a ff ection for her son

Benjamin. He then links her with the Biblical Judith. To praise Judithas an extraordinary person of learning and wisdom he also makesextensive comparative references to the Greek poetess Sappho andthe Biblical prophetess Holda. Other tributes to her continue in this

vein. 217 Hostile voices implicated her in intrigues, including adultery,and arranged for her imprisonment in 830. It should be apparentthat in her wisdom the fortunes of her son would be paramount, sothat she would act in a manner, which would not jeopardize hispart in the succession.

From 820 onward Louis’ eagerness for reform diminished andcame to a halt in 829. Following the death of Benedict of Anianein 821, he recalled his banished relatives to court and was recon-ciled with them. The Annals 822and Astronomus (35:1) record brie yhis voluntary repentance for his past misdemeanors, such as the deathof Bernard. Louis used the Diet of Attigny of 822 to render a pub-lic confession of his sins ‘in the presence of the whole people’ in

215 Werner, in Reuter, Medieval Nobility, p. 148.216 See E. Ward, ‘Caesar’s Wife, The Career of the Empress Judith, 819–829’,

in Godman and Collins, pp. 205–227.217 Ward, in Godman and Collins, p. 223f.



96

order to demonstrate the new ethical expectations by his own exam-ple that a ruler was also subject to expiation if his actions were detri-

mental to the welfare of the realm. His deferent confession andpenitence were consistent with his view of his own shortcomingstoward his understanding of the failed de nition of his ChristianEmpire. Was this no more than a grandiose posturing gesture bywhich means he could demonstrate his responsibility for all to theAlmighty and consciously place himself in the tradition of the repen-tant Theodosius? 218 He took the ethical postulates of Christian ruletoo literally and exposed himself in helpless vulnerability to the arbi-trary judgments of his opposition. It is very probable that his spiri-tual ideals were not universally understood, except as a weakness tobe exploited. Whatever his intention, Louis showed himself to be

vulnerable and subjected himself to priestly criticism, condemnation,removal and domination in future. 219 It was too easy to subjugatehim, to bring him to account, to induce him to want to play thesinner seeking forgiveness. However, again and again we read howfollowing such events Louis would go hunting for edible game, pre-sumably, in the Ardennes or the Vosges Mountains.

Judith bore him rst a daughter, Gisela, then a son, Charles, in823, and the order of the succession was seriously disturbed as sheeventually prevailed on Louis to have Charles, later known as ‘theBald’, share in the inheritance. Lothair was committed by being asked to act as godfather to his half-brother. 220 Aspersions were soonto be cast on her delity and virtue. She was linked with the cham-berlain, one Bernard of Toulouse, who began to play the role of amayor of the palace, recklessly abused the imperial power and under-mined it entirely. Eventually the intrigues around the two were tohave the aim, once again, to send Louis o ff to a monastery. It wasto be a palace revolt by the ‘loyal opposition’ in the name of Lothairand the order ordained by God in 817, which in 830 primarilyaimed at the disempowerment of Bernard and Judith. 221 Ultimately,844, Charles had him beheaded. Judith had died in 843.

218 Semmler, ‘Renovatio’ , in Godman and Collins, p. 136. See Staubach, p. 15.219 Riché, p. 149.220

According to Nithard, ch. 3, Lothair regretted his willingness and from thenon tried to undo what his father had arranged. See Nelson, Charles the Bald , for adetailed biography.

221 Astronomus, ch. 44.1 intimates that Louis was ‘ba ffl ed by certain delusions’.See also Astronomus, ch. 44:2 for the pressures brought to bear upon Judith to get



98

This jurisdictional con ict became acute in 829 when Louis clearlyabandoned the principles of the Ordinatio imperii and proceeded uni-

laterally with the implementation of the partition of the inheritance,giving Charles the Bald large parts of the realm—Alemania, Alsace,Chur and a part of Burgundy—rather than dealing with the prob-lems, which in the eyes of the church dignitaries needed attention.Though a new kingdom was not created, the act did resemble a tra-ditional reallotment, which was taken from Lothair’s share. 225 Theresults were to a ff ect the next 13 years, the remainder of his reign,as his other sons, realizing that they were being played o ff againstone another by their father, concentrated on the acquisition of ter-ritories and power in their own right. 226 His advisors, among themthe former chancellor Helisachar and the arch-chancellor Hilduin,mentioned above, staged the coup in 830 in which the empress wasinvolved. Part of the resolution consisted of Judith being sent to aconvent, but Louis having to do penance and accept the Ordinatioimperii as nal. For a short while Lothair assumed the reign, but thenthe positions were realigned and a power struggle ensued, as his

younger brothers preferred their father to their brother who proved

not to be equal to the task. Louis revoqued his designation as co-ruler, though he could not change the fact that Lothair had beenanointed, and sent him to Italy. Louis had saved his throne, thoughat a considerable loss of prestige. Judith could purge herself by anoath of the charges against her and regained her in uence. He boughtthe support of his younger sons with the promise of the enlargementof their domains. A lack of determination among the supporters of the unity idea had cost them their power. 227 Soon Ludwig rose inforce, but when his support dwindled before the approaching emperor,he realized that his support among the high nobility west of theRhine was limited and he submitted. Pepin of Aquitaine began toshow open resistance against his father, who retaliated with force of arms, pillage and desolation and in the end, 833, Pepin was dethronedand expelled. In 830 he had been a conspirator of the rst hour

225 Boshof, ‘Einheitsidee’ in Godman and Collins, p. 183.226 See J. Fried, in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History, p. 143f. See

Wallace-Hadrill, pp. 241–257 for a characterization of Charles the Bald.227 Nithard, ch. 3. Boshof, p. 188. See Nelson, Charles the Bald , p. 88f. See Nelsonalso in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History, pp. 116 ff . Also McKitterick,‘Charles the Bald and the Defense of Carolingian kingship’, in Frankish Kingdoms ,p. 170f.



99

and in 832 his kingdom was awarded to Charles, the Bald. WhenPepin died in 838 his son was pushed aside and Charles, the Bald,

succeeded him in the west. In 831 Louis issued a new document,the Regnio divisio, in which Pepin, Ludwig and Charles, the Bald,were to share the realm in the event of Louis’ death. Till then heretained full authority over all of the empire and the succession. 228

Astronomus (48.2) describes how at Colmar, in Alsace, in 833, inthe presence of pope Gregory IV (827–844), Louis’ sons faced theirfather on the ‘Field of Lies’. He had to feel the threatening angerof the crowd and watch the desertion of his own followers and troops.Nithard claims that the sons enticed Louis’ supporters away fromhim by promising various favors. 229 This loss of support was inter-preted as divine intervention on behalf of imperial constitutionalunity and the rejection of Louis and his inclination toward partition.The pope realized an opportunity to assert the superiority of thespiritual authority as a guarantee of peace and unity. 230 This was tobe the rst papal intervention in the politics of the empire. Prominent,but fanatical churchmen again placed all blame on Judith, the new

Jezebel, pursuing the advantages of her son Charles. On July 30,

the emperor became the prisoner of his sons. Judith was banishedonce again. To northern Italy this time. 231 Self interests, power andterritories were the main motivating factors not the unity of therealm. Once again the sons tried to induce him to enter monasticorders. On behalf of the papacy, Gregory proclaimed the pope’sauthority over that of the empire. Louis conceded to the point thathe did penance once again. At Soissons, Ebo, arch-bishop of Reims,his friend since youth, accused him of breaking the Ordinatio imperii ,of sacrilege, murder, misgovernment, negligentia, pravitas and perjuryand recalled those cases for which the emperor had already donepenance in 822. His biographer Astronomus did note the peculiar-ity of that. Not to have been able to resist the seductions of his sin-ful wife, the violations of his divinely bestowed o ffi ce su ffi ced toremove him from o ffi ce. Instead of listening to false advisers, heshould have listened to priests. He had become a tyrant. In the opin-ion of Lothair’s supporters Louis could only submit to the Hand of

228 Kasten, p. 191.229 Nithard, ch. 4.230 Riché, p. 155f.231 Nithard, ch. 4.



100

God and do penance. 232 Only complete penance could preserve hissalvation. In the monastery of St. Médard, worn out by the con ne-

ment, he threw himself three times or more at the feet of the bish-ops, confessed his guilt, begged for forgiveness and the assistance of prayer, and promised to ful ll all tasks. Prostrated in front of thealtar he confessed his sins publicly by means of the spoken and writ-ten word. He declared himself unworthy of the o ffi ce, laid down hisarms and donned the penitent’s garb handed him by the bishops.He was to accept lifelong penance and be un t to rule.

The unexpected e ff ect of the abuse of majesty was the crisis of the monarchy through the loss of its authority. During these proce-dures an embassy from Constantinople was visiting the Frankishcourt. Their gifts were not presented to Lothair. The unkind treat-ment of his father, whom he dragged from place to place understrictest guard, the abuses of power by Lothair and by his favoritesand the rivalry among his closest supporters transformed the moodof the people in favor of the old deposed emperor. The support forLothair and his party had not been unanimous in any instance. His

younger brothers had obtained the additional territories, which they

wanted and Ludwig proceeded to claim greater independence. Tillnow he had been designated ‘king of Bavaria’ and dated his docu-ments according to the reign of his father, as of 833 he assumedthe absolute royal title rex and dates his documents without refer-ence to the empire rex in orientali Francia . Even though the Diet of Nymwegen refuses to grant him this title, hereafter this itinerant king claims and defends all the east Rhenish lands as his domain andforms stronger links with the east Frankish nobility. 233 Pepin did notimitate his brother.

Two points of contradictory procedure were to reverse Louis’ sit-uation—having been condemned a second time for transgressionsalready confessed earlier and being deposed for transgressions forwhich penance was supposed to be the actual deliverance. 234 Lothairhad behaved in a most undigni ed manner and his younger broth-ers, seeking independent kingdoms, revolted and the situation cameto be reversed. Louis was completely rehabilitated owing to the e ff orts

232 Astronomus, chs. 48:3, 49:1. Astronomus gives a detailed description of theevents. Boshof, pp. 196 ff .

233 Boshof, p. 198. Brunner, p. 118. See also Innes, State and Society, p. 199.234 Angenendt, p. 382.



101

of the abbot of Fulda, Hrabanus Maurus, who, by becoming politicallyinvolved, became the mouthpiece for an opposition, which formed

around Ludwig, the German. 235 In response to a request from Louisthe Pious Hrabanus Maurus compiled Biblical texts supporting hisdemands that sons show respect for their father, the people’s loyaltyfor their ruler and expressed the wish that the profoundly injuredemperor could forgive all those who had wished him ill, especiallyLothair. Just at this time he had prepared commentaries for theBiblical gures Judith and Esther and these he dedicated to the sorelytested empress Judith, praised her virtues and placed her at the sideof the Biblical heroines. In a medallion-shaped likeness of the empresshe shows her in a carmen guratum, a picto-poem of a text of assem-bled letters, under the blessing Hand of God. That text asks for

Judith’s protection from Christ, the right hand of God. She is encir-cled by the words ‘Give to her, God, blessed gifts, the crown onhigh’.236 He is con dent of her triumph over all of her enemies. AlsoWalahfrid Strabo, the abbot of Reichenau, since 829, captivated byher, in her service and tutor of young Charles, 237 placed his skillsinto the service of the emperor and dedicated a poem to her in

which he criticized sharply the double treachery against Louis. Bythe end of the year 833 Ludwig negotiated successfully with Lothairon behalf of his father. 238 By 831 the younger brothers were devel-oping a di ff erent structure for the realm and refused to submit theirreal interests to the ideals of imperial unity. At the end of February834 military forces caused Lothair to ee. Nithard recounts howLothair’s supporters were either condemned to death or forced intoexile.239 Already on March 1, bishops freed Louis from his penanceand his regal garments and his weapons were restored to him. Shortlylater he renewed his coronation and Judith Augusta, as Astronomuscalled her, was freed and returned to the court at Aachen. 240

235 Dutton, Politics of Dreaming , p. 103. See Wallace-Hadrill, p. 333f. for Ludwig’scontacts with scholarly men.

236 E. Sears, in Godman and Collins, p. 620. Also M. de Jong, ‘The empire asecclesia : Hrabanus Maurus and Biblical historia for rulers’, in Hen and Innes, Uses of the Past , p. 206f.

237 Nelson, Charles the Bald , pp. 82 ff . for details of the interaction .238

Boshof, pp. 204ff

.239 Nithard, ch. 3. Also Innes, State and Society, p. 201.240 Nithard, ch. 4, indicates that Judith was not readmitted to the royal bed until

she had reestablished her innocence of the accusations with which she had beencharged, in delity and adultery, by means of an oath. See also Nelson, p. 45f.



102

The life of Frankish royal women could be trying. Although thisis best demonstrated among the Merovingian queens it also appears

to have applied to someone like Judith. A queen’s status hinged onher ability to give birth to an heir and on her skills to keep himand a mother’s aspirations for her son alive, despite the rivalries andcourt intrigues. In turn her security and in uence depended on thesurvival of her son(s). To protect the heir’s future was worth anystruggle. Being mother of the heir, made her a favorite in the king’seyes and in that role she could act as a bu ff er working against theinterests of others and as a serious in uence on the king in her ownright. It follows that a strong queen, especially if she was well edu-cated and ambitious and also had three grown step-sons, would polar-ize positions of envy, personal interest and opportunity around herand while she found devoted followers in some, she would be a hate-ful Jezebel to others. The latter group would certainly be interestedto bring about her downfall and removal. She would require con-siderable skill to be perhaps irritatingly insistent on the pursuit of her own aims, without endangering her own position and personalsafety through the loss of favor. Wrongfully or not, Judith was accused

of an adulterous relationship with Bernard, the chamberlain. In 830,she had to purge herself by means of an oath. 241 There was noaccuser.

Louis’ spiritual opponents were banished. Ebo, archbishop of Reims,had ed to Fulda. Brought back, he had to answer to a synod, con-fessed his transgressions, declared himself unworthy of his o ffi ce,renounced it voluntarily and was removed from it in March 834.He was returned to Fulda and placed under the supervision of Hraba-nus Maurus. 242

Lothair and his supporters ed south, to Vienne. SubsequentlyLouis’ imperial forces were badly defeated by Lothair’s supportersalong the border of Brittany. Lothair himself took the o ff ensive inBurgundy, and, as Astronomus (52.3) described, sacked the city of Châlons sur Saône, lost control over his fanatical troops, letting themplunder the churches and commit atrocities. He had several nobles,at least one of them vassals of the emperor, beheaded. 243 Louis nallycalled up his forces, including Ludwig’s troops from east of the Rhine.

241 Riché, p. 154.242 Astronomus, ch. 54:1, for Ebo’s situation. Boshof, p. 211f.243 Nithard, ch. 5.



103

Lothair avoided a pitched battle, but when Pepin of Aquitaineadvanced against him as well, he capitulated to the emperor. He

and his followers prostrated themselves and confessed their guilt.Louis exiled him to Italy with the order not to leave it without hispermission, and not to get involved in a ff airs of the realm. 244 Hissupporters were granted amnesty without loss of most of their pos-sessions and the freedom to follow Lothair to Italy. Louis was gra-cious and merciful, partly in keeping with the ethics expected of aChristian monarch, partly in keeping with political expediency, forthe inheritance of Charles, the actual cause of all the turmoil, wasstill not settled. Owing to the terms of reconciliation Lothair and hismagnates retained power and in uence and Louis needed their sup-port if he wanted to settle this question to his satisfaction. 245

Since most of the reformers and the advocates of the union of the realm had sided with Lothair, Louis sought his supporters fromamong his family, even those whom he had sent away from courtin his early years and raised them to positions of dignity in stateand church, once again concentrating the high o ffi ces around hisown person. He reclaimed a degree of royal e ff ectiveness, reconsol-

idated his position and in assemblies of magnates and bishops hadthe humiliations of his dethronement reversed. To mark the restitu-tion his coronation was renewed once again in Metz in 835. Eventhough Louis had regained his authority, the approach to dealing with the political situation concerning the partition question as wellas the external threat from the north, was no more than a stalematewith a resentful Lothair con ned to Italy, a resigned Pepin in Aquitaineand a restive Ludwig east of the Rhine. Charles remained hopefulin his possessions straddling the upper Rhine. During the twenty-six

years of his reign Louis the Pious reorganized the succession tentimes. 246 Louis’ attention should have been directed elsewhere.

The annals of these years engage in annual reports of raids andinvasions, devastations, destruction, pillage and killings. 247 Throughoutthe 9th century the Northmen were mainly Danes and according to

244 Astronomus, ch. 55:2, indicates that Lothair and his following in Italy vio-

lated the conditions of their oaths and that they were harassing with special bru-tality the church of Saint Peter, promised safeguard by his father and grandfather.245 Boshof, pp. 206–210.246 Kasten, p. 198.247 R. Collins, Early Medieval Europe, 300–1000 (New York 1991), pp. 313 ff .



105

could not intercept them. At rst their intent was to nd booty andit was the speed of their ships, which made the attack of several

sites in a short time possible. They were led by endangered mem-bers of the royal Danish house who had been excluded from shar-ing dynastic power and been driven into exile, who could gatheradventuresome warriors with whom to raid western Europe to gathergreat fame, wealth and power. 251 Voices in the church proclaimedthe raids to be punishments sent by God to scourge Christian wicked-ness and sins. Slow communications in the reporting of raids mayhave made their numbers appear much larger. Only later did theraids become conquests. During the 840s the Northmen establishedsettlements in the estuaries of the Rhine, the Schelde, the Seine andLoire and penetrate unhindered up the Rhine into the interior toCologne, Koblenz and Trier and up the Seine into Burgundy. Liègeand Aachen were equally accessible. Reevaluations indicate that suchsettlements tended to foster markets, attracted merchants and pro-moted the exchange of goods with the neighboring populations, whichmay have outweighed the initial damage. 252 Churches and monasticestablishments were favored sites of attack because of the availabil-

ity there of such concentrations of precious metals as silver and goldand ornate fabrics. It is conceivable that the local populations par-ticipated in these raids in order to improve their own fortunes. Therecords of such events were largely kept by the clergy and among them the cry was raised that these raiders were instruments of God,in icting due punishment. Without a eet the Frankish forces couldnever react in time. The parts of the empire needed to respond, asindividual situations required it. The central authority, but also thelocal nobility, failed to respond adequately to the needs. Neither sawthe common short-term threat to the realm, perhaps because theVikings were actually contributing to the long-term economic growthof Western Europe. Thus most towns survived the Viking invasionswithout signi cant disruptions, to prosper from the tenth centuryonward as centers engaging in long-distance trade. 253 The nobilitysaw to its own advantages and interests. Mutual support was becom-ing a set of contractual agreements. 254 The thinking behind centuries

251 Sawyer and Sawyer, Medieval Scandinavia , p. 52f.252 Nelson, Charles the Bald , pp. 38 ff .253 A. Verhulst, The Carolingian Economy(Cambridge 2002), p. 8.254 Riché, p. 189f. Nelson, Charles the Bald , p. 21, indicates that Charles the Bald



106

of waging o ff ensive war could not easily be converted to the men-tality required for defensive strategies. In 834 the Frisians were not

particularly helpful to the Franks in mounting a defense. Their com-munity of seafaring interests may have been much closer to that of the seafaring Danes. Once again defeatism spread as the aggressiveNorthmen were deemed to be a scourge sent by God. Louis triedto negotiate with the king of the Danes, who now made demandsand set conditions and asked for the cession of Frisia and the landof the Abodrites in return for any agreements. While Carolingianmilitary competence was declining, the Northmen were becoming conscious of their power and advantages contributing to a worsen-ing situation in the northeast. 255 During the 9th century the paymentof tributes and ransoms depleted the available reserves in bullionalmost completely. Thus in 845 a Viking eet had sailed to the gatesof Paris and had exacted about 7000 pounds of silver from Charlesthe Bald. In 858 he paid a ransom of 688 pounds of gold and 3250pounds of silver, 4000 in 866 and 5000 pounds of silver in 877. 256

The repeated payments of tribute caused the reduction of the silvercontent in the coinage, 257 considerable impoverishment and great

unrest among his nobles, as Charles exacted the amounts from them.By 859 Viking war bands had become a destabilizing factor inFrankish nances, economics and politics, sometimes as raiders, moreoften as mercenaries, even ghting one another, in Frankish disputesand open rebellions. Noteworthy is the attack of the nobility on anassociation of peasants, which had wanted to put up active resist-ance against the Vikings. The nobles saw in this an intolerable poten-tial threat of their own authority. 258

In 838 the Slavs had been disturbed by the negotiations betweenthe Franks and the Vikings and rose in arms. In the southeast Mora-

vians 259 and Bulgars 260 were forging centers of power. The Mediter-ranean was coming under the control of the Saracens.

had to give away royal land to gain the support of his nobles, no longer being ableto distribute the spoils of war and expansion.

255 See Astronomus, ch. 55:2. Also Boshof, p. 224f. See Nelson, Charles the Bald ,p. 20.

256 Nelson, Charles the Bald , pp. 186, 250.257

Verhulst, Carolingian Economy, p. 134.258 Nelson, Charles the Bald , pp. 193f., 204 ff . See especially C.R. Bowlus, Franks, Moravians, and Magyars. The Struggle for the Middle Danube, 788–907 (Philadelphia 1995).

259 Riché, p. 230. See Hartmann, pp. 113–119.260 Hartmann, p. 119.



107

Louis’ foreign policy was not a total failure. The expansionist erahad already come to a close in Charlemagne’s time. At this moment

the threats to the periphery of the realm were only just beginning.Such as they were, they did not merit the preoccupation that wasneeded to solve the inheritance question. Constant distractions werehis passion for the hunt and a very severe and persistent case of gout, occasionally so severe that he could not move. Not eating gamewould have helped tremendously. Judith had every reason to wantto see Charles’ inheritance settled, especially in view of the improv-ing relations between Louis and Lothair, starting in 836. The partypromoting imperial unity was once again gaining ground. However,disputes over the restitution of church properties delayed the process,especially when Lothair claimed illness and did not attend a courtgathering. In 836 the Synod of Aachen faulted Pepin of Aquitainefor this very reason. He yielded. This will not have endeared hisfather to him. However, the main purpose of the Synod was theelimination of confusion and the restoration of order in the realm.The text of the Synod of Paris of 829 was reactivated. Again thedualism of powers rst raised by Gelasius was revisited. A renewed

restorative synergy of church and state was reformulated. Lothairwas also a ff ected by the demand for the restitution of church prop-erty. He had used it to compensate his followers and could not eas-ily redistribute it. Louis had invited Pepin and Ludwig to join himon his voyage to Rome, which did not enthuse Lothair at all for hecould see through the device to impose a control on him. He closedthe Alpine passes, but Louis had to tend to an invasion of Frisia byNorthmen and cancelled his trip to Rome. Lothair resisted all attemptsof a rapprochement when, according to Astronomus (56.2), an out-break of disease in Italy in 837 killed o ff a large number of his expa-triate Frankish supporters. Henceforth he could no longer objectfrom a position of strength. Ludwig drew nearer to his brotherLothair. In 838 Louis reacted immediately by transferring a long strip of territory between the North Sea and Burgundy to Charles,without making him king, so that the typical partition had not yettaken place, but magnates ‘gave their hands to Charles and sworeoaths of fealty’. 261 This brought about a serious clash between Louis

261 Astronomus, ch. 59:1. See Nithard, ch. 5, for a list of the ceded territories.Innes, State and Society, p. 205, argues that the con ict was really about the Imperialcontrol of the region of the middle Rhine.



108

and his son Ludwig. Ludwig was deprived of all lands but Bavaria,a serious reverse to his plans to consolidate his share. Judith and

some in uential churchmen probably promoted this design, for itmet with Judith’s intentions. At the diet of Quierzy that SeptemberLouis went a step further. According to Astronomus (59.1) Charleswas ‘girded with manly weapons’. i.e. invested with his sword, as asign of having come of age and crowned king of parts of Neustriabetween Seine and Loire. The magnates of Neustria present ‘gavetheir hands to Charles and swore oaths of fealty’. Pepin was restoredin Aquitaine 262 and Lothair was reminded of his duties as Charles’godfather. With the creation of this kingdom, the Ordinatio imperii was nally overcome. With this outcome, the partinionists had won.

In 838 Ludwig made a last attempt to secure the Rhine as bound-ary for his East Frankish lands and occupied Frankfurt just whenLouis wanted to use the site for an assembly. As Louis assembledhis forces, including members from the east-rhenish tribes, Ludwig’sThuringians, Alemans and Eastern Franks fell away. The requiredcohesion had not yet come about. Ludwig withdrew to Bavaria. 263

His magnates were either rewarded or punished, but all were recom-

mitted to Louis by the oath of fealty. In December of 838 Pepin of Aquitaine died and in view of Louis faltering state, Judith once againturned to Lothair as primary candidate in the partition to take thepart of Charles, his godson. A reconciliation of Lothair with hisfather took on the story of the parable of the Prodigal Son andLothair accepted the terms of partition, that Charles should inherithalf of the realm, west of the line Maas—Saône—Rhône. According to Nithard Louis left the partition to Lothair, provided he would letCharles have rst choice. Unable to divide the kingdom, he yieldedto his father’s wisdom. Lothair was to take the east and Italy, withthe exception of Bavaria, this partition to come into e ff ect uponLouis’ death. 264 Evidently Louis tried to maintain the spirit of thepartition of 817, leaving Lothair as representative of the idea of con-stitutional unity. Ludwig the German was also committed to themaintenance of this new agreement and was threatened with mili-

262

Nithard, ch. 5.263 Astronomus, ch. 61:1. See also Nithard, ch. 6.264 Nithard, ch. 6. writes that Lothair would enforce his father’s will regarding

Charles from now on. See also ch. 7 for details of the reconciliation between Louisand Lothair.



109

tary force, should he leave Bavaria. Ludwig found it advisable tocome to terms, except that he too asked for guarantees. A council

at Châlons was to resolve the Aquitainian situation. In the mean-time the magnates of Aquitaine had passed over Charles and ele-

vated Pepin’s son to the throne, insisting on the Ordinatio imperii andits provision that sons should succeed their fathers. Louis had vio-lated that provision repeatedly, solving the problems by means of force majeure, power politics. This time military intervention proveda failure. During Lent of 839 the news reached him that Ludwig had once again risen against his father and with some Saxons, Thurin-gians and East Frankish troops had once again reached Frankfurtand repeated his claim to the east-rhenish lands. Once again hisuprising was a failure as Louis pursued him into Thuringia, making him recognize the father’s superiority.

Louis had been su ff ering from bronchitis and now an additionalailment laid him low. Astronomus (62.4) describes the symptoms,which a modern diagnosis interprets as cancer of the esophagus orstomach. An eclipse of the sun was taken to be an omen indicating his end. Astronomus elaborates Louis death in considerable detail,

how on his deathbed he distributed his possessions, worried aboutthe church and his sense of failure and answered those who triedto persuade him to reconcile himself with Ludwig. Astronomus (63.3),recounts how Louis recited a list of Ludwig’s ingratitudes, forgavehim, but reminded him how much he had contributed to the deathof his father and had discarded God’s commandment. 265 Of his fam-ily only his half-brother Drogo was present. He died on June 20,840. According to Astronomus (64.2) Louis’ last words belonged tothe exorcism vocabulary as if to drive o ff a malign spirit, which hehad seen. He was buried in an antique sarcophagus in Metz, along-side his mother, his sisters and other Carolingians.

Louis the Pious, a Carolingian though he was, saw his legitimacyin his conviction that he was king/emperor solely because of God’sgrace and did his understandable best to live up the challenge, whichthat divine vocation entailed. In serving the realm in his ministry,he served God. Falling short in the perception of others he madehimself vulnerable to criticism, opposition, rebellion and his own

265 Nelson, ‘The last Years of Louis the Pious’, in Frankish World , pp. 40 ff . AlsoDutton, Politics of Dreaming , p. 110.



110

enforced humiliation. By accepting the bishops as his judges he didnot appreciate that it was in the interest of their power politics to

have him assume willingly the role of repentant sinner.Before his death Louis had sent a crown and a richly ornamented

sword to Lothair, according to Astronomus (63.2), and charged himto tend to Judith and his brother Charles and to leave him the share,which had been apportioned, to him. Thereby Lothair was desig-nated imperial heir in accordance with the Ordinatio imperii of 817adjusted to re ect the new circumstance. Lothair adhered to theunity idea and attracted recognition and many supporters among the highest nobility to his cause when he crossed the Alps to ascendthe throne. 266 However, once again, owing to his scheming ways, healienated his supporters when in his dealings with his brothers heonce again reverted to insincerity and deception. He roused his broth-ers Charles and Ludwig to take joint military action against him andat the unjusti able Battle of Fontenoy near Auxerre, June 25, 841,Lothair’s forces were decisively defeated, despite the assistance of Pepin II of Aquitaine. 267 It was one of the bloodiest battles of theMiddle Ages, with some 40 000 casualties on Lothair’s side. While

Lothair’s opponents preferred to consider the defeat a divine judg-ment, which granted the brothers their fair share of the realm, hedid not, claimed victory and remained belligerent. Since he persistedwith his cause, the fratricidal war dragged on till 843, costing himever more support and in uence.

On February 14, 842, the armies of Ludwig and Charles had metat Strasbourg where the kings swore a set of oaths, actually a non-aggression pact, Charles in German, Ludwig in French in front of each other’s army. Both oaths were originally recorded in Nithard’s

Histories , preserved only in copies, but as examples of early Germanand early French. Just before each oath Nithard introduces the termsromana and teudisca lingua , as follows, Lodhuwicus romana, Karolus veroteudisca lingua iuraverunt . Exactly what these terms were intended to

266 Nithard, Bk. II, ch. 1, presents a rather disenchanted impression of Lothair’sassumption of power. But then Nithard leaves little doubt that he is writing on

behalf of Charles the Bald. Nithard devotes the chapters of Bk. II and III to sum-marize events during the next three years.267 Nithard, Bk. II, ch. 10, Bk. III, ch. 1, renders a shocked summary of the bat-

tle and its aftermath. See Nelson, Charles the Bald , pp. 114 ff ., 118 ff . Also Angenendt,p. 382. Also Brunner, p. 123.



111

mean is not clear. 268 What is clear, is that Nithard wanted to empha-size the signi cance of these oaths by setting them o ff in an unprece-

dented, seemingly spontaneous, verbatim ‘vernacular’ of sorts, for thetext into which they are placed is in Latin. ‘Vernacular’, becauseneither language existed at that time in this common form, and cer-tainly not as o ffi cial languages. Both parts of the realm used a mul-titude of regional dialects re ecting the large tribal groups in whichLatin served as the general language of communications, althoughit was no one’s rst language. A Latin original will necessarily haveunderlain the ‘vernacular’ versions. That the teudisca lingua should bequite di ff erent is perhaps not surprising. What is more surprising ishow di ff erent the romana lingua is from Latin by mid-ninth century.

Being the older, Ludwig swore rst, in the following words: Pro deoamur et pro christian poblo et nostro commun salvament, d’ist di un avant inquant Deus savir et podir me dunat, si saluarai eo cist meon fradre Karlo et inaiudha et in cadhuna cosa, si cum om per dreit son fradra saluar dist, in o quid il mi altresi fazet, et ab Ludher nul plaid numquam prindrai, qui meon vol cist meon fradre Karlo in damno sit.

Charles swore as follows: In godes minna ind in these christianes folches ind unser bedhero gehaltnissi, fon thesemo dage frammordes, so fram mir so mir

got gewizci indi maht furgibit, so hald ih tesan minan bruoder soso man mit rehtusinan bruodher scal, inthin daz er mig so sama duo, indi mit Ludheren in nohheiniuthing ne gegango the minan willon imo ce scadhen werben.269

The oaths followed established rhetorical formats in their address of God—People—Ruler as each brother indicates his intention to unitewith the other brother against the third brother out of love of God,for the sake of their Christian people and their own salvation. Eachoath implies a condition based on the mutual exchange of Christian

brotherly love, provided that God give to each wisdom and power.The early German text is not totally identical to the text in earlyFrench. Ludwig mentions Charles by name. The French text doesnot mention Ludwig. Both mention Lothair in a negative exclusionclause with the implication that the agreement is void if one of thebrothers enters an agreement with Lothair damaging to the otherbrother, his equal partner.

268

See Arnold, pp. 4ff

. concerning the use of derivatives of the word ‘Teuton’.The original Teutons were a Celtic people, annihilated by Marius in 103 B.C.E.Cf. Schutz, Prehistory, pp. 339 ff .

269 S. Becker, Untersuchungen zur Redaktion der Straßburger Eide (Bern, Frankfurt/M.1972), p. 26f. Nelson, Charles the Bald , pp. 122 ff .



112

In modern English the text reads as follows: For the love of God and the common salvation of the Christian people and ourselves, from this day forth, as

far as God give me wisdom and power, I will treat this my brother as one should rightfully treat a brother on condition that he does the same by me. And withLothair I will not willingly enter into any agreement, which might injure this, mybrother .270

Their followers swore oaths with identical texts, each in the others’language: If Louis/Charles keeps the oath which he swore to his brother Charles/Louis and my Lord Charles/(my Lord Louis breaks the oath he swore tohim) does not keep it on his part, and if I am unable to restrain him, I shall not give him any aid against Louis/Charles nor will anyone whom I can keep

from doing so.271

This oath raises a number of interesting legal aspects about the evolv-ing understanding of vassalage. Primarily the oath sworn betweenthe brothers was witnessed by the armies, who in turn state theirunderstanding and commitment to the terms. The collective oath isthe sacramentum dei , the oath of loyalty to himself and his sons exactedafter his coronation in 800, which every Frank at the age of 12 hadto swear to his ruler, an oath reintroduced by Charlemagne. 272 These

vassal armies refuse their duties as vassals, should their liege lord actunjustly against his partner. This is of legal interest, for the vassal

voices his right to reserve judgment about the cause to which theoath of allegiance is to commit him. The collective oath points inthe direction of the autonomy of the individual to reach his owndecision rather than following his liege lord in unconditioned obe-dience. The oath has something of a ‘social contract’ about it. Itmay imply that the followers could change sides.

What was the signi cance that contemporaries attached to theseoaths? It is of interest that only West Frankish records either existed

or have survived. In the East Frankish kingdom the oaths appearnot to have been documented. For the moment the ideal of the con-stitutional unity of the empire had been preserved. It is noteworthythat following the partition Ludwig was able to attract to his causesome of his most important opponents. 273

270

Nithard , Bk. III, ch. 5.271 Ibid.272 Becker, p. 33. See Riché, p. 128. Nelson, ‘kingship and empire’, in McKitterick,

Carolingian Culture , p. 67, concerning the oaths.273 Brunner, p. 128.



113

IV. Towards the partition of the Empire

Following the Battle of Fontenoy Lothair had retired toward Aachenand in the months following had carried the treasure away fromthere. A gathering of bishops and priests at Aachen of March 842used the divine judgment of the battle to review Lothair’s careerand to disqualify him from rule and twelve commissioners to a side,selected by the brothers, charged them to share the empire. 274

His defeat, the oaths against him and the loss of the imperial seatat Aachen persuaded Lothair to yield and gradually and reluctantlycome to terms with his brothers in a treaty. No wording of the treatyactually exists. Nithard ended his Histories in December 842, withthe marriage of his Lord Charles to Ermentrude, the daughter of count Odo of Paris. The last lines deal with an eclipse the follow-ing March. He is dejected that ‘rapine and wrongs of every sortwere rampant on all sides, and now the unseasonable weather killedthe last hope of any good to come. 275 The empress Judith died thatApril and Northmen invaded the coastal regions. For Charles a deci-sion had to be reached. It was the eve of a new chapter in the his-

tory of Western Europe.The Treaty of Verdun of 843 was a fraternal partition, intendedto guarantee the realm, lasting for most of the next 30 years. Thenew Treaty of Meersen in 870 eliminated Lothair’s unviable stripbetween the West and East Frankish kingdoms, with Lombardy aseparate entity. In 843 Charles was the west Frankish king, Lothairwas emperor and received a strip from the North Sea, parts of Austrasia, Burgundy and Carolingian Italy to south of Rome. Ludwig was East Frankish king in Saxony, Swabia and Bavaria, including the vast territories of the bishoprics of Mainz, Worms and Speyer. 276

The objective rested in the equal division of territories and royalresources, without any consideration given to notions of ‘nationality’.For a while this fraternal tripartite arrangement worked well enoughsince a uni ed Christian church preserved the overall unity of therealm. The divisions followed only approximate linguistic lines, becausedynastic concerns were the primary issue, so that no ‘homogeneous’or ‘ethnic’ kingdoms came into being. Divergent processes came into

274 Nithard, Bk. IV, ch. 1. See also Riché, p. 163.275 Nithard, Bk. IV, ch. 7. See also Wallace-Hadrill, p. 238f.276 Löwe, p. 178. Riché, p. 165f. Innes, State and Society, p. 210.



Map 3. The Partition of the Carolingian Empire following the Treaty of Verdun 84



116

Following the death of Lothair in 855, the realm was furtherdivided into ve parts when he divided his part among his three

sons. Rivalries, expansionism, aggression, opportunism, self interestprevented the realm from coming to rest. Ludwig the German waspart of the problem and a synod of bishops tried to subject him toan equally humiliating submission and repentance to which they hadsubjected his father. However, in the face of virtually unanimousopposition, Ludwig yielded to the pressures and at Koblenz, on June7, 860, Charles and Ludwig swore once again, though this time eachin his own language. The bishops had provided the text. In theireyes they had restored the unity of the realm. At the same time amost important feature was introduced into all future negotiationsbetween the empire and the church. Based on the forged documentsof a certain Pseudo-Isidore, new grounds for the inviolability of church property and the omnipotence of the episcopal o ffi ce wereformulated. Most decisive was the attribution of new juridical pow-ers to the pope. These forgeries favored the de nition of bishopsand especially the empowerment of the papacy, which now ener-getically assumed the responsibility for the illusory unity of the Imperium

Christianum, including the right to dominate the bishops and to crownthe emperor. 279 In retrospect the papacy was only too ready to growinto the paternal role of guardian of the unity of all Christendomgradually being vacated by the divided temporal powers. Lothair’sheirs came under the pressure of the Saracens in Italy and of theWest Frankish kingdom when Charles the Bald increased his aggres-sion against Provence and Lotharingia/Lorraine in the north. Ludwig the German tried to keep these two states as bu ff ers between him-self and Charles, unsuccessfully, for this ended when Charles seizedLorraine. 280 In August of 870, at Meersen, 281 just north of Aachen,a Treaty redrew the partition of the empire along di ff erent lines:Lombardy became an independent kingdom with its own sovereignking, Louis II, who also had the imperial crown, while most of Lotharingia and Burgundy became parts of the East Frankish king-dom. Ludwig was able to make his case forcefully, because he had

279 Angenendt, p. 394f. for details of the forged documentation. Also Riché, pp.170ff .

280 Nelson, Charles the Bald , pp. 217 ff .281 Ibid. pp. 224 ff . for details of the Treaty of Meersen.



Map 4. The Partition of the Carolingian Empire following the Treaty of Meersen 8



118

just scored some successes along his southeastern boundaries againstthe Moravian Slavs. 282 In the end the more pragmatic traditional

political practice of partitioning the realm was established. The com-munity of interests could no longer be communicated. The abstractidea of the universal empire proposed by some, could not be main-tained except as the Imperium Christianum.

V. The emerging pro le of Central Europe

Among the Frankish kingdoms, the East Frankish lands comparedunfavorably with the others. The East Frankish kingdom was smaller,with a smaller population, least developed economically, politicallyand culturally. Compared to the others, it could not draw on a Romanheritage with respect to administration, organization, cultural cohe-sion, yet it proved the more stable. Most of its territories had neverbeen under Roman jurisdiction. Except along its western fringes itsruling elites had not risen through the kaleidoscopic changes of theGallo-Roman and then Frankish civilizational experience. In many

ways the old elites, located especially in the church, continued toshare the power in the realm with the king as the kingdom contin-ued to consist largely of loosely linked cultural, religious and politi-cal oligarchies and enclaves in largely unconnected, tribal regions,over which a Frankish unifying rule had been in place for only rel-atively short periods of varying duration. When the Carolingiansfaded, it was these elites, old and new, which for many centuries tocome determined the history of France.

It has been shown incidentally that Ludwig’s position as rex orien-talium Francorumwas only relatively secure. His realm could expandor shrink on very short notice. Notker Balbulus, the Stammerer,devotes several pages to him, in the second part of his Gesta Caroli .283

Written for Ludwig’s son, Charles, later unjustly called ‘the Fat’,Notker highlights Ludwig’s praiseworthiness, his wisdom, recognizedby Charlemagne when Ludwig was only six years old, the grandfa-ther’s kiss before the court which proclaimed his rank, his claim toequal status with his father Louis the Pious, and the emperor’s pre-

282 Löwe, pp. 186 ff .283 In Thorpe, pp. 149 ff .



119

diction that the boy would become someone great. Devout in hisfaith, he was to be the protector of those who served God, a cham-

pion of the weak. Notker mistakenly calls him king and emperor of all Germany and of other lands, and thinks of him as a man of greatness and magnanimity, as well as a man of large stature andnoble presence, with bright eyes and of clear and manly voice. Wiseand of acute intelligence, a tireless student of the Scriptures, Ludwig was quick to foil conspiracies, halt disputes among his subjects andfavor those loyal to him. A terror to the heathen, he never brokehis word in judgment and following a massacre never again shedChristian blood, not even in a condemnation to death. Instead hebanished them from his presence and deprived them of their o ffi cesand property. Repeatedly Notker associates Ludwig with such guresas St. Ambrose or St. Martin and applies a quotation from Isaiahto him. He was devout in his religiosity, which gained him the title

pius from some contemporaries, walked barefoot to church, tore downwalls in Regensburg to build a church, used the gold found in richgraves to decorate the church and to make sumptuous book covers.He rejected illiterate churchmen and favored those monks who kept

their vows. He scorned nery in battle, the Viking’s tribute in goldwhile he tested the quality of their swords with his own hands, being strong enough to bend tip to hilt and snapping some of them. Notkerrecords him to have been a man of good humor who could makeothers happy and set a ff airs aright with a glance, just like the eter-nal judge. For Notker, Ludwig was singled out by the grace of God.

This description has something of the panegyric about it, includ-ing the grandfather’s prophecy of Ludwig’s future greatness. Even if the list of qualities and virtues was intended to serve as a guiding mirror for Ludwig’s son, Charles III, the Fat, the list re ects a tan-gible quality. 284

Born perhaps in 806, according to Notker, little Ludwig had wonthe favor of his grandfather. He was designated ruler of Bavaria atage 10, came of age at 15, but was kept at court in Aachen, till in825 the 19-year-old prince was sent to Bavaria as its king. By theend of the decade he had to campaign defensively against the Bulgarson his eastern frontiers. At age 21 Ludwig was married to Hemma,

284 Hartmann, pp. 18–24, in addition to Notker also refers to Regino of Prümfor other testimonials concerning Ludwig the German.



120

his stepmother Judith’s sister. 285 She may have been only 15 yearsold. A 13th century stone relief of Hemma is still respected in the

church of St. Emmeram in Regensburg where she was buried in January 876. A stroke in 874 had taken her power of speech. Whatwas the nature of the realm over which Ludwig the Bavarian, amore accurate term than Ludwig the German, came to rule? It isnot really possible to project an impression of a cohesively struc-tured, uniformly motivated realm in which a community of interestsprovided any sense of direction. That was yet to come. Later, becausethe partition of Verdun placed the river Rhine in the kingdom of Lothair, Ludwig’s kingdom did not have a N-S line of communica-tion and was hampered in the development of its trade and econ-omy. 286 What did he mean when after 833 he laid claim to all theeast-rhenish lands and their defense, and called himself rex in orien-tali Francia ? Soon afterwards he was called rex in Alemannia . Later heassumed a leading role in the attempted rehabilitation of his fatherand stepmother/sister-in-law with the intellectual leaders of his domaincircled around him and in early 834 contributed militarily to hisfather’s freedom. In 838, when Charles the Bald came of age and

was awarded a share of the realm, Ludwig’s holdings were reduced.Revolt was in vain and until his father’s death in 840 Ludwig repeat-edly had to recognize his father’s superior might. Whenever he wantedto rise against him in the pursuit of his own interests during thepolitical maneuvering in Louis’ last years, Ludwig incurred the dis-pleasure of his father, who promptly reduced his holdings to Bavariaand cut him o ff from the Carolingian core lands. Ludwig did mountsome ine ff ective resistance and when he showed reluctance to acceptthe renewed partition of the realm, Louis threatened him with mil-itary action. Ludwig was prepared to entertain all manner of con-cession as long as he could avoid outright submission. Ludwig roseagain when he saw an opportunity to reclaim his lands during hisfather’s absence in Aquitaine. We saw above that a true reconciliationbetween father and son was not to come about, as on his deathbedLouis reviewed a list of wrongs done to him by his son. Yet Ludwig was his father’s most loyal son, who repeatedly came to his aid, asduring the troubles in 833/834 when Ludwig arrived with a large

285 Hartmann, p. 64f.286 Löwe, p. 185f.



121

army raised in his lands. Later Ludwig was to su ff er feelings of guilt.Following the emperor’s death in 840, Ludwig was quick to regain

his lost lands even though his two brothers stood against him. Owing to Lothair’s imperious ways, a realignment came into being, whichpitted him against his brothers. The Battle of Fontenoy, 841, was theoutcome. The victory of Charles and Ludwig was deemed a divine

judgment. The Oaths of Strasbourg of 842 con rmed yet anotherpartition of the realm. Linguistic boundaries were not observed. 287

There was no evident constitutional framework, no crystallizing state institutions, nor a power-conscious nobility to demand partici-pation in the structured rule of the kingdom, i.e. no system of vas-salage. With the partition of 843 most of the old imperial nobilityhad not followed Ludwig the German and so he had to attract mem-bers of the tribal and territorial nobility to his banners, once againdemonstrating the willingness of the magnates to hitch themselves tothe Carolingian star. In his kingdom they were ready to grasp newopportunities and advantages for themselves and their relations. Theyeasily became the interpreters of the Franks and implementers of Frankish policies. There was little need to heed representatives of

the church to criticize and check his dealings with the church andits rights, prerogatives and independent voice. In the eastern realm vassalage was less well established and there is no record there of an anointing of the king with its concomitant commitments. Evidentlythe ceremony was not needed. As a result, and contrary to the west-ern realm, the power of the king was not reduced by the churchand it is a signi cant point of di ff erence that the royal right to deter-mine and to intervene in the appointment of bishops remained securein the eastern kingdom into the 11th century. Among the diets andcouncils only four, between 847 and 895, deserve any attention.

Though ruler of this realm, he really only controlled Bavaria fromhis power center in Regensburg and the Frankish region of the mid-dle Rhine from its centers of power at Mainz and Frankfurt. Therehe refurbished the palace and emulated the royal/imperial seat atAachen. With most of the diets assembling at Frankfurt, that regionbecame the center of gravity. Saxony, Frisia, the Elbian lands,Thuringia and the eastern marches were peripheral and observed

287 Hartmann, p. 42.



122

only a most tenuous connection with his rule, as was illustrated re-peatedly when he rose against his father and their support faded

away. However, in the end, the East Frankish kingdom, far fromany sense of statehood and anything but a prosperous and homo-geneous region, crystallized around Bavaria. 288 The north was allowedto evolve as in a vacuum, with the consequent result of the rise of Saxony under the leadership of the family of the Luidol ngians, bet-ter known as the Ottonians. These descendants of Widukind did notleave the service of Lothair till 855 and managed to retain their sec-ular and religious positions. By means of the marriages of his daugh-ter and sons with members of the regional nobility, he tried to tiethem to the local dynasties and to establish them in the respectiveregions as heirs. With Lothair’s death in 855 Alemania could beintegrated into his kingdom. Ludwig’s eyes were directed mainlytoward the west, where Lothair’s middle and Charles’ western king-doms were the more promising regions deserving his attention. 289

Any signs of weakness there, such as Viking raids, could presentopportunities to gain territory. Such opportunism was to compro-mise his image. However, the historical processes had been set in

motion as the Franks and Saxons realized, though only unclearly,their community building roles, as the bishoprics along the Rhineand the great eastern monasteries provided economic, political, reli-gious and cultural focal points, 290 and as Ludwig the German andlater especially Ludwig the Younger began to draw the great andin uential families of his kingdom closer to him and to provide thesetting in which to identify with the separate sovereignty of an EastFrankish realm by the beginning of the tenth century.

Expansionist e ff orts toward the middle Danube and the Balkansstand out, but there too the successes were limited. Following thedemise of the Avars, the Moravians lled the vacated spaces. 291 Mis-sions were conducted from Salzburg, but the Slavic princes pursueda policy of distancing themselves from the Carolingian church towardthe eastern, Byzantine church, as represented by the missionary activ-

288 Fried, in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History, pp. 144 ff .289

Hartmann, pp. 48ff

.290 Innes, State and Society, p. 104.291 See Angenendt, p. 391f. Also Riché, p. 187f. provides greater detail on the

internal struggles in Moravia. Also Hartmann, pp. 113 ff . and especially Bowlus, passim.



123

ities of Methodius and Kyrillos. Ludwig’s family became embroiledin the political developments in the eastern marshes as disputes arose

between Ludwig and his sons. For about twenty years, the Moravianswere a problem for the East Frankish kingdom until they nally sub-mitted. The attempt to gain a degree of independence ultimatelyfailed in the Magyar/Hungarian assaults on them during the lastdecades of the 9th century. 292

During Ludwig’s reign, the less prosperous East Frankish kingdomwas less a ff ected by Viking raids. Their raids aimed at the estuar-ies of Lorraine and of the Atlantic coast. In any case, the easternkingdom had emerged the stronger when compared with the westernkingdom. Though the Danes destroyed some of the western centers,the west-east trade between Frisia and the Baltic Sea was not seri-ously a ff ected. Not until Ludwig overthrew the Abodrites did theDanes attack and destroy Hamburg in 845. 293 Nevertheless, underLudwig’s protection, Ansgar, since 831/34 archbishop of Hamburg,was able to associate his mission with the commercial ventures andcontinue his missions from Bremen to the Danes and into Sweden,though with only moderate success. The archbishopric of Hamburg

was dissolved and distributed to Bremen and Verden. Hamburg entered a phase of recovery evident in the archeological evidence.A 40cm thick layer of burnt material is immediately superseded byexpanded, intensive, even ‘rich’ settlement debris. With the destruc-tion and the relocation of the religious center the religious life wasmuch reduced, but mercantile activity ourished. The trade inChristian slaves is mentioned in the records. 294 Ansgar tried to inter-fere with that trade. During the following decades there is no evi-dence that Ludwig the German o ff ered any assistance in the north.His attention was focused elsewhere.

Ludwig’s last years were marked by the imperial succession andthe partition of the lands of the emperor Lothair I. In 869, uponthe death of Lothair II, Charles the Bald occupied Lotharingia, whileLudwig lay deathly ill in Regensburg. In the Treaty of Meersen of 870, Lotharingia was divided, with Ludwig acquiring the larger part.

292

Angenendt, p. 391f. See also Fried, in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History, pp. 151 ff . Hartmann, pp. 208 ff . See Bowlus, pp. 235 ff .293 See Harthausen, pp. 16 ff . Also Fried, in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval

History, p. 151.294 Harthausen, p. 19f.



124

Disputes concerning the inheritance of the realm were alive among his younger sons. Louis II, emperor in Italy, had assured Carloman,

the eldest son of Ludwig, the imperial crown. Though Ludwig himself had ventured into Italy on several occasions, these trips did not haveRome as an objective. Louis II died in 875 and thanks to Charles’imperial image making, pope John VIII favored Charles the Baldand invited him to Rome and, in clear imitation of the coronationof his grandfather, crowned him emperor at Christmas 875. 295 Thepope expected less interference in Italy and a greater degree of pro-tection from Charles against Byzantines and Saracens. In February876 the Italian magnates elected Charles king in Pavia. 296 Ludwig the German threatened his security and invaded Lorraine causing Charles to retire from Italy. Ludwig withdrew in view of unpromis-ing prospects and died at the end of August 876. He was buried inthe abbey at Lorsch. Charles was to die a year later, so that within

just two years this group of royal adversaries passed from the scene.In view of his focus on the west and only passing interest for

Alemania, Thuringia and Saxony, it would not do to see in him thefounder of ‘Germany’. The acquisition of Lotharingia with its ances-

tral lands was his intensive interest. In this he had been partly sup-ported by the territorial interests of the Imperial aristocracy whoheld properties in more than one realm 297 and who in this case pre-ferred to side with Ludwig rather than with Charles, a circumstancecon rmed in the Treaty of Meersen in 870. 298 Intertribal communalinterests were yet to emerge.

Ludwig had dealt with his sons’ ambitions during the years 859–865,and averted the typical threats, which a royal father had to fearfrom his maturing sons when supported by injured and discontentedmen of ambition, when he assigned powers and jurisdictions in theborder regions to them, less than his own, also in former tribal areas,which needed cohesive development. Bavaria, including Carinthia,and then Italy were assigned to Carloman, Franconia and Saxony,and eventually Lotharingia to Ludwig the Younger, and Alemania

295 Riché, pp. 197 ff . See Nelson, Charles the Bald , p. 242, for some details of the

coronation.296 Nelson, Charles the Bald , p. 242f. concerning Charles’ imperial notions. SeeWallace-Hadrill, p. 254f. for a brief discussion of the papal support for Charles.

297 See Geary, Remembrance , pp. 48 ff .298 Innes, State and Society, pp. 2213 ff .



125

to Charles III. Already at an early age the older sons had beenentrusted with important military commands. 299 The division of the

rule allowed for the simultaneous royal presence in various parts of the kingdom, although queen Hemma’s perceived preference forCarloman, drove her other sons to revolt, however, without seriousharm to the realm. In 873 an open rebellion was narrowly averted.It was not to come to open hostilities between the brothers as long a their father lived. Ludwig settled the disputes by repeatedly giv-ing them more power. 300

VI. The last uni cation of the Empire

Following the death of his brother Ludwig in 876, Charles the Baldattempted to gain all of Lorraine and perhaps even all of the EastFrankish kingdom, in order to substantiate his imperial title. In anycase, he tried to shift the center of gravity of the realm away fromAachen, exempli ed by the relocation of much treasure and art.Already in 869, exploiting his brother Ludwig’s illness, he had him-

self proclaimed Emperor and Augustus of the western and middlekingdoms complete with some of the original ‘heavenly oil’. 301 Thereligious manuscripts which were prepared for him projected hisimperial claims by means of resplendent display pages. In 872, tocommemorate the third anniversary of his imperial proclamation, heexacted from his assembled bishops and magnates an oath of loy-alty to ensure his holdings and to assist him with the acquisition of his new realm. 302 Of his nephews he demanded submission, arguing that the Treaty of Verdun only applied to their father and not tothem, under pain of blinding. From their followers he demandedsurrender of their possessions or exile. 303 However, Charles lost theBattle of Andernach in October 876 304 against his nephew Ludwig

299 Hartmann, pp. 67 ff .300 Fried, in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History, p. 154f. as well as Innes,

State and Society, p. 220f. for assessments of Ludwig as a ruler. Innes also attributesa lower volume of administrative documentation to the closer personal contact

between the king and his subjects.301 Nelson, Charles the Bald , p. 119f.302 Staubach, p. 336.303 Fried, in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History, p. 155.304 Nelson, Charles the Bald , p. 244f. for some details of the prelude to the battle.



127

in 879, some Frankish magnates invited him to assume the westerncrown as well. As his father in 876, Ludwig the Younger was astute

enough to appreciate the foolhardiness of the undertaking and rec-ognized the western heirs. 308 Charles the Bald had decreed in 877that the customary legitimate succession of heirs among the nobilitybe established, in e ff ect advancing the institution of feudalism in thewest.309 The e ff ect saw the strengthening magnates gaining againstthe weakening monarchy. By recognizing the heirs, Ludwig theYounger implemented that decree. When the ailing Charles III re-ceived the imperial crown from the pope in 881, Ludwig the Youngerwas not pleased and his annals kept at Fulda did not record theevent.

During these years Slavic incursions put an end to the northernmission. In 880 Danish Vikings returned in force to the northernestuaries of the Elbe and Weser rivers and decisively defeated theSaxons. The battle indicates that attacks by small raiding parties,customary in the west, had also been transformed into open eldbattles by larger armies in the north. 310 In the Treaty of Ribémont(880) Ludwig the Younger had acquired Lorraine and now the Vikings

were also his problem. From their base on the river Maas they raidedthroughout Lorraine and destroyed many of the centers, including Aachen and many of the surrounding monasteries. Such a force mayhave come even further east, into the Saxon lands. The sourcesexclude a Danish attack and suggest that an independent Viking army of late arrivals, disappointed in its hope to gain land or atleast booty in the west, returned to correct their fortunes by raid-ing in Saxony. 311 As was so often recorded from Roman times onward,rival claimants to power, such as Hugo the illegitimate son of LothairII, hired outsiders to in uence outcomes, who then defended theirown territorial claims. Large forces of Vikings raided Lorraine andAachen, Cologne, Bonn, Trier and the Rhineland were pillaged andput to the torch. 312 Seriously ill, Ludwig the Younger could not per-sonally oppose them. He died on January 20, 882.

308 Riché, pp. 211 ff ., Nelson, Charles the Bald , p. 241.309

Riché, p. 203f., concerning the Capitulary of Quierzy. Also Nelson, Charles the Bald , p. 248f.310 Harthausen, pp. 34 ff . Also Riché, p. 215f.311 See Harthausen, pp. 54–61.312 Fried, in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History, p. 156f.



Map 5. The Partition of the Carolingian Empire following the Treaty of Ribémont 8



130

whom Ludwig the Younger had had recognized among his leading lords, but whose claims had been pushed aside by Charles the Fat.

The East Frankish nobility had begun to be dissuaded by Charles’absenteeism and incompetence and when Arnulf gathered forces fromthe German duchies, they began to side with the usurper. All thetribes elected him king and eventually he was crowned at Regensburg.Charles’ attempt to convoque a diet at Frankfurt failed when Arnulf appeared before Frankfurt. Deserted by all, Charles died soon after,on January 13, 888. 316 The universal empire collapsed only partlybecause of the incompetence of its last ruler. Without division andindependent focus on regional problems, it seems to have been impos-sible to maintain the myth of a cohesive realm.

In view of the absence of royal heirs, members of the high nobil-ity succeeded to contested thrones and to the insoluble problems of administrative coherence and outside attacks. They could not pro-

ject the image of representatives of Christ. These circumstances con-tributed to the centrifugal forces a ff ecting the realm. Towards theend of 887 the East Frankish magnates had elected the illegitimateArnulf king (887–899). In the other Frankish kingdoms claimants

reached for the crown who could point to Carolingian descent onlythrough the female line. 317 Because Arnulf was the most vigorousCarolingian with an established and secure power base, these claimantssought their con rmation from him, their liege-lord, even though heconsidered himself only heir to his grandfather’s realm. None was arival. During the late 880s Arnulf recognized princes in Italy, Burgundyand the West Frankish kingdom, thereby accepting the partition of the realm. 318 When the pope invited him to come to Rome, Arnulf declined for reasons of greater necessity, like a battle with the Vikings,who, having left their winter quarters in Burgundy, staged a last raidin a northerly direction. Soundly defeated by Arnulf in 891, theyleft the continent and settled in the Danish lands in England. After

316 Riché, p. 219. The English translation identi es the place as ‘Neidingen’ ratherthan ‘Neudingen’. It also mentions that Charles III, the Fat was buried on theisland of Reichenau. The German translation does not mention this. See Innes,State and Society, p. 223f., who proposes that the failure of Charles III was based on

the absence of the king from places in crisis, on the distance between the king andhis regional magnates, increasingly estranged by the lack of Königsnähe , proximity tothe king.

317 Löwe, pp. 200 ff .318 Fried, in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History, p. 161.



131

894 the Moravians paid homage to him and in 895 the Bohemians joined the Sorbs in the north and resubmitted to Arnulf. Arnulf had

made one very serious mistake when in 892 he solicited the supportof the Magyars, erroneously associated with the Huns, hence ‘Hun-garians’, against the Moravians and to advance his interests in Italy. 319

Subsequently they were to return with great regularity.Italian politics threatened pope Formosus and his cry for help

brought Arnulf to Italy in 894, where his recognition as king in Italywas very problematic. Two years later Formosus crowned him emperor.But there already was another problem. During a campaign in ItalyArnulf su ff ered a stroke and had to return across the Alps. He hadsecured his succession by having his magnates pay homage in 897to his four-year-old son Ludwig, to be known as ‘the Child’, eventhough he had raised one of his illegitimate sons, Zwentibold, andanointed him king of Lorraine. 320 The eastern realm had survivedthe turmoil of the reign of Charles the Fat as an autonomous realmand presented su ffi cient stability to accept a four-year-old king anda rule by regency. Compared to the older West Frankish kingdom,the eastern kingdom was less a ff ected by privileges, immunities and

particularistic interests.321

Despite Arnulf ’s good relations with thechurch, he resorted to obtaining the support of his high nobility inall of the tribal areas. In Saxony especially he drew on the supportof the Liudol ngians who, though doubly linked by marriage to theCarolingians, used the distance from the Carolingian courts to developan independent power base in the east. Other magnates attemptedto rescue such fragments as they could. As stable domains came intobeing in Saxony, Lorraine, Bavaria, Swabia and Franconia, theirgrowing cohesion and strength furthered the gradual regression of Frankish-Carolingian elements. Nevertheless, the eastern magnateshad not gained so rm a hereditary grip on their particular territo-ries as was the case in the west. These magnates were mainlyAustrasian appointees, sometimes related to the royal family, placedover the tribes by the Carolingians. They had not yet bonded that rmly with their ‘people’. 322 Even half a century later Otto I was

319 See Bowlus, p. 235f. See also Geary, Remembrance , p. 43.320

See Innes, State and Society, p. 227f.321 See Fried, in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History, pp. 163 ff ., for acompact account of East Frankish conditions.

322 See Riché, p. 228f. for a more detailed discussion of the eastern dukes andtheir duchies.



132

still able to remove these ‘tribal’ dukes at will. Arnulf had been ableto maintain the balancing act between royal and aristocratic power,

but during the years of Arnulf ’s illness, and after the removal of Ludwig from the care of his mother, and then during the regencyin the early years of Ludwig the Child, the key magnates of churchand state gained somewhat over the monarchy. 323

When Arnulf died in 899, his religious and secular magnatesremained loyal to his son, now six years old and proclaimed him inFebruary 900. Owing to his minority, the council of regents couldhave o ff ered the crown to the West Frankish Charles the Simple.Deserted by his Lotharingians, the eastern Carolingian Zwentibolddied in battle in August 900. The East Frankish aristocratic leader-ship realized the possibilities of developing a still greater sense of autonomy as the magnates accepted the legitimate Carolingian,Ludwig the Child (900–911). His weak rule was to foster the polit-ical ambitions of non-Carolingian dukes. A new, though scaled-back,order was emerging in the East Frankish realm.

The most serious challenge to the eastern kingdom was to origi-nate to the east, where the nomadic Magyars/Hungarians had seized

Pannonia in 895, (Fig. 6) raided in northern Italy 899 and while in900 and 901 the Bavarians were able to defeat them, the collapseof the Moravians in 906 opened the way to Saxony that year andto Bavaria in the next year when the Bavarian forces were destroyedat Bratislava. Northern and southern Germany now lay open to theHungarians. Three years later Ludwig the Child was defeated bythem on the Lechfeld, the alluvial plain of the river Lech, south of Augsburg. Many leading personalities fell during these con icts. Forthe next fty years the raiding Hungarians destabilized CentralEurope. Between 899 and 955 northern Italy su ff ered 35 Hungarianincursions, Cologne was partly destroyed on three occasions during these years. They reached Provence and Spain, the tip of Italy, Aqui-taine and the Atlantic coast, criss-crossed the West Frankish king-dom more than once, roamed freely throughout Central Europe for

years, in the Balkans and reached Constantinople in 931. The EastFrankish regency was not equal to the defensive strategies requiredand in its place the regional duchies had come into being, less relianton the monarchy and claiming royal prerogatives. Under the external

323 Löwe, p. 204.



133

threats they began to assume the coordinated defensive and organi-zational tasks required against the invaders—Saxony, Bavaria and

Alemania. The immense destruction caused by the raiders in 908constituted a major rupture in the development of Central Europe.Saxony, Bavaria and then Thuringia came to have the responsibil-ity of providing the rst line of an eastern defense against Slavs andHungarians. The survivors in the great families of these regions, for-mer Carolingian, mainly Austrasian appointees, showed successfulinitiatives, fearlessly assumed the titles of ‘dukes’ and emerged as thefuture focal points of new tribal dukedoms in pursuit of their par-ticularistic interests. To survive they seized regional power, resistedthe invaders, broke the continuity of association with the crownbefore subscribing to the new order. 324 The king did not interfere.They were members of his council of regents. It is interesting tonote that the external threats from the north and east contributeddirectly to the crystallization of a new political reality in CentralEurope. The dangers demanded strong leadership. The exceptionwas Franconia, along the river Main, the Merovingian/Carolingianholdings rst colonized during the early 6th century. Here, less threat-

ened by external enemies, the leading families struggled for supremacyamongst themselves. When Ludwig the Child died in 911 at the ageof 17, unlike the other eastern duchies, Lorraine turned west, whereCharles the Simple was gaining successes against the Vikings, indi-cating actually that circumstances determined that the partition of the realm was not to be reversed. The East Rhenish duchies lookedfor leadership against the Hungarians in their own ranks and, adopt-ing a practice already established in the west, exercised a notewor-thy constitutional choice—Franconia and Saxony elected their ownking on November 10, 911. For two months Swabia and Bavariawithheld their vote, signalling a potential problem. However, all of the eastern duchies no longer felt bound to the Carolingian line,even though Charles the Simple still ruled in the west, and, as hadhappened earlier, in the case of Charles III, and according to thelaws of inheritance, Charles the Simple should have become rulerover both realms. However, the centrifugal forces were displacing the centripetal interests. Following Lothair’s partition of his realm in855 among his three sons, the imperial crown had become a plaything

324 Arnold, Princes , p. 113.



134

of their and ultimately Italian politics. The eastern council of regentscon rmed the electoral principle of an elected kingship and com-

promised by electing and anointing one of their own king, the e ff ectiveFrankish Frankonian duke Konrad, as Konrad I. Though not of theroyal line, he had Carolingian relations. Even the Ottonian dynasty,which followed, did not deny its Carolingian family ties. By anoint-ing him immediately, they raised him above the other nobles. It issigni cant that this act signalled the departure from the Carolingianprinciple of treating the united realm as the monarch’s personalproperty to be divided among his heirs. This new monarchy nolonger implied this claim. Thus they did maintain a continuity andhence the appearance of a legitimate Frankish character of the king-dom. Though Frankish administrative traditions survived, since Konradwanted to rule anachronistically like a Carolingian, the election ush-ered in the notion of a self-su ffi cient political entity, with the singlesuccession, determined and con rmed by an election. The principleof an eastern, independent, indivisible kingdom was being estab-lished. 325 Nevertheless, the birth pains of this emerging, ‘federated’kingdom were very di ffi cult, because the dukes tried to pursue their

own autonomous interests.

325 Löwe, p. 206f.



1

J.M.H. Smith, ‘Old Saints, New Cults: Roman Relics in Carolingian Francia’,in Smith (ed.), Early Medieval Rome , p. 317.2 Sullivan, Aix-la-Chapelle , p. 161. Also McKitterick, Frankish Kingdoms , pp. 154 ff.,

for examples of the evolution of script systems, including uncials and minuscule.See also McKitterick, pp. XII, 1–33.

PART B

BOOKS, GEMS AND IVORIES

VII. The recapitulation of origins

In the early middle ages Romewas both a place and an idea. 1

The underlying premise for the revival must be sought in the patron-age available at the court of Charlemagne, who, following occasionalMerovingian examples, was able to create an esthetic climate aroundhim which attracted great scholars, poets, artists and craftsmen tohis court. Considering the regional disparity within his empire, thepoor level of communications, the pursuit of a common basis of understanding, of approaches, toward a commonly accepted frame-work of public opinion and even a unifying cultural ideal, such as

the Imperium Christianum, appears to be an admirable purpose. One vehicle bridging the disparity was the implementation of a uniformscript, rst perfected at Corbie—Carolingian Minuscule, 2 a stan-dardization which initiated the spacing of words with blanks andprovided splendid exemplars, which also served the establishment of the religious doctrine and the consolidation of the Carolingian author-ity. Rather than searching for a common, cohesive denominator, itseems Charles wanted to establish an innovative context of culturaland intellectual pursuits carried by a wide range of creative practi-tioners within an extensive, synthesizing program of assumptions,reforms, incentives, sponsorships and innovative initiatives whichwould ignite the imagination of enthusiastic contributors. He hopedto generate a momentum, which would a ff ect all of society. Muchremained fragmentary. Some things ourished in highly productiveenterprises. Walahfrid Strabo’s Prologue to Einhard’s Vita Karoli attests



136

to this purpose when he wrote that ‘Of all kings Charlemagne wasthe most eager in his search for wise men and in his determination

to provide them with living conditions in which they could pursueknowledge in all reasonable comfort.’ 3 The comfort will have beendebatable. The context of this statement is his lament, that only afew decades later, in their ‘own time the thirst for knowledge is dis-appearing again: the light of wisdom is less and less sought after andis now becoming rare again in most men’s minds.’ Motivated bythis pursuit of a superior knowledge Charlemagne and Louis thePious used the terms Renovatio romani imperii and Renovatio regni fran-corum4 in their imperial seals respectively. Evidently, with the inten-tion to proceed programmatically, renovation, restoration, renewal,rebirth were operative Carolingian concepts which under Charlesand Louis the Pious, and in their religious guise were to nd appli-cation in a wide range of non-military, administrative, political, reli-gious and cultural activities of the Imperium Christianum, summarizedin the modern conventional, though awed, term Carolingian Renaissance .5

What actually happened as a result was a transformation, or rather,a recapitulation of many diverse elements, sponsored by the crown

and promoted among the talented of all classes through the educa-tional policies and royal directives issued to and the nancial assis-tance of the monasteries, which went far beyond a ‘rebirth’ of whathad existed before. St. Boniface could be placed at the beginning of the latter, Pepin III and his wife Bertrada with the former. 6 Charles’background provided much of the direction, he being primarily inter-ested in the period of Constantine I, Justinian and the early ChristianEmpire, not the empire of the pagan Caesars, though they calledthemselves Caesar. Louis the Pious saw his rolemodels in the Biblicalkings David and Solomon, as well as the Roman emperors ConstantineI and Theodosius I. Hence mainly the late Classical, already Christianmodels ignited the imagination. Carried mainly in Latin, some of itis innovative in that it nds expression in the regional Germanic

vernaculars. Under Louis the Pious it included a relationship between

3 Thorpe, Two Lives of Charlemagne , p. 49f.4

J. Semmler, ‘Renovatio Regni Francorum’ , in Godman and Collins, pp. 125 ff .5 I. Wood, ‘Culture’, in McKitterick, Early Middle Ages , pp. 186 ff . See also Sullivan,Gentle Voices , pp. 31 ff ., 37f. concerning a revised list of contributors to this renewal.

6 J.J. Contreni, ‘The Carolingian Renaissance: Education and Literary Culture’in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History, p. 709.



, 137

the Carolingian crown and the papacy. As long as the religiousChristian life, the idea of the Imperium Christianum, motivated the cul-

tural range of secular activities, the reanimation ourished in a vari-ety of forms. With the increasing secularization of the religious life,the ‘renaissance’ declined. With the decline came a centrifugal frag-mentation of the secular and religious institutions, as well as a con-traction of the economy and a general impoverishment of the realm.

It has become conventional to interpret the Carolingian ‘Renaissance’mainly as a rescue of Classical civilization, a rediscovery of the writ-ten word, of the Latin and Christian Classics and of Classical edu-cation, which brought the light which nally overcame the culturalpessimism and illuminated western consciousness in its supposedlysinister and ignorant ‘Dark Ages’ during which all cultural knowl-edge was thought to have been lost, overlooking the fact that theperiod was mainly characterized by an oral culture. 7 Commonly thecause for this loss of culture and learning was taken to lie in the ‘bar-barian invasions’, their lack of interest in Roman culture, their over-laying of Classical cultural expression by their pagan or worse, Arian,inadequacies, and their lack of competence in Latin and the ensu-

ing inadequate ‘bilingualism’ and the consequent loss of a languageof learned thought and expression, in a disastrous clash of Germanicand Mediterranean cultures. It has been demonstrated elsewhere thatthis was not entirely the case. It was much more the case of a fus-ing recapitulation, since the northerners had been a ff ected signi cantlyby the early contact with Rome, by the Roman craftsmen among them, which had put their adaptability to the test even well beforethey crossed the frontiers. 8 The Saracen invasions of southern Gaulin the early 8th century with their signi cant destructions, coupledwith a decline in interest on the part of the court, also contributedto any decline. On the other hand, the dispersal of immigrants fromVisigothic Spain and the preservation of Classical literature in themonasteries of the Benedictines contributed to the retention of lit-erary traditions and scribal skills to parts of the west. 9 However,echoing the life-negating tone of earlier historians, Gregory of Tours,

7

Sullivan, ‘The Context of Cultural Activity’, in Gentle Voices , pp. 55 ff . SeeChazelle, “End of the ‘Dark Ages’”, in Chazelle, Literacy, Politics , p. 3.8 Schutz, Tools, Weapons and Ornaments.9 Bischoff , Manuscripts and Libraries , pp. 5, 134 ff . for a list of Classical works pre-

served in the various monastic libraries in the north.



138

in his Preface to Book I of The History of the Franks , laments the wan-ing and perishing of liberal culture, of the pursuit of letters and the

loss of understanding of the learned words of the rhetoricians dur-ing the Merovingian period. 10 No doubt, this view among the Classicallyeducated was too gloomy, ironic and deliberately misleading. It issteadily being revised as it certainly appears that the MerovingianFranks left an extensive and literate Gallo-Roman intelligentsia inpossession of its love of books,—between the 2nd and 4th centuriesbooks, codices, 11 had replaced scrolls—, its schools of rhetoric andlaw, administrative, economic and ecclesiastical positions and thatthere was a usable continuity of Roman institutions after the fthcentury in which the heritage of the written word continued in useas a valued medium and that there was a strong link between Mero-

vingian and Carolingian literacy. The competence in administrativeand religious literacy remained quite widespread. There can be noquestion that well into the middle of the 7th century the leading gures among the ‘Merovingians’ were literate and that their con-tribution to the continuity of cultural features into the Carolingianperiod was considerable. 12 Only then did something of a discontinuity,

a cultural decline, appear to have set in, lasting almost a half-centuryduring which even writing skills seem to have become very inade-quate, as the skill became the virtual reserve of the clergy, owing tothe circumstance that any formal education had become religiousand was imparted in the clerical schools, while literate laymen wereeclipsed even in the royal and mayoral chancelleries. 13 The powerstruggle leading to the change in dynasty will have played a signi cantrole in diverting cultural energies and adversely a ff ecting the inter-est in cultural matters. Physical prowess gained the ascendancy overthe need for literacy. The fact cannot be denied, that between 450

10 P. Heather, ‘Late Antiquity and the Early medieval West’, in. Bentley (ed.),Companion to Historiography(London, New York 1997), p. 80.

11 J.J.G. Alexander, Medieval Illuminators and their Methods of Work (New Haven,London 1992), p. 35.

12 I. Wood, ‘Administration, Law and Culture in Merovingian Gaul’, in McKitterick,Uses of Literacy, pp. 63 ff . Also p. 71f., concerning Gregory’s lament, pp. 78 ff . Seefurther G. Brown, ‘The Carolingian Renaissance’, also V. Law, ‘The Study of

Grammar’ in R. McKitterick, Carolingian Culture: emulation and innovation(Cambridge1994), p. 3, and pp. 88 respectively. See Sullivan, ‘The Context of Cultural Activity’in Gentle Voices , p. 59f.

13 Geary, Before France and Germany, p. 213. See also Contreni, Carolingian Learning ,pp. II, 13; IV, 81 ff .



, 139

and 850 Latin ceased to be a spoken language. Especially after 650,rst the common active and then also the passive command of Latin

disappear in a practical sense. 14 However, tendencies remained alivewhich Charlemagne could use to remedy this ‘darkness’ by stressing the revival of Christian learning in general and the educationalemphasis on Christian literacy in particular. The available modelswere to be found mainly in the Classical Christian traditions. 15

Despite e ff orts to preserve any pagan Classical consciousness, thiswas a Christian society in which the fervor of the new faith, withits conviction of the Latin Bible being the only necessary source of knowledge, the enthusiasm which motivated the establishment of Christianity a ff ected literature adversely as it did much to eclipse the‘misleading’ and pagan literary inventory. By sheer weight of num-bers, the religious Christian literature overwhelmed the secular inven-tory of books. Pope Gregory I and other church leaders held theextreme view that the pre-Christian works of antiquity might inter-fere with the Christian faith. Gregory of Tours retells the story of St. Jerome’s vision of being led into the presence of God, of being bound and lashed severely, for having read too often the ‘clever

arguments of Cicero and the false tales of Virgil; . . . and that hewould never henceforth read or discuss anything except that whichwas judged worthy of God. . . . Having glanced at all these eventsbuilt on sand and soon to perish, we return rather to divine andevangelical miracles. 16 In rejecting the questionable lives and deedsof the ancient gods and the mythological characters, he also rejectsthe fabulous stories, which Virgil mendaciously invented or depictedin heroic verse. Yet Virgil was saved by focusing on the exegesis of his theme of a man’s whole life journey and by tting his lines ona Christian foundation and into the essential medieval curriculum. 17

14 M. Banniard, ‘Language and Communication in Carolingian Europe’, inMcKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History, p. 698f.

15 Sullivan, ‘The Context of Cultural Activity’, in Gentle Voices , p. 56. Also Chazelle,‘Dark Ages’, in Chazelle, Literacy, Politics , p. 5.

16 Easton, Wieruszowski, p. 106f. “Therefore we ought to pursue, to write, tospeak, that which builds the church of God and by sacred teaching enriches needy

minds by the knowledge of perfect faith. For we ought not to recall the lying sto-ries, or to follow the wisdom of the philosophers which is hostile to God, lest wefall under the judgment of eternal death by the decision of the Lord”.

17 M. Carruthers, The Craft of Thought. Meditation, rhetoric, and the making of images,400–1200 (Cambridge 2000), p. 59.



140

Edifying and practical components in the old literature that couldprove useful, such as Vitruvius on architecture, Galen in medicine,

Pliny on natural history did nd a restrained interest and were copiedoccasionally and thus rescued into the Christian curriculum, espe-cially if the works had entered the writings of any of the ChurchFathers. 18 During the 9th century Hrabanus Maurus, still concernedabout the dangerous in uence of the classical authors, recommendedthe study of such authors as Virgil, Ovid and Horace for their style,their ornamental eloquence and not for their ideas. 19 He investedthis ornamentation with great moral and inventive power in aid of Christian meditation, thus rescuing the pagan authors because of theethical and cognitive stimulation, which they o ff ered. 20 The educa-tional promotion of Biblical knowledge and scholarship is then meantto o ff er an alternate vehicle to advance literacy and Latinity, deemedessential for reforming God’s people and for laying the foundationsof the universal Imperium Christianumof the Carolingians. 21 Charlemagnehimself gave direction to this e ff ort and encouraged its coordination.In his Epistola de litteris colendis , soon after 774, he requested that thestudy of book-knowledge be pursued in a humble manner, and for

it to be learned in a manner pleasing to God so that the secrets of divine scriptures might be penetrated more easily and correctly. 22

The aim was not the Classical, worldly model, but the religious com-ponent of the Carolingian Renovatio, which was to represent the tan-gible form and direction of this e ff ort. In this regard sermons continuedthe intellectual content of earlier times and contributed directly tothe Imperium Christianum.

The question concerning literacy then splits in two. On the onehand, there is the eclipse to near oblivion of Classical, pagan, Latin

18 G. Brown, ‘Renaissance’, in McKitterick, Carolingian Culture , p. 38f. Also Sullivan,‘The Context of Cultural Activity’ in Gentle Voices , p. 60.

19 See Diebold, p. 107, who quotes Hrabanus Maurus as follows: ‘For script isthe perfect and blessed norm of salvation and it is more important in all thingsand is more use to everyone. . . .’

20 Carruthers, p. 128f.21 According to Contreni, Carolingian Learning , p. III, 59. The Carolingian renais-

sance formed part of a program of religious renewal that Carolingian political and

clerical leaders sponsored and encouraged in the hope that it would lead to themoral betterment of the Christian people.22 See Wallace-Hadrill, p. 329. V.H. Elbern, Goldschmiedekunst im frühen Mittelalter

(Darmstadt 1988), p. 31f. See J.J. Contreni, ‘The Pursuit of Knowledge in CarolingianEurope’, in Sullivan Gentle Voices , pp. 107 ff .



, 141

literature, or any literary activity for that matter. On the other, thereis the continuing and necessary promotion of the teaching and learn-

ing of a functional Latin literacy preserved with the emphatic depen-dence on and the retention of the written Latin word for all formsof communication during the post-Roman, Frankish, Merovingianperiod. It might have been reasonable to expect a rebirth of theDruidic oral tradition based on memorization. The need for schools,basic Latin teaching texts and books in general will have to be soughtin the surviving e fficiency of the administrative structure of post-Roman Gaul and the immense amount of governmental communi-cation and documentation and the ensuing need for organization.Thus the rediscovery of any ancient writers, such as the ChurchFathers, or historians such as Jordanes and the Venerable Bede, orGregory of Tours and Fredegar, had more to do with the retentionof the scribal tradition of a functional Latin literacy, style, correctLatin composition, the correct use of Latin grammar and even punc-tuation, than with the subject matter of the literary works. Literatureshould be studied as the handmaiden to grammar and provide astylistic context. Some authors used the ancient, pagan sources eclec-

tically. It posed no con ict for Carolingian scholars to copy andstudy pagan and Christian texts simultaneously. The pagan authorswere understood to represent literary excellence. 23 The educational

value lay in the mechanics and skills represented and not the con-tent, not literacy and not chronological history. Yet the educatedand well-read Septimanian lady Dhuoda, probably of Austrasianparentage, advised her son, as he left for the court of Charles theBald, that ‘God is learned about through books’. She meant Christianbooks and in the manual, which she sent him, her religious sourceshave been identi ed. She may have re ected a more general empha-sis on the writings of Christian authors. The quality of her com-mand of written Latin is commendable. 24 The political value of theuse of written Latin lay in its universal application in overcoming the vernacular regional di ff erences. However, owing to the attemptsto restore written Classical Latin, it may have di ff ered very signi cantly

23

Bullough, Renewal , p. 19. Also Bischo ff , p. 103.24 R. McKitterick, The Carolingians and the written Word (Cambridge 1989), p. 123f.wrote a book for her 16 year old son, full of heartfelt advice. See Geary, Remembrance ,p. 49, for her advice to remember his genealogia , his wide ung family relations. AlsoGeary, Living with the Dead , pp. 79 ff .



142

from spoken Latin, Romance, 25 as illustrated in the Oaths of Strasbourg.With time the regional multilingualism of the Frankish realm will

have a ff ected the pronunciation of Latin, to the point that the inher-ited orthography no longer re ected the phonemes of the spokenlanguage and a new orthography had to evolve, probably even torecord the spoken Frankish dialects. There will have been interfer-ences with the use of spoken ‘Classical’ Latin as a ready lingua franca throughout the di ff erent regions of the empire. However, thoughaff ected regionally, the use of Latin will have been nearly universal,certainly in western Frankish Europe, or the Romance languageswould not have come into being.

Fortunately the love and need of books expressed the desire toretain as much extant knowledge as possible which led to the copy-ing of books, a boon to posterity, as almost all known antique sourceswere preserved as Carolingian copies. Charlemagne himself may haveprovided the stimulus for the creation of writing centers when c. 780he asked to receive copies of any rare and unusual books that mightbe stored in any centers of learning. 26 No doubt a relationship existedbetween the need and use of books and their production. What,

however, motivated the production of books beyond actual localneeds, considering the material costs? In fact much of the ‘Reawaken-ing’ during the Carolingian period was inspired by the ImperiumChristianum, and based on the production of copies, not only of Latinworks, but also of Roman painting, glass making, crystal and ivorycarving, the portable arts in short, and even architecture. Astonishing is the support of the written word by generous Frankish patrons withthe means of a wealth of precious materials made available to arange of specialists by those who valued the recapitulation, partici-pated in the grandiose design and who treasured these objects andthe intellectual wealth which they represented.

The participation could not be uniform across the Frankish sub-kingdoms. Even a simple survey of maps dealing with the distribu-tion of such Carolingian features as cities, monasteries, cathedrals,churches, diocese and the like, shows many more signi cant con-

25

McKitterick, The Carolingians , p. 10f.26 Bischoff , pp. 20–55. R. McKitterick, ‘Eighth Century Foundations’. in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History, p. 681. Contreni, Carolingian Learning , p. I, 20, sug-gests that during the 7th and 8th centuries there were only 77 centers of learning in Western Europe.



, 143

centrations of these in the West-Frankish kingdom than in most partsof the East-Frankish kingdom. This information allows the conclu-

sions that while the Franks had assumed mainly military power, con-tinuity from Gallo-Roman to Frankish cultural foundations is verypronounced where Roman administration continued to function.Hence a many-faceted life under the Frankish rulers was possibleuntil the growth of genuine Germanic political and legal institutionsevolved. Thus the bishoprics had initially continued to be the domainof the Gallo-Roman senatorial class, until in the end they also becamethe termination of a career of the educated Germanic high nobilityin royal service. Owing to personal name changes the two groupslost their distinction in the records and appear as a single socialgroup. The use of Latin, Christianity, Roman Law, Church Lawand the education of the Gallo-Roman population survived, eventhough Charlemagne’s key o fficials no longer represented the oldimperial Gallo-Roman senatorial nobility, but primarily men of Germanic origin. Education and communicative competence in Latinwas the skill, which identi ed the members of the Carolingian elite.A functional bilingualism or even multilingualism can be assumed. 27

In the eastern regions where Old High German was spoken, eventhe regional dialects have been identi ed. The written documenta-tion was very extensive and much has been preserved. It is discussedbelow. In that sense, by the middle of the 9th century, writing a ff ectedmore people than just the learned groups. In the east-rhenish lands,by contrast, there were only a few such concentrations and thenmainly in the former Roman provinces, such as Raetia and Noricum,pointing to any continuities with any highly developed past. Such acomparison also makes clear why a Carolingian ‘Rebirth’ would haveto be rather ambivalent, the term resting on a rather di ff erent frameof reference, a ready tradition and familiar and extensive infra-structure in the west, and only little of that in the east. In the westthe revival already begins in Merovingian times as much more of acontinuation from earlier times. In the east the remains of RomanProvincial Culture and the few monastic establishments did not leaveas signi cant an identi able basis on which a ‘rebirth’ could takeplace. Such foundations as there were had been established during

27 Jungandreas, p. 135f. lists names of bi- or multilingual individuals at court,including the emperors.



144

Frankish times. To apply the term ‘Carolingian Renaissance’ or evenRenovatio, to the East Frankish realm is hence rather inappropriate.

Except for the radiating e ff ect from the several east-rhenish religiouscenters, new foundations and production centers such as an impres-sive St. Gallen, or Reichenau, Echternach, Regensburg, Freising,Salzburg, Würzburg, Hersfeld, Fulda, to identify just a few, therewas not that much of an eclipsed, formerly established, continuing,latent, cultural tradition there, that could be ‘reborn’. The forma-tive initiatives, often originally Anglo-Saxon, were to be mainly new,soon to be sta ff ed by indigenous monks, 28 using regional forms of German vernaculars, and quite remarkable among all levels of soci-ety. Germanic scribes adopted the insular style of writing, for instanceat Fulda, where neither its rst abbot nor most of its earliest monkswere English, and book production so that it survived till after 800.By c. 850 the insular style was no longer being written. 29 TheCarolingian Gallo-Roman west and south was not to play a role inthis directly. Rather Frankish bilingual German- and Latin-speakers,who could transmit the Classical heritage as well as the Christianfaith into the vernacular, participated in original ways, in much larger

numbers and in many more intellectual areas to bring the undere-ducated eastern regions to a par with the western and southern lev-els.30 The enclaves of Latini , Roman remnant populations in Raetia and Noricum were never represented by large numbers, so that acomparison with their role in Gaul would not be very productive. 31

What the cultural awakening did provide through the standardiza-tion of the minuscule script, the Latin literary link between Christand the Cross, was a heightening of the educational quali cation of an extensive audience, represented through the reform work of themany new monasteries, convents and schools and the forms andmotifs of the Classical Christian past, inspired by the thrust towardthe newly conceived Imperium Christianum. Very soon afterwards thereforms a ff ected a brief, episodic, intellectual ‘ ourish’ in Germanliterature with its own audience. A very convincing contribution is

28 McKitterick, Books, Scribes and Learning in the Frankish Kingdoms, 6th–9th Centuries (Gower House, Brook eld 1993), pp. IV, 315 ff .

29

McKitterick, Books, Scribes and Learning , pp. IV, 297f., 301, 304, 305.30 Jungandreas, pp. 117 ff . McKitterick, Books, Scribes and Learning , p. IV, 318.31 Schutz, Germanic Realms , p. 289. See McKitterick, The Carolingians , pp. 81–126,

concerning the survival of written culture in these regions. McKitterick’s discussioncreates the impression that the population of Latini is much larger.



, 145

a owering of such portable arts as manuscript/book illumination,ivory carving and the work in metals, which gave the East Frankish

kingdom a position of leadership in Central Europe. Examples of Carolingian architecture and of some wall painting are still in evi-dence today.

As was shown above, beginning in the 740s a central factor wasthe reform of the ever less e ff ective Merovingian Frankish churchand the invigoration through the Romanization, or what was per-ceived to be the Roman rite, of the Merovingian liturgical practiceas part of the ensuing Carolingian liturgical reforms. Through hislinks with apostolic Rome St. Boniface may well have contributedto this Romanization. This reform was to a ff ect all aspects of anindividual’s physical and spiritual life within the earthly kingdom andhis ideas concerning death. Perhaps the coincidence of religious andsecular education a ff ected the understanding of the purpose of lifeand of all meaning. It was to have a renewing e ff ect on all societyas the early Carolingians tried to idealize their Christian realm intoa replica of the heavenly kingdom on earth, the Imperium Christianum.Education had to assume the primary role to help ful ll this inten-

tion and hence religious education had to outweigh any secular needs.The bene ts of a secular sort were incidental. This renewal was tond expression in art as well.

In addition to the implementation of the Christian imperium basedon divine authority, the interest of demonstrating a Christian impe-rial continuity and legitimacy of the Carolingians had to be main-tained by means of recapitulating methods. This transformation intoa Christian realm did utilize the development of a Rome- andRavenna-inspired state symbolism most overtly demonstrated in archi-tecture, but also supported by traditional Roman, Germanic andChurch Laws, Classical literature, secular and religious art, as wellas manuscripts and carved ivories, and a general body of ideasinspired by and developed from Germanic portable art and ChristianRoman models. Tangible aspects of Roman Law continued deliber-ately in all of the tribal law codes, which were widely distributed.The Vitae of saints, missionaries and king/emperors followed Romanexamples; the symbolism of catacomb art as well as the pagan(Roman) personi cations were adopted, adapted and actually rein-

vented by the Carolingians in such Christian art as the ivory carv-ings. It has already been noted how the language of majesty wasRomanized. The style of representing majesty or elevated status was



146

also borrowed from Roman prototypes, as the transfer of the ideaof the Cosmocrator from Roman imperial representations to the apoc-

alyptic Majestas effigies of Christ and the return of this Roman rep-resentation of the imperial pictorial image under the heirs of Charlemagne. The introduction of sacerdotal concepts and of suchsymbolic Biblical practices as the anointing of the Carolingian impe-rial head in the manner of king David, for instance, was a deliber-ate attempt to develop the ‘hereditary’ association with the OldTestament kings, rst appreciated by those surrounding Charlemagne.The liturgical imperial acclamation formulas echoed Germanic/Romantribal/military practices, while the ever-increasing emphasis on o fficialimperial ‘portraits’, as on coins, served to elevate the image, the idealof the medieval imperial ruler in the revived tradition of the Romanemperors and reestablish earlier ideas of the sacerdotal essence of the ruler, in the Imitatio sacerdotii . Such coins, stamped with Charle-magne’s portrait and the classicizing capitals ‘KAROLUS IMP(era-tor) AUG(ustus)’ represent a singular tangible and appropriateillustration of the so-called Carolingian Renaissance .32

Charlemagne attempted to emphasize the legitimacy of his rule

and its continuity from earlier Merovingian times by naming two of his sons with Merovingian dynastic names. He stressed his link withimperial times by identifying with Theoderic the Great, RomanPatricius and Viceroy of the emperor in Constantinople, and trans-porting his equestrian statue, or was it that of the emperor Zeno,along with the Classical porphyry columns, (Fig. 7) books and thegeneral symbolic plan of the Byzantine church of San Vitale in Ravenna,the last capital of the West Roman Empire, to Aachen, Charlemagne’sown capital. All were erected in the new palace complex, the churchto become his palace church. These concerns found expression underhis descendants in other architectural examples as well, as for thesake of the Imperium Christianum, their universal Christian Empire theCarolingians made every attempt to emphasize the dominating inter-relation with Christian Rome. Pepin and Charlemagne were associ-ated with glorious Christian Roman emperors, while later HolyRoman Emperors deliberately emulated Charlemagne and fosteredthis show of continuity with him, with the Christian Roman emperors,with the Testaments, and especially with the Old Testament kings.

32 Nees, ‘Art and Politics’ in Sullivan, Gentle Voices , p. 186.



, 147

VIII. Carolingian scribal culture

Contrary to the East-Frankish kingdom, in the western Frankishrealms the Gallo-Roman cultural elites had survived in the churchand its institutions where they succeeded in the transmission of atleast some of the Classical ideals of culture and civilization in theirChristian end phase, resulting in that synergetic collaboration betweenchurch and state. Clearly the religious aspects indicate that the con-cerns, which made up the intellectual recapitulation during the Caro-lingian Renaissance , went far beyond the revival of the interest in theLatin Classics and skill of writing Latin. The Latin Classics couldnever be more than the handmaiden to Christianity. In the easternkingdom this was at best a transfer, but certainly a show of rsts.Throughout the Carolingian empire religio-political interests madethe distribution of all literature an essential concern, where it con-solidated Carolingian rule.

Literacy in Carolingian times, a fundamental historical concern,is a topic treated very extensively in the pertinent literature dealing with the Carolingian recovery . Originally the idea was linked to

Latinity and narrowly de ned to refer to someone learned in Latin.While this underlying meaning is present in this discussion, it quicklyalso becomes applicable to our modern, more generally understoodframe of reference. A functional command of the written languagein private and in public is evident as many middle and upper levelsof society needed it for the interpretation of the law and the admin-istration of church and state. 33 The social elite had readers and scribesavailable to overcome its handicaps. As demonstrated above, read-ing and writing skills did not commit an individual to an inclinationtoward or an appreciation of letters, a situation encountered fre-quently again today.

Also not unlike today, more people will have been able to readthan to write well. The tensions between oral and scribal traditionsare upon us again. We know from Einhard, that Charlemagne likedto be read to aloud from St. Augustine’s City of God , but he reput-edly especially liked to listen to the old Germanic heroic poems,

33 Nelson, ‘Literacy in Carolingian Government’, Frankish World , pp. 1–36. AlsoNelson, in Charles the Bald , pp. 7 ff . Also McKitterick, The Carolingians , andR. McKitterick (ed.) The Uses of Literacy in Early Medieval Europe (Cambridge 1990).R. McKitterick (ed.), Carolingian Culture: Emulation and Innovation(Cambridge 1994).



148

which he wanted to have recorded. 34 Evidently texts were accessiblein this fashion as well, just as today the text of a computerized book

can be accessed through a digital reader and read out loud by meansof a choice of male or female electronically synthesized voices, read-ing at a chosen speed, in an accent of choice. Clearly, the modi ablespoken language will have dominated its xed written use by sheerweight of numbers, for otherwise Latin would not have undergonethe etymological changes toward the development of French. Modernanalogies are easy to nd.

Literacy, beyond the merely functional, may not be assumed forthe lesser clergy, whether monk, nun or priest. 35 Clearly the Christianhierarchy had inherited the traditional use of Latin from Romantimes and the determination to make the empire a uni ed ImperiumChristianumwould have recommended the use of Latin as the givenunifying agent of thought and ritual. Primarily education was intendedto consolidate a person’s religious appreciation. While many morepeople had a more easily acquired reading comprehension and anoral command of it, depending on memorization for extended recallin the place of available texts, only a smaller scribal elite will have

had a command of the di fficult written Latin, let alone used Latinfor the expression of one’s literary abilities. Nonetheless networks of correspondents appear from the letters, as for instance the letterswritten by Lupus de Ferrières to Einhard asking for books. 36 Queensand princesses, abbesses and other aristocratic women will havegured prominently among those competent in Latin and at leastamong the functional literates, in some cases as writers, but certainlyas listeners and readers of history and also as writers of correspondenceand of poetry in their households and in the great convents. 37 Theywill have been multilingual and at least bilingual with Latin being one of the languages. The cathedral and monastic schools were gen-erally located in regions of economic prosperity and political stability.

The monastery and convent schools taught both history and poetry

34 Geary, Living with the Dead , p. 53, points to the improbability of this assertion.35 J.L. Nelson, ‘Literacy in Carolingian government’, in McKitterick, Uses of

Literacy, p. 264f. See especially McKitterick, Frankish Church , pp. 45–79.36 Bischoff , p. 124.37 Nelson, ‘Gender and Genre in Women Historians’, in Frankish World , pp. 184 ff .

Also McKitterick, The Carolingians , p. 226, pp. 227 ff . See also McKitterick, Books,Scribes and Learning , pp. XIII, 1–43.



, 149

in its Christian guise perhaps equally to boys and girls. 38 However,the attitudes advanced by the Church Fathers restricted the role of

women severely to areas not associated with men. While initiallycopyists worked independently, since the time of St. Martin of Tours,c. 360, monks and nuns were engaged in the copying of manu-scripts. 39 Women must be largely assumed to have been active inconvents in the schooling of girls, as scribes and as copyists of mate-rials not linked with the church services. One must conclude thatliterate women were also active outside the convent walls. 40 Initiallyparental, i.e. maternal and/or private tutoring, some secular schoolsand admission to the monastic schools prepared people for entryinto convents and monasteries. In 789, responding to the poor com-mand of language in the correspondence reaching the court, Charle-magne issued the Admonitio generalis for the administration of theFrankish church and the clergy and decreed that schools were to beestablished for boys of all classes 41 and expected every diocese andmonastery to supervise the restoration of education, nearly defunct,and to have its schools and establish a curriculum in the LiberalArts for the children of freemen and nobility alike, subordinate only

to the study of Scriptures, evidently in the service of the grand idea.Teaching children of the lower classes was particularly successful.This path was available to those wishing to enter the ranks of thelower clergy, and in some instances realize the possibilities of a degreeof upward mobility. The Merovingian courts had schools attached

38 McKitterick, The Carolingians , pp. 211 ff . Also Brown, ‘Renaissance’, in McKitterick,Carolingian Culture , p. 36. Also van der Horst, The Utrecht Psalter in Medieval Art ,p. 12f. See Contreni, ‘Pursuit of Knowledge’, in Sullivan, Gentle Voices , pp. 111 ff .,for a discussion of schools and the education of women. See McKitterick, Books,Scribes and Learning , p. XIII, 38, points out that the decrees of 816 did not specifywhether the girls had to pursue a religious life.

39 Bischoff , p. 6.40 Contreni, in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History, pp. 716 ff . See Innes,

State and Society, pp. 111 ff ., who makes the clear case that scribes were very muchinvolved in the drafting of contracts, charters and other transactions. See McKitterick,

Books, Scribes and Learning , p. VII, 1 ff . for ‘Nun’s scriptoria in England and Franciaduring the 8th century’. Also pp. XIII, 2 ff .

41 McKitterick, The Carolingians , p. 220. Also Brown, ‘Carolingian Renaissance’

in McKitterick, Carolingian Culture , p. 20f., pp. 28 ff . Also McKitterick, Frankish Church ,pp. 1–44, who provides the details concerning regulations, obligations, priestly ped-agogic and pastoral functions with the intent of stabilizing personal and social con-cerns in the kingdom. See also Braunfels, p. 98f. See Contreni, ‘Pursuit of Knowledge’,in Sullivan, Gentle Voices , pp. 107 ff ., p. 115.



150

to provide such basic aspects of education to the court. A Carolingiancouncil in 813 recommended school attendance, if for no other rea-

son than to learn the basic tenets of the faith, but especially to trainpeople to function in central and local jurisdictions. A closer read-ing of the Benedictine Rule may have segregated the religious fromthe secular domains which may have led to the segregation of theschools into external schools with a functional, more pragmatic cur-riculum for laymen and internal schools with more sophisticatedcourses of study for those heading into the clergy and the monas-teries in the service of the grandiose design. Some Latin will havegured in both, but especially in the latter. 42 For the lower clergythere existed a rather modest, rudimentary learning program—to beable to teach the Symbol, say Mass, give pre-baptismal instruction,know and teach the Lord’s Prayer. 43 Clerics, notaries, heralds, read-ers, singers, writers and the clergy had to be able to read and writea vast amount of material and to convert written text into publicannouncements. Certainly the missi dominici , the ministerial envoys of the king, who in pairs toured the districts of the realm tending toadministrative domestic a ff airs and tendering reports of their tours

of inspection,44

had to have more than a merely pragmatic oral andwritten functional competence in the correct interpretation, elabora-tion and implementation of oral and written royal and governmen-tal directives, verdicts, decrees, royal letters, capitularies and charters. 45

Just as today, an order in writing will have carried more convinc-ing emphasis than one delivered by word of mouth. Their imple-mentation will have had to be veri ed. In the pragmatic dimensionsthe preparation of itemized tabulations of property, personal recol-lection, for record-keeping in matters of military obligations, leviesof all sorts, the payment of the tithes, fees and nes, for the mak-ing of administrative lists, tallies and rati cations, some functional

42 See McKitterick, The Carolingians , p. 221, who cites the example at St. Gallen.43 Contreni, Carolingian Learning , pp. II, 14; IV, 84.44 Nelson, Charles the Bald , pp. 41 ff ., details the whole political context in the

realm of Charles the Bald. See also Nelson, ‘Literacy’, in McKitterick, Uses of Literacy,pp. 258 ff ., p. 269f. who suggests that even those who were not literate had someformulistic comprehension of the written directives.

45

See Nelson, ‘Literacy’ in McKitterick, Uses of Literacy, pp. 286 ff ., concerning capitularies. See especially McKitterick, The Carolingians , chapters 2 and 3, ‘Law andthe written word” and ‘A literate community: the evidence of the charters’ respec-tively. See also Geary, Remembrance , p. 86, who uses evidence that charters also hada commemorative function in addition to a legal one.



, 151

numeracy and limited writing and reading skills would be essential.Competent, though not necessarily literate, bilingual copyists, men

and women, had to provide the countless numbers of accurate copiesof any texts and documents in written and memorized versions neededfor circulation in written and oral form throughout all the regionsof the empire. 46 Whether pertaining to pagan or Christian texts, theCarolingians placed great emphasis on correct copies and authentictexts, which resulted in the preservation of much Classical literaturefor posterity. The enacting infrastructure was pyramidal in that thewritten directive was addressed to the count, who would read it, orhave it read to his lords, or transcribed and distributed to them,who then passed the information on orally. For future records, thedirective was to be kept on le. The material, documentary, gov-ernmental evidence indicates that there were regional di ff erences andthat the former Merovingian west could rely on a higher degree of practical linguistic continuity at many social levels. The eastern, lessRomanized Frankish kingdom could not. For scribal and interpre-tational services people had to turn to clerics. The German speak-ers would nd governmental communications somewhat less accessible,

making the services of translators necessary. Nevertheless, it musthave been accepted that Latin was the universal administrative lan-guage of the New Israel, common not only to all parts of the uni-

versal Imperium Christianum, the universal faith and as the languageof the Bible, that it was probably also the language of God.

That Charlemagne was very interested in learning is well knownand he gathered to his court the scholars of the day. It was prob-ably Alcuin, who recommended to him the idea of the ChristianEmpire. Others could present a competent curriculum, such as theone in the Christianized Seven Liberal Arts. Originally these hadbeen nine, including Philosophy. It was established by Alcuin inaccordance with Neoplatonic authors of Classical antiquity and ascon rmed by Martianus Capella of the 5th century. 47 These were

46 Nelson, ‘Literacy’ in McKitterick, Uses of Literacy, pp. 262 ff ., p. 270, suggeststhat even in the eastern Germanic areas most of the free populations, and evensome of the unfree, were passively, pragmatically literate. Also McKitterick, The

Carolingians , p. 28. See Contreni, ‘Pursuit of Knowledge’, in Sullivan, Gentle Voices ,p. 116f.47 See Sullivan, Aix-la-Chapelle , pp. 82f., 151 ff . Also Bischoff , pp. 105 ff . pp. 99–109,

for a summary of the curriculum. Also Contreni, in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History, pp. 725–747.



152

organized as the trivium —Grammar, Dialectic (Logic) and Rhetoric;and the less important quadrivium —Mathematics, Geometry, Music

and Astronomy. The trivium was considered most applicable whentrying to unlock the mysteries of the Scriptures and when trying toascertain the Will of God. Especially the study of Grammar enjoyedintellectual primacy, because it was held that the examination of grammatical structures was the rst step toward appreciating thestructure of truth and hence of divine knowledge. It was the fun-damental and leading quali cation for membership in the sublimeempire. At more elevated levels Theology was conceived to be thecrowning course of study. 48 In each subject one read prescribed textscomplemented by universally known authors. The works of a greatmany grammarians were available creating the e ff ect that the studyand transmission of Classical grammar was of primary importance. 49

In view of the many Celtic and Germanic languages and dialects,the cultivation of Latin as the universal language of communicationwas essential. Such students of Latin were not well served by theavailable grammars, for they were more like review grammars ratherthan introductory basic texts. For students of the triviumfamiliar with

Latin in a Latin-speaking environment, elementary grammar was the Ars minor by Aelius Donatus, the teacher of St. Jerome, c. 350, andfor advanced grammar it was his Ars maior ,50 and also Priscianus,Institutiones grammaticae in 18 books, early 6th century. As was men-tioned, these were not basic teaching texts from which grammarcould be learned, but sources with which grammar could be dis-cussed, sometimes at a highly specialized level. Most important, gram-mar was actually the study of literature, ‘the science of the thingssaid by poets, historians and orators; its principal functions are toread, to write, to understand and to prove’. 51 For both grammarsone Asporius had prepared a rather Christian version, the Ars Asporii.

48 See D. Ganz, ‘Theology and the Organization of Thought’, in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History, pp. 758–785. See also Wallace-Hadrill, pp. 304– 389. Also Sullivan, Aix-la-Chapelle , pp. 157 ff . See also Contreni, Carolingian Learning ,p. II, 20.

49 Bischoff , pp. 98 ff .50 Law, ‘Grammar’, in McKitterick, Carolingian Culture , p. 89f., for a summary of

the books’ contents; p. 95f. concerning Priscianus.51 Brown, ‘Renaissance’, in McKitterick, Carolingian Culture , p. 37. The author isreminded of his own introduction to the study of Gothic, beginning with the rstwords of the Gospel of Matthew, imperatives and present subjunctives though theywere.



154

more advanced students. The elementary schools will have o ff eredan introductory program of study to respond to the needs indicated

earlier. The triviumsatised most of those needs. The quadriviumrep-resented the more advanced program. 57 Not unlike today, more peo-ple will have been satis ed with the acquisition of skills than thepursuit of an abstract ideal.

That spoken Latin was undergoing signi cant changes is best illus-trated in the Old French version of the Oaths of Strasbourg. TheOld German version of it shows just how much the development of the German vernacular began to distinguish the German speakerswithin the Frankish empire. It was mentioned above, that neitherlanguage existed at that time in this ‘common’ form, and certainlynot as o fficial languages, and that both parts of the realm used amultitude of regional, though at the time comprehensible dialects,reecting the large tribal groups. An understandable form of Latinhad to serve as a common means of communication, both oral andwritten. The chosen populus Christianus of the Franks had to be ableto share the teleological message and use the language of the Christianchurch, the ‘Word of God’, if it wanted to be the Chosen of God

in the Imperium Christianum. For the educated orders of society liter-acy provided access to the elites and to this realm. Aiming to pre-sent a gure worthy of being a rolemodel, Einhard had written hisVita Karoli Magni , in itself an innovative work of historiography, despiteits indebtedness to Suetonius’ Lives of the Caesars .

Classical Philosophy as such was virtually lost. What philosophywas preserved, entered the theology of the Christian church in itsphilosophical end phase: true philosophy is true religion. It was pre-served in the writings of the Church Fathers, in this case in St.Augustine, and their indebted commentators, as was demonstratedabove. The authority of the source mattered. The thought matteredonly to the extent that through the use of Logic it could be adjustedto t the doctrine of the faith. While in antiquity the pursuit of knowledge and reality was a function of an esthetic joy of cognition,now the intellectual pursuits had become rather functional and withonly one focus: the interpretation of the scriptures, the faith and itsgrandiose purposes. Philosophy’s share in the Carolingian recapitu-lation of learning was the incidental custodial preservation of Classical

57 Easton, pp. 90 ff .



, 155

thinking as it underwent its Christian transformation. It will be muchlater before philosophy will be freed of this indebtedness to engage

in the self-satis ed joy of speculation. For nearly a millennium, philo-sophical problems are mainly antique problems in Christian guise.The process involved resembled the modifying e ff orts spent by thosegrammarians who replaced pagan textual examples with Christianones. The novelty lies in the transformed application. As was indi-cated above, the basis for the Christian ‘philosophical’ pursuits of the true knowledge of Revelation, to be found in the studies of thetrivium and of the quadrivium, the study of the Seven Liberal Arts. 58

This preoccupation accounts for the emphasis on the study of Gram-mar and its objectives.

Such as they were, according to incomplete and eclectic lists, mostlibraries were incidental collections, bereft of books, which led to aconsiderable and widespread ‘interlibrary loan’ system, active bor-rowing, lending, mass-copying and binding of books. 59 Most booksappear to have been basic teaching texts, Bibles, not always com-plete, almost encyclopedic commentaries and books of a religiousnature, written mainly by the Church Fathers. Some were better

stocked with pagan Classical authors than others. No library appearsto have accumulated more than a thousand volumes. Considering the costs, how could they? Books were tremendously expensive toproduce and hence relatively rare. Nevertheless, the total estimateof some 50 000 volumes speaks to the need for books among theCarolingians. An unknown number of books was produced during the last decades of the 8th century, but well over 7000 Carolingianmanuscripts, including copies of most of the Classical authors, areknown from manuscripts produced during the 9th century. 60 Their

58 J. Marenbon, ‘Carolingian Thought’, in McKitterick, Carolingian Culture , pp.171ff .

59 Bischoff , pp. 93–114, esp. pp. 95 ff . for respective lists. See van der Horst,et al. The Utrecht Psalter in Medieval Art. Picturing the Psalms of David (Utrecht 1996),p. 10f. McKitterick, The Carolingians , pp. 166 ff ., 169 ff . for some holdings. AlsoMcKitterick, ‘Scholarship, Book Production and Libraries: The Flowering of theCarolingian Renaissance’, in Frankish Kingdoms , pp. 200–225. Also Hartmann, pp.235ff . for numbers of volumes in the respective libraries of the East Frankish king-dom. See Contreni, Carolingian Learning , pp. V, 83 ff .

60

R. McKitterick, ‘Script and book production’, in McKitterick, Carolingian Culture ,pp. 221, 226. Also McKitterick, ‘Eighth-century Foundations’, in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History, p. 684, for other estimates of manuscript production. Seealso D. Ganz, ‘Book Production in the Carolingian empire and the Spread of Caroline Miniscule’, in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History, p. 786.



156

material value made them attractive objects of theft and resale onthe open and ‘black’ markets. That there was a market for books is

indicated in Einhard’s account of Charlemagne’s Last Will andTestament, in which he ‘decreed that the large collection of bookswhich he has made in his library shall be bought at a reasonableprice by anyone who wants to have them’. 61 How many volumeswere in that library? Who were the authors? Some of them wererare works by early Christian authors as well as the pagan authorsof antiquity. These included Lucan, Terence, Claudian, Juvenal,Horace, Cicero and Sallust dealing with such areas as histories of the Roman Republic and the Empire and Latin epic and lyric poetry.Charlemagne’s court library had the most complete collection in thisregard. This unusual, by needs rather random collection does seemto have served as an in uential model for building other collections,including that of Louis the Pious, for copies along with illuminatedgospels produced at the Court School were registered at other monas-tic libraries and major churches. 62 Charlemagne had issued a decreethat books from many lands be accumulated in the court library.What happened to all of these books? It is a characteristic of the

Carolingian libraries to list Biblical texts and the writings of theChurch Fathers to serve as the sparks with which the lamp of Christian learning was to be ignited. 63

An extensive number of Carolingian books were not derivativefrom classical models, but continued the Germanic traditions of lav-ish surface ornamentation. Innovations constituted a signi cant pro-portion among the works created. Already in Merovingian times thescriptoria of the great monasteries could supply the rulers with theoccasional resplendent, bejeweled, dedicated manuscripts. 64 In thisrespect the ‘renovatio’ predated the appearance of the Carolingians,who then knew how to recognize the Merovingian appreciation of old books and how to build on them by preserving them as copies.Most of the newer material consisted of Christian sourcebooks sothat little e ff ort was spared to make them precious—embossed and

61 Thorpe, p. 89.62

Bischoff , pp. 63, 95, suggests that Charlemagne’s court library was emulatedand that copies of the holdings and the holdings themselves experienced a widedistribution.

63 Brown, ‘Renaissance’, in McKitterick, Carolingian Culture , p. 33.64 McKitterick, Books, Scribes and Learning , pp. I, 173–207. Also XII, p. 2, for a

denition of such writing centers and the question of styles and scripts.



, 157

engraved sheets of gold, all manner of gem encrustations, ligree,settings of pearls, cloisonné enamels, powdered glass melted in cells

on the covers, dyed parchment pages with gold and silver and poly-chrome lettering, not to mention artistic skills applied and the estheticeff ects achieved on the illuminated pages within the interiors—andunique treasures. In that respect they were the preserve of the few,clerics and aristocrats, who upon admission contributed some of theirpersonal wealth to the monastery and any books to the libraries.Regrettably during the Carolingian Period the earlier Celto-Germanicand polychrome decorative styles were replaced. The northern inter-twine of the Germanic Anglo-Saxon-Northumbrian abstract, curvi-linear, intertwining vegetative and animal complexes of surfacecovering, as evident on the rst Lindau Gospel cover and on parts of the Tassilo Chalice , were rather quickly replaced by anthropomorphicrepresentations, as on the Tassilo Chalice and on the second LindauGospel cover, and indeed also on the e ffigy pages of the nearly con-temporary Book of Kells . The polychrome spacelling, abstract orna-mentation found on Germanic personal ornaments and portable artcould not be developed and was given up. By the 8th century the

originally purely ornamental interlaces of the largely abstract CelticInsular Style found on religious vessels and on the carpet pages in theexquisitely illuminated gospels and sacramentaries was gradually sur-rendering its indecipherable, non-communicative designs and wasabandoned, as the rediscovery of narrative Classical forms imposedan emphasis on representational, message carrying art. The InsularScript had come to eastern Austrasia/Thuringia during the middleof the 8th century, when the Anglo-Saxon monks founded Fuldaand Würzburg. The textual evidence indicates, however, that onlya few books were imported from England. 65 Owing to characteris-tics of script and decorative conventions, insular books can be dis-tinguished from books written on the continent. 66 From c. 750 onwardthey were of local manufacture, their handwriting betraying theEnglish, Irish or German origins of the scribes. 67 The synthesis of

65 McKitterick, Books, Scribes and Learning , p. III, 402, argues that many bookswere brought from England.

66

McKitterick, Books, Scribes and Learning , p. III, 399.67 P. Riché, Education and Culture in the Barbarian West, From the Sixth to the Eighth Century, transl. by J.J. Contreni (Columbia N.C. 1978), pp. 433 ff ., for an inventoryof manuscripts and their sources. McKitterick, The Carolingians , p. 172. Also Wallace-Hadrill, p. 337f., for details concerning Fulda and Würzburg and the e ff ectivenessof Hrabanus Maurus.



158

Insular and continental scholarship taking place so far to the eastand away from the western centers produced some of the best, orig-

inal work during Carolingian times. Within a relatively short time,heavily in uenced by the art forms of the Mediterranean cultures,this Renovatiofavored a shift to Classical styles, and applied more of an anthropomorphic, homocentric, representational, narrative andengagé , message-oriented religious and political art as part of theChristianization, centered on the representations of the human e ffigy,especially that of Christ. In this regard the resurgence demonstratesits most evident concluding e ff ect. Though some of the Carolingiangospels retain display initials decorated in the nervously dashing cal-ligraphic intertwines for a while, gradually the creative imaginationis pushed aside by the imitative eye in the service of key principlesof the sacred dogma and the great expense of the golden, gemencrusted, carved ivory covers and the colored portrait pages of theilluminated Carolingian gospels, sacramentaries and other manu-scripts. Over 7000 Carolingian books survive. About 50 000 mayonce have existed. The disposable material wealth and the inferredstatus of the Carolingians must have been astounding. 68

There is most extensive information available about the librarieswithin the Alemanic region of the eastern kingdom of the Franks atReichenau and St. Gallen, as well as at Fulda and Würzburg. 69 Theisland monastery Reichenau, in Lake Constance, possibly erected onor near the remaining foundations of a Roman villa, was foundedin the spirit of Hiberno-Frankish monasticism by St. Pirmin in 724under orders from Charles Martel, to consolidate the Christianizationand paci cation of the still pagan Alemans. Strictly speaking, basedon the archeological evidence presented elsewhere, these were nolonger pagans, though not because of any Irish missionary work among them. The bishopric of Constance had been founded at theend of the 6th century. Irish monks from the Alsace had been activealong the fringes of the Alemanic lands, though there are no recordsthat any missionary activities were actually pursued beyond the Rhine.Even Gallus, the associate of St. Columban, was reluctant to leavehis cell. The island was owned by one Sintlas and hence known as

68 McKitterick, The Carolingians , p. 163. Also Brown, ‘Renaissance’ in McKitterick,Carolingian Culture , p. 34.

69 See Ganz, ‘Book Production’, in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History,p. 787f.



, 161

ness of his failings. In principle the scribes did not have to follow a‘house style’. 75 Future acquisitions were not integrated, but merely

added at the end, as when the histories of Paulus Diaconus and theVenerable Bede were added. The monastery illustrates well the work-ings of such an establishment in terms of its educational interests ina wider sense, teaching and the emphasis on the production of booksby means of which the lofty educational mandate could be realized.

The collections also allow conclusions about the uniform culturalcontext of the monastic traditions and rules of conduct in which theestablishment of the monastic Benedictine Rule took place. The cat-alogues of the 9th century, in Reichenau, for instance, list the rulesof the Irish, of Augustine, the Regula Pauli et Stephani, of Macarius,Pachomius, Caesarius and Columban. At St. Gallen are listed therules of Basilius, Columban, Augustine and Macarius as well as theRegula Pauli et Stephani. Benedict of Aniane was able to summa-rize the monastic tradition in his Codex of rules and to establish theBenedictine conformity of the Frankish monastic establishments. 76

St. Gallen was not an Irish foundation; Gallus may actually havebeen a Frank, but rather the result of an Anglo-Saxon impetus. 77 It

began in 612 as a cell, which during the 8th century became amonastery of prominence because of Gallus’ reputation. Like theReichenau it was to serve as source in the Christianization and edu-cation of the Alemans. One Otmar was the actual founder of themonastery during the rst half of the 8th century, placing it underthe Benedictine Rule. The monastery had a school, a famous scrip-torium and a library, which is still renowned today. The rst cata-logue was prepared c. 850–60 and completed by 880. About threehundred entries list an inventory of 426 volumes for the library.Among these only four pagan Classical authors are represented:Virgil, Servius, Justinus and Josephus. A supplementary inventory listof another 158 entries from that century indicates nine additionalauthors, including Aristotle, Claudian, Seneca, Sallust and Ovid. 78

Marginal notes inform about the book tra ffic. Similar to the Reichenau

75 Ganz, ‘Book Production’, in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History, pp. 790 ff .76 F. Prinz, ‘Die Rolle der Iren beim Aufbau der merowingischen Klosterkultur’,

in Löwe, Die Iren, p. 217.77 J. Duft, P. Meyer, Die irischen Miniaturen der Stiftsbibliothek St. Gallen(Olten, Bern,Lausanne 1953), p. 13. Duft reviews the early history of the monastery. Riché,Education and Culture , p. 437. See Wallace-Hadrill, pp. 342 ff .

78 Brown, ‘Renaissance’, in McKitterick, Carolingian Culture , p. 35.



162

catalogue Bibles and Biblical materials come rst. Then come Gregorythe Great, surprisingly rst, then Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, Prosper,

Isidore, Origen, Pelagius, Cassiodorus, Eusebius and Gregory of Tours. Among others works there are works by Alcuin, assorted rules,vitae , decrees and laws, as well as liturgical materials. As at Reichenau,schoolbooks related to literacy are last. 79 Donations by abbots of theirprivate libraries and the production of the scriptoriumincreased theessentially conservative library collection. One of the best-known vol-umes produced at St. Gall is the illustrated Golden Psalter.What spec-ulations about their organizational logic could the catalogues bear?As was mentioned earlier, function provided a rationale. To placethe Bible rst in the collection probably re ects the deference towardthis book, and a completed, entire manuscript of the Bible, a pan-dect, was rare and therefore deserving of the highest respect. TheDavidic message, which the Testaments proclaimed, coincided withthe primary Carolingian concerns and aspirations to realize the illu-sory Davidic ful llment on earth. Individual gospels could be moreeasily produced. Other texts may not have met with the same respectand were frequently assembled without immediate reason and bound

out of convenience. School texts, which emphasized skills, were usu-ally last. This ranking probably did not re ect the esteem in whichthey, as vehicles of Christian learning, were held and in view of theuniversalist intentions of the Carolingians, compared in importancewith the edifying religious texts. Why were subsequent acquisitionsnot integrated, but merely added at the end? Why was an alpha-betical order not implemented when a sense of chronology did pre-

vail? The speculative but simple answer may have to do with a lack of storage space. German university libraries still work that way.When books are shelved by date of acquisition, this system elimi-nates the need for reserved empty spaces on the shelves, only per-haps to be lled in subsequently. Hence the need for catalogues,lists, cards or today electronic retrieval systems, by means of whichthe collection must be accessed.

While the library in St. Gallen did not accumulate many con-temporary authors, the collection held many Classical authors. Thetotal number of books at the monastery was probably larger thanindicated so far, as essential books were also housed elsewhere about

79 McKitterick, The Carolingians , p. 183.



164

quite representative of the library inventories. That the books werenot integrated in the collection but remained an unsystematic assem-

blage would suggest that in their Insular script they were perhapsan awkward curiosity, because of the script, eventually illegible, unfa-miliar to those accustomed to Carolingian script. Disgruntled read-ers felt free to record their displeasures. 82 Or perhaps they were arespectful link with Gallus and a consideration for Irish monks ontheir pilgrimage to and from Rome, the way one ies American agsto make American tourists feel welcome. As was the case elsewhere,in Würzburg for instance, a direct Insular in uence on the scripto-rium at St. Gallen cannot be determined. It was too sporadic. Eventhe Insular motifs on the illuminated pages, such as the ornamenteddisplay initials, cannot be attributed to the Irish, but are already of continental origin developed during pre-Carolingian times. 83 A latercatalogue no longer lists these books and they were forgotten andworse, cut up to become part of the binding of other books, not theonly victims of the self-assured Carolingian period. Of the collectionnext to nothing is left. Though the collection escaped the Hungarianraid of 926, the holdings were a ff ected by a great re in 937 and

again in 972 when the future Otto II had some of the most pre-cious volumes removed. 84 What survived the Reformation was scat-tered after a local war in 1712 when the soldiery of Bern and Zürichtreated the books as booty. Much ended in central libraries. 85

In the decades around 800 there is evidence in the form of booksof Irish peregrini in central Germany. Finding them in Fulda andWürzburg is not entirely surprising. Here too the volumes do nothave a context and none of them was written on the continent.Provenance, itinerary, models and e ff ect cannot be determined. No

volume can be linked with such Irish missionaries as St. Kilian, activein Merovingian times. They can be linked with sites clearly associatedwith the missionary activities of Boniface and of his successors, suchas Fulda, Mainz and Würzburg but not with individual Irish monks.No Irish visitors are indicated at Fulda, yet several manuscripts and

82 McKitterick, The Carolingians , p. 182f. She raises the question whether the book

lists are actual catalogues, or mere checklists, p. 199.83 Duft, Miniaturen, p. 45f.84 J. Duft, Stiftsbibliothek St. Gallen(St. Gallen 1987), p. 8.85 Duft, Stiftsbibliothek , p. 10. Also Duft in Löwe, Die Iren, pp. 924 ff . for an item-

ization and discussion of the extant Irish manuscripts in St. Gallen.



166

Palatina , 3500 manuscript volumes and over 5000 prints, the collec-tion of the Elector of Heidelberg, transported to Rome in partial

repayment of funds advanced by the pope to help nance the war.A large number of these books is still housed in the Palatine col-lection of the Apostolic Library of the Vatican. Others are in Oxford.Four 9th century catalogues exist, of which one is at Fulda and theothers are in the Vatican. 90 These were compiled by di ff erent scribesbetween c. 830 and 860 and intended to provide for the library aninventory of the production and acquisition of books during the ear-lier part that century. Thereafter the library entered a less produc-tive period, probably because of the political turmoil. The cataloguesmay have been prepared for circulation, thereby suggesting a canonof standard works, to make bibliographical information available toother monastic libraries. Leadership and initiative became the tasksof the abbots in stimulating the scriptoriumand the curriculum of theschool. As was demonstrated elsewhere the Christian agenda was themain component of Carolingian education. Of interest is a catalogueof 833, belonging to the cathedral library in Cologne, which listslaymen and laywomen as borrowers. That library renders a good

image of its role in support of the school and the cathedral, of edu-cation and of the ministry. 91 From the monastery of Murbach comesclear evidence that the monk who administered the library was veryfamiliar with the books authored by a particular individual, for repeat-edly a number of known and desired works is given. How did hearrive at such a wish list? Bibliographies must have been in circu-lation. Occasionally the author would list his other publications, orthose known of others. Citations in a rudimentary scholarly appa-ratus could help complete the picture, as could a more extensiveunsuspected exchange of catalogues. The standardized con gurationsof the catalogues will have re ected the main theological and edu-cational concerns and objectives in the attempt to renew the con-sciousness of the Christian people: Biblical studies, guidance of theChurch Fathers, literacy and Latinity of the clergy, of some laymenand laywomen through grammatical and literary texts.

With the emergence of the East Frankish kingdom as a largelyself-sufficient political and cultural realm, the great monasteries within

90 McKitterick, The Carolingians , p. 188f., lists the inventoried holdings.91 McKitterick, The Carolingians , p. 192, summarizes the holdings and their organ-

izations. See also McKitterick, Carolingian Culture , p. 241.



Map 6. Religious Establishments under the Carolingians.



168

it came to play an increasingly in uential role in a growing sys-tematized network of the court, the monasteries and their schools,

their libraries and their student exchanges. Beyond the monasticfoundations already mentioned, this network included more or lessloosely such establishments as Solnhofen (founded 750), Heidenheim(752) and Eichstätt (c. 745) in the southern part of the kingdom,Hersfeld (769), Fritzlar (723/24), Büraburg (741/42), Erfurt (742),Halberstadt (827) in the center and east, Paderborn (777), Münster(804), Osnabrück (785) and Bremen (782?) in the west and northand Corvey (817/22), Gandersheim (859), Hildesheim (815), Verden(786/808) and Hamburg (831) toward the north, to mention just afew. The network was even more extensive when we consider thatthese foundations were extensions of yet other monasteries, for exam-ple Corbie in France and Corvey in Saxon lands, or that these foun-dations were placed under the jurisdiction of such bishoprics andarchbishoprics as Mainz, Fulda, Würzburg and Cologne. Thus Münster,Osnabrück and Bremen were elevated to bishoprics in 795 and placedunder the archbishopric of Cologne. Würzburg was linked withPaderborn and Fulda laid the groundwork for the bishopric of Minden.

West Frankish missionaries from Reims and Châlons-sur-Marneworked in Hildesheim and Halberstadt. These bishoprics were placedunder the suzerainty of the archbishopric Mainz. Similar activitiesprevailed in the Bavarian southeast. That a high degree of all man-ner of communication took place between them can be expected.Many of these foundations became royal/imperial monasteries, inwhich case they were also charged with the furtherance of the inter-ests of the realm. This had already been an element in the policiesof the Merovingian Dagobert I (623–638), who insisted that mis-sionary work should be coordinated with the eastward expansion of Merovingian power and in uence as part of an active AustrasianOstpolitik .92 Thus the distribution of the missionary directions coin-cided with the original thrust of the campaigns of conquest. 93 It hasbeen suggested 94 that thanks to monasticism Germany assumed the

vanguard of the intellectual renewal during the rst half of the 8thcentury as a compensation for the ruined culture of Gaul.

92 Schutz, G ermanic Realms , p. 199.93 Löwe, Deutschland im Fränkischen Reich , p. 143.94 Riché, Education and Culture , p. 439.



, 169

Books could also be found in private hands. There is some evi-dence that laymen, such as Einhard, had private libraries, which

gured as divisible property. The intention behind some historiesand vitae was that, written in the tradition of aristocratic family his-tories, they were to extol the glorious past and the manifest destinyof the family, as Gregory of Tours, Fredegar, Einhard and Nithardhad done and Cassiodorus and others before him. 95 In most instancesprior private ownership and subsequent donations to libraries can-not be identi ed in the collections. The life story of a family saintoff ered an additional signi cant dimension of glory by association,as foundations, cults, patronage and family histories were itemized,cultivated and celebrated. Practical manuals and borrowed booksgured among the holdings. There are indications that the librarieskept lists of borrowers from among lay and religious individuals. Nodoubt these individuals enjoyed particular rights and privileges ap-pertaining to their social position and their relationship with thefoundation.

What of the price of books? The information is scant, but c. 840a book containing the Lombard Law Code and an account of the

passion of one Servulus sold for 8 denarii which when converted intoterms of the standard of living was the equivalent cost of 96 two-pound loaves of wheat bread. 96 What of the cost of a gem encrusted,illuminated volume? Of such necessary materials as pens, ink, dyes,parchment, ivory for the covers, binding and the like? Of the costsof production? Where did the value lie? In their irreplaceable unique-ness? In the text or in the cost of the materials? For Alcuin it wasclear that the content of a book and its spiritual value far exceededits material value and that the labor dedicated to its production hada higher value than its material value, for it ‘serves the soul’. 97

Libraries did not necessarily have adjoining production centers. Whilesome of the scriptoria had their own parchment makers, other pro-duction centers relied on suppliers. There were instances when requestsfor copies of a book were accompanied by a supply of parchment.Evidently a coordinated infrastructure was required. Parchment was

95

McKitterick, The Carolingians , pp. 238 ff .96 McKitterick, The Carolingians , pp. 136 ff. for an exemplary and extensive dis-cussion of this topic.

97 McKitterick, The Carolingians , p. 150f. See Ganz, ‘Book Production’, in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History, p. 792f.



170

obtained from the skin of young sheep and goats, and calves. Theskins would be soaked in lime to remove hair and fat, then wrung

and stretched on a frame to dry. After a nal scraping the skinwould be cut to size. Depending on the size of the skins and thenumber of pages of a book as many as over 500 skins might beneeded. A large Bible would require many more. Thus one of thelargest, the Codex Amiatinus weighs 34 kg., its 2060 pages were 20cm thick, written on the skins of 515 calves. 98 One can only imag-ine the requirements of a well functioning scriptorium.Clearly such acenter had to have the wealth to support such an industry. An enter-prising scribe, whether monk, nun or professional layman, could not

just give in to a whim to make a book, let alone a splendid book. 99

As many as twenty scribes, some of them monks, some laymen, 100

some doubling as illuminators, might be involved in the completionof one book. There is a record of a monk copying the commen-taries of St. Jerome in thirty-four days, producing an average of eleven pages per day. 101

The largest expenses were related to the pigments, gold and silver, needed for the ornamentation of the books. The illuminations

were the result of a synthesis of Roman, Insular and Merovingianstyles and techniques evolving during several centuries of book pro-duction. The most familiar Carolingian production centers were thePalace Schools of Charlemagne and of Charles the Bald 102 and suchcenters as Soissons, Rheims, Metz, Lorsch and St. Gallen. Mining,gathering and extensive trading networks to distant and exotic partswere integral to the infrastructure which prepared the ingredients of such colors and pigments: purples, reds, lapis-lazuli and aquamarineblues, but preferably the more easily available azurite, required asupply of the needed raw materials and trained craftsmen with anextensive knowledge of ‘Chemistry’ and of the risks involved in work-ing with materials, producing fumes for example, as when mixing

98 Nees, Early Medieval Art , p. 165. See Diebold, p. 33. See McKitterick, Books,Scribes and Learning , pp. III, 397 ff . on the preparation of writing surfaces.

99 McKitterick, The Carolingians , pp. 138 ff . Also McKitterick, Carolingian Culture ,pp. 237 ff .

100

Alexander, pp. 12 ff .101 See Ganz, ‘Book Production’, in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History,p. 793, for examples of the speed of the copyists. See also Bischo ff , p. 87

102 See Wallace-Hadrill, p. 247f., concerning the palace school of Charles theBald.



, 171

and heating mercury with sulfur, mining and using ochres andhematites, copper and tin, salts and other oxides, obtaining saps and

vegetable dyes. 103 Some of this knowledge was already available tothe makers of bulas and the other earlier body ornaments. Thepurple dye was obtained from mollusks and beetle eggs, which werealso used for the production of carmine ranging from reddish vio-let to purple, orange and brown when mixed with alum or aceticacids; pigments from owers and fruit juices modi ed through addi-tional acidity or alkalinity contributed through the addition of woodash, stale urine or quick lime. The addition of white lead, itself theproduct of a hazardous process, to these juices would produce pinks.No doubt, something of the black arts will have attached to those

versed in the crafts. And the book was not yet begun. Purple dyeswere prohibitively expensive and projected great wealth and elevatedposition of the donors of books ornamented with such pages withlettering in silver or gold. The gems, with their own symbolic mean-ings, mounted on the covers, would add yet another spiritual andtting dimension to the envelope of a sacred text, perhaps the Wordof God. Such a volume, if a commissioned votive gift to a church

or a saint, was indeed regal. The gift probably implied a contrac-tual commitment.It is evident that the Carolingian court supported the writing of

uncritical, positivistic, contemporary general and dynastic historiesand annals, family histories and genealogies, which in the Merovin-gian tradition tried to enhance a glory of association with covetedtraces of splendid origins sought among the Trojans and the Romans.

IX. Religious literature

It has been demonstrated 104 that the Carolingian rise to power wasaccompanied by a sort of politically strategic ction. Against a nos-talgic background of Charlemagne’s reign having been a ‘golden age’these writings were intended for a speci c audience. Deliberate mes-sages were cast in the form of a tangential literature of dreams and

visions. Composed at Reichenau, St. Gall, Mainz and Reims the

103 McKitterick, The Carolingians , pp. 142 ff . for details of the manufacturing processof dies and pigments. See also Alexander, pp. 35 ff .

104 Dutton, Politics of Dreaming , p. 38.



, 173

Modicus’ collection of his prophetic visions, the story of the blinddreamer Aubrey of Aquitaine who claimed that the archangel Gabriel

had dictated about a dozen chapters which Einhard was to showimmediately to Louis the Pious for implementation, the Vision of Rotcharius and other moralizing visions and dreams associated withthe monasteries in general. At Reichenau two names are pertinent,abbot Heito and Walahfrid Strabo, of whom the former prepared aprose version of the Visions of Wetti , the dream discourse betweenWetti, a sick monk on Reichenau, with an angel, in which Charle-magne had to pay for his sins and began to serve as the prototyp-ical negative example of the debauched king. The young WalahfridStrabo recast it in verse. 107 This Visio Wettini is something of a pre-cursor of Dante’s Inferno. The Vision of the Poor Woman of Laon, whichreects the Vision of Wetti , focuses on Louis the Pious. The Vision of

Bernold is a dream text written by Hincmar of Reims during thereign of Charles the Bald. For Charles’ son, Louis the Stammerer,Hincmar selected the lessons from the Vision of Bernold . Hincmar’swork was to serve as model for the later Vision of Charles the Fat , alsowritten at Reims. The Vision of Raduinintended to establish the pri-

macy of Reims and the prerogative of its archbishop to crown theking.108 The literary examples were to present object lessons to therulers. In that sense they served the role of Fürstenspiegel , didacticmirrors for princes. In about 865 a monk, perhaps from Augsburg,composed a Visio Karoli Magni , a Vision of Charlemagne in which Charle-magne had a vision of a specter, probably an angel, holding a sword,which according to the specter was sent by God, for Charles to pro-tect himself and to heed its four Germanic inscriptions. 109 According to the Annals of Fulda , during Lent of 874, Ludwig the German dreamtof his father Louis the Pious in dire straits, asking him to be res-cued from his torments caused by his many sins of omission as aweak king, 110 such as his failure to establish constitutional unity, peaceand order, rather allowing the realm to slide into disorder, violence,war and destruction; such as his failure to provide a centralizing and

107 See M. Brooke, ‘The Prose and Verse Hagiography of Walahfrid Strabo’, inGodman and Collins, pp. 551–564, esp. p. 556. Also Carruthers, pp. 180 ff . for an

analysis of the vision.108 Dutton, pp. 230 ff .109 Geary, Living with the Dead , pp. 50 ff ., 59. On the Medieval symbolism of swords,

see pp. 61 ff .110 Geary, Living with the Dead , p. 60.



174

unifying leadership in the face of fragmenting dynastic traditions;such as ignoring the instructions of the angel in Wetti’s vision and

those which the angel Gabriel had dictated to Aubrey. Ludwig took the dream very seriously. 111 In the Visio Karoli Magni and especiallyin Ludwig’s dream the image of the father su ff ering for his sins beganto be a recognizable motif. The later examples of dreams and visionsare to be associated with the bishopric of Mainz. 112

There was little to recommend the Frankish kingdom, let aloneAachen, to act as the source of this great design. Thanks to theroyal will the court at Aachen came to serve a dual function: it wascentripetal in that it attracted great men and their ideas to its cen-ter; it was centrifugal in that from this center much cultural stimu-lation was disseminated. Among many personalities who attendedthe Carolingian court at various times there were Paulus Diaconus,Peter of Pisa, Paulinus, Bornrad, Cathwulf, Theodulf and otherswhose names are known but not their works. 113 It is interesting tonote that none of these was a Gallo-Roman. Several great person-alities can be associated with the cultural initiatives: Alcuin, Einhardfor the earlier period, Hrabanus Maurus and his student Walahfrid

Strabo for the middle period, to name just four. The Anglo-SaxonNorthumbrian Alcuin, Albinus in Latin, coordinated the Palace Schoolat Aachen from 782–796. 114 This was not a ‘school’ in our modernsense, but rather a working association representing a variety of skills.Of him Einhard wrote in the Vita Karoli (25) that he was ‘the mostlearned man anywhere to be found’. He had been sent from York to Rome to receive the pallium and on his return journey had metCharlemagne at Parma. Charles invited him to Aachen, in part tobe his personal teacher, but o fficially to assume the responsibility for

111 Dutton, pp. 219, 223.112 Geary, Living with the Dead , p. 55f. suggests that the visions belonged to the

propaganda literature of Ludwig the German, intended to glorify him as defenderof the Church in a realm identifying with its Germanic traditions.

113 Garrison, ‘Latin literature’, in McKitterick, Carolingian Culture , p. 119f. sketchesthe interaction of these individuals at court and gives brief illustrations of theirwork. See also Jungandreas, pp. 104–116. Also Wallace-Hadrill, p. 191f., and Collins,p. 113f.

114

Wallace-Hadrill, pp. 205–216. Also Collins, pp. 112f., 123f. However, seeNees, Mantle , pp. 4 ff ., who argues that Alcuin may be given too much credit formaintaining the interest in antiquity. McKitterick, Books, Scribes and Learning , p. IV,293, refers to him as ‘both the peak and the climax of the English contribution tointellectual culture’.



, 175

the Palace School. Previously the non-monastic court schools hadbeen as itinerant as the courts. With Aachen becoming the o fficial

royal residence, the secular Palace School had also found a perma-nent location and Alcuin came to assume a leading role at court.According to Einhard, Alcuin was Charlemagne’s teacher in rhetoric,dialectics and astronomy. However, he was not only Charlemagne’steacher, for many of the great minds of the following decades hadbeen his students. He devoted his energies to scholarship, religion,the Davidic idea, law, statesmanship on behalf of the kingdom andthe reform of Christian learning and of the liturgy. An adept poet,he found poetic expression for many occasions. He wrote books ongrammar, on rhetoric, dialectics and orthography. As a practicing teacher, his e ff ectiveness extended beyond his own time. In manypieces of correspondence he spoke for or with the approval of Charles. 115 Though he was not a philosopher he adopted the viewsheld by Isidore of Seville concerning the de nition of a king, as wellas a modi cation of the Gelasian theory of royal power and reli-gious authority, the ‘Two Authorities’, already referred to above.

In Charles he saw the divinely appointed defender and protector

of the church and helped even the relationship with the papacy, aperception already discussed earlier. To Charles he stressed his pri-mary function as protector of the Christian church and of the Christianfaith. 116 He certainly represented to Charles the Augustinian theoryof the Christian emperor. The hand of Alcuin appears in muchattributed to the reign of Charlemagne. Unfairly, modern misun-derstood assessment of his intentions, his work is faulted for not being that of an original thinker and he for being only a middling poet.He had vitality and a great capacity as administrator and teacherwho reorganized education to facilitate the acquisition of literacy andliterary con dence. Through his high level of organizational skill hewas able to give form to Charles’ unrestrained enthusiasm for inno-

vation and reform, which achieved the strong impetus and most

115 See L. Wallach, Alcuin and Charlemagne, Studies in Carolingian History and Literature (Ithaca, NY. 1965), for a detailed discussion of Alcuin’s work as a political theo-rist. Concerning the documents composed for Charlemagne see pp. 140 ff . Also

Brown, ‘Renaissance’, and Garrison, ‘Latin literature’, in McKitterick, CarolingianCulture , pp. 30 ff ., and p. 118, respectively.116 See Wallach, pp. 15 ff . for examples of Alcuin’s letters to Charlemagne and

of the ideas which he presents to his king, including the link with his Biblical pro-totype David.



176

enduring results. 117 He created the political and religious framework in which the cultural growth could take place. When he left Aachen

for Tours his creative in uence brought forth signi cant accom-plishments there as well. It was he, the implementer of Charles’ideas, who gave Biblical and historical names to the members of thecourt, of which twenty-three are known. 118 Thus Charlemagne cameto be named ‘David’. He named himself ‘Flaccus’ and Einhard wasnamed after Bezeleel, the maker of the Ark of the Covenant. Withthat name Alcuin circumscribed Einhard’s range of activities verywell.119 More than any of his contemporaries he represented the spiritof the Carolingian Renovatioin his own person. 120

Einhard, c. 770–840, was of the Thuringian nobility. Educated atthe monastery at Fulda, Einhard mastered Latin, the Bible and theClassics. In his early 20s he was recommended to Charlemagne asa tting addition to the court. The expanding kingdom requiredcompetent and literate administrators to sta ff the court o ffices. Einhardarrived at court just to see some of the great men of the day leav-ing the court—Paulus Diaconus, Peter of Pisa, Paulinus of Aquileia.The learned circle around Charlemagne was thinning out and even

Alcuin was to leave for Tours only a few years later. Owing to hisenergy and agility Einhard easily assumed several roles in which hecould demonstrate his skills and remarkable range of talents. Beginning as Alcuin’s pupil at the Palace School, he advanced to the highestpolitical and intellectual positions at court during the reigns of Charle-magne and of Louis the Pious. Something of a ‘Lord-High-Everything-Else’, Einhard became commissioner of works and director of theimperial workshops where, according to his own writings, he wasminister of ne arts and as a practicing artist himself, played animportant role in creating the Carolingian Style. And yet he appearsto have su ff ered from a high degree of self-denigration. Initially hisnickname was ‘Nard’, perhaps a play on the ending of his name orbecause of his small stature, but it almost seems that his busy ways,his desire to be useful and accommodating, were a device with whichhe compensated for feelings of inadequacy. While a degree of self-abasement was part of the deliberate humility a Christian was expected

117

R. Hinks, Carolingian Art—A Study of Early medieval Painting and Sculpture in WesternEurope (Ann Arbor 1966), p. 106f. Also Dutton, Courtier , p. xiif.118 Wallace-Hadrill, p. 197f.119 McKitterick, in Frankish Kings , p. 162, lists others.120 Jungandreas, p. 103. Also Wallace-Hadrill, p. 202f.



, 177

to display, the negative terms, which he heaped upon himself, weremany. Most often he portrayed himself as peccator , the sinner in a

sinful courtly world. 121 Needlessly it would seem, for his later nick-name ‘Bezeleel’ originated in Exodus (31:2–5) in the Old Testament,where Bezeleel is described as being lled with the spirit of God,wisdom, understanding, knowledge and all manner of workmanship,to work with skill and artistry in gold, silver and copper, to cut andset stones, to cut wood artistically in order to complete the work and make the Ark of the Covenant. Except for one design of a tri-umphal gate vaguely associated with him, no speci c work can beattributed to him, but his reputation was such that the Aachen of Einhard became a center in which the many Carolingian portableobjects had their beginnings. Einhard moved among painters, mak-ers of reliquaries and tiles, organ builders, all manner of palace work-men, as well as royal scribes, and he was able to employ them tofashion a coherent, representative program of work. Einhard is cred-ited with introducing method, order and a deliberate aim into theimitative reliance on Classical models as he worked toward prepar-ing artists to aim for the use and development of narrative skills by

means of which a pedagogical purpose could be pursued.122

The les-son to be taught was the message of Christian salvation. Einhard’sintention, implemented by other means, coincided with that of Alcuin,to be engaged in the teaching and learning of the same lesson thatwas on the political and theological curriculum, the universal king-dom of heaven and earth, the Imperium Christianum. At rst the artist,illuminators and carvers could do no more that to establish an inven-tory and to imitate and adapt what was available from the Classicalheritage. Owing to the general orientation toward the Classical worldof Christian Imperial Rome, not least in which was the Carolingianconcern for dynastic continuity and its legitimacy, it was natural thatthe dept to Christian Classical examples actually in their hands wouldhelp create a need for such Classical forms and shape a Classicalframework of Christian expression. That Einhard’s Vita Karoli Magni ,composed before 821, 123 was fashioned in the manner of Suetonius’‘Lives of the twelve Caesars’, especially that of Augustus, thereby

121 Dutton, Courtier , p. xxxvii.122 Hinks, p. 110f.123 M. Innes, R. McKitterick, ‘The writing of history’, in McKitterick, Carolingian

Culture , p. 204. See also Wallace-Hadrill, pp. 180, 203 who dates the work c. 830.



178

placing him among them, can almost be expected. It would havesuited the tastes of the court of Louis the Pious. It is noteworthy

that as a vehicle of the Renovatio, the unique Vita Karoli found fewimitators.

It was mentioned above that what philosophy was preserved,entered the theology of the Christian church in its philosophical endphase: true philosophy is true religion. It was preserved in the writ-ings of the Church Fathers and their indebted commentators.Scholarship consisted of compiling compendiums of subject relatedcommentaries for the convenience of users. The works of olderauthors were republished in abbreviated form with new titles. St.Augustine was a particularly favored source. Original thought wasnot the objective, the command of available knowledge was, such asthat contained in the writings of the Church Fathers. Early Carolingianthinking then reveals next to no original thought as it submits tothe primacy of scriptures. 124 The reputation of Hrabanus Mauruswas based on the use of this technique with which he prepared hisfamous Bible commentaries. His extensive scholarly activity earnedhim the title praeceptor Germaniae . Compared to Alcuin, Maurus’ gifts

are more reproductive but the breadth of his e ff ectiveness was mostextensive. The life and work of his pupil Walahfrid Strabo will showthe emergence of a more original approach.

Magnentius Hrabanus Maurus, since 801 consecrated deacon andthen abbot of Fulda from 822 to 842 and Archbishop of Mainz from847 to 856, has appeared in these pages on several occasions. 125 Aspart of his patronage, his father had donated him to the monasteryas a child-oblate. 126 He created the best-known monastic school inthe East Frankish kingdom. Born c. 780/83, he was raised, likeEinhard, in the monastery at Fulda, only just over 30 years old,from where they were both sent to Alcuin’s school. As was indicatedEinhard went to Aachen and stayed there. Hrabanus may have rstgone to Aachen and then to Tours, to which Alcuin had had him-self transferred. It was Alcuin who gave him the name Maurus, inanalogy with St. Benedict’s favorite student. He returned to Fulda

124

J. Marenbon, “Carolingian Thought’, in McKitterick, Carolingian Culture , p. 179f.,elaborates and argues against this misleading judgment.125 Wallace-Hadrill, pp. 314–322, summarizes his scholarly production.126 See Innes, State and Society, pp. 65 ff . concerning the family of Hrabanus Maurus

and their property dealings.



, 179

and its 700 monks, to become abbot in 822 and to serve in thiscapacity till 842. At the time of the dynastic struggles and Oaths of

Strasbourg, Hrabanus Maurus, owing to the intervention of Ludwig the German, renounced his o ffice, only to become Archbishop of Mainz, the most important prelate of the eastern kingdom and of its most important archbishopric ve years later, by virtue of theintervention of the same king. 127

The encounters with Alcuin appear to have been most decisive.His in uence on him as a rolemodel and teacher contributed to themonastery school at Fulda becoming the leading school in the east.Before the time of Hrabanus Maurus, Fulda, understandably, couldnot stand out for any noteworthy achievements. In Hrabanus’ timeit became one of the empire’s nest schools and, as was demon-strated above, soon one of the nest libraries of the ninth centuryin the eastern kingdom. Among its students were to be WalahfridStrabo, 128 Lupus de Ferrières 129 and Otfrid von Weissenburg. 130 Inhis own work Hrabanus Maurus was chie y a skilful and celebratedcompiler of extracts. His best-known early work, however, is hisgure poem In honorem sanctae crucis also identi ed as Liber de laudibus

sanctae crucis , c. 810, c. 831, probably the 3rd generation of the book,the version now kept in the Austrian National Library (Cod. 652). 131

This unique work of singular educational excellence concerning thetriumphant cross brought him fame in his own lifetime. Twentycopies of the work are known. 132 He had begun it at Tours withAlcuin’s support, who had worked in the same direction. The genreof the carmen guratum, the Bildgedicht , the ‘Poem in Pictures’ had itsbeginnings with Optantius Porphyrius, 325 at Constantinople inChristian late antiquity at the court of Constantine. Several laterrepresentatives included Scottus, Alcuin and Theodulf. 133 The dedi-catory pictures and their iconographic derivation indicate their courtlyorigin. Maurus’ encyclopedic De laudibus sanctae crucis represents the

127 Wallace-Hadrill, p. 333.128 Wallace-Hadrill, pp. 322–326.129 Wallace-Hadrill, pp. 305–314.130 Wallace-Hadrill, pp. 385 ff .131

Unterkircher, Abendländische Buchmalerei , (Graz, Wien, Köln 1967) p. 38f.See Chazelle, Cruci ed God , pp. 6, 99 ff . for a theological discussion of Carolingianconsiderations.

132 Chazelle, Cruci ed God , p. 128f.133 Chazelle, Cruci ed God , pp. 14 ff .



, 181

to the early years, which Hrabanus spent with Alcuin at Tours. Thesecond dedication is a four-line dedication to pope Gregory IV

(827–844), which dates the work to after 827. A dedication pictureshows Hrabanus handing the book to pope Gregory IV. A referenceto Louis receiving gifts from the Persians relates to a Persian dele-gation visiting in 831, indicating the work can be dated between 831and 840, Louis’ death. 136 Louis himself is not associated with spon-soring a palace school producing illuminated manuscripts.

The page with the picto-poem of the emperor Louis the Pious 137

is a page of continuous text lling every little predrawn square 138

and beginning with the words REGUM DOMINUS MUNDUM DICIONE GUBERNANS (King of kings ruling with Might as Lord of the World). (Plate 1c) This page was added for the 831 version of the work and then included in all other copies. 139 The gure of theemperor in this copy is accented through the use of color, holding in his right the all-powerful long cross, a round shield in his left.The pose relates very closely to that shown on Roman ivories of Roman generals, such as of Stilicho, for instance. 140 Originality, aswe understand it, was not a Carolingian objective. That he is hold-

ing a cross rather than a lance makes him a ghter for Christ, a MILES CRISTIANUS , the carrier of the spiritual Christian reformmovement, so that this type of picture functions as an historical doc-ument. Louis is singled out as the sacerdotal representative of theidea of the universal Imperium Christianum. This image most clearlyrepresents Hrabanus Maurus’ idea that the temporal and religiousrealms were one, that the empire was ecclesia .141 At the time Louiswas embattled with his son Lothair and soon after he was to be hisprisoner. In a synesthetic process, Hrabanus’ picture restored to himthe singular regal dignity of the reform, of which he was being deprived in life. His head is surrounded by a halo. The colors alsoaccent the letters contained within these objects. Thus the nimbus

136 Unterkircher, p. 40.137 E. Sears, ‘Louis the Pious as Miles Christi . The Dedicatory Image in Hrabanus

Maurus’ De laudibus sanctae crucis ’ in Godman and Collins, pp. 605–628.138 Sears, in Godman and Collins, p. 606.139

Braunfels, p. 368. See Chazelle, Cruci ed God , p. 129.140 See Sears, in Godson and Collins, p. 611f. for a discussion of the type. SeeChazelle, Cruci ed God , p. 20f.

141 M. de Jong, ‘The empire as ecclesia : Hrabanus Maurus and Biblical historia forrulers’, in Hen and Innes, Uses of the Past , p. 225. See Chazelle, Cruci ed God , p. 130.



182

around the head spells TU HLUDOUUICUM CRISTE CORONA (You,Christ crown Louis). The cross and vertical sta ff spell IN CRUCE

CRISTE TUA VICTORIA VERA SALUSQUE OMNIA RITE REGIS (On your cross, Christ, is victory and salvation, all things you rule

justly.) The purple shield bears the words—For the shield of faithrepels the evil arrows, protects the emperor, prepares glorious tro-phies of victory, con rms the pious heart, drives the enemy host toight. The ‘helmet’ contains the words IESU CRISTE . HrabanusMaurus provided an interpretation to the code—it is the helmet of salvation, the shield of faith and the breastplate of justice. The abstractwords are focused on the tectonic image of the symbol. The ideal-ized portrait gives to the triumphant emperor an exclusive identityin the universal Christian realm. How could it be otherwise, sincehe was divinely chosen?

All of these letters are part of words— versus intexti —which coverthe page running horizontally through the gure, nimbus, ‘helmet’,cross and shield. Since no square may remain empty the texts arerather forced and by themselves not of great value, but since thetexts are made up of single letters, groups of letters and also whole

words, the result is a complex but highly arti cial composition of interspersed lettering, carried on throughout the book, for instancethe lettering on the cross, where the words on the crossbar are com-pleted at the top of the cross, while the initial letter of Christ is boldas it overlaps the initial ‘C’ in ‘cruce’, a rather clever, simple, yettheologically complex design.

CE

INCRURIS

emperor’s handTE

The diagram enhances the text with meaning as the cross and Christare brought into a fundamental interpretative relationship, fostering a visual understanding of the key idea of the faith. The contouredimage intimated an approximate form for the abstract idea. The



184

years for the building of the temple in Jerusalem, 276 days to Christ’sbirth, 5231 years from the Creation to the death of Christ, the

tetramorphs and the apocalyptic lamb, 7 gifts of the Holy Spirit, 8Beatitudes; the numbers 40 and its secrets, such as Christ’s fast of 40 days in the desert, etc.; 50 and its references to the ight of 50days to Egypt, Pentecost, etc.; 120 and its mystical meaning com-posed of the number 30 multiplied by the 4 Gospels, the Christogram,the stylized letter Chi Rho providing Greek numerical values of 1260days of Christ’s teaching and 1335 days between the downfall of theAntichrist and the return of Jesus; the number 24 and its mean-ings—24 spheres of heaven, 24 hours, 24 books of the Old Testament,the 24 sons of Aaron, etc., the meaning of Alleluia and Amen arrangedin the form of a cross. The last line reads EXPLICIT DE INVANTE OPUS MAGNENTI RABANI MAURI IN HONORE SANCTAE CRU-CIS CONDITUM. As was mentioned above, the last page shows anidealized type image of Hrabanus Maurus as a tonsured youthfulmonk in prayer at the foot of the cross.

Evidently Hrabanus Maurus was pleased to associate himself withthe great Alcuin, to pay tribute to him and to be his continuator of

the intellectual tradition begun in the Carolingian palace schools. Itis also evident that he was most open about being a supporter of Louis the Pious and the ideas, which he represented. This work ‘InPraise of the Holy Cross’ reveals Hrabanus Maurus to have beenan exemplary scholar, who had a masterful textual and interpreta-tive command of Biblical as well as of secular knowledge. A prior-ity of the age was to assemble, thereby safeguard and to transmitan inventory of available knowledge. To counteract any withdrawalinto increasing particularization, regression of studies and deprecia-tion of learning in the monasteries he played a major role in resist-ing this endangerment. He was an eager participant in this reversaland with keen ability compiled widely scattered knowledge. He alsohad the bent to establish a blending of the two areas of knowledgein the context of this act of his faith. Quite clearly his educationalwork exempli es his close ties to his master Alcuin, to his methodsand his orientation on Alcuin to preserve and teach what was known.In that he did not meet modern expectations of scholarship and of intellectual property, but then in that era originality lay in being able to tailor knowledge to contemporary needs. The book madehim a most respected scholar of his day. His pupils were to continue,augment, elaborate and even improve his work. The imaginative



, 185

variations of visual representations cannot detract from the emphasison text and its demonstration of the skillful manipulation of language.

His next major work, which also found extensive acclaim, was his De institutione clericorum, which attempted to regulate clerical life, respon-sibilities and tasks concerning sacraments, festivities, liturgy, the faithand the importance of a tting life style and the education of cler-ics. Based on an older work, it compiled and restated these principlesfor his generation. In his De rerum naturis he produced an encyclo-pedia of 22 volumes. In it he returns to an encompassing represen-tation of extant knowledge to be accommodated in the interpretationof scriptures, ranging from the realm of heaven to earth. Its sub-

jects include God and the angels, gures from both Testaments, thefaith, the Bible, the church and its institutions, religion and phi-losophy, man and nally animals, medicine, the crafts, metals andminerals and foodstu ff s. The novelty in the arrangement of this ency-clopedia lies in its religious foundations and its theological rangeextending from God to the World. Isidore of Seville was one of hissources. These volumes did not meet with a similarly wide acclaim.Most e ff ective were his Bible commentaries. 146 Both Alcuin and

Hrabanus Maurus were talented and inclined to collect, organizeand transmit what constituted the core of the scholarly tradition.Hraban helped rekindle the love of learning and his growing repu-tation made Fulda one of the most famous schools of the Frankishrealm. After Einhard and Hrabanus Maurus the poet WalahfridStrabo, the philologist Lupus de Ferrières, the historian Rudolf vonFulda and the theologian Otfrid von Weissenburg were to be among the third generation of its graduates.

It was mentioned above that, barely 20 years of age, WalahfridStrabo had been selected chaplain of the empress Judith and tutorfor Louis’ the Pious youngest son Charles, to be called the Bald,and that Walahfrid had made his skills available to the emperor dur-ing his troubles with his sons and had dedicated a poem to theempress Judith in which he criticized sharply the double treacheryagainst Louis. Of Alemanic origin, he entered the monastery schoolon the Reichenau probably at the age of 9 and in 825 was admit-ted to the monastery at age 15. Shortly after he joined HrabanusMaurus in Fulda. In 829 he became tutor to the prince Charles. In

146 Angenendt, p. 434.



186

838 he was back on the Reichenau, but following the death of theemperor Louis the Pious and as antipartitionist and as adherent of

the imperial idea and supporter of Lothair, he spent the years 840–842in voluntary exile in Speyer, Murbach and Fulda. From 842–849 hewas abbot of Reichenau.

While abbot of the monastery on Reichenau Walahfrid Strabowrote his Liber de cultura moratorium.147 It is an example of natural his-tory in poetic form. Classical themes and forms provide something of a skeleton for the poetic work. In this and his other poetic workshe shows himself to have a masterful command of poetic Latin andcan be placed quite happily in the company of Virgil, Ovid andHorace. Following three poems in the style of Virgil in which hedeals with horticulture and its di fficulties and the eagerness and pro-ductivity of the gardener he describes 23 owers and herbs and theirornamental, practical and medicinal properties in 23 Latin poems of unequal lengths. The twenty-seventh poem is the dedication of thework to the abbot Grimaldus of St. Gallen. Grimaldus had beenWalahfrid’s teacher on the Reichenau and as chancellor of Ludwig the German he reconciled Walahfrid with the king. Grimaldus became

abbot of St. Gallen from 842–872.In the context of the Benedictine admonition hora et labora , prayerand work, garden activity as an aspect of asceticism within the clois-ter makes perfect sense. Thus a Benedictine attitude to life, the res-olution of (garden) work and meditative (garden) contemplation inthe cloistered hortus conclusus , nds expression in this work. Contem-plation should not deteriorate into idleness. Walahfrid itemizes thenecessary work—soil preparation, fertilization, seeding and planting,watering, weeding. The area under cultivation was too small to sup-ply a community of a hundred monks with an almost exclusive dietof fresh vegetables—fresh greens with an oil and vinegar dressing— meaning that the produce was perhaps su fficient for the abbot’s tableas tasty complements and deserts, while the curative herbs servedthe community. The poems allow conclusions about the systematicarrangement of the garden into hortulus and herbularius , the dividedinventory of plants into owers, vegetables and herbs and theircharacteristics, quite similar to the garden at St. Gallen. What is

147 H.-D. Sto ffler, Der Hortulus des Walahfrid Strabo, Aus dem Kräutergarten des Klosters Reichenau, mit einem Beitrag von T. Fehrenbach (Darmstadt 1985).



, 187

immediately noteworthy is that Walahfrid pro ts from learning andexperience and that he proceeds as a botanist, quite ‘scienti cally’

by accurately observing and describing each plant botanically and bycomplementing these observations pharmacologically, rather than byexcerpting an ancient source. His interest in these plants and herbsis primarily medicinal, for, in accordance with the Rule of St. Benedict,he sees his responsibilities at the head of a monastery to lie emphat-ically with the care and recovery of the weak and ill, having prece-dence over all other duties. 148 In itemizing the speci cs of each plantWalahfrid Strabo employs as many of his senses as is possible. Thushe does not only describe color and form, but also fragrance andtaste. Only occasionally does he mention feel and touch.

Frequent are the references to pagan illustrations. Thus the rstpoem begins with a reference to the obscene pagan god of gardensand fertility, Priapus, and then continues in a very secular mannerabout garden work and its merits. The second poem describes naturerealistically and deals with the di fficulties of this work during theseasons and the challenges and tasks, which they present. The thirdpoem itemizes the gardening tasks mentioned above if the gardener

wants to enjoy the fruits of his labors. Bacchus, Apollo and Vulcan,by implication, the muse Thalia nd mention. To express this joyhe appeals to his skills as a poet, his understanding and beauty of expression to proclaim the names and powers contained in such arich harvest in which even insigni cance may be resplendent. Ineach of the following poems he deals speci cally with the plants of his garden and praises their ornamental, alimentary, aromatic, savory,functional and pharmaceutical characteristics: sage, pumpkins, mel-ons, absinthium/wormwood, fennel, gladiolas, chervil, lilies, poppies,mint, celery, ambrosia, radishes and the rose, to name the most obvi-ous. Some of their curative properties are still known in the realmof homeopathy: breath-freshening tea from sage; antidotes for hid-den poisons from rue and others; headache and pain remedies fromwormwood; digestive and pulmonary remedies from herbs; fennel forailments of the eyes, when mixed with goat milk against constipa-tion and when taken in wine against coughs; powdered gladiolus rhi-zome dissolved in wine as well as pulverized celery against bladder

148 Stoffler, p. 12.



188

ailments; levisticum as a diuretic; chervil, mint or poppy compressesfor abdominal pains; crushed lily juice mixed in Falerno wine against

snakebite, or applied to contusions and sprains; the opiate derivedfrom the poppy; and of course the many types of mint steeped astea for all manner of rough and sore throat; celery root as a meansagainst stomach upset and when mixed with vinegar and water,ingested as a tea, a means against the urge to vomit; ground up vet-tonica, fresh or dried, to accelerate the closing of open wounds orgenerally drunk as a daily tea. The last poem is devoted to the rose,its fragrance and the oil, which can be pressed from its petals. Therose is associated with the lily and praised as the centuries old symbolsas the blood of martyrdom and the splendor of the radiating faith.

Only occasionally does he draw inferences from the Christian lit-erature. Thus the lily is placed centrally among the plants, the lilyas splendor, ful llment and beauty of Christ. Twice the lily is thesubject of the twelfth poem. Though number symbolism is present,it is not very obvious. The number 4 and its multiples is central,though treated in a very subtle manner. Logically drawn from natureare the four seasons and the four elements. More abstract are the

four cardinal virtues, the four Gospels and dimensions of the cross.The work itself consists of 444 hexameters. In association with thecurative characteristics of the many plants the garden may well bean allegory for salvation. The ending of the dedicational poem couldsuggest this, when Walahfrid expresses the wish to Grimaldus thatreading this modest gift, God may sustain him in eternal virtue andthus blessed, win the palm of eternal life, which Father, Son andHoly Spirit may graciously grant him.

This poetic work is interesting in that it does not have the vali-dation of the Christian faith as its intention. Though Walahfrid admitshis background readings and his reliance on a certain tradition, theknowledge he presents is very much that of personal experience,observation and interpretation. Rather than being theoretical, thepoems are entirely empirical and practical, yet literary treatment of the evidence. It also demonstrates a personal, subjective almost lyri-cal oneness between a God-given nature and mankind. In troubledtimes nature, as represented by the garden, perhaps an allegory,off ers him and all those like him a place of contemplation and idyl-lic refuge.

Walahfrid’s poetic debut was the poetic version of the Visions of Wetti , referred to above, in which Wetti anticipated something of



, 189

Dante’s Divine Comedy. The visions depict the journey through Hell,Heaven and Purgatory. The angelic guide, the descriptions of the

punishments, the notion of purgatory as a mountain, the insertionof personal and contemporary moments and the ordering of Paradisepoint to similarities with the later work. These Visions of Wetti arealso a theological and mystical conception in which the path of pur-gation, the belief in judgment and eternal life are treated with theimagery associated with the Middle Ages. Vainly does Wetti appealto the intercession of blessed priests and martyrs. By appealing tothe blessed Virgins, Christ grants complete forgiveness. 149 The stateof mind, which generated these visions, is not some divine inspira-tion, but the result of reading the Psalms, and the writings of Gregoryand quite within the context of monastic meditation. 150

While in Aachen as tutor to the prince Charles (829) WalahfridStrabo writes his Versus in Aquisgrani palatio editi anno Hludovici impera-toris XVI. de imagine Tetrici . ‘Verses composed in the palace of Aachenin the sixteenth year of the emperor Louis concerning the statue of Theoderic’. 151 Charlemagne had had the equestrian statue of Theoderic,perhaps actually the Byzantine emperor Zeno, brought from Ravenna

to Aachen as part of his attempt to indicate continuity with the lateRoman Empire and Theodoric’s autonomy within it. In the form of a dialogue between himself, Strabus and Scintilla, perhaps his ideaof his muse, Walahfrid contrasts the dark Arian Theoderic with thebrilliance of the Carolingian house. He disapproves and opposes afoolish Theoderic with the portrait of Charlemagne as the greatMoses. By this time the image of Theoderic had changed from thatof the hero to that of the servant of Satan. The poem hints at thefoolishness to come, when Louis’ sons fail to imitate the wisdom of the great rolemodel, Charlemagne/Moses and resort to paternal-fra-ternal dissension. The poem also develops a laudatory analogy betweenthe empress Judith and the Biblical Rachel. Strabo based his posi-tion on true loyalty to the unpartitioned realm. He was to seek vol-untary exile during the civil wars, which followed.

149 Stoffler, p. 66f.150

Carruthers, p. 182f.151 Innes, ‘Teutons or Trojans?’ in Hen and Innes, Uses of the Past , pp. 242 ff .supports the suggestion that the two positions re ect a con ict between interrelating ‘Christian-intellectual’ and ‘popular-oral’ traditions and that Walahfrid was partici-pating in a debate concerning a historical gure.



190

Walahfrid was actively involved in the movement to reform theGallo-Frankish liturgy in accordance with an enriched Roman liturgy.

Confession and Penance, quiet prayer and an active participation of the congregation during mass by singing the Gloria, Sanctus and Gloria

patri . Walahfrid contributed his Liber de exodiis et incrementis quarundamin observationibus ecclesiasticis rerum, ‘On the origin and development of individual parts of the liturgy’. In 32 chapters he treats the originof churches and altars, the origin of diverse religions, the origin of the Christian religion. In the seventh chapter he deals with theappearance of Latin and Greek loanwords in the German vernacular.In this he rendered a tremendous service to the German languageeven though he conceded it to be a barbaric tongue when comparedto Latin. Between the lines of Latin texts he wrote German glossesand translations in Old High German. Some of the works of Isidoreof Seville and of Hrabanus Maurus were treated in this manner. 152

As envoy of Ludwig the German to Charles the Bald, WalahfridStrabo, bishop of Mainz, drowned on August 18, 849 while cross-ing the River Loire. He was on a mission of reconciliation. A textin Reichenau claims him to be buried there and to have died when

only 40 years of age.153

It would appear that in a time of considerable confusion WalahfridStrabo was not only a man of the church, motivated by concernsfor the Christian faith, but one who very rmly also occupied hisspace in this world aided by empirical observation, responsible prac-ticality, political engagement and realistic impulses. In dealing withit he revealed himself to be a master of language.

Einhard informs us in the Vita Karoli 154 that Charlemagne had‘directed that the age-old narrative poems, barbarous enough, it istrue, in which were celebrated the warlike deeds of the kings of ancient times, should be written out and so preserved.’ However, noevidence of any such collection of Germanic texts exists. Einhardmay have followed Tacitus’ Germania and adapted a feature fromSuetonius’ De vita Caesarum, which had no actual basis in fact, whenhe itemized ‘good king’ Charlemagne’s virtues and initiatives. Onthe other hand, Hrabanus Maurus encouraged the king to seek role-models in Biblical history while the religious fervor of Louis the

152 Stoffler, p. 63f. See also Jungandreas, pp. 130 ff .153 Stoffler, p. 57.154 Thorpe, p. 82.



, 191

Pious, is sometimes blamed for the disappearance of this collectionof pagan materials, even though Charlemagne’s court library was

not completely dispersed, a librarian is documented, and books wereexpressly copied for him and dedicated to him. 155 The reference is

valuable in that it indicates a former oral repertoire of heroic, prob-ably pre-Christian, narrative poetry among the Germanic peoples.It points to the probable existence of a two-tiered literacy in Latinas well as in Germanic dialects. 156 Though many Latin works have

vanished, the evidence for a Latin literature is established. What isextant of other Latin literature shows origins in Franconian, Bavarian,Visi- and Ostrogothic, Lombardic and Saxon and even a mixturethereof. Charlemagne’s collection might well have re ected this mosaic.

While very little secular poetry is known to have originated inRomance or Old French in the western kingdom, there are indica-tions of such increasing activity in Latin and of its improved preser-

vation. 157 This poetry is now at best historically interesting thoughnot historically lasting. As court poetry, intended for immediate pre-sentation and consumption, form and content are little more thantrivial exercises, sometimes antagonistically personal, sometimes lauda-

tory of events and excessively attering of persons, in traditionalClassical declamatory styles, re ecting greater interest in the enter-taining display of an e ff ective rhetorical and recitational use of lan-guage, application of self-satis ed, propagandistic, ethnic clichés anda disappointing re ection of historical fact. With the exception of the poems of the later Walahfrid Strabo, it does not address thehuman condition in any lyrical way and appears not to have beentaken seriously in its own time. As may have become apparent, thecourt of Charlemagne was characterized by having attracted toAachen an entourage of poetic and scholarly talent from many partsof Europe. 158 It is a curious circumstance that the remaining frag-ments in Old High German (OHG) indicate much more extensive

155 Bischoff , p. 77. See de Jong, ‘The empire as ecclesia ’, in Hen and Innes, Uses of the Past , p. 196, n. 13, who cites Thegan’s Vita Hludowici , in which Louis thePious rejected the poetica carmina gentilia , which he had learned in his youth, andrefused to hear, read or teach them. Also p. 205.

156

Wallace-Hadrill, p. 198. See also Innes, ‘Teutons or Trojans?’, in Hen andInnes, Uses of the Past , p. 240.157 M. Garrison, ‘The emergence of Carolingian Latin literature and the court

of Charlemagne’, in McKitterick, Carolingian Culture , pp. 111 ff .158 Garrison, ‘Latin literature’, in McKitterick, Carolingian Culture , p. 117f.



192

activity in the German vernacular. It would appear that the easternCarolingians created a climate in which questions of language and

literature were topics of consideration. The quotation from Einhardsuggests that the heroic poetry was part of an oral tradition yet tobe committed to writing. This may never have happened.

Germanic had come under Roman Latin in uence during the timeof the Roman Empire. This was the case especially for loanwordsfrom agricultural, administrative, economic, some military activities,the building trades and the days of the week. The Christianizationintroduced some Greek vocabulary but much more Latin into German,especially in the external and administrative areas of the religiouslife. Based on Greek and Latin models, some abstract concepts cameinto being as well. German, however, developed its own vocabularywhen it came to concepts of salvation and of the faith. 159 An openquestion is the level of sophistication when the vernacular was usedto express abstractions. One has estimated that Old High Germanhad adopted 3% loanwords, 10% loan formations and 20% of bor-rowed meanings. Each was the result of a complex process. Not allof this vocabulary survived into Middle High German. It should be

kept in mind that ‘German’ as used here does not represent a sin-gle language but an assemblage of tribal dialects, as spoken Germandoes to this day. Only over many centuries did a more or less stan-dardized form of German evolve. During the Merovingian periodearly regional forms of German entered the various law codes. InCarolingian times, directives to bishops, abbots and priests stressedthe use of the vernacular as a means of bringing ecclesiastical andsecular elements of the population closer together. 160 Hrabanus Maurusand, as we saw, Walahfrid Strabo contributed to the developmentof German as a written language. The rst appearance of the wordfor German, theodiscus , appears in 786. Charlemagne himself speaksof teudisca lingua in 801. It appears again in 825 as nationes Theotiscae .Walahfrid refers to Theotiscum sermonemand Nithard told us that theOaths of Strasbourg were sworn in Teudisca and Romana lingua.Otfrid

von Weissenburg uses theodisce in the Latin introduction to thisEvangelienbuch (Book of Gospels). It would appear that variations of this term were used for the language in a preliterary form, wellbefore it was applied to the speakers of this language, and even in

159 McKitterick, Frankish Church , pp. 85 ff .160 McKitterick, Frankish Church , p. 84f.



, 193

Carolingian times it was primarily the language of monks and cler-ics. In the correspondence between the scriptoria of Reichenau and

Fulda common linguistic forms emerge as a means of facilitating theexchange. Latin did not have enough letters for German sounds andthat circumstance alone contributed to a degree of uniformity. Suchwritten examples as have survived are primarily of a religious natureoriginating in the Christian, missionary context. There are no indi-cations of the actual speech of the people. 161 As was mentioned above,Otfrid von Weissenburg was another of the graduates of HrabanusMaurus at Fulda. In the Evangelienbuch of 863/71, he belatedly raisesthe justi able question why the Franks should be the only ones notto sing the praises of the Lord in Frankish.

Nu es lu manno inthihit, in sina zungun scribit ,. . . (Now that many undertake to write in their own tongue)sie in frenkisgon biginnen/sie gotes lob singen? . . . (Why should they not begin in Frankish, to sing the praise of God?)

Nu frewen sih es alle , . . .. . . (Now everyone rejoices, . . .)Thaz wir kriste sungun, in unsara zungun.. . . (That we sing to Christ, in our tongue.) 162

Otfrid’s rejoicing was to be premature, for the use of German, coin-cident with the reign of Ludwig the German, was to be short-lived,as Latin was to remain the literary language.

We have no real idea what poetry Einhard attributed to Charle-magne to have had in mind when he supposedly asked that it bewritten down, because with the exception of a very few fragments,none of the earliest pre-Christian material has been preserved. Byetymologically retracing words we know that words for ‘song’ such

as liod, leich , ‘song’ and ‘lay’ are very old words and most probablyecho old practices without any relation to the church and its mis-sionary activities. Because of their formulaic character, proverbs, rid-dles and incantations are very resistant to change. Their earliestappearance was in runic form, where the word ‘rune’ is quite ttinglyrelated to the word ‘raunen—to whisper’ in modern German. The

161 H. Moser, Deutsche Sprachgeschichte (Tübingen 1965), pp. 98f., 106 ff . R. Priebsch,

W.E. Collinson, The German Language , 5th edition (London 1962), pp. 264 ff ., H. Sperber,P.V. Polenz, Geschichte der deutschen Sprache , 6th edition (Berlin 1968), pp. 35 ff . Seealso M. Innes, ‘Teutons or Trojans?’, in Hen and Innes, Uses of the Past , p. 232.

162 Moser, p. 107f. See McKitterick, Frankish Church , pp. 198 ff . for an extensivediscussion of this work.



194

word ‘incantation’ itself reminds us that magic formulas were oncechanted, suggesting that the earliest ‘poetic’ materials such as prayers,

supplications, sacri cial formulas, charms and invocations had func-tional intentions and were connected with native magic and culticpractices. Two such pagan examples have been preserved in OHG,in a Christian context, perhaps representative of many lost others,the Merseburger Zaubersprüche . These unique texts are the only onespreserving references to the cults of pagan divinities. Obscure inmeaning, these magical pagan verses were written into a 9th cen-tury missal, sometime during the 10th century, probably at Fulda,from where they were later transferred to Merseburg. The rst of these charms is unusual in that it is to free someone from captivity.The mythic battle maidens, Valkyries, once sat about mending fet-ters, harassing foes, loosening bonds. They are conjured to interveneand help the captive escape his bonds and ee from his enemies.The charm was to be repeated three times. The second charm wasmedical and to be spoken over the sprained leg of a horse. Severalgods, including Frija and Wodan, are named rst. The very com-pact verse ends in a repetitive formula, asking that if it be bone, or

blood or limb, bone be joined to bone, blood to blood and limb tolimb, as if they were glued together. Re ecting a popular, oral char-acter, the words alone have the power, while the magical spokenrepetition tends to be the pagan activating feature of magic charms.Having worked once before, the incantations are to work once again,hence the imperative form. The verses may be allegories: the rstone against cramps and paralysis, the second against all manner of sprain, not just for animals. Usually oral in nature, why were the

verses written and into a religious manuscript at that? Perhaps asportable protective magic? Perhaps to cancel their power? The twoincantations are followed by a prayer in Latin, which asks for God’shelp for anyone whose name is to be added. 163 It is an example of

163 W. Hauk, B.K. Vollmann (eds.), Frühe deutsche Literatur und lateinische Literatur,800–1150 (Frankfurt a.M. 1991), p. 152f., for the bilingual text in OHG and NHG.B.F. Murdoch, ‘The Carolingian period and the early Middle Ages’, in H. Watanabe-O’Kelly, (ed.), The Cambridge History of German Literature (Cambridge 1997), p. 12f.

Also J.K. Bostock, A Handbook of Old High German Literature (Oxford 1955), pp. 16 ff .See also B.O. Murdoch, Old High German Literature (Boston 1983), p. 50f. H. deBoor, Die deutsche Literatur, Von Karl dem Großen bis zum Beginn der hö schen Dichtung,770–1170 (Munich 1964), pp. 94 ff . Also G. Ehrismann, Geschichte der deutschen Lite-ratur, bis zum Ausgang des Mittelalters , Part I, (Munich 1959), pp. 100 ff . See also



, 195

later, Christian verses of this type, which place their trust in thepower of Christ or God.

One other linguistic fragment derives from the Lex Salica , the Lawcode of the Salian Franks from Merovingian times. Known as the

Malbergische Glossen, these glosses are vernacular legal terms insertedinto the code. The ‘malb’ refers to the ‘Maloberg’, the Hill of Judg-ment or of Execution.

An early Carolingian work is the Abrogans of 764/72, motivatedby bishop Arbeo of Freising in Bavaria. 164 In uenced by Lombardicscholarship, the work is a glossary, a collection of Latin synonymsinterspersed with OHG words, named after the rst Latin keyword.While the original Bavarian edition has been lost, it is extant inthree Alemanic versions from Reichenau-Murbach. About 775 a sim-ilar work was prepared in Fulda in the form of a Latin/German

version of an antique Greek/Latin Dictionary. Known as theVocabularius Sti. Galli , it originated as a Latin/Anglo-Saxon work. The

Abrogans contained an OHG version of the Lord’s Prayer:

Fater unseer thu pist in himile uuihi namun dinan

qhueme rihhi dinuuerde uuiloo diin so in himmile

sosa in erdu prooth unseer emezzihic kip uns hiutu

oblaz uns sculdi unseero so uuir oblazem uns sculdikem

enti ni unsih rleiti in khorunka uzzer losi unsin fona ubile. (Codex Sangallensis 911).(Fig. 8)

At the end of the century, c. 790–800, there appeared a prose trans-

lation of Isidore of Seville’s De de catholica contra Judaeos . Written inan undetermined dialect, the work may have originated in the circlearound Alcuin, in Lorraine. Two manuscripts have been preserved,one in Paris, the other in Vienna among the Mondsee—Wiener Fragmente .Here Isidore defended the Christian Faith and the Trinity againstthe objections of the Jews.

During the last third of the 8th century an early Christian ‘prayer’came into being, possibly derived from an Anglo-Saxon source and

Wallace-Hadrill, p. 379. See also S. Lerer, ‘Literate Authority in Bede’s Story of Imma’, in Chazelle, Literacy, Politics , p. 23f.

164 Wallace-Hadrill, p. 380, concerning glosses.



196

composed in Fulda, founded during the conversion, only just a few years earlier. The dialect is Bavarian with Old Saxon and Anglo-

Saxon traces. It is an assemblage of two parts and may re ect twoauthors. The rst part is a short, creatively imaginative poetic nar-rative of nine alliterative lines of verse.

Alliterative verse consists of a long line of eight strongly accentedsyllables along with an indeterminate number of unaccented sylla-bles. The alliteration is a substitute for the end rhyme. The accentedwords or syllables had to have the same initial consonant, such aswelaga, waltant got, wewurt skihit , line 49 of the Hildebrandslied . A long line could have as many as 4, but a necessary minimum of 2 allit-erations. As a rule two words of the rst half-line must begin withthe same consonant as one word in the second half-line.

This particular prayer retells the most marvelous and miraculouswisdom, the creation of the world by God out of the void. The neg-ative frame of reference is the earth indicated by the absence of trees, mountains, stars, sun or moon and sea. The second part istheological, a prayer in less imaginative prose which asks of almightyGod, who is before creation, for his gracious gift of the right faith,

good will, wisdom, good sense and the strength to resist devils, avoidevil and to ful ll God’s will. Having good will appears to be a pre-condition for doing God’s will. The prayer has been preserved in amanuscript of loosely related fragments in the Benedictine abbey atWessobrunn in Bavaria and is known as the Wessobrunner Gebet.165

More a poem than a prayer, it is of some literary importance. Thepoem has an ambiguous title, De poeta , which may mean ‘Something Poetic’, or by inference from the Greek, ‘On the Creator’, a trans-lation consistent with the thrust of the poem.

The counter piece to the story of the Creation is the vivid early9th century (c. 830) apocalyptic vision of the world, warning of theending in the all-consuming con agration. The vision is entirelyChristian eschatology. The meaning of Muspilli may be a relatedopposite of ‘God-spell’ or ‘Gospel’ and mean ‘verdict’, ‘pronouce-ment of judgment’, hence ‘judgment day’, the judgment and verdictwhich everyone in the anxiety of his solitude has to face in the

165 Hauk, Vollmann, p. 48f., for the text. Ehrismann, pp. 138 ff . Also Watanabe-O’Kelly, p. 11f. See de Boor, p. 52f. Also Murdoch, pp. 65 ff . for an English trans-lation. Bostock, pp. 114 ff . refers to the poem as ‘The Wessobrunn Creation andPrayer’. See Wallace-Hadrill, p. 382.



, 197

end. 166 Originally untitled, this title was added subsequently, c. 1830,to focus on this didactic knowledge of nal things. Composed in

Bavarian dialect, it is proof that complex concepts could be expressedin the spoken language. It was found at St. Emmeram in Regensburg and may well have been copied there at a later time, or again atFulda. As with other examples an Anglo-Saxon source may be sup-posed. It was clumsily written into the margins and three pages of a beautiful 9th century manuscript, which had been sent as a gift,dedicated by Adalram, the bishop of Salzburg from 821–836, to king Ludwig the German. The beginning and end of the poem are miss-ing. They may well have been written on the lost inside covers of the codex. The extant text of 103 alliterative 167 lines may have beenan assembly of fragments, introduced by a memento mori , reminding the reader of his mortality. The terrorizing sermon establishes thepopular theme of later medieval art and architecture—the disputebetween the forces of heaven and hell over the souls on judgmentday. Already the Wessobrunner Gebet introduced the con ict betweengood and evil, the Muspilli states the con ict even more clearly. Therst extant lines could be entitled ‘On things after death’, for they

tell that when the soul rises from the body and follows its way, thentwo hosts, one from heaven and the other from hell, will contest itspossession. The soul may anxiously await the host to which it willfall. Five hundred and then eight hundred years later, the HighMiddle Ages and again the Baroque period, will preach terrorizing sermons to Christians in artistic and literary forms respectively, thatthe sinner take heed lest he hear the call and not be able to ren-der a satisfactory account for the actions of his life. No one is exemptfrom this call. As in a struggle by combat between the Antichristand Elijah, the opinions concerning the outcome are divided. If Elijahfalls and his blood drips on the ground, then the world will be setaame and in projected catastrophic visions reminiscent of Revelation,no one shall be safe from the re (muspilli ). In an accumulation of terrifying visions mountains, trees shall burn, the waters and moorsshall dry out, sky and earth shall be consumed by ames, the moonshall fall and Midgard, the (middle-) earth burns ( prinnit mittelagard ),

166 Wallace-Hadrill, p. 383, calls it ‘another original vernacular composition thatdeals with great issues’. He summarizes the content.

167 See Bostock, pp. 156 ff . for a detailed discussion with examples of this andother literary devices.



198

no stone will be left unturned. When the rain of ames falls, thesoul will be in mourning, not knowing how to repent. The poetic

sermon anticipates many a later Romanesque and Gothic westwork where the heavenly horn summons the sinners before the judge andhis host and the angels open the graves and bring the dead to judg-ment. Salvation will be for the righteous. The cruci ed Christ dis-playing his wounds will appear on the cross as the judge. 168

From the 2nd century was transmitted a comprehensive accountof the life of Christ. It was a synthesis of the four Gospels, the Diates-saron, attributed to the Syrian Christian Tatian. During the early 9thcentury, c. 830, a Latin translation was used as the source for atranslation in OHG prepared by several monks at Fulda, probablyon the urging of Hrabanus Maurus. This Evangelienharmonie , a Harmonyof the Gospels, was an inferior, unskilled, word for word renditioninto German, which maintained even Latin syntax. 169 Its value layin that it stimulated two other works, the Heliand and the Evangelienbuch of Otfrid von Weissenburg. Thus the New Testament narrative isrecast and dramatized and the ‘rebel’ Jesus is identi ed as ‘the sav-ior’. Taken together, two such major works in very quick succession

represent a remarkable literary output for their time.At about the same time an outstanding epic synopsis in OHG of the life of Christ came into being consisting of nearly 6000 lines of alliterative verse, imitative of the AS epic Biblical poetry. It is a work of exemplary caliber, all the more noteworthy as it has no Saxonpredecessor. In about 1830 it was named Heliand , Modern GermanHeiland , meaning ‘Savior’. 170 It is preceded by a Latin preface whichnames Louis the Pious, or perhaps Ludwig the German, as its com-missioner, but its origin may be an unrelated insertion. It is not verylikely that the author of the Heliand may have been Hrabanus Maurushimself. The pedagogic intention of this work was the modi cationof a Germanic worldview into the new edifying Christian Weltanschauung of the Imperium Christianum. This Heliand was an instrument in theconversion of the recently conquered Saxons and in accordance withits missionary task is characterized by an accessible folkish approach

168

Hauk, Vollmann, pp. 50–57, for the text. Bostock, pp. 120–134. Murdoch,pp. 68–72. Also de Boor, pp. 53–57. Ehrismann, pp. 147–156. See also A. Masser, Bibel- und Legendenepik des deutschen Mittelalters (Berlin 1976), pp. 131–136.

169 Bostock, p. 136f.170 Wallace-Hadrill, p. 384f.



200

also carries out an educational task as he replaces concepts moretypical of a warrior society with the new meanings of the Christian

worldview. Since he knew his public, he omitted Christ’s instructionsto turn the other cheek when struck on one. Humility was not yetseen to be a virtue as long as its Germanic translation was deomuot ,NHG Demut , the courage of a slave, clearly a virtue not readilyunderstood. Thus manly pride becomes superbia , a cardinal sin, des-tiny is no longer blind fate but providentia Dei , God’s providence. Thehumility exempli ed in this work is characterized by noble dignityand reserve, borne by the great lord without rancor, but with for-giveness and love for his enemies. Quite clearly the conversion toChristianity was dependent on vocabulary acquisition. Repeated usagetransformed meaning. The narrative language makes the Heliand acomplex and nearly original work. At the same time, despite theGermanic coloring, this is not an illustration of Germanized Christianity.With 5983 lines, this outstanding poetic work is the longest OHGwork in alliterative verse. It was also to be the last major work of this type, without signi cant lasting e ff ect.

The longest, 7104 long lines, and last work in this religious genre

is the Evangelienbuch of Otfrid von Weissenburg mentioned repeat-edly, in passing. Sometimes entitled a ‘Harmony’ it actually isn’t,but rather a narration and commentary of 7000 rhyming lines. Otfridwas a Frank whose optics were determined by the Frankish churchand its long Latinized Christian tradition. He was another of thewell-educated and trained pupils of Hrabanus Maurus from Fulda.He had become the head of the monastery school and very activescriptorium at Weissenburg, in the northern Alsace. Between 863and 871 he completed this work and along with three other dedi-cations, writes an adulating dedication to Ludwig the German inwhich he also relates him to David. This dedication suggests anincreasingly regional cultural particularism. In his dedication toLiutbert, the archbishop of Mainz, he is the complete Latinist andtheologian. The work exists in several manuscripts, including onenal copy possibly bearing his own corrections written in his ownhand. Organized in ve books, to conform symbolically with the vesenses, the work is a deliberate poetic representation of the Life andSuff ering of Christ derived by means of his own excerpts from theGospels, the commentaries and writings of the Church Fathers, aswell as from sermons. His poetic rolemodels are the Latin-Christianpoets of late antiquity, such as Juvencus and Prudentius, but also



, 201

some of the pagans, Virgil, Ovid, whose appeal survived into theMiddle Ages. The Heliand is not a chronological account and re ects

older treatments interspersed among later ones. Unlike the poet of the Heliand , the outside world of the people is not a frame of ref-erence for Otfrid. In fact Otfrid turns away from the people andany vestiges of an Anglo-Saxon poetic heritage, representing a rathermore axiomatic Frankish understanding of the faith. In the serviceof the lofty Christian Empire he seeks instead the attention of theliterate, initiated, cloistered elites educated in the Latin tradition, butespecially the magnates of the empire. In his dedication to Liutberthe indicates his intention to produce a work, which would counterthe cantus obscenus laicorum, common poetry, which insults the piousears of the learned and which he intended to displace. His work,Gospel derived literature in the vernacular, was intended to be didac-tic. In that sense he is an instrument of Carolingian expression. Butwhile the original idea of empire had been to create a universalChristian people to inhabit the Christian Empire, by the time of Otfrid this idea had been subverted by elitist thinking and Carolingianculture has become that of the select few. Being a master and the-

ologian, scholar rather than talented poet by inclination, Otfrid’sEvangelienbuch is an innovative academic work, intended to edify, com-plete with references to sourcebooks, with which Otfrid von Weissen-burg addressed a select clerical public and the educated nobility.The royal dedication might even suggest that he expected his audi-ence to include the court. While the former catered to the interestsof his audience, engaged in occasional lengthy narrative and descrip-tive detail expressed in alliterative verse, Otfrid addresses the mem-bers of his audience personally, but remains factually, even dogmaticallyobjective as he includes discursive commentary in his verses. Frequentlyhe interrupts the digressive narrative to explain. Thus the six wine

jugs at the Wedding of Cana are interpreted to be the pure heartsof the disciples of Jesus. His audience knows the subject. He o ff ersno new thoughts on the content of his subject, but in a workman-like manner does try to a ff ect greater esthetic innovation for whathe perceives to be divine truth. To remain close to the understanding of his audience, Otfrid stayed within Germanic schemes—personalloyalty to the leader as an example of man’s relationship with God.He derives a life-negating view from Biblical circumstances and man’ssinful ways, and therefore accents the positive, redemptive, life-assert-ing aspects of Christ’s intervention in the world. In accordance with



202

the projected and preferable Imperium Christianum, all life on earth isa mere preparation for the life beyond and all striving should be

directed toward the heavenly bliss, which is certain. Flee the momentand win salvation. It is not surprising that his contempt for the worldis balanced by his pride in the accomplishments of the ChristianFranks and their grandiose Christian mission. However, his work does betray an unexpected lyrical tenderness, not previously encoun-tered, for John the Disciple and for Mary Magdalene, for example.Of interest is the preface to which reference has already been madein which he justi es his use of Frankish for this work in which tosing the praises of God. Commensurate with the role of the Franksin the world as heirs of Christian Rome he argues ambivalently thatbeside Latin, Germanic is equally suited for the rendition of poetictext and proposes to wedge what he deems to be inferior Germaninto correct Christian-Latin forms without regard to substantive lin-guistic di ff erences, as his literate audience would indeed expect. Indoing so he takes two other major steps: he introduces the pairedend-rhyme to replace the Germanic alliterative verse, perhaps lean-ing on the metered verse of Ambrosian hymns, the alternation of

four rising and falling syllables. Less accomplished a work than theHeliand , Otfrid’s work is in the forefront as the rst extant innova-tive example of rhyme and a success of his intention of writing poetictext in Frankish, while upgrading it by means of poetic forms con-forming to Christian-Latin standards. In retrospect it was to provea signi cant and successful literary achievement though of indeter-minate e ff ectiveness. It is a major work, which continues to attractconsiderable attention in the pertinent literature. 174 It supported theevolving self-portraits of special literate interest groups. Quite clearlythis poetry is poésie engagée , in the service of visionary as well as appliedreligion, reform, modernization and the Latinizing Christian Caro-

174 Hauk, Vollmann, pp. 72–127, for extensive excerpts of the text. Langosch,p. 46. According to Bertau, pp. 57 ff . Otfrid’s Lord’s Prayer is representative of aselect view of Christian society. See Murdoch, pp. 75–86. for a description of themanuscript and its arrangements and especially for a discussion of Otfrid’s poeticlanguage. See Bostock, pp. 169–193, for extensive commentary and elaboration of

the work and of Otfrid’s method. See also Boesch, pp. 15 ff . Also de Boor, pp. 79 ff .and Watanabe-O’Kelly, pp. 16 ff . for a list of earlier Christian sources. for a sequen-tial discussion of the content and for an assessment of the work. For a most com-plete analysis of the work and its several manuscripts, see Ehrismann, pp. 178–203.Also Masser, pp. 29–37.



, 203

lingians. The clergy and the laity were to be raised to a higher levelof spiritual understanding. The Frankish church sought to replace

any pagan vestiges, and that included Germanic alliterative verse,with Christian-Latin forms. Otfrid von Weissenburg served that pur-pose by providing a synthesis of Germanic language and Latin form.In view of the emphasis on the splendors of the heavenly kingdomand on salvation as the greatest blessing in Christian thinking it isnot surprising that anything transitory and worldly should be sup-pressed and the spiritual and eternally radiant glory of the Word of God, as formulated in Latin, should stand in the foreground of allof these poetic works. The result is a Germanic identity in Latinguise. In the following transition vernacular German was not tomaintain its position over universal Christian-Latin. Otfrid’s exam-ple was too vast an undertaking. He found only modest imitators.

X. Secular literature

The fragmentary remains of a secular literature do not project the

Carolingian zeal of a Christian realm on earth. Hence the referencein Einhard (29) that Charlemagne directed that the Germanic nar-rative poems be written out and preserved refers to a curiosity. Louisthe Pious is said to have had them destroyed. These poems werereputedly of an heroic sort, celebrating the warlike deeds of theancient kings, Valhalla rather than Heaven, so that their destructionmay have been part of a policy. Already Tacitus mentions carmina antiqua in his Germania . They were Germanic battle chants, mytho-logical and historical poetry and prose in which history was retained.Byzantine sources refer to the performances of Germanic minstrelssinging at the court of Attila. Among the Goths Jordanes mentionsthe vocal and instrumental celebration of the heroic deeds of theirfathers, and especially their primary virtue, loyalty. Cassiodorus reportsthat Theoderic had a minstrel and harpist celebrate his victory overthe Visigoths in 507. Theoderic even sent a harpist to Chlodovech.Gelimer, the last king of the Vandals asked for a harp with whichto accompany his song lamenting his fortunes. Franks, Burgundiansand Alemans enjoyed this form of entertainment and historical edi -cation. To heap praises on the king was the function of the bardsand the great literary gures—Venantius Fortunatus, Sidonius Apolli-naris, Fredegar, of the Pre-Carolingian period made their contributions.



204

Thanks to Paulus Diaconus the store of tales and legends is mostcomplete among the Lombards. 175 Unfortunately other than in such

references there is no direct evidence as to their existence. Otfrid von Weissenburg may have included such poetry in his condemna-tion of the cantus obscenus laicorum, worldly poetry, epic and heroic,as well as love poetry, the winileod , in the form of folksongs, unfor-tunately only indicated in a few references, as prohibited preoccu-pations for nuns. 176 There is, however, indirect evidence of heroicnarratives in the Norse Eddas , preserved in modi ed 13th centuryChristianized texts. They tell of the Creation and the nal Con ag-ration. The lays and sagas betray South-German origins during thepre-settlement period. Thus the lays of Wieland, Sigurd , elements of the Thidrekssaga , and the older Lay of Atli , known in Norse as the

Atlakvida , the Lay of Atli, or the Atlamal , the Tale of Atli, are of Burgundian provenance, the song of Ermanarich is Gothic. The Layof Hildebrand , originally Lombardic and the Beowulf reect similarSouth-German origins. In all there are ve regional divisions intowhich the body of legends and sagas is traditionally arranged: Ostro-gothic with Ermanarich and the Hildebrandslied; Nibelungenlied with the

old Atlilied ; Visigothic with the Waltharilied ; Lombardic and Merovingian.Arguably this poetic material in the oral tradition was as good oreven superior to the religious poetry, which has been preserved. 177

The encounter with the Huns left a deep scar on the Germanicconsciousness, which led to the mytho-poetic, narrative transforma-tion of historical events and personages into epic tales and heroiccharacters. These passed into lore, were invented, told and forgot-ten by some, picked up and transformed in retelling by others, retoldand nally written down by yet others, until the monastic scribalculture nally documented the various versions many centuries later.In the process locations were shifted, stories were altered and nameswere changed. Attila himself became an ambivalent gure. If weconsider that the name ‘Attila’ in Gothic is the diminutive of ‘Atta’,meaning ‘father’, then the western Christian view of him as ‘theScourge of God’ needs examination. Understandably, his tribute peo-

175

W. Pohl, ‘Memory, identity and power’, in Y. Hen, M. Innes, The Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages (Cambridge 2000), pp. 9–28.176 Ehrismann, pp. 15 ff .177 Watanabe-O’Kelly, p. 25. Also Innes, ‘Teutons and Trojans?’ in Hen and

Innes, Uses of the Past , pp. 240 ff .



, 205

ples saw him with di ff erent eyes than did his enemies. Sometimesthe narratives served merely as frames for ‘historical ction’. They

were intended as entertainment and were very much a part of theoral culture of the age. This process is a familiar one, well knownfrom the retelling of jokes, spreading rumors or just recounting half-remembered facts. In this fashion events in Burgundian history endedup recorded and transformed in the Scandinavian Old Norse Eddas ,while at the same time providing the core of the Nibelungenlied.TheRoman magister miletus , master of the armies, Aetius, who in 436 hadloosed the Huns in Roman service on the Burgundians and cut downtheir royal family and their retinues of reportedly twenty thousandmen, before resettling them to guard the north-eastern Alpine region,blends with Attila and ends up as Atli in the hypothetical Atlilied ,and as Etzel, rst leader, and then king of the Huns in the Nibelungenlied of the later Middle Ages. The Ostrogoth Theoderic the Great passesinto the Scandinavian Thidrekssaga , where he is the main characterand enters the German heroic tales as an unhistorical ‘Dietrich vonBern’. Sigurd will reappear as Siegfried. The material which Charle-magne supposedly wanted to have preserved must have been of this

sort. Only a few written fragments have survived in German. Moreof them have entered and been preserved in the medieval literatureof Scandinavia and Iceland.

The old Atlilied was most probably of South-German origin andwas one of the earliest Germanic poems composed in the oral tra-dition before written down during the 8th century. The work is nolonger extant and cannot be recast in its original form, except fromtwo later Old Norse Scandinavian versions: the Atlakvida , probablya late 9th century Norwegian work, and the Atlamal , a reworked11th or 12th century version prepared on Greenland and part of the 13th century Poetic Edda. 178 The lay provides some of the char-acters, though with di ff erent names, of the later Nibelungenlied andthe basic plot of its second part, known as the Nibelungenklage or Der

Nibelungen Not , the lament over the dire end of the Burgundians. Theassumed Atlilied is the oldest prototypical source of the medieval

Nibelungenlied , the Middle High German Epic. The two Norse accountsare later elaborations of a lost, fundamental narrative poem. Despite

178 U. Dronke, (ed.), The poetic Edda, Heroic Poems , vol. I. (Oxford 1969).



206

its title, the Atlakvida is actually a glori cation of the Burgundiansand more of a vili cation of Attila. The poem is a fairly detailed,

blood-drenched story with cruel details reminiscent of stories in Greco-Roman mythology. In this poem Gudrun’s brothers Gunnarr, basedon the historical Gundahar, and Högni are invited to Atli’s court,urged to reveal the location of their treasure, but killed for refusing to divulge the site. Gudrun avenges the death of her brothers, mur-ders Atli’s two sons, then passes a chalice with their hearts and bloodto the unsuspecting father, gets him drunk, stabs him to death, burnsdown the great hall and then kills herself. 179 In the much longer,more original, much more literary and dramatic Atlamal 180 bothHögni’s and Gunnar’s wife have dream-visions which foreshadowtheir great misfortune, blood and violent death. However, the envi-sioned fate must not be an impediment. In a few words, the plotfollows a di ff erent line. No mention is made of Huns and Burgundians,of hidden treasures or of the open sea. Rather it is a dramatizationof self-evident dysfunctional family situations. Gudrun’s relatives arriveat Atli’s court. Gudrun had wanted to warn them of the impend-ing treachery. Her family had been something of an idyll. Her new

situation was more traumatic. A terrible battle ensued in which theeld was swimming in blood. Atli and Gudrun exchange unpleas-antnesses about reciprocal murders of kinsmen, mother, sister andcousin, motivated by greed. Large numbers have been killed on bothsides. Atli asked that Högni be put to the knife, his esh sliced o ff and his heart cut out; Gunnar was to be tied to the gallows andsnakes set on him. Gunnar plays a last song on his harp with histoes, softening the hearts of women, and in the end both men die.Atli taunts Gudrun with the murders. For that Gudrun killed theirchildren by cutting their throats, ‘to cure them of old age’, using their skulls as cups, serving him drink mixed with their blood, roast-ing their hearts on a spit and serving them to him pretending theywere of a calf. There follows an exchange of recriminations as‘they . . . sent each other murderous thoughts, hurled words of hatred— neither was contented’. Gudrun had her husband Atli stabbed byHögni’s son. On his deathbed Atli laments that he had showeredher with wealth, but that she had not overcome her widow’s grief.

179 Dronke, pp. 3–12. This is a bilingual version, Norse and English.180 Dronke, pp. 77–98. This is also a bilingual version, Norse and English.



, 207

She promised to purchase a funeral ship, evidently a vestige of another tradition, and a painted co ffin and wrap his corpse in a well

waxed shroud and tend to any other needs, almost as if there wereno ill feelings, merely the working out of a relentless fate. Upon hisdeath she killed herself, dying a slow death.

The original Atlilied must have anticipated the narrative elementsechoed in the Atlakvida . Gudrun has married Atli (Attila) following the murder of her husband Siegfried. Atli entices her brothers Gunnarand Högni to come to his court by promising property and wealth,splendid ornaments and exotic gifts. Upon entering the great hall of Atli’s palace Gudrun warns them that they have been betrayed andthat they should ee immediately. Gunnar tells her that it is too lateto summon his heroic reinforcements, whereupon he is seized andtied up. Meanwhile Högni kills seven Huns and drives o ff an eighth,but their superior numbers overpower him and he is tied up as well.Then Gunnar is asked to buy his life by handing over the treasure.Gunnar dares the Huns to cut out Högni’s heart and place it in hishand. They bring it to him quivering in a bowl. Since Gunnar isnow the only one who knows the distant location of the treasure he

too refuses to tell and is killed. Gudrun now informs Atli that his young and innocent sons will never again stand at his knees, dis-tributes her treasures lavishly among her retinue, kills her husband,drenches their bed with blood, and sets re to the great hall. Thehistorical Attila was murdered during his wedding night by his brideIldiko. She was to become the Kriemhild of the later epic. The lan-guage of the verse saga is characterized by heroic rhetoric, the vocab-ulary of weapons and battle, boldness and courage and many highung words to re ect the high feelings of the speakers.

Interlinked with the tales around Attila are the 7th century mytho-poetic tales around the historical Theoderic the Great, the legendaryDietrich von Bern of the Thidrekssaga.181 Within the approximate his-torical context ts the fragment of the older Lay of Hildebrand ,182 a near

181 F. Erichson, Die Geschichte Thidreks von Bern, Sammlung Thule, Altnordische Dichtung und Prosa , 2nd ed., vol. 22 (Düsseldorf, Cologne 1962). See Schutz, Germanic Realms ,pp. 75 ff .

182

Hauk, Vollmann, pp. 10–15, for the text. F.C. Gentry, J.K. Walter, GermanEpic Poetry (New York 1995), pp. 1–8. See also Ehrismann, pp. 121–137, for ananalysis of the languages used. See Watanabe-O’Kelly, p. 25f., Boesch, p. 19f.,Murdoch, pp. 55–64. Also Bostock, pp. 33–72, who places the lay into the wholecontext of the Nibelungenlied and of the Thidrekssaga . De Boor, pp. 65–71.



208

contemporary of the Atlilied . The lay is not a reliable historical source.In the Nibelungenlied , the old master-at-arms Hildebrand will assume

the role of Dietrich’s loyal paladin, his devoted companion-in-arms.The character is an epic ction. The tradition works with the partlyunhistorical premise that Odoakar had forced Theoderic out of Italyand that then Theoderic had sought refuge among the Huns, fromwhere he returned with an army to regain what was his. In all prob-ability the arrival of the Visigoths under Alaric and their departurefrom Italy at the beginning of the 5th century and the arrival of theOstrogoths under Theoderic, who had spent years with and underthe Huns, at the end of the 5th century owed together in thismytho-poetic account of events. A ctitious Hildebrand was inTheoderic’s retinue. Probably of 7th century Lombardic origin, thename ending— brand identi es the names as Lombardic, the storyquite naturally kindled interest in Bavaria, owing to the historic rela-tionship, where it was rewritten c. 770/790. During the early 9thcentury (c. 810?) monks at Fulda reworked it as part of their mis-sionary activity in the Low German speaking regions. 183 Around 850two monks at Fulda copied it alternatively on the inside covers of

a prayer book. It ends short because the copyist ran out of space.As it is the only example of early Germanic heroic poetry the frag-ment bears considerable responsibility representing others of the samekind. Beginning and end are framed in objective, descriptive narra-tive prose. By contrast the core of the poem concentrates the tragicinner action economically through dialogue.

Why was just this work preserved in this fashion? What sense of importance did the scribes attach to the poem? Of that version only68 lines of alliterative verse have survived by the skin of their teeth.They have literary merit in their own right.

The opening line of the Hildebrandslied, Ik gihorta dat seggen, ‘I heardit said’, introduces a story of tragic irony, the deadly confrontationof father and son. Champions in front of their respective battle linesHildebrand, returning after thirty (sixty summers and winters) yearsfrom exile and distant wars, and his son Hadubrand, protecting hisland will ght to the death, because the son refuses to believe thathis father is still alive. In all fairness, Hildebrand never really identi ed

183 Wallace-Hadrill, p. 379, suggests the recipient to have been a Saxon noble visiting Fulda.



, 209

himself clearly. Following the challenge to the customary preceding single combat the poet describes how each armed himself and mounted

his horse and rode out to ght. Hildebrand, being older and moreexperienced, asks who in the army was Hadubrand’s father, so hemight know to which family he belonged, as he knew all men of nobility. He names Hildebrand as his father, who once ed beforethe anger of Odoakar with Dietrich/Theoderic, leaving behind a

young wife and orphaned and dispossessed infant. In Dietrich’s service he proved himself to be his favorite blade, always rst in theattack and pleased to ght, known to all brave men. Hadubranddoubted whether his father was still alive. Thereupon Hildebrandremoved from his arms bracelets made from imperial gold coins,which the king of the Huns, Attila, had personally given him andoff ered them to his son as a token of good will and perhaps pater-nal a ff ection. On the other hand, lled with distrust Hadubrandrejected the possible family tie and replied that one should onlyreceive such gifts on the tip of one’s lance. He continues to suspecttreachery and that the other was as cunning as he was old, callshim alter Hun —old Hun, and that his enticing words were a mere

ruse so he could hurl his spear at an unsuspecting opponent. Travelersfrom beyond the sea had told him of the death of his father Hilde-brand, son of Herebrand. It is doubly ironic that while Hadubrandis so blinded by the reputation of his presumed dead father, that hecannot accept the encounter with that father, the love for his sondoes not wipe away the years of absence. Clearly Hadubrand’s mock-ing tone in the exchange is irritating, especially in front of the drawnup battle lines. One is reminded of the provocative, tragic dialogueof antagonists advancing toward the dramatic crisis in the presenceof a chorus. Hildebrand recognized by the other’s arms that heserved a generous king, had never su ff ered exile and that now asGod’s judgment, welaga, waltant got, wewurt skihit , (ln. 49, note thealliteration on w) a woeful fate would take its course. He had livedthrough the battles of sixty summers and winters, thirty years, andnow his son’s sword was to end his life, or he would end that of his son. The text allows us to conclude that Hildebrand felt the irre-

versible designation ‘cunning old Hun’ so keenly insulting to him-self and his honor, that reconciliation was no longer possible andthe duel inevitable. Only the most cowardly of eastern ghters wouldnow still refuse combat. Proud de ance in view of the two battlelines gives neither of them a choice, but to ght to the death. The



210

combat cannot be avoided. If Hadubrand had the inner need andthe strength he should try to strip him of his arms. A duel would

decide who would have possession of two sets of weapons and armor.They rode against one another with their ashen spears in the Gothicmanner of ghting, so that the points stuck in the shields, contin-ued (on foot?) till their shields were broken by their weapons. . . . Atthis point the manuscript breaks o ff , short only a few concluding lines. Regardless of the outcome, the price of victory will be high. 184

From other, Scandinavian, sources one can conclude that the fatherslays the son. Complicated circumstances bring on the tragedy. Thelay belongs into the context, which re ects the personal ethics of theghting entourages for which the virtues of reputation, bravery, loy-alty and honor are the supreme principles. These the son praises inhis father, presumed dead, but now force the father to demonstratethem to his son and end by killing him in combat. The Germanicfatalism, the awareness of human limitations, the belief in a woefuldestiny, wewurt , is the operative principle. Fate would have it thatamong all the possible opposing frontline ghters, the choice wouldfall on father and son. The fear of death is not an issue. Although

an appeal is made to a waltant got , this appeal to the judgment of the Christian God is only a super cial reference. Inner Germanicprinciples of loyalty and heroism are very much still in place. Meritis shown externally in the possession of rich ornaments, ne weaponsand armor. The father’s inner tragic anguish is left to the sensitiv-ity of the audience. The individual is the executor of his own fate.At the mercy of wewurt , his own relentless, disastrous misfortune, hebrings it down upon himself through his own actions. He knows fullwell that resistance to the causal enchainment of the will of fate isbeyond human intervention and would not avert what was destined.Without Christian recourse the Germanic hero faces his tragic fate,his wewurt , as God’s law without compromising his loyalty. That giftsshould be exchanged cautiously on the tips of lances re ects some-thing of the hostile mercenary spirit of the tribal units, when tribaland family members sought and accepted service with sometimesopposing forces, but where honor, reputation and the oath of loyaltyranked above family ties and would compel family members to ght

184 Innes, State and Society, p. 130f. places the con ict into the context of honorand ritual violence.



, 211

one another to the death. Was there a balance between personalemotions and the adherence to the code of conduct? Facing one’s

fate outweighed all other considerations. No doubt such attitudeswere at odds with Christian teaching and not welcome. Such wasthe situation here and in case such con ict was not thought to bepossible, in the opening line the poet, not to be accused of hubris— inordinate pride, makes use of a typical introductory epic formulaand assumes the role of the objective reporting medium and not of the inventor of the story of the poem. He assures his audience thatthe story is not a ction, which he has made up. That this hap-pened is documented for 451 in the battle against Attila, when thetribes, fathers and sons, were probably aligned on opposing sides.

In 880 the East Frankish king Ludwig the Younger, son of Ludwig the German, had defeated a force of Vikings at the Battle of Thiméonon the River Sambre, with a death toll of 5000 Vikings. In 881 theWest Frankish king, Louis III, son of Louis the Stammerer andgrandson of Charles the Bald, defeated a raiding Viking force at thebattle of Saucourt, in Picardy. It was a rare victory against DanishVikings. This event was recorded in the Ludwigslied ,185 at a time when

Louis III was still alive. Ludwig the Younger died after a long ill-ness in 882. Louis III died in 882 after crashing his horse into adoorframe in pursuit of a young lady. The poem of fty-nine linesof rhyming verse, is a baladesque song of praise to a young king named Ludwig, both warrior king and servant of God, written in aRhinefrankish dialect as spoken in the western kingdom. Why itshould have been written in German is a puzzle, all the more curiousas it is contained in an Old French context, unless it was indeedwritten for the Rhinefrankish court at Frankfurt, the residence of Lud-wig the Younger. This original poem in OHG di ff ers from the otherlays in that it focuses on a single, current event, without historicalcontext and not yet veiled in myth. The setting and thought patternof the narrative, though military, is entirely didactically Christian.

185 Hauk, Vollenbach, pp. 146–149, for the full bilingual text. See Watanabe-O’Kelly, p. 22f. Also Boesch, p. 19. See Murdoch, pp. 93–100, for a brief histor-ical discussion. See also Bostok, pp. 201–207. Wallace-Hadrill, p. 387f. Ehrismann,

pp. 228–236. de Boor, p. 90f. Also Nelson, ‘The Literacy of the laity’, in McKitterick,The Carolingians , pp. 232 ff . who discusses the possible Latin model for this poemand the possibility that the king in question was actually Ludwig the Younger, whoin 880 had defeated a force of Vikings at the battle of Thiméon, in icting 5000dead on the invaders.



212

In keeping with Carolingian ideology, the divine plan is implementedupon the death of the young king’s father and God’s choice to take

the king under his tutelage in the role of magaczogo, (ln. 4), his tutorand educator, when he succeeded to the throne at about 16 yearsof age. The king is away ghting in distant regions. The realm isin confusion. God causes the Vikings to invade. The Viking incur-sion is a foil to test the virtues of the king and a punishing admo-nition of the Frankish people for their life of theft and lies and othersins. As God’s instrument, the Vikings are a function. We learn noth-ing about them. Now Louis is charged by God to act as savior-heroof the Chosen People of God, the Franks. Louis proclaims himself to be God’s messenger so that it can be anticipated that the victorywill be his. Following his submission to the will of Christ he invitesall who are true to the faith to follow, as he also promises bene ces,earthly, feudal, rewards to those who will join his banners. Armedwith shield and spear, he rides out and soon nds the intruders andthe battle line of the Franks intones a ‘Kyrie eleison. Sang was gisungan,wig was bigunnan; bluot skein in wangon, spilodun ther Vrankon’ . ‘After thesong was sung, the battle was begun, blood shone on the meadows

during the feats of arms of the Franks.’ No other ghts as bravelyas Ludwig, splitting one and piercing another, serving his foes a bit-ter wine. We are not told whether the Franks ght on horseback,though we can conclude that Louis will not have dismounted with-out cause. They praise the power of the Lord and thank all thesaints, because Ludwig and the Franks, God’s Chosen ChristianPeople, have remained victorious over the Vikings and paganism.And they extol his prowess and hail the king for the felicity bestowedon him by God. Because he was where and when he was supposedto be there, God should keep him in his grace. Evidently the poemwas intended to have propaganda value and was itself proof of theimportance of letters in politics. 186

A work written in Latin that is both conclusion and new begin-ning is the Waltharius .187 The arguments concerning its date of creation,

186 Nelson, ‘Literacy’ in McKitterick, The Carolingians , p. 232.187 Hauk, Vollenbach, pp. 163–259, for the bilingual text, Latin and NHG. See

Bostock, pp. 224–234, for a discussion of the plot. Also Watanabe-O’Kelly, p. 27f.See Wallace-Hadrill, p. 388f. See Innes, ‘Teutons or Trojans?’ in Hen and Innes,Uses of the Past , p. 246, who proposes that the Latin version is the one to survivefrom among Germanic, Old English and Romance versions from southern France,Italy and Spain.



, 213

authorship and place of origin are extensive and unresolved. Onetheory sees it to be a West-Frankish work written during the rst

half of the 9th century, another places it into the end of the 9thcentury and a third attributes it to St. Gallen during the early 10thcentury. The court library at Aachen, the Reichenau and St. Gallenare all mentioned in this context. St. Gallen before 926 appears tobe the most probable place of origin. 188 The discussion is equallymeandering when it comes to the question of the epic’s origins.Because the material is known in an Anglo-Saxon and Old Englishfragmentary source, the Waldere , some claim for it a lost Germanicoral tradition of heroic lays, a Waltharilied , of interlinked Germanictribal accounts stressing the familiar themes discussed earlier, aboutbravery, honor, loyalty, heroic combat, reputation, treasures of goldand so forth. In the accomplished Latinization form and themesappear to have been strongly in uenced by Latin Classical authors.Visigothic/Aquitainian, Alemanic and Bavarian sources have alsobeen suggested. The exiled Aquitainian Ermoldus Nigellus has beenput forward as the actual author. 189 Walthari fragments appear tohave found their way into such Norse literature as the Thidrekssaga

and the Nibelungenlied .Brie y summarized the plot follows a vague historical framework.Following his conquests of the west, hostages are taken to the courtof the Huns: the young Frank Hagano, the Burgundian princess Hilt-gund and her ancé, the Aquitainian Waltharius. At Attila’s courtHagano and Waltharius become blood brothers and rise to militaryleadership. Upon hearing of the death of the old king of the Franksand the accession to the throne of Guntharius, Hagano ees andsoon after Waltharius and Hiltgund follow. Guntharius hears thatthese two carry a large treasure, which he wants to seize. Haganoadvises against the deed but Guntharius can’t be dissuaded and withtwelve warriors takes up the pursuit. In a narrow pass in the VosgesMountains, Guntharius demands the treasure and the bride and whenWaltharius refuses to hand them over a ght ensues. The narrow passallows only single combat and Waltharius kills the Franks, including

188

Hauk, Vollenbach, pp. 1169 ff . for a lengthy review of possible origins. Bertau,p. 67f. and Ehrismann, p. 395, support this position. Ehrismann suggests it to bean assignment to demonstrate Latin writing skills. For de Boor it is a 9th centurywork. See Bostock, pp. 234 ff . See also Werner, in Godman and Collins, pp. 102 ff .

189 Werner, in Godman and Collins, p. 109f.



214

Hagano’s nephew. Hagano has stayed out of the ght despite chal-lenges to his courage. Out of loyalty and the honor of his king

Hagano declares his readiness to ght his blood brother Walthariuson the next morning. When Waltharius confronts Hagano with theirrelationship and their mutual loyalty as friends, Hagano raises theissue of the slain nephew. Hagano’s inner tragic turmoil bears littleemphasis and the question about the loyalties and revenge is notclearly developed. The ending turns into a farce: Guntharius losesa leg, Waltharius his right hand, but knocks out Hagano’s eye withhis left and injures the latter’s jaw. All three survive and Hiltgundbandages them all up. Over their wine they mock their mutilations.The epic ends with a vos salvat Jesu, ‘May Jesus bless you’.

The gures are ctitious. Hagano and Guntharius will reappearin the Nibelungenlied . Since it is not yet the time of the medievalromances, love is not the mainspring of the relationship, but mas-culine bravery, ghting prowess, true friendship and loyalty in theface of treachery and greed. The inner con ict rests within Hagano,though this too is not fully worked out. The ending of the poem issomething of a parody of heroic motifs. Perhaps it intimates a gen-

tle criticism of the misdirected secular interests on the part of thespiritually oriented cloistered groups.Many copies of the Waltharius manuscript exist, suggesting its

monastic popularity, far into the Middle Ages. It is a long epic work written in 1456 Latin hexameters by a German speaker and in thatsense it interrupts the Carolingian e ff orts to write in German andreintroduces the use of Latin within the succeeding Ottonian scribalculture.

In summation it is possible to say that trace elements of earlierGermanic oral traditions were incorporated into the written versionsof the heroic epics, which were not compatible with the ideals of aHeavenly Kingdom on earth. Ostrogothic vestiges dealing withTheoderic the Great are remembered in the Hildebrandslied and theThidrekssaga . Frankish, Burgundian, Alemanic and Hunnish elementswere subsumed in the Nibelungenlied.Frisian materials provided thelost lines of the Gudrun stories. Regrettably nothing of this oral tra-dition was to exist in its own right.

On the periphery of the selection of works described, there is anextensive number of small practical works in the vernacular consist-ing of such functional texts as baptismal vows, Lord’s Prayers andcommentaries, Alemanic translations of Psalms, the narrated dialogue



, 215

of Christ and the Woman of Samaria, lays of St. Peter, St. George,fables and animal epics, and an assortment of blessings, incantations

and spells. In the context of the universal Latin scribal culture, workswritten in German are a signi cant and noteworthy curiosity. Thecreation of a written German language was itself a signi cant featsince it required the adjustment of Germanic orthography and soundsystem to the system of Latin letters, the invention of words, con-cepts and a exible syntax to express the abstract ideas containedin a Greco-Latin Christianity. Special care had to be taken to avoidheretical mistranslations. The idea of writing in German thereforehad to be approached with caution and courage, while the linguis-tic potential of German as a su fficiently applicable tool had to bedared to be discovered. That this was accomplished quite early inthe circle around Alcuin is demonstrated by the translation into realrather than Latinized German of Isidore of Seville’s De de catholica contra Judaeos , translated c. 790/800, deemed to have been the mostaccomplished of translated prose so early in the period. In his work Isidore (c. 560–636) defends the Christian faith and the Trinityagainst the objections of the Jews. Nothing tangible appears to have

come of Charlemagne’s supposed instructions to formulate a Germangrammar and to prepare the written collection of Germanic lays andpoems. If this truly had been his intention then it may have playeda role in contributing to an intellectual climate in which the devel-opment not only of a written German language, but perhaps alsosomething of a German ethnic sense could have been advanced.This did, of course, not come into being till the late Ottonian period.

During Charlemagne’s reign this supposed promotion of a unify-ing German vernacular in the realm would have been incompatiblewith his persuasion to establish the universal Imperium Christianumbased on Latin. In retrospect the use of OHG was no more thanan experimental excursion of a peripheral nature, a chance survival,too often mere fragments recorded in the margins of other texts.Most of them are no more than markers in the gradual emergenceof a literature in German. With Latin as the language of all learn-ing and as the literary language par excellence, the return to Latinwas a rejoining of the mainstream of intellectual pursuits consistentwith the renovatio romanorum imperii and with the principles of theCarolingian recapitulation, even though, from the viewpoint of anevolving vernacular literature in German, it may appear to havebeen a regressive step as an entertaining secular alternative to the



216

edifying religious literature in the context of the convents and monas-teries. It leads into the Latin Middle Ages and away from the use

of the vernacular. Within the transition the Waltharius poem is nota stopgap. It is at best a tangent in the continuity of early Germanliterature. A literature in the German vernacular, at this time, couldnot compete but only begin to develop at best on a short-lived, com-plementary, parallel course to Latin. We know next to nothing aboutthe OHG literary output following the Carolingian turn to a German

vernacular literature. The Ottonian period lacks any signi cant OHGliterary contributions. Nearly two centuries will have to pass, beforewritten German begins to reestablish itself in the secular literature.It will take much longer before it will claim a space in religion.

XI. The cloister arts

Very impressive is a owering of such portable arts as manuscript/book illuminations, ivory carving and the work in metals which establishedthe East Frankish kingdom in a position of leadership in Europe.

Examples of Carolingian architecture and of some wall painting arestill in evidence today. In our discussion of these art forms thissequence shall be observed.

In a general overview the Carolingian intercultural relationshipsare re ected in common continuing elements in architecture, the artsand crafts, commissioned by the culture-carrying institutions and the

various continuing levels of society as the late Roman world and theCelto-Germanic north were each recon gured by the other. As wasdemonstrated elsewhere, 190 in the east only small, isolated enclavesof Latini , of ‘Roman Christians’ survived in southern Germany, con-tributing much vocabulary for fruit and vegetables, but next to noClassical in uences. Though there were cultural beginnings of anindigenous sort, in the end the Romano-Frankish in uences had notpenetrated very deeply, the stylistic in uence was imported when theFranks gained the hegemony over accessible parts of Central Europeand West-Frankish, Irish and Anglo-Saxon monasteries set up a ffiliatefoundations there under the auspices of the Franks. With the Irishcame the Celtic Insular Style , best re ected in the somewhat later Book

190 Schutz, Germanic Realms , p. 289, also Tools, Weapons and Ornaments , p. 74.



, 217

of Kells , an artistic amalgamation of the earlier Celtic and polychromedecorative styles of northern intertwines of abstract, curvilinear, veg-

etative and animal complexes of surface ornamentation, as appliedto the rst Lindau Gospel cover and on parts of the Tassilo Chalice andon other religious vessels and in the exquisitely illuminated gospelsand sacramentaries. The so-called Carolingian Renaissance was to selectan emphasis on representational, message carrying art as part of a

Mediterraneanizationduring the Christianization. The gains of the ‘re-birth’ came at an artistic price, the gradual loss of the northernabstract, non-representative, dismembered, organic, vegetative, orna-mental, calligraphic and purely decorative, erratically dynamic designsevident in Northern Bronze Age and Celtic ornamental styles, 191

nally best illustrated by the Insular Style , best displayed by the openform intertwines of The Book of Kells , which itself represents the crown-ing end-phase of the style. In return northern Europe gained func-tional, representative, static, tectonic, closed forms, of an iconographicand narrative nature. 192 Although these objective, positive and opaquestylistic elements had been introduced to the Roman provinces northof the Alps by the Romans, they were not so rmly established when

the Romans departed during the 5th century. The few Latini thatstayed behind could not exert enough in uence to retain these styl-istic elements. Instead the Irish and Anglo-Saxon missions introducedfor a time the preoccupation with the subjective, negative trans-parency of things. Rather than re ect the monumental world of solids, the northern artists and craftsmen engaged in the non-mon-umental, in the perforation of the surface, as though more interestedin the suggestive potential of an implied presence of matter than inits stated, visible external forms. The preoccupation with the organic,both vegetative and animal, with transition and movement, domi-nated some artistic expression, providing one of the two poles, thougha weakening one, between which the development of a Carolingianstyle was to emerge. The other pole was provided by the dominantform of Mediterranean artistic expression, solid, static optical e ff ectsof compact form. The two will be fused in the particular innovation

191

H. Schutz, The Prehistory of Germanic Europe (New Haven, London 1983), pp.125–190, 243–307. See also C. Farr, The Book of Kells, Its Function and Audience (London, Toronto 1997).

192 H. Schutz, The Romans in Central Europe (New Haven, London 1985), pp.85–137.



218

of Carolingian art, the narrative style. Its rst manifestations willbecome evident in the co-existential representation of sequential

events.A review of the discussion of continental pre-Christian Celto-

Germanic artistic traditions shows a lack of concern for the realis-tic representation of human beings. It admitted dismembered humanbody parts, animal forms and occasional masks, but the activities of man were excluded. This avoidance of the human gure had anabstract and transcendental e ff ect on the treatment of animal andornamental forms, interpreted mainly in curvilinear designs and vege-tative traceries. It made no direct use of perceptual information inthat it did not consider nature with analytical eyes in order to imi-tate nature line by line. Observable nature was not its point of depar-ture and realistic representations were not its objective. It was mostcomfortable by expressing itself in the minor arts adorning portableobjects. Classical styles re ect the disciplined study and reproductionof the symmetrical structure of the de ned form of harmonious pro-portions, where the relation of the whole to its parts and of theframe to its contents is carefully contrived and e fficiently presented.

This art belongs entirely to the human world, appeals to the senses,is rationalistic and intellectual rather than emotional. Its contempla-tion is guided by the deliberate focus on a speci c message. The

viewer’s autonomy is placed under restraints to see what he has beenequipped to know. By contrast the northern expressions of style, asillustrated in manuscripts and metal engravings, set out from theobservation of movement and the intricacies of vegetative forms,become involved, intricate, restless and dynamic, asymmetrical andobscure and full of discord, in a fusion of fantastic hybrid creaturescoiled in serpentine intertwines, tangled tendrils, interlaced open-work, skeleton-tracery silhouetted against open space, as though invit-ing the viewer to focus not on the physical surface of the object,but on some abstract, unde ned space seen through a lattice, encour-aging a disbelief in the material solidity of objects. The contempla-tion of these forms is not impeded or channeled by message orientedprescriptions, thereby allowing the viewer unrestrained meditativeautonomy, restricted only by the limits of the imagination. However,despite the extraordinary and exulting artistry of combined exquis-ite sensibility of color, extravagant intricacy of patterning and theexuberant indulgent use of ornament for its own sake, familiar fromthe Germanic bulas and buckles, they were too purely esthetic and



, 219

symbolic in their intention and hence deemed too non-communica-tive for their intended purposes. All things representative were con-

verted into purely linear calligrams of an inde nable, at best symbolictype. Even though the change of taste re ected in the artistic con uencehad taken place since the beginning of the 8th century, composedof the humanistic Christianity and the northern abstract styles, theresultant ornamental abstractions were deemed too limited as formsof Christian expression. 193 The progressing modi cations shown onthe illuminated pages of the Book of Kells , in the engraver’s artistryon the Tassilo Chalice and the candle sticks at Kremsmünster, andon the rst cover of the Lindau Gospel , to name four, are a testimonyto the transition and synthesis. The gural representations of the twodedications contained in Hrabanus Maurus’ Liber de laudibus sanctae crucis , the three gures including Hrabanus and the gure of king Louis the Pious, discussed above, illustrate well the ultimate point of arrival.

It has been demonstrated above, and especially in the ‘portrait’of Louis the Pious as the emperor in Christ, that the historicalprocesses of the late Merovingian and Carolingian periods were intent

on establishing an imperial consciousness supported by ideas of auniversal Christianity. Enthusiastic abstract meditative autonomy,exploiting the possible levels of meaning and understanding, was notto be entertained and if it was not rationally based and focused onthe message of salvation through the Christian dogma, if it couldnot tell this story clearly, it could have no future in the educationalrole of Christian art. It proved a distraction from the faith ratherthan contributing to its appeal and spread.

Considering the suspicion with which the consideration of imageswas treated, it is not surprising that non-representative abstractionswould be highly suspect. In the Iconoclasm dispute between Eastand West, 194 Charlemagne condemned the worship of images as hea-then but favored the use of paintings in churches as a means of informing the illiterate of the Biblical stories by seeing on walls whatthey cannot read in books. To him pictures were inferior to books.Others, like Hrabanus Maurus, were convinced of the superiority of

193 Hinks, pp. 72–93.194 L. Nees, ‘Art and Architecture’, in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History,

pp. 817–822.



220

books and that pictures seduced the innocent and were snares forthe unwary, while Theodulf of Orleans was persuaded that pictures

inclined the mind to falseness rather than the truth. 195 The discus-sion was clearly one between one position, which saw in colorfulpictorial representation an appeal to the senses and the emotions bymeans of visual a ff ects, and another, which wanted to direct theindividual toward the intellect and the spirit. The narrow view isunderstandable if one considers that Christianity saw itself as a lit-erate faith in which God’s Word had been revealed in books, theOld Testament and the Gospels. In the end and in keeping withthe pronouncement of pope Gregory I wall painting became a pub-lic means of bringing the faith to life for the unlettered. The illu-mination of pages of manuscript became a private means. Each of the two distinct genres, of course, was subject to its own rules andsensibilities.

However, what could Hrabanus Maurus have had in mind withhis warning? His own Liber de laudibus sanctae crucis , with its dedica-tional pictures and the many illustrations of the cross, would con-tradict him, were it not for his synthesis of texts in pictures and the

decoration of letters. Any number of examples such as the DrogoSacramentary, or the Folchard Psalter (Plate 2a) can be arrayed to demon-strate that for the Carolingians the calligraphic display letters in thetexts were charged with symbolic energy and meaningful imagery.In view of the existence and use of Irish enhanced illuminated man-uscripts in St. Gallen, Fulda and other monasteries, it is unlikely thatthe opponents of ornamental and pictorial illustrations seriously wantedto promote the unillustrated book. 196

Charlemagne’s conquests in Italy had reinforced the direct link with late Classical forms and had motivated a rather sudden impe-tus in that direction. As has been demonstrated, the Classical her-itage in its many Christian Roman and Byzantine representationswas given a rolemodel function, though it was not always under-stood. The Mediterranean outlook and its e ff ect on all the arts, not

just the cloister arts, were to be particularly profound and virtuallypermanent. It must be kept in mind, however, that the dependence

195 McKitterick, ‘Text and Image’ in McKitterick, Uses of Literacy, p. 297f. SeeWallace-Hadrill, pp. 217–225. Especially Nees, Mantle , pp. 21 ff . for a discussion of Theodulf ’s poetry.

196 McKitterick, ‘Scholarship’, in Frankish Kingdoms , pp. 215 ff .



, 221

of the Carolingian artists on Classical models did not take into con-sideration a chronological sequence of the models. The Classical

work to be copied was usually in the hands of the copyist. In thecase of the book illustrations an attempt to classify Carolingian worksin a sequential stylistic chronology will be frustrated. Though appar-ently imitative, the works in ivory were entirely innovative. In viewof the lack of new ivory, old Roman ivories were split or shavedand reused as raw material for new artistic expression.

XII. Illuminated manuscripts—Evangelists

It will be demonstrated that while the available wall paintings provided an insight into the artistic expression available to a wider pub-lic, the prestigious illuminated manuscripts were the reserve of aselect few. The manuscripts were hidden from light and undue usein monastic libraries or in churches, prepared as liturgical gifts and

votive o ff erings for religious foundations of choice. With the Irishmonks and their manuscripts came their highly accomplished man-

ner of illustrating/illuminating books in what is known as the Insular Style . During the early Carolingian period it spread throughout thenorthern Frankish realm and was of considerable in uence in char-acterizing early manuscripts of the period. It a ff ected lettering ingeneral, but the capital display initials particularly. These were toretain Insular elements even as these became blended with Anglo-Saxon and Frankish elements. The typical asymmetrical, organicdetails of this style have been dealt with above, enough to help formworking impressions: large, highly calligraphically ornamented initialcapital letters, interlaced with nervous zoomorphic and anthropo-morphic suggestions, vegetative tendrils, animated intertwines andoverlays, dismembered, alien and distorted animal shapes for orna-mental purposes, as surprisingly intricate enhancements of words, asdecorations in interlaced lines of text or as unexpected, imaginativedesigns placed in the margins. An unfamiliar, startlingly beautifulornamentational mentality revealed itself. The in uences of this dec-orative style on early Carolingian works, whether on parchment oron metallic surfaces, were eclectic. Owing to the di fficulty in ascer-taining the date of a manuscript’s arrival in a library it is appro-priate to underemphasize the in uential role, which an illuminatedmanuscript may have played in relation to other manuscripts. Su ffice



222

it to assign to individual manuscripts a generic rather than a speci cfunction. It shall not be the intention here to present a compre-

hensive survey of manuscripts, but to provide an overview of sometypical examples. As was mentioned above, it will not be realistic totry to present a reliable developmental chronology of the CarolingianStyle of manuscript ornamentation, since such a coherent style didnot come into being. Too many concurrent factors contributed theirformative roles toward that recon guration during this Carolingianrecapitulation. 197 During the last decades of the 8th century this reca-pitulation was to come into being.

At St. Gallen, Codex 51 would fall into this category. 198 Dated toc. 750, it is an elaborately ornamented manuscript, which may havebeen brought there at a later date, for it is not listed among theLibri scottice scripti . Not as lavish in the use of gold, silver and pur-ple, it and others like it are richer than the small books, whichreached St. Gallen in the pack of an Irish monk on his peregrina-tion. A description of several pages of this illuminated manuscriptwill have to represent the whole book. (Plate 2b) Its Irish origin isreadily recognizable from its ornamentation. It probably precedes

the Book of Kells by a few decades, and its ornamental pages di ff erfrom that work, in that the purely ornamental pages of this Codexsuggest greater rational organization of the page. For a start thedesigns placed on the page are contained in a restricted rectangu-lar frame, in as many as ve frames separated by dividing lines,rather than occupying an unbounded area on a page. They mayresemble the disposition of a carpet. Frames in yellow, brown andlight blue advance into the center of page six. In fact the color‘brown’, actually purple, dominates the designs. Except for the lightblue accents, reddish brown and beige are the overall impressionsof color throughout the manuscript. The carpet page is then arrangedin symmetrical patterns with identical blocked brown and yellow‘meander’ designs in the four corners, six swastika designs in varia-tion are placed in systematic arrangement across the page, followedby symmetrically placed T designs in the frame, ornamented with

197

R. McKitterick, ‘Royal Patronage of Culture in the Frankish kingdoms underthe Carolingians: Motives and Consequences’, in Frankish Kings and Culture , pp. 103 ff .for manuscripts and their possible patrons.

198 See Duft and Meyer, Die Irischen Miniaturen der Stiftsbibliothek St. Gallenfor adetailed analysis of this Codex with related manuscripts.



, 223

an intricate single strand intertwined braid, the stem reaching intothe center, meeting a cross in the center of the page. The surface

of the cross is covered with elongated sling band spirals. The fourrectangular spaces around the cross are once again framed in lightblue against a black background, just as the whole page, but arelled with the kind of zoomorphic interlace familiar from the animal style . Bird like heads with eyes and beaks, snapping jaws, craning necks and elongated reptilian bodies writhe in the available space,only now arranged with space lling logic within each rectangle.What once were unrestrained animal designs of intertwining linear-ity have been systematized and placed under control in de ned areas.The cross dominates the center.

Analogous to the famous, large initial page of the Book of Kells , inCodex 51 the initial page of the Gospel of St. Matthew faces the car-pet page just described with a page of display lettering. Once againthe overall color impression is reddish brown/purple and beige withlight blue accents. The large display initials XPI , the Christogram,a short hand for the name of Christ, using the X-shaped Greek let-ter Chi, P-shaped Rho and I of the Christ-monogram, occupy about

two-thirds of the available space. Larger than any design on the fac-ing page these letters are placed along the left and top of the page.While the right frame is composed of the design seen in the cor-ners of the previous frame, the bottom and a small piece of the topbears the same design of intricate single strand intertwined braidmentioned above. The left frame is split diagonally by the descend-ing left leg of the large capital X, forming wedge shaped spandrelsof the left frame. This leg extends so far down that it breaks throughthe frame of the page completing its terminal of spiral designs andbeaked heads well outside the frame, a vestige of the earlier Celticstyle. The spandrels are ornamented with the familiar elongatedwhirling sling band spirals and cresting wave patterns. Indeed all of the previous designs reappear in the ornamental spaces on this ini-tial page. New are the interlocking multicolored, cresting wave orpaisley designs, which ll the space between the right arms of theletter Chi. Uncolored strips separate the letters from the other orna-mentation. Very reminiscent of the designs of the Book of Kells is thefeline head, gaping mouth, icking tongue and clawed paw of theframe fragment at the top of the page. The letter Rho is the elon-gated neck, canine head and ravenous jaws, overlapping the letterI . Intertwining S -shapes ll the spaces within the curvatures, while



224

the letters Rho and I are made up of dot-designs. This design of dots lls the outlines of the Christ-monogram. A wedge-shaped design

in reddish brown/purple, beige, blue and black intrudes into thespace left between the stems of the letters P and I . The remaining space bears the words autemgeneratio (sic), the beginning of Christ’sgenealogy. At the bottom, written in black pen, the beautiful cur-sive calligraphy of the Book of Kells,sic erat .

The next page to be considered is the author-page of the Evan-gelist St. John. Here the e ffigy of St. John serves to identify theGospel. The Evangelists of this codex are not shown against a back-ground and are not actually shown writing. (Plates 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d)In pre-Carolingian context, the Gospel of St. John tended to be seenas the primary Gospel and it will be found that this persisted intothe Carolingian period when the St. John representations were placedin the top left hand corner. The reason for this may lie with theopening sentence of his Gospel: In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . ( John 1:1). This page echoesthe process also in evidence in the Book of Kells , the human e ffigybeing placed into a sacred space at the center of the page with the

concomitant marginalization of the calligraphic ornamentation. Using the same colors, the page is divided into three vertical areas. Thecentral space is occupied by the standing Evangelist with his emblem,the eagle, above him. Two strips of single strand intertwining braidprovide the frame above and below the e ffigy. The two anking areas are subdivided into frames of two sectioned strips of variedornamentation each, interrupted halfway by two ornamented discs.The sections of the frames generally depict designs in diagonal sym-metry. The designs, which ll the sections, are familiar from the pre-

viously discussed carpet page. New are two elds of braided stepsand two others lled with upright and inverted mushroom cap designs.The discs are also ornamented with the same space lling wave andpaisley patterns noticed previously. The Evangelist faces the viewerfrontally, a pose still reserved for those of the highest esteem. Exceptfor his skin tones the colors are the familiar purple for his halo andgarment and light blue for his symmetrically styled hair and hisundershirt. In his hands he holds a book like shape, probably hisgospel. The garment is a folded mantle with the front panels thrownover his arms.

The author-page representing the Evangelist St. Mark advancesthe process further. Without emblem, his identity is indicated through



, 225

placement of the illuminated page in the text. The same intertwin-ing single strand braid frames the gure above and below the stand-

ing gure. The four corners are anchored by rectangular eldscontaining the tetramorphs; the eagle of St. John top left, the angelof Matthew top right, the lion of St. Mark bottom left and a vaguerepresentation that by virtue of the crossed hoofed legs can only bethe calf of St. Luke bottom right. The crossed paws of the lion dis-tinguish that emblem clearly. Only the angel is shown frontally, theothers are in pro le facing right. Colorations and details of designare selected at random. Two identical angular composites of thefamiliar decorative motifs complete the frames on both sides. Gar-ments and hairstyle are variations of the dispositions seen on theEvangelist St. John. The non- gurative ornamentation on the ear-lier pages has been reduced to a minimum.

There is something hurried about the completion of the page fea-turing the cruci ed Christ. The colors are the same as before. Thehorizontal frames are a highly simpli ed meander design, while the

vertical sides of the frame are no more that a very unimaginativesingle band of sliding knots. The corner squares are the same stepped

crosses from before. The page is dominated by ve anthropomorphicgures, two watching angels anking the head of Christ, Longinuswith the spear to the right and Stephaton with the sponge soakedin vinegar to the left. Except for his arms and legs, Christ is com-pletely wrapped up in a carefully wound purple cloth. Although allfaces are basically frontal, each face has features drawn in pro leand one ear, depending on whether the face is turned left or rightfacing Christ. On the same basis Christ faces to his right, but healso has two left feet. The hurried carelessness is particularly notice-able in the incomplete blue coloration of the background. With theexception of two overlooked corners of the areas above the cross,the two large elds below the cross are quite un nished. The spacebehind Longinus and below one of his feet has been colored blue,the other areas surrounding him have been left uncolored. The sameholds true for most of the spaces around Stephaton. The whole com-position was found to be o ff -center and so an additional strip of blueframe was drawn in on the right to correct the mistake. While thearms of the cross are blue and therefore the arms red, the foot of thecross is red and Christ’s legs are blue. There are a few other incon-sistencies. The colorist must have been thinking of something else.

No doubt Codex 51 at St. Gallen is a splendid Irish manuscript



226

with some spectacular incipit pages. However, it lacks the brilliant virtuosity of the later Book of Kells , when it comes to coloration, inge-

nuity of design and inventive creativity. This Codex shows less innovation and rather more repetitiveness of design and color. One setof original ideas is reused almost without authenticity, even without

variation in the context of the representational pages of the book.This manuscript too, shows the slowing down of the imaginativeprocesses, which animated the carpet pages of the Insular Style with-out projecting an ideological intention, in favor of a transition to thenew focus on the concentration of the central narrative salvationaltenets of the Christian faith. This transition is well illustrated on thepages described. The primacy of the ornamental delights of the purelydecorative intention of the carpet pages is relegated to the secondaryimportance of the frame, becomes ever more expendable, until itfalls off the page. It is a signi cant part of the transformationalprocess, which serves the vehicles of the Christian faith and is aclear expression of the progressing Carolingian stylistic development .

At the abbey of Kremsmünster in Lower Austria is preserved amanuscript dated to shortly before 800 known as the Codex Millenarius.

It was made in the Archdiocese of Salzburg and is associated withmonasteries of the region, Mondsee or perhaps even Kremsmünsteritself. The manuscript relates to the Cutbercht Codex .199 It re ects scantIrish or rather Anglo-Saxon in uences. (Plates 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d) TheBavarian relationship with northern Italy from Ostrogothic timesonward and then especially that between the dukes of Bavaria andthe kings of the Lombards is more likely to account for southerninuences on the manuscript. Late Classical prototypes exist. However,the discussion, to be found below, of the Tassilo Chalice will bring anadditional play of in uences into sharper focus.

In the Codex Millenarius , we shall nd that the restrained, centeredplacement in arcades of the Evangelist on the one hand and of thetetramorphs on the other, both without scenic background, recom-mends the continuance of a Greco-Roman tradition. This traditioninitially placed philosophers and then saints, then emperors, empressesand vice-roys into such arcade settings. These represent the idea of the fastigium, an important symbol of dignity and authority. The archmay also intend to evoque the gateway to the heavenly Jerusalem,

199 Bischoff , p. 41. F. Unterkircher, Buchmalerei , p. 22f. See also Braunfels, p. 89.



, 227

perhaps an abbreviation of the vision of the Temple in Jerusalem,even of the heavenly Jerusalem itself, and as such represents a sacred,

ritual space of passage. Among late Roman examples referred toelsewhere are Stilicho and his wife, each in an arcaded setting, thecurtained arcade on the ivory of a Byzantine empress or possibly of Theoderic’s daughter Amalasuintha, the placement of curtainedarcades with saints in Theoderic’s church San Appollinare NuovoinRavenna or San Appollinare in Clase , or of the ivory throne of Maximianin Ravenna. 200 The Carolingian ivory carvings will rely on this Romancontinuity as will the book illuminations of the Carolingian Gospelsof the Ada School. It will also be demonstrated below, how wallpaintings of Christ, angels and saints had been placed into arcadedniches and apses at Mals in northern Italy. The connection betweenBavaria and Italy was across the Brenner Pass. Arbeo of Freising,in Bavaria, came from Merano. In that sense the Codex Millenarius deserves our attention because with these arcade settings it providesexamples of yet another step toward the focus on the isolated,unadorned human e ffigy, the classicizing seated Evangelist in frontof his gospel compacted into an arcade setting, without bene t of

elaborate ornamentation. Even their tetramorphic symbols are placedin their own page-sized arcades. These severe arcades bear only aminimum of intertwined single band braid. Like a temple, thesearches also function as portals into a ritualistic sphere of knowledgeof sublime things, the knowledge of the one God manifest in theeight, which are actually four, which are the One Word, the divinelogos . The old Babylonian multiples of four recur in the wind direc-tions, the seasons, the elements, the zodiac, the four corners of heaven, of earth, the four streams of Paradise and the four pillarsof the church.

The Codex contains only eight full-page miniatures, the four-seatedEvangelists and their emblems. Throughout the Middle Ages thesewill become pictorial axioms. That the Evangelists and the tetramorphsare not actually paired in the same miniature suggests, aside fromovercrowding the available space and thereby compromising the sin-gular focus, that the artistic expression of an inherent, logical, the-ological link had not yet been nalized. There are also four largecapital initials, each at the beginning of one of the Gospels. These

200 W.F. Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten der Spätantike und des Frühen Mittelalters , dritte völ-lig neu bearbeitete Au age (Mainz 1976), p. 93, plates 72–74.



228

initials, especially the Q at the beginning of the Gospel according to Luke, betray an approximate link with the Insular Style . What merit

this manuscript has, its artistic merits are less signi cant. That thecoloration has been compromised is understandable. Gold and sil-

ver edgings on garments and arcades gave the illuminated pages con-siderable splendor. While the Irish manuscripts tried no more thanto represented the human form in a stylized manner, the gures andanimals presented in the Codex Millenarius attempt a lifelike repre-sentation. The Evangelists of this Codex are cast as author-portraits,though they are not actually writing. To do this successfully, thisilluminator was not very accomplished in his craft, not to say awk-ward. (Plates 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d) Thus St. Matthew’s right arm appearsto have two elbows. However, positioning the arm to reach to thechin is unusual for these works. Each Evangelist setting is two-dimen-sional, without any attempt to indicate depth. Each of the Evangelistsis shown holding essentially the same seated pose, the left shoulderturned slightly forward, the face frontal, sitting on a stool, each cov-ered with a variety of fabrics. The garments vary in color andarrangement about the body. The feet are placed on a dais; those

of Matthew and John are placed side by side. Mark and Luke havetheir right feet slightly pulled back. Two pairs of arms and handsare holding additional books, Matthew and Luke are not. The headsand faces are treated individually. Matthew and Mark each have afull head of gray hair owing about the shoulders and gray beards.Matthew’s beard is full, Luke’s is pointed. Mark and John are ton-sured with short brown and blond hair respectively. For some rea-son the illustrator arranged the four Evangelists in varying associationsof two. All four have halos. Above each Evangelist there is a hang-ing lamp, or perhaps a crown, suggesting that the Evangelists areplaced in niches. It is not surprising that the various parts of thebodies are not proportional. A lectern is placed in front of eachgure, bearing an opened gospel. While each dais attempts to be inperspective, the other surfaces are at up and down. The edges of each lectern are anked with sh—dolphin—representations, as arethe stands of the lecterns in front of Matthew and Mark. The standsof both of these are shaped as large contoured sh, their gaping mouths facing downward. The other lectern stands are squared posts.Each arcade has an individual treatment of the single band inter-twined gure-eight knots, symmetrically arranged. All of the framing arcades are composed of decorated columns, plinths and decorated



, 229

arches. The artist made no other attempts to create a sense of templearchitecture. Each of these gural representations rests on a solid base.

By contrast the tetramorphs are hovering without any base as aframe of reference. As emissaries of another dimension, they trans-mit the Gospels. Most impressive is the compact and forceful depic-tion of the winged lion emblem of St. Mark. With powerful mane,xed stare, bared fangs and extended claws, it pounces into thearcade. With the strong tones in gold and brown of its torso andwith a bright red tongue, it dominates its space. Like the other sym-bols it holds in its paws a book with a cover decorated in red and

yellow. The other symbols are disappointing. The eagle e ff ects thesame colors of its plumage as the lion, but were it not for the almosterce beak, one could be forgiven for confusing it with some barn-

yard fowl. The miniaturist must have had a goose for his model.The book in its claws is red and green. The other symbols are quiteuninteresting.

The origins for this work can be found in the ideas of the Easternchurch and their transmission to Italy, from where over Ravennaand sites in Lombardy, their in uences spread north. They found a

precipitate in the scriptoria of the monastic foundations aroundSalzburg. Most of the stylistic motifs are of this heritage. A long lostcommon source may even have existed. The Codex Millenarius appearsto be largely Central European with only weak in uences of theInsular Style in evidence.

The Palace School of Charlemagne at Aachen distinguished itself during his reign with the specialized production of magni cently illu-minated manuscripts. In time some of these were presented as giftsto other establishments. 201 Between 781 and 783, at Charlemagne’srequest, the scribe Godescalc produced a gospel lectionary of excep-tional beauty and distinct appearance, which introduces the originalwork of the scriptoriumof the Palace School in Aachen. 202 It was tobe a forerunner there of other such manuscripts, such as the Dagulf Psalter , in which the entire book becomes an optical experience.Events mentioned in the Godescalc manuscript allow the dating. In781 Charles had returned from Italy with Alcuin in his train with

201 Braunfels, p. 138.202 See Sullivan, Aix-la-Chapelle , p. 53. Also Braunfels, p. 367. Wallace-Hadrill,

p. 192, suggests it to have been a copy of an original among others brought fromRome in 781. Also Nees, Early Medieval Art , p. 182f.



230

the assignment to found the Palace School. He may well have returnedwith books from Ravenna and Lombardy and hence contributed

inuences upon the literary work of the palace workshops. TheGodescalc book of pericopes, the selections read during the servicein the order of the liturgical feasts, documents its earliest activity asGodescalc also pays tribute to Charlemagne’s interest in books. Suchan evangelistary is used in the liturgy throughout the year. Thoughwithout any real perspective, the optical e ff ect is stunning. The textis written in well-attuned and expensive colors of golden and silver(blackened by oxidation) letters on purple parchment. Our interestin this manuscript focuses on the miniatures placed at the beginning of the lectionary: four actual author-portraits of the Evangelists, oneof Christ and a representation of the Fountain of Life. What is verynoticeable is that the minimalist concentration on the Evangelistsand the tetramorphs of the Codex Millenarius contrasts clearly withthe elaborate compilation of planes of shapes and colors and deco-rative details, as if the past horor vacui still dominated current tastes.From this point of view the Godescalc Evangelistaryis still quite north-ern, though virtually without clear reference to any aspects of the

Insular Style . (Plates 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d) Carpet pages by other means,they represent a synthesis of styles. The miniatures of Christ, St.Matthew and St. John in this lectionary introduce modest architec-tural settings behind the seated Evangelists, a feature which willbecome typical for the Carolingian Gospels. In the Fountain of Lifeillumination architecture itself provides the focal interest while simul-taneously bearing a message. 203

Each of the colored pages is larger than the framed miniatureitself. The frames of the Evangelist author-portraits have some geo-metric but mainly vegetative ornaments, resembling palm leaf whisksarranged in a curvilinear manner. Stylized vegetation also appearswithin the miniatures. The platforms for Mark, Luke and John arefaced with spiral tendrils. Each picture is subdivided into four hor-izontal background zones of di ff ering coloration. Against these eldsthe tetramorphs, the Evangelists’ names, the Evangelists on theircushions seats and platforms are set in relief. Reminiscent of seatedconsuls on Roman ivory consular diptyches, the Evangelists maintainthe seated pose, as their upright bodies cut across the horizontal

203 Stalley, p. 61.



, 231

strips. Despite the wealth of structural surface detail, the gures dom-inate the space and attract our attention. Very personable in appear-

ance they invite our participatory relationship. They are well positioned,and convincingly lifelike. All of their faces are very pensive, expres-sive, with clearly arched brows and large, penetrating eyes. Almostall other things are ancillary. This has the e ff ect that the availablespace allows the names to appear only as abbreviations. John’s namehas leached through from the other side. The shoulders are againmore or less turned forward, so that Luke faces us frontally, his headturned slightly to the left, while Mark looks over his right shoulder.Matthew has his legs crossed at the knees, Mark has them placedside by side, Luke set apart, John’s feet are crossed at the ankles.Not all things are in the same plane, so that the toes of Mark’s leftfoot overlap the lectern stand, even though the stand is much closerto the viewer. The stands supporting tables and every lectern havebeen lathe-turned. All the faces have a look of meditative anticipa-tion, as each one has a stylus in his right hand, ready to react andput pen to paper. Eye contact is established. Books and inkwells arewithin easy reach and lecterns stand ready. The Evangelists and their

emblems move in axiomatic relation to one another as the Evangelistshave their heads cocked in the direction of their respective symbols,which in turn have their heads lowered toward their respectiveEvangelists. Very natural in their depiction, lion and calf do nothave wings. The heads of the symbols as well as of the Evangelistsare surrounded by halos and these halos touch, suggesting that theEvangelists are actually listening to hear the words, which they areprepared to write down in metaphysical dictation. Their raised handsand pens suggest that they want to listen and ward o ff any otherdistractions. In a sense the tetramorphs are the Evangelists’ symbolicalter egos, so that the ‘prompting’ is more of a listening to an inner

voice. The Gospels, which they hold, are the books kept in heaven,God’s Word, of which the one written by the Evangelist is a sacredreplica. Hence each Evangelist is presented as a ‘prince’ among scribes. At this point the cushion rolls are something of a short handfor a throne-like chair. Matthew is seated on three such rolls. Hisminiature is di ff erent in still other ways. The halos of Matthew andof his symbol are quite far apart, but what links them are identicalgestures with their right hands, held out to the other as if in a greet-ing or in blessing, very well executed. The angel holds a cross overhis left shoulder. A large part of the background is that of a simple



232

wall with arches in it, suggesting a metaphysical architecture. Matthewholds his gospel in his well-shaped left hand. Another book with the

inkwell on it rests at his right elbow.Most astonishing is the lavishly illustrated miniature of St. John.

Of all of the gures, represented in this manuscript, St. John is givena primary role, as the only one seated on a cushion role on a fullybacked throne covered with an ornamented fabric. He faces the

viewer frontally, a position traditionally reserved for imperial poses.Surrounded by a nimbus, his eyes do not make contact with hissymbol, his cropped hair does not hide his left ear, a pointed beardframes the lower half of his face. Dark purple garments drape hisbody. His left hand rests on a page of an open book lying on alectern. His bare right arm dips his pen into an inkwell standing ona table at the right of his seat. His heels are placed together. Hisknees are apart. The riser of the seat has visible outlines and thefront of the platform displays the same spiraled tendril ornamenta-tion as the platforms of Mark and Luke. Some space lling vegeta-tion is represented below the table. Unarticulated stonewalls withsome architectural detail and battlements across the top provide two

distinct lines of background. More than the backdrops of the others,this symbolic architecture suggests an appropriate spiritual cityscape,an idealized composite of familiar images of cities, the heavenly

Jerusalem. The Book of Revelation is a tting reference to the hopefor the eternal life projected in the visions of St. John. Uppermostis a plain golden strip showing a starburst below the letters naming St. John. His ‘eagle’ symbol, however, is the least successful of anyof the tetramorphs. It resembles at best a strutting, angry chickenhawk rather than an eagle. The frame of this miniature di ff ers fromthe other three in that it is not only decorated with vegetative scrolls,but mainly with intertwining braided knots, spaced in diagonal sym-metry. Two opposite corners have circle motifs, the other two havea ‘oral’ pattern.

The best-known miniature from the Godescalc lectionary is the Majestas Domini of the Christ miniature. (Plate 7a) Its frame is virtually identical with the St. John miniature. The uppermost panelsurrounds Christ’s halo with a sort of shrubbery blooming with whiteeur de lys blossoms. In the panel below the Christ monogramsappear in large letters IHS XPs . Christ’s shoulders, beardless headand cruciform halo occupy the center of these two panels. An archi-tecture with battlements, perhaps intended to suggest the heavenly



, 233

Jerusalem, provides the third background panel. Space lling vege-tation takes up the remaining spaces around the seat and its plat-

form. By means of subtle contrasts the gure of Christ is separatedfrom a rather busy backdrop. Surprisingly, Christ is not enthroned.Like Matthew, Mark and Luke, he sits on one of the familiar cush-ion rolls placed on an ornamented seat. A purple toga-like orna-mented fabric is wrapped around him over a full-length auburn tunic.His hands and feet are elegantly elongated. The tip of his right footextends just over the platform, while his left foot is slightly drawnback. Fine lines indicate the sandals on his feet. In his left hand heholds a book. Two ngers of his semi-clenched hand point to hisown breast. The hand is not turned outward as in a blessing.

This lectionary being a royal commission, it is perhaps plausiblewhy this pose was chosen. The manuscript does not yet contain anydepictions of royalty and the St. John miniature may well be intendedto suggest such a primary association. In Roman imperial iconog-raphy, the halo and the gesture with pointing index and middlengers were reserved for the divine emperor. Both were adopted byChristians to portray in mosaics the majesty of Christ. Pose and ges-

ture represent the imperial dignity. With imperial signi cance theysaw their rst use, c. 600, in a Germanic context on the helmetbrow plate glorifying the Lombard king Agilulf. As Pancreator theenthroned Christ is Lord of the Cosmos. Its introduction here mayreect something of Charlemagne’s majestic intentions, discussed ear-lier. The representation supposes late Classical Christian in uences.It is interesting that the St. John miniature upstages the Christ minia-ture in some ways, thereby pointing to the esteem in which thisEvangelist and his Gospel were held.

The last page to be discussed here is the one bearing the titleINVIGILIA NATALIS , the Fountain of Life. 204 Its motivation hasbeen associated with the baptismal font of the Lateran baptistery inRome used in 781 for the baptism of Charlemagne’s son Pepin bypope Hadrian.

Essentially a nature scene without any people, the signi cance of this representation must go beyond the historical event, because theFountain is also associated with the Gospels as springs of life and

204 See Braunfels, p. 145. Also Bullough, Renewal , p. 11f. See D. Ganz, ‘“RomanBooks” Reconsidered: The Theology of Carolingian Display Script’, in Smith (ed.),Early Medieval Rome , p. 300, points to this image being a particular Roman reference.



234

205 L. Nees, Early Medieval Art (Oxford 2002), p. 104.

faith. (Plate 7b) In this instance especially, the Fountain page is com-plemented by the lavishly ornamented facing incipit page of the

gospel of St. Matthew which deals with Christ’s birth and its mean-ing for Christians as the spring of all life in this and the other world.Clearly the two pages are placed in relation to one another. A clueto this e ff ect is hidden in the architecture of the Fountain. Its eightclassicizing marble columns are in the same plane and all visible atthe same time, which in a symmetrically arranged structure shouldnot be visible, as their placement should be congruent. Such anarrangement is clearly deliberate. This illustrated page goes to somelengths to contrast the four larger columns further forward with thosesmaller columns further back, thus making an attempt to show spa-tial perspective and depth. Otherwise the surface of the illuminationis at, without any other attempt to indicate a third dimension. The

viewer’s point of view is at right angles to the fountain. The poolof water is thus not visible. The painter is also careful to show eachcolumn with its own capital. A pointed roof bearing a cross on topcompletes this architecture. The animals do not actually have groundunder their feet and hence appear to be hovering in some abstract

space. In a unique idyllic setting nature and animals interact sym-bolically as the thirst of all is quenched at the Fountain. According to Psalm 42 the psalmist’s soul, just like the stag, thirsts for God,

yet there are no human beings shown at all. The psalm begins withthe analogy of a stag thirsting for water and it is shown near thefountain. Identi able birds and fowl have come in pairs to the foun-tain and most are seen picking at blossoms. The animals belong tothose traditionally seen on late Roman and early Christian orna-mentation placed among the vines and acanthus leaves sprouting from one vessel as shown on the ivory throne of Maximian inRavenna. 205 The work of several carvers, the setting is paradisic withOld and New Testament scenes or legendary associations: cranes,herons, storks, pairs of ducks, guinea fowl, pheasants, roosters andmost prominently two peacocks. The signi cance of the latter restsin the legendary belief that the esh of the peacock was incorrupt-ible, would never decay and by transference became a reference toeternal life and to Paradise. The mosaics in the church of San Vitale in Ravenna depict peacocks as dominant motifs. Whoever drinks



, 235

from the waters of this Fountain of Life will enjoy everlasting life.The Fountain itself symbolizes the springs, which represent the

Gospels, while these in turn indicated the faith in Christ and thecancellation of death. The eight columns are an allegory of the EightBenedictions,—the number 8 being a symbol of regeneration— 206 of which the fourth promises satiation to those who hunger and thirstfor justice. The rewards will be theirs in heaven. In this context thearchitecture of the Fountain yields another stylistic consideration,that of the anastasis/resurrection, represented by the rotundas mark-ing the Holy Grave in the Church of the Sepulcher in Jerusalem,and then Old St. Peter’s in Rome, as well as many others, and lateralso in the church dedicated to St. Michael in Fulda. Early Christianssaw the immersion in the baptismal font and the ascent from it asa death and rebirth into the sojourn among the blessed in anotherlife. There is some evidence that the anastasis was celebrated as acult in some of the early baptisteries. Its echoes are re ected in thenames of churches—church of the Resurrection. By Carolingian timesthe ideas of a Heavenly Jerusalem, Paradise and the Heavenly king-dom had become equated. Paradise, with the meaning ‘garden’, was

a term frequently applied to the portico or atrium of churches andhence associated with a columned structure. Church architectureitself was deemed to suggest a glimpse of the heavenly Jerusalem.

A generation after the production of the Godescalc Lectionary, thegospel preserved at the monastery of St. Médard at Soissons indi-cated some stylistic developments. Perhaps both versions were basedon a common original. 207 Also a product of the renovatioat the scrip-torium at Aachen, Louis the Pious gave it to Soissons in 827, thismanuscript contains two representations of the Fountain of Life, rep-resenting the tomb of Christ and rebirth through Baptism andParadise, the one contained in an ellipse over a set of Canon Tablesindexing the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, the other as a full pagerepresentation related to the Fountain page of the Godescalc Evange-listary. (Plate 8a) Both of these versions have been enriched by ele-ments missing in the Godescalc version, such as a much greater useof vibrant and deep colors and the presentation of human contours.

206 Stalley, p. 61, indicates that the world was created on the eighth day, Christ’sresurrection took place on the eighth day of the Passion, and that according topatristic thinking, the number 8 represented baptism as a spiritual regeneration.

207 Braunfels, p. 145.



236

The Fountain representation, which is part of the canon table, twiceshows the human form of Matthew as well as of Mark’s lion. The

columns of the fountain show more perspective and a tilted watersurface within the basin. The scene is set in a garden against a back-ground of trees. By contrast the full-page representation of theFountain is dominated by an architectural background. Most note-worthy is the massive Romanizing architecture dominated by a deepniche, which provides the largest part of the background, quite unre-lated to the familiar arches, portals and arcades. Most of the birdsare symmetrically placed on the building and the remaining spacehas contoured surfaces so that all the animals actually stand on solidground. Their placement is generally confrontational. This time fourdeer rather than just one, are placed into the lower section of thepicture. The Fountain, with its eight columns as anastasis rotunda,aims for a three-dimensional representation but other than that, itsconstruction generally resembles the Godescalc version, except thatwith the show of depth and perspective the tilted water surface is

visible.The illuminated pages are all whole page illustrations. In addition

to twelve Canon Tables and the now familiar inventory of illumi-nated miniatures of the Evangelists and the Fountain of Life, thegospel from St. Médard features an astonishing and innovative, sixthilluminated page, usually referred to as the ‘Veneration of the Lamb’. 208

This illumination precedes St. Jerome’s preamble to the argumen-tation concerning the authenticity of the Gospels and of the tetra-morphs. This page is divided into approximate thirds of which thelower two-thirds are theatrical architecture, while the upper third isdivided into two almost equal horizontal strips. (Plate 8b) The archi-tectural background of the lower section represents an articulatedwall with protruding and recessed parts of the wall perforated by asymmetrical arrangement of windows. This wall is reminiscent of Hellenistic façades, such as those cut into the rock at Petra, or theRoman theaters at Lepcis and Sabratha in North Africa and in theRoman theater below the Acropolis of Athens and is probably in-tended to infer the link with Rome, to suggest the ‘Heavenly Jerusalem’.In front of this wall stand four marble columns, red and grayish

208 J. Hubert, J. Porcher, W.F. Volbach, Carolingian Art , translated from the French(London 1970), pp. 84 ff . See also Diebold, p. 89.



, 237

green, with elaborate classicizing capitals simulating a Corinthianstyle. This arrangement is particularly reminiscent of the theater at

Sabratha, where just such a screen of columns precedes the back-ground walls. Once again there is only one ambiguous plane andperspective appears to be problematic. Below the center of the archi-trave a lion’s head holds a red curtain draped to the outside columnsand tied in the familiar Classical manner. Above the architrave newarchitectural detail consisting of bastions and recesses backs fourlunettes, each with one of the tetramorphs represented on it—fromleft to right, the angel of Matthew, the lion of Mark, the bull of Luke and the eagle of John. The two sets of recesses have beeninscribed with abbreviated golden lettering representing the accla-mation of the symbols: Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was,and is, and is to come . Above these medallions a narrow strip of numer-ous sh and other marine creatures, the ‘sea of glass like unto crys-tal’ closes o ff the architectural elements. It has four ‘ sher’ menplaced in the terminal and central positions. It separates the tetra-morphs from the scene showing the vision of the apocalyptic lamb.The lamb occupies a medallion hovering above an apsidal recess,

on either side of which are assembled twelve male gures, the ‘fourand twenty elders sitting clothed in white raiment; and they had ontheir heads crowns of gold.’ 209 The artist has taken great libertieswith the text, for they are not assembled about a throne, nor arethey sitting or in white raiments. The golden halos may be consid-ered equivalent to the crowns of gold. Radiating lines extend betweenthe lunette containing the lamb and the congregated men, and eachof the symbols.

With its images and symbols the illumination represents a holis-tic, allegorical and hierarchical summation of the principles of thefaith, of the edi ce of the church and of the theological world beyond.This summation is presented in ve ascending levels: At the base isplaced the architecture and especially the four rising columns linkedby means of the cloth representing the religious construct. This levelis surmounted by the medallions of the tetramorphs representing theGospels. The higher zone of the ‘crystal sea of glass’ separates thetetramorphs from the groups actually in adoration of the lamb. Thatapocalyptic scene represents in two strips a higher eschatological

209 Revelation, 4.4, 4.6.



238

knowledge of nal things and times as envisioned in the Book of Revelation. Rising above a nal blue border and contained in a medal-

lion in the realm, which passes all understanding, is the lamb.The manuscript is also decorated with twelve embellished Canon

Tables, concordances of passages in the Gospels arranged verticallyto facilitate the search for like and unlike treatments of the samethemes and topics in the Gospels. (Plate 8c) It was Eusebius whorst thought of this devise during the early 4th century. Initially the

vertical gospel entries were separated by simple lines, but the natureof the material soon cried out for more elaborate treatments, espe-cially when a number of gospels came to be itemized within the set-ting. In the Book of Kells decorated bars with round terminals at thebottom and square terminals at the top acted as dividers betweenthe Gospels. In view of the popular use of columns for the decora-tion of pages, it is not surprising that the layout of these pages alsoinvited an architectural portal treatment with columns and arches.The e ff ect is that of temple architecture. It has been suggested, thatthese columns actually represented a screen of columns which, tillthe 16th century, had stood in front of the confessioof St. Peter’s in

Rome, though the artist probably relied on an earlier Roman gospel.210

Depending on the number of Gospels intended to be indexed, thecolumns within the arch could be incorporated into another arcadeof three, four or ve columns. The columns can be straight, as wellas spiral in shape. The spiraling, helical columns tend to alternatewith static straight columns. Either type is resplendent in strong var-iegated and owing stone colors such as blue, green, orange or purplepainted to resemble the veins of marble or the coloration of por-phyry. The multicolored capitals are roughly Corinthian in design,though much more fanciful in execution. The names of the Evangelistsappear one to each arcaded arch, with the lists of concordancesgrouped in ves, separated by a horizontal line. The space betweenthe arcades and the enfolding arch contains the groups of tetramorphs,which represent the Gospels listed. Singly or in groups, an openbook is placed among them. The arch itself may be decorated as if studded with gems and with symmetrically placed cameos. Tendrilsmay crawl up on the outside of the arch. The space left betweenthe arch and the corners of the page could be lled with vegetation

210 Bullough, Renewal , p. 11f.



, 239

or other living things, especially symbolic birds, such as roosters orpeacocks. These Carolingian gospels are particularly luxuriant in their

use of such luminous colors on elds of actual gold and silver, orange,ochre, bright yellow and burnt amber, interacting with varieties of lavish red, or brilliant blues and azures, complemented by emeraldgreens, subtle mauves and plum purples, attuned to achieve a mostsumptuous, original e ff ect. It was mentioned above just how expensivethese colors were. The result is spectacular in its novel splendor.

The illuminated facing pages of the gospels are a case in point,where a richly colored full-page representation of an Evangelist onthe left is complemented by an equally gloriously designed page of large initial letter and text on the right. 211 The lettering in gold isof the ‘trumpet’ type in that the large initial is succeeded by lettersof decreasing size The dominant colors are resplendent golds andpurples, accented by contrasting greens, turquoise, blues and reds.That the two pages are conceived as an entity is indicated by thecongruently identical design of the respective frames, which are each,ornamented with chains of beads and pearls, ovals and astragals. Inthis instance the Evangelist Mark faces the incipit page of his Gospel,

the Second. Together the two pages e ff ect an arcade in which theleft arch contains a somewhat stylized representation of the Evangelistin the act of writing, while in the right arch there appears what hewrites. (Plates 9a, 9b) Evangelist and text are as a sacred equationmade visible. It will be recalled that the placement in arcades wasa traditional means to accent the importance of the subject placedinto that arcade. The lion holding the open book in its claws in thearch above the Evangelist ‘mirrors’ the textual title of the Gospel:INCIPIT EVANGELIUM SECUNDUM MARCUM , with the opening words, The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God.The lan-guage of signi cant shapes equates with the language of signi canttexts. The two illuminations contain too many details to enumeratethem all. Of interest are the upper spandrels on both pages, fordiff erent reasons. The spandrels of the left page may re ect someobscure meeting in a natural landscape with brown earth, horizon,blue sky and with impressionistic representations of vegetation inwhich an angelic gure points at a haloed gure on the other side

211 See Ganz, in Smith (ed.), Early Medieval Rome , pp. 297 ff . for an extensive dis-cussion of the classical, but Christian derivation of Carolingian lettering.



240

of the arch, who in the context of the verses of the Gospel is Johnthe Baptist. The scene illustrates Verse 2 of the Gospel: . . . Behold I

send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee , the very text which St. Mark has opened in the book before him. Thegreen spandrels on the right page refer speci cally to Verses 9–13of the rst chapter: in white garments, Christ’s baptism in the River

Jordan by John the Baptist and the descent of the Holy Spirit inthe shape of the dove, in the left spandrel and the brief textual ref-erence to Christ’s being ministered to by two angels while he wastempted in the desert. The signi cance of these scenes of gural rela-tionships shown in the spandrels lies in that for the rst time in ourdiscussion they illustrate the gradual introduction of narrative tech-niques in Carolingian art, referred to above. Separated from thearched eld containing the lion emblem by a travis rod, a youthfulSt. Mark is placed against a deep blue background, framed by pulledback, knotted curtains, which, however, by mistake, are not held inposition by the columns to which they should be attached. The orna-mentation of the two arches di ff ers as the apex of the arch over theLion emblem is marked by a carved cameo showing several human

gures. The other arch displays a red disc. The pairs of columnsare not identical. Those anking the Evangelist have golden capi-tals, dominated by a ower motif. The dark columns themselvesbetray an intricate grain in the marble shafts. The columns anking the text have foliated capitals of (tarnished) silver. The column shaftsare of a marvered gold. The pairs of column bases are distinct. Hissitting pose is the familiar one, his body slightly angled to the right,head turned back over his right shoulder, leaning forward to holdthe book on the lectern with his left hand, his right hand poisedelegantly ready to write. However, the link between transmission andreception is no longer explicit as the eye contact between St. Mark and his emblem is no longer made as the earlier association betweena writing Evangelist and an inspiring and prompting symbol is nolonger obvious. The two have become too independent of one another.The garments, a tunic of gold trimmed pastel green and a toga of deep purple, are draped around his well-contoured body in the famil-iar fashion. He sits on the customary cushion roll. The fall of thefolds indicates a very prominent, disproportionate upper thigh. Thefeet, especially the right foot, are well drawn, wearing the merestsuggestion of sandals. The right foot extends over the edge of theplatform. Edges tend to be in di ff erent planes. The background below



, 241

the curtain knots is turquoise. The arch containing the text of theScripture is of a golden background with purple lettering identify-

ing the Gospel. The rectangle below is purple with golden lettering for the rst lines of the Gospel. Particularly impressive is the largecapital initial letter I, decorated with unidenti ed human torsos. Thetop of the letter is diamond-shaped with a haloed, mature, long-haired and bearded torso in the diamond. The bottom is also pointed,but essentially heart-shaped, with another longhaired but youthfuland clean-shaven face in it. In the middle of the shaft is a circlewith yet another haloed and longhaired young face in it. The shaftof the letter bears an ornamental braid along its entire length. Scrolldesigns provide nishing details. This initial re ects vestiges of theInsular and Anglo-Saxon styles.

A prototypical presentation of a writing gure is kept at theBibliothèque Royale in Brussels. (Plate 10a) It is variously described,by the library as the portrait of a scribe at work of Roman orByzantine Provenance of the 6th century, or as the supposedlyun nished portrait of an Evangelist, St. Matthew from the XantenGospels, belonging to the Carolingian Ada Group of imperial Coronation

Gospels dated to the early 9th century.212

While its unadorned, clas-sical, clean simplicity would place it ideally at the prototypical begin-ning of the tradition of Evangelists bent over their lecterns writing their Gospels, why would a mere scribe have been so honored, con-sidering the cost of a page of purple parchment. On this page a

youthful gure, clad completely in white, is seated on a at cushionplaced on a simple stool. The left hand seems to be holding theopened book on the lectern, while the right hand is extended, writing.The smock-like garment is open at the front falling in easy foldsabout the knees. Most unconventionally, the man has not even thesuggestion of feet. The portrait has modern appeal perhaps becauseof its un nished state, but certainly because of its Hellenistic-Romanstyle, its Classical composure and quiet grandeur (Winckelmann’sstille Größe ). The gure is located in an open setting, without indication

212 Bischoff , pp. 65, n. 45; 80f. groups the works. C.R. Dodwell, The Pictorial Arts of the West, 800–1200 (New Haven, London 1993), p. 56 refers to H. Swarzenski,

who held that the un nished page was a Roman work of the 4th century, whichserved as a model for the Carolingian artists, 60, Fig. 45. See F. Mütherich, ‘Book Illumination at the Court of Louis the Pious’, in Godman and Collins, p. 594f.suggests that it is a single leaf of an older and un nished Evangelist portrait, sub-sequently inserted into the Brussels gospel. See also Hubert et al., p. 92.



242

of an architectural setting. For its own time it would have been acuriosity. As it is, it provides some insight into the work as process.

That this page need not strike one as that alien is demonstratedin the Aachen Gospels by an exceptional illustration which groupsminiatures of the four Evangelists united on one single page. 213 Itsuggests either the rediscovery of an antique style or the emergenceof a new style. (Plate 10b) Their nished poses and the simplicityof their settings in individual, ideal spaces suggests an a ffinity withthe page from Brussels, especially St. Mark could be a relative of the gure in white. The saints are placed antithetically: Matthewand Mark face left, Luke and John face right. They take no noticeof one another. By contrast their tetramorphic symbols emerge fromthe billowing colors, each placed in a manner contrary to theEvangelists. The axiomatic associations prevail. Originally intendedto show an architectural backdrop, each white robed gure is nowin its own ‘landscape setting’, contrasted in a painterly manner againstthe world, a blended, nuanced, deep turquoise—azure, illusionisticcloud-like rockscape. Fissures approximating a cross divide the fourregions. Tree-like vegetation along the horizon is silhouetted impres-

sionistically in black against a narrow strip of reddish morning orevening sky. The appearance and the pose of each of the Evangelistsshow temperamental distinctiveness as they receive their individualinspirations. An elderly hunched Matthew, with gray hair and croppedbeard, resembling an ancient philosopher, his head surrounded bya bluish nimbus, is resting his feet on the base of the lectern fromwhich he has lifted his book. He seems to be reading. A youthfulMark holds the open book in his left while he is dipping his peninto an inkwell standing on the at surface of a stand. His head toois surrounded by a bluish nimbus. Clean-shaven, Luke is the onlyone to hold the familiar writing pose, leaning over the manuscriptlying on the lectern. St. John strikes the most noticeable and indi-

vidualistic pose. He is presented full upright and frontally, his writ-ing hand held shoulder high, the open book in his left. His chinseems to be touching his chest as his head is tilted downward to read.Like the others, his head too is surrounded by a light blue nimbus.He is anked by a lectern on his right and an open table on hisleft. By surrounding the Evangelists with pieces of furniture t for

213 Hubert, p. 97f.



244

as in others, the elevated imperial throne and the tribunal stoodunder the monumental arch. Complete with optical tricks, an immense

apse, decorated with resplendent marble and mosaics, helped to convey a sense of remote grandeur behind the throne, required by theelaborate court ceremonial to enhance the majesty of the emperor’sdivine dignity. 216 This positioning was intended to represent thesupreme magni cence of the abstract notion of the dominus , the Divineemperor and to emphasize the transcendental radiance of sublimemajesty in an ideal space. Recessed niches and windows articulatethe awe-inspiring massiveness of the background. The portrait pagesborrowed this setting for the positioning of the Evangelists. Thecolumns supporting the arches are set slightly ahead of the platformssupporting the thrones. Enthroned slightly back of such an arch andagainst the perforated apse, the Evangelists hold court. Three of thesaints face the viewer frontally in the pose reserved for the exclu-sive imperial personage. The decorated space under the arch is occu-pied by the tetramorphs, each holding the unrolled scroll representing the Gospels. Other than their coexistence on the same page, thereis no link between the Evangelists and their allegorical emblems. The

earlier eye contact between the two has been abandoned and theemblems are no longer prompting the writers. The emphasis is onthe human e ffigy, for which the emblem is no more than an iden-tifying badge. Nothing else in the composition does that. As can beobserved with others, the identity of the Evangelist would have tobe determined by its relative position in the text.

An initial impression of general repetition has to yield to the appre-ciation of di ff erences in these portraits. While the spandrels abovethe arches are ornamented with imaginary vegetation and variousbirds, those above St. John display mountain goats. While the archesshow basically similar ornamentation, Mark and Luke have medal-lions and cameos placed on theirs. Matthew and John have perfo-rated apsidal curvatures behind them. Mark is backed against astraight wall, while Luke sits in front of an angular, recessed build-ing. The portal-like arches rest on very similar ornate capitals, butthe columns anking John are distinct from the others. Three thronechairs have very similar draped backs; Mark’s is more of a thronein that his chair has lion head terminals protruding on the sides.

216 Schutz, Romans , pp. 155 ff .



, 245

While Luke and John hold their pens at shoulder height, Mark isdipping his in an inkwell, while Matthew is actually poised in a writ-

ing position. They all sit on cushion rolls. Mark, Luke and John siton benches in a squared o ff plain. That of Matthew is angled intothe picture and slightly ascending in the perspective because Matthewis the one saint who is not facing the viewer frontally, but seatedobliquely turned toward his lectern, the only one in the set. Eachhead has a slightly di ff erent tilt and all the Evangelists have youth-ful, beardless faces. They all wear the familiar garb of a tunic beneathan amply tting toga. Below the draped garments, legs and arms,hands and feet are realistically convincing, despite the frontal posesof the bodies. Though pale and dark pinks are the color for mostthings, grays, greens and golds provide appropriate accents, how-ever, the dominant color on all four miniatures is a dark blue. Noneof this is to be mistaken as taking place in this world. Despite theslight impression of perspective, the at surfaces are a stylistic deviceto suspend any impression of reality. The arched portals o ff er entranceinto a metaphysical realm.

Another tradition follows from the illustrated pages of the gospels

from Brussels, Aachen and Vienna. These had portrayed the Evangelistswithout bene t of architectural setting and without identifying tetramor-phic emblems. A work dated to c. 800, made at Aachen, perhapsin the scriptoriumheaded by Einhard, 217 has come to be known asthe Imperial Coronation Gospels.(Plates 12a, 12b, 12c, 12d) It is workedin this other, Classical style and may perhaps be the work of a Greek painter. 218 Painted on purple parchment, a smaller frame containing the Evangelists, is compacted quite unnecessarily and o ff -center intomuch less than the available space. Stylistically there is a relation-ship between the gospel illustrations from Aachen and the portraitof St. Matthew from these Imperial Coronation Gospels at Vienna.Written in gold and silver on purple parchment the Codex is illus-trated with sixteen canon tables and monumental portraits of Evangelists. The Codex was used during the imperial coronationsfor the oaths of installation. Reputedly found on Charlemagne’s knees,

217

C.R. Dodwell, The Pictorial Arts of the West, 800–1200 (New Haven and London1993), p. 56.218 Hubert, p. 92. See Bischo ff , p. 62, who speculates that Charlemagne may

have returned with books written in this style from his campaign into Lombardyin 781.



246

when Otto III opened his tomb in A.D. 1000, the saint is once againplaced in an open-air setting without architectural context. The fact

that the customary emblems are not also present in the composi-tions, suggests that these representations of the saints follow an east-ern tradition. The itinerant artists were foreign to the ornamental,northern designs, but familiar with Roman motifs of backgroundillustration. 219 On purple parchment a smaller frame of gold andornamented silver contains the portrait. Enveloped in a white toga,St. Matthew is placed in an open-air setting, captured in the formalpose writing his Gospel. His head is surrounded by a golden halooutlined in black. His left hand rests on the edge of the lectern hold-ing an inkhorn. His right, holding a pen, is poised over the openbook. He is seated on a large cushion roll placed on a chair, pos-sible a folding chair. His left foot rests on a stack of books at thebase of the lectern, his right foot is on the ground with the heelresting on the lowest level of the lectern stand. The clinging foldsof the fabric suggest the outline of his legs. A reddish black back-ground rises to shoulder height, contrasting the white garment, thedarker head and halo are set o ff from the light background of the

gray tinted sky. That this is a very sober and functional portrait isapparent. There is no world, no nature here, were it not for theacanthus leaves in the frame. The objective of this artist was to con-centrate on the human representation and its activity. There is some-thing minimalist about this portrait. No extraneous ornamentation,which might detract from the focus on the role of this saint in thecontext and message of the scriptures. Only the idea of the inspiredWord of God. One of the other frames, that of St. John, is identi-cal with this page of St. Matthew, except that in that instance thestool on which John rests his feet actually breaks out of the frameby having three of its feet placed outside of the frame, a distin-guishing and relative rarity.

St. Mark is placed in a frame with ‘baroque’ sling band curvilin-ear designs. Young and clean shaven, he faces us frontally, seatedin the open against a gray, rocky landscape with ‘impressionistic’trees on the horizon. He holds a book scroll up in his left and rolledout over his lap. His right hand is dipping a pen into an inkwell

219 Braunfels, pp. 149, 369, suggests that the artist(s) represented the techniquespracticed in Greek Italy.



, 247

standing on the visible remains of a stand. The coloration of thelower half of the picture is quite eroded. Used for the imperial coro-

nation, the emperors elect would place a hand onto the pages andgradually wear o ff the painted surface. The remains of the seat, cush-ion roll and platform are more suggested than visible. The toes of his left foot are curved over the edge of the platform. The folds of the toga allow one to conclude where the right foot might havebeen. Mark creates a somewhat retiring impression. A di ff erent artistappears to have painted the portraits of St. Mark.

The portrait of St. Luke is not often represented. His pose di ff ersfrom the others, in that his pro le is partly turned to the right. Heis enthroned on an orange cushion roll in a niche of very plainmasonry. There is no landscape suggested behind him. Very notice-able are his muscular right shoulder and upper arm. He is seatedat a lectern, holding a book in his lap. It is a most modest portrait.

As the protruding stool suggests, a towering St. John is placedmore aggressively forward in a well detailed apsidal setting whichcould be an integral component of an elaborate throne. In its care-ful articulation this architecture is not just an abstract approximation,

but actually has something convincing about its appearance. Again‘impressionistic’ trees are silhouetted against the sky. John is also fac-ing the viewer frontally. He is a mature individual with a full headof hair, long mustache and full pointed beard. His physical contoursare fully noticeable under the long dark tunic and his white toga,accented by ne black lines. With his left he supports a book on histhigh. His right hand is raised to his shoulder, a pen between hisngers. He is seated on a bright red cushion roll, the left foot some-what drawn back, the right set at the edge of the stool. As was thecase with the portrait of Mark, this one also shows some moderatewear of its surface, though not enough to obscure the details.

Unmistakable in these portraits is the centrality of the humaneffigy and its domination of the space. John especially stands out asa towering personality. The predilection of the other decorated worksof the period to present space lling and surface covering pages inwhich the gure is an integrated element in the designs, is not fol-lowed in these Gospels. The large amount of unused purple pagessuggests something incomplete about the composition of the framedgures. Figures and background are not in the same plane. Thearchitecture of the St. John portrait even recedes somewhat to theleft and right behind the seated saint. The portraits are a clear



248

departure from the familiar arcaded settings. The homocentric ideais fundamental to the role assigned to the Evangelists. Were it not

for their very large golden, heavily outlined halos, they could be mis-taken for some other majestic personage. In contrast to the grandioseprincely images of the other gospels, the large dark eyes contributeto the serenity on the faces of these Evangelists. They exude thatcomposed compassion which invites the con dence of the viewer.The traditional explanation for this change in style is sought in thesupposition that perhaps more than one artist was working in theByzantine tradition, perhaps actually Greeks, and that the absenceof the tetramorphs in addition to the homocentricity is a clear indi-cation of an antique Classical view of man being introduced whichwas quite distinct from the style of the Court School. As was suggestedearlier, a common Carolingian Style did not emerge during the earlyCarolingian Period. The rather rapid development and transforma-tion in the manner of human representation is very apparent.

XIII. Illuminated manuscripts—Ruler Portraits

It is only a small step from the Evangelists’ portraits of the imper-ial Coronation Gospels to the portraits of the ruler as rex christianus , espe-cially in the case of Charles the Bald even as rex christianissimus , whichappear as dedications in such votive manuscripts as gospels, lec-tionaries and so forth produced especially at Tours and at St. Denisduring the later Carolingian period. As the term suggests, these ide-alized portraits intended to show the majesty of the monarch in hiscapacity as the head of the Imperium Christianumand not from hispersonal side. The glorious image of his function and cosmic rela-tionships rather than his likeness were the artist’s objective point of arrival. Since he was either the work’s patron or its recipient, his‘portrait’ is appropriate. In reaching for the imperial crown majes-tic self-representation and idealization were to prove means of supe-rior e ff ectiveness. In the end this was to contribute signi cantly tothe evolution of medieval kingship. 220 Once the religious connotationhad been weakened in the association between Evangelists and inspir-ing tetramorphs and the imperial role been rediscovered for the

220 Staubach, p. 344.



, 249

enthroned gure, it was not too long before a sacerdotal gure,responsible for the preservation, consolidation and propagation of

the universal Christian domain, could appear in its own right, intheocratic guise, placed into a ritual context, as a t subject in reli-gious art. The rst such depiction, though primitivist and unrelatedin appearance, was the frontal ‘portrait’ of Louis the Pious discussedearlier in connection with the work of Hrabanus Maurus, De laudi-bus sanctae crucis , c. 840. Closely related to such ivories as that of Stilicho and other Roman generals, it showed the emperor as Miles Christianus , Soldier in Christ. Dressed like a Roman general, remi-niscent of the Stilicho diptyche, and armed with helmet, shield andcross, the emperor is part of a pictorial pun without any real inten-tion to portray majesty. The purpose was to call Christ’s blessing down upon the ruler. As if two persuasions coexisted without anyrelationship, the di ff erences in artistic style and ability are astonish-ing, considering that nearly a half century has gone by between theartistic sophistication of the Coronation Gospels and the poor artistryin this work of Hrabanus Maurus, but then what appears to havemattered here were the words and not the images.

Images mattered in the virtually contemporary ruler portraits of the emperor Lothair and especially in such splendid works of Charlesthe Bald as the one produced at St. Martin at Tours c. 845 and850. The abbey was destroyed in a Viking attack in 853. A transi-tion can be observed in the Vivian Bible , produced in the scriptoriumat Tours, c. 845/46 and as is shown on a presentation miniature,is dedicated to Chares the Bald on the occasion of the granting of the abbey’s immunity. 221 The gospel is associated with the formercourt o fficial and lay abbot Vivian, a Frankish count with connec-tions to the courts of Lothair and Charles the Bald. 222 Owing to itspolitical intention, the work is in accordance with the Davidic notionbehind the Imperium Christianumas the illuminated page bearing theopening poem has two medallions between the panels of text, show-ing portraits of David Rex Imperator above one of Karolus Rex Franco<rum>,

221

See H.L. Kessler, The Illustrated Bibles from Tours (Princeton 1977), p. 126, forthe text of the dedication. Also P.E. Dutton, H.L. Kessler, The Poetry and Paintings of the First Bible of Charles the Bald (Ann Arbor 1997), pp. 1, 89. The poetry accompany-ing the miniatures makes the case that the Bible become the king’s spiritual food.

222 See Kessler, pp. 96 ff . for sources and in uences.



250

providing a clear political link between the two. 223 In the dedicatoryinscription of this Bible Charles the Bald is addressed as splendide

David 224 and preceding the Book of Psalms, this Vivian Bible containsa dedication miniature showing David surrounded by ten gures of soldiers, musicians and cardinal virtues. (Plate 13) Two lines of text,a couplet, are meant to link the political implication of text andillustration:

The psalm maker David shines brilliantly, and the company isWell trained in the art of music to sing his words. 225

Consistently poets and artists dwell on the David—Charles equa-tion, 226 even extending it to a Christ association with David, pro-

vided by the context of the enormous mandorla. Facially David,Charles and Christ resemble one another. Is this an expression of Charles’ hubris? In this frontispiece David stands at the center of adark blue, mystical vertical oval, the mandorla usually reserved forChrist as Pancreator or the apocalyptic Majestas Domini representa-tions. Nuances of color suggest ‘terraces’ within this otherworldlyspace and provide the surfaces on which the gures are placed.

Identi ed as king and prophet, a humble David is draped only ina robe, holding and strumming his harp, as if composing his psalms,his head turned over his right shoulder. His pose and the ow of his purple robe suggest movement, a reference to David’s ritualisticleaping and dancing before the Arc of the Covenant on the occa-sion of its arrival in Jerusalem— And David danced before the Lord with all his might: and David was girded with a linen ephod (a priestly gar-ment). 227 On his feet he wears military boots. A fantasy crowns hishead. On his terrace stand two soldiers representing his body guard

of foreigners, Cerethi on his right, probably Cretans, looking justlike the Louis ‘portrait’ with shield and lance, and Phelethi on his

223 Dutton, Kessler, Frontispiece. Also p. 42f. See also H. Maguire, ‘Magic andMoney in the Early Middle Ages’, in Nees, Approaches , p. 93.

224 Kessler, p. 129.225 Dutton, Kessler, p. 115.226 Dutton, Kessler, p. 8 provide further examples. Also p. 59f., 81. A precise

political connotation was working in the equation between Biblical ruler and tem-

poral king.227 Chronicles I, 15. 16, 19–21. Also Samuel II, 6. 14, 15. Dutton, Kessler arguethat David’s selection from among his brothers signals a contemporary messageabout Charles’ entitlement to rule in the place of his brothers, Lothair especially.See also Diebold, p. 82f.



, 251

left, probably Philistines, similar in appearance without his shield,his lance leaning against his left shoulder, but holding a sword which

he is drawing with his right. These three probably represent a hyposta-sis of the king, David the psalmist, the protector and ghter, as shieldand sword represent the royal defensive and aggressive functions. Itwill be found that this motif will appear in variations for many yearsto come. The text also mentions shouting and the sound of trum-pets. The texts identify all of the musicians of whom some semi-nude, named seated musicians, analogously placed to the Evangelists,play trumpets and other musical instruments. The corners of theframed page are claimed by four half-length female gures holding palm branches in one hand—fully dressed Prudentia, Justitia , partlyclad Temperimentia, Fortitudo— , the other hand extended in a gestureof acclamation. Clearly the page departs from the traditional sub-

ject matter and opens references to other narrative detail, whichneed clari cation and identi cation through the use of language.Evidently the familiar Frankish political theory, which rst equatedthe Israelites with the Merovingian Franks as the new Chosen People,and then the House of David with the Carolingians and in which

Charlemagne was called David, plays a role here. In the Vivian Bible ,Charles the Bald is compared to David three times. 228 Located atthe center of this page is the symbolic representation of the Biblicalruler over the various dimensions of an abstract realm of art and

virtue, as surrogate of the Carolingian king, the protector and defender.The splendor of the dedicated manuscript provides a visual parallel,which would imply an edifying ritualistic transformation of Charles,the Bald into an idealized David.

The Gospels of Lothair , prepared at Tours, c. 850, contains a dedica-tion page, which represents the emperor Lothair I enthroned in anarcaded setting. (Plate 14a) It is the imperial formula of the enthronedruler anked by arms bearers, which was rst adopted for the earlyChristian representation of Biblical kings and then by the Carolingians.His crown is identical to the crown which David wears in the pre-

vious manuscript. Behind the throne stand two warriors, equippedquite like the warriors anking David in the Vivian Bible . It is a verycompact composition, a bit o ff -center to the right. The helmetedgure behind his left shoulder is armed with the lance and the shield.

228 Kessler, p. 109. Also Dutton, Kessler, Passim.



252

The gure behind his right is crowded, as it has to reach over theback of the throne into the imperial space, holding a sheathed sword

in his right hand. Their eyes are turned toward the emperor. Thesewarriors may very well represent the functions of the prince. Thescene is a variation on the motifs mentioned above, which them-selves nd antecedents in Roman examples and also on the helmetplaque associated with king Agilulf of the Lombards, c. 600. 229 Theemperor is seated in the manner of an Evangelist, his dark eyesdirected to something beyond the frame, his right arm holding ascepter sta ff , his anatomically impossible left arm pointing in thedirection followed by his eyes. There, on the next page, is writtena poem of dedication. In golden letters on purple parchment thepoem praises his rule, indicates that Lothair ordered the gospel atSt. Martin’s, (between 849 and 851) and requests the prayers of thosewho may contemplate the book. 230 Since Tours was in the domainof Charles the Bald, for Lothair to place a commission there wasperhaps a gesture of reconciliation with his brother Charles, afterthe wars leading to the Battle of Fontenoy and the Oaths of Strasbourg.Lothair had his own Palace School, located somewhere in the Aachen

and Liège region. A psalter produced there contained illustratedpages with portrait miniatures of an enthroned Lothair 231 and of aseated king David. (Plate 14b) An inscription supporting his ownposition in the fraternal con ict links Lothair with David to the e ff ectthat Lothair was chosen by God to be ruler over his brothers. 232

The Davidic element in Carolingian political theory is well estab-lished. He is clothed in a dark blue tunic and wrapped in the nat-ural folds of a toga-like garment of purple and gold, held in placeby a large disc bula at the right shoulder. Black and gold are thedominant accents, which contrast with the prevailing tones of pur-ple and mauve. The light mauve color of the backdrop drapery iscontinued in three levels of ‘clouds’ behind the lower portion of thethrone. It forms the platform on which the shield bearer stands. Thesignicance of this unique dedicationary portrait rests in the cir-cumstance that this gure is shown totally without any obvious Biblical

229 Schutz, Tools, Weapons and Ornaments , pp. 168 ff., Fig. 99.230

F. Mütherich, J.E. Gaede, Karolingische Buchmalerei (Munich 1976), p. 85. AlsoBullough, Renewal , pp. 39, 68. See Diebold, p. 134f. for the text of the poem andfor a rationale for placing the commission at Tours.

231 Backhouse, p. 20.232 Dodwell, p. 60.



, 253

associations. Though as emperor Lothair is rex et sacerdos , this frontaldepiction is entirely that of a man without any other associations.

It suggests very strongly a self-reliant statement of independent humanintegrity, dignity and autonomy. It strongly suggests his princely claimto the imperial crown, entirely in his own right. Unfortunately theartist’s intention is not that clear. He is known to be one of theartists who also worked on the Vivian Bible .

The dedication page and poem placed toward the end of theVivian Bible points in a very di ff erent direction. (Plate 15a) Despitethe existence of a link between these two manuscripts, the sceneshowing the presentation of the Vivian Bible to Charles the Bald isa very di ff erent composition, placed in a context with de nite indi-cations of a political agenda. The presentation page documents anactual occasion, the Bible being o ff ered to Charles on the occasionof his visit to St. Martin’s in 851. The last line actually ends

Peace and praise for you without end, good king David. Be well! 233

Charles’ exceedingly lavish ruler portraits are typical only for him-self and not for his contemporary brothers and kings. Charles seems

to have wanted to demonstrate his claim to supremacy and the impe-rial crown over his brothers, 234 for he distinguishes himself from hisbrothers in that he liked majestic, highly idealized, symbolic repre-sentations of his august, royal person. Eight in all have survived. 235

In a celestial, architectural setting of arch and supporting columns,the enthroned king is placed at the more remote center of an ovalritual space formed by the curvature of the arch above him and thesemi-circular congregation of churchmen facing the king below, thecomposition suggesting an idealized setting in a mandorla. 236 As homocaelestis , he is projected as the perfected ruler to be, the mediatorthrough whom God’s word will be made known to man, 237 once theilluminated Bible has ful lled its textual and pictorial, educationalfunction. That lesson was probably lost on him. To indicate his illus-trious role, his gure is somewhat larger than that of all of the sub-ordinate others. On the square corners of the arch two barking dogs

233

Dutton, Kessler, p. 119f. text, Fig. 17. See pp. 23 ff . for the context.234 Staubach, p. 14.235 Kessler, p. 125.236 Dutton, Kessler, pp. 71 ff ., propose classical models for the scene. Also p. 91.237 Staubach, p. 18.



254

are placed in confrontational positions. In each of the spandrelsbelow, a female gure emerges out of a cloud extending a crown to

the king. By association with other such representations, the guresare virtues. Lamps are suspended from the arch. White drapery issuspended within the arch creating three elliptical sectors. The lampshang into the two anking sectors. The central sector introduces amotif, which will be a feature of Christian art far into the BaroquePeriod; it is the dextra dei , the Right Hand of God, extending fromHeaven. Radiating lines extend from its ngers toward the king’shead. Two chalices are placed o ff to the side of this sector. Withan elaborated version of the crowns mentioned above on his head,the king sits on a cushion roll with a purple fabric draped from theback of the throne. Two civilians in noble court dress hold the thronefrom each side. Perhaps these were royal cousins, or the lay abbotsat Tours. These in turn are anked by the now familiar helmetedmilitary gures, one with lance and shield, the other with sheathedsword. The king at the center wears a purple tunic under a goldtrimmed yellow robe, which enfolds him. In the crook of his leftarm he holds the scepter sta ff . His right hand is extended to receive

the manuscript. The background to this colorful arrangement of menis a contrasting blue tinged white. Below the warrior with lance andshield, three tonsured gures with covered hands, perhaps the artiststhemselves, are raising the book toward the king’s outstretched hand.The one in salmon pink has been identi ed as the poet Audradus. 238

Beneath them another three richly clad ecclesiastical gures in con-temporary liturgical vestments are advancing downward toward anunidenti able central gure, with his back to the viewer looking upto face the king. Below the warrior with the sword is placed anothernoble in court costume, a high ranking court o fficial and perhapsthe untonsured lay abbot Vivian himself, and beneath him four elab-orately robed men of the church, members of the palace clergy, alsoturned toward the unknown central gure, at the bottom of the oval.There are no bishops among them. 239 All salute the king in a skilfulinterplay of lively complementary gestures within a court-sponsored

238 Dutton, Kessler, p. 76.239

J. Beckwith, Early Medieval Art , (London 1985), p. 65, reviews the speculationconcerning the identities of the gures. See also Dodwell, p. 74, concerning theidentities. Also Kessler, p. 127. Also Wallace-Hadrill, p. 245. Dutton, Kesslerp. 77f., make the case that the personages on the two sides are actually a doubledepiction of the same people, enacting di ff erent moments during the event.



, 255

splendor. A dark blue background highlights their extravagant gar-ments of mauve, light blue, purple and gold. Multicolored chasub-

les cover o ff -white dalmatics, which are worn over pale blue albs. 240

Varieties of metallic blue add a sparkling vibrancy to the page.What is the political agenda intimated in this work? It is the Right

Hand of God opened over the king’s head. This feature extends toking Charles the select status of being the chosen and protected of God. The accompanying poem spells out the royal virtues to beassociated with the king. Charles was born in 823, the belated sonof Louis the Pious by queen Judith, and when contrary to the termsof the succession established in Louis’ Ordinatio imperii his share tothe realm was deducted from that of his older brothers, his succes-sion was hotly disputed by them in a series of wars concerning thepartition of the realm. Considering the questionable nature of hisposition only recently con rmed, this pictorial representation of hisprojected status in the eyes of God by the loyal monks of one of his royal abbeys is most timely. Combined with the Davidic associ-ations mentioned above, the Hand of God con rms the idea of a

justi ed claim to divine providence and the divine authorization of

his rule and of the Imperium Christianum. It will indeed be recalledthat in 871 he was yet to be crowned emperor. While his brother’simage suggests a self-reliant authority, the image of Charles is bol-stered by the claim to divine support. The glorious ritualistic setting suggests an early claim to the Divine Right of kings. His challengewas to live up to the projected image.

The Palace School of Charles the Bald functioned between 855and 877 241 and was possibly located at St. Denis, although that hadno bearing on the work. In about 870 it began a Coronation Sacramentary,which was to remain a fragment. 242 It was supposedly intended forthe coronation of Charles the Bald as king of Lotharingia in 869.It became associated with Metz. The fragment contained severaloriginal celebrated pages, including an unnamed standing Frankishruler, St. Gregory inspired by the Holy Spirit, Christ in Majesty andseveral other scenes of heaven. The St. Gregory scene introduces atouch of humor. (Plate 15b) Based on the Vitas of Gregory, this is

240 Kessler, p. 133.241 Staubach, p. 222.242 See Dodwell, p. 64, concerning the supposed historical reasons for the uncom-

pleted state of the work.



256

the rst manuscript in which a legendary episode is represented of Gregory shown dictating to two scribes, with extended pauses in the

dictation. 243 This genre has the scribes separated from the legendarygure by a curtain. This legendary narrative has it that one of thescribes used his stylus to make a peephole in the curtain, to see.Here one of the scribes outside of the sacred realm of the saint liftsthe curtain to see what is happening on the other side and to hissurprise sees the Holy Spirit, in the shape of a white dove, touch-ing the lips of Gregory with its beak. The saint gures as the trans-mitter of the divine word. This rst illustration of the legendaryanecdote will become a popular narrative during later periods. Facing that page is our primary interest here, the illustration of a group of three standing gures. (Plate 15c) All three have halos. The back of each of them has an irregular patch of a darker color which on thebishop to the left is rather squared, which just may be a fragmentedindication of a square halo, suggesting that the gures representedwere still alive. The garments of the two anking gures identifythem to be bishops, who may have been Hincmar of Reims andAdventius of Metz. 244 They are turned slightly inward, toward the

central gure. Each bishop carries a book. This central gure isdressed in noble court costume and most probably represents the young king, Charles the Bald. Curly clouds, owing ribbons, foldsand hems, as well as multicolored and elaborately scalloped designsin wave patterns of the splendid frame, animate the composition andlend it a high degree of movement. The Hand of God reaching outof Heaven and placing a bejeweled golden crown on his head is theimportant, ideological detail of this illustration. It is a claim to selectstatus among his brothers. Supported by high clergy Charles is rex et sacerdos , a pictorial reiteration of his legitimacy. In 876 Charlesbecame lay abbot at St. Denis.

Two artists, Liuthard and Berengar, working in the scriptoriumatSt. Denis produced yet another gospel dedicated to Charles the Bald.It is now identi ed as the superlatively worked Codex Aureus from St.Emmeram in Regensburg. (Plate 16a) The emperor Arnulf presentedit to the monastery. It may originally have been intended for Charles’foundation dedicated to the Virgin Mary at Compiègne, in reference

243 Staubach, p. 226.244 Staubach, p. 225, for a brief speculation and refutation of other interpretations.



, 257

to the Palace Chapel at Aachen. 245 The manuscript is perhaps themost grandiose and most lavishly ornamented gospel dedicated and

pertinent to Charles the Bald. Purple, gold and blue, with some redaccents, are the dominant colors throughout and suggest a Byzan-tine a ff ect. The Codex contains the traditional Gospels, prefaces andintroductions, dedicatory poems of which the last contains the date andthe names of the scribes. Of the many decorated pages with canontables, Evangelists, an apocalyptic Majestas Domini and many initials,the Coronation and the Veneration of the Lamb are placed onadjoining pages. Their purple and golden splendor is extraordinary. 246

Within an elaborate frame the picture of the enthroned king hasan upper purple strip with golden letters complemented by a lowerpurple strip with golden letters twice as wide. This poetic inscrip-tion identi es the ruler as Charles the Bald and places him in rela-tion with his biological and Biblical predecessors Charlemagne/Davidand Louis the Pious/Solomon. It also states that it was Charles whohad commissioned the work and had provided the funds. The textalso refers to his father Louis the Pious and to his mother Judith.The inscription implies that Charles deserved special status and sin-

gular rank. While his other half-brothers were born prior to theirfather’s coronation, Charles was actually born ‘to the purple’, por- phyrogenetos , when his father was already crowned emperor. 247 Thepicture portion is about twice the size of the upper and lower por-tions combined. Deliberate devises to deny reality cancel out anyattempts to create a perspective and consequently the picture is rathertwo-dimensional. The ritual space in which this coronation is placedis not of this world, but symbolic of an ideal world, something of an intellectually and spiritually projected architecture. The thronearchitecture, a colonnade of ve arches and crossbeams dominatesthe scene. The golden columns are in the same plane although acorrectly drawn red and gold canopy, the fastigium, a symbol of impe-rial majesty and judicial authority, vaults over the four columns indi-cating volume and depth. The right terminals of the baldachin appearto reach further into the picture than the left, so that the balloon-ing canopy stands curiously into the picture, in which the columns,

245

Staubach, pp. 264–278. He lists the poetic references basic to the Codex Aureus ,the works of Sedulius, Hucbald and Scotus.246 Mütherich, Gaede, Figs. 37, 38. See Staubach, p. 261f. for references to con-

temporary literary sources.247 Staubach, p. 263.



258

however, deny that third dimension. Like a new Solomon the king is seated on a resplendent throne in the central arch, a golden crown

with eurs de lys on his head and drapery behind and above hishead. In an ellipse above the king’s head God’s Right Hand reachesdown into the vaulted space as if he had only just performed theritualistic coronation of the king. Angels hover toward the canopyand touch it. Against a mainly blue background the king, larger thanall other gures in the picture, wears a dark blue tunic, ornamentedelaborately with golden designs, perhaps eurs de lys, or golden bees,hemmed with an apparently gem encrusted band. A purple toga isdraped around him, also with a gem encrusted hem and a large

jeweled conched bula at his shoulder. Red leggings with goldenbindings and golden shoes complete his appearance. His mustachioedface, stern, with very dark eyes, is turned to his left. His left handdoes not hold a scepter and is hidden in the folds of his lap, hisright hand gestures in the same direction as his gaze—at the pic-ture on the facing page of the Veneration of the Lamb. In the twoanking arches, two votive lamps, familiar from Visigothic Spain andthe province of Gothia, hang over the familiar, smaller two warriors,

the left with shield and spear, the right one holding his sword andcoiled belt assembly. Again they represent the royal function to defendthe Christian faith. In the anking space to the left and right, standtwo female gures wearing battlement crowns and holding cornu-copias with sprouting owers. Inscriptions in the frame identify themas his provinces Francia on the left and Gothia on the right, the coreareas of Charles’ kingdom and subject to his justice. These smallergures, just as the angels above, stand out against light mauve-beigebackdrops. Several of these motifs will see continuity in OttonianArt: the Hand of God, the angels, the baldachin, the two warriors,the female gures with battlement crowns carrying cornucopias rep-resenting provinces. This page is the most sumptuous propagandis-tic claim and portrayal of the legitimacy of Carolingian royalty withinthe context of the Christian Empire. In its ritual splendor it assertsthe claim to divine installation on earth by virtue of God’s choiceand grace as rex terrae . The identi cation of provinces, however, isan innovation, since during the Early Middle Ages, kings were rulersof peoples and not of territories. 248 That Charles is a most Christian

248 P.E. Schramm, Die deutschen Kaiser und Könige in Bildern ihrer Zeit (Munich 1983),p. 54. See also Porcher, in Hubert, et al., pp. 147 ff .



, 259

king, a rex christianissimus , is made apparent in his orientation towardthe apocalyptic scene of the facing page showing the Veneration of

the Lamb by the twenty-four elders. (Plate 16b) In the upper span-drels sun and moon are suggested, while in the lower ones a seatedOceanos leans on his jug, while a seated Terra holds a horn of plenty.The Lamb is Christ, the rex caeli , the King of Heaven. On an equallysumptuous page the golden inscription on purple background indi-cates that Charles sees the revelation of the Lamb and prays to beunited with it in eternity. 249 There is an intimation here of an equa-tion of identity. Enthroned under the canopy, instated by God, thepicture suggests strongly that the king is indeed God’s dear repre-sentative, ‘in whom he is well pleased’. It is fair to assume, thatwhen he commissioned this work Charles expressed a wish as to thedepiction of its key ideas. Clearly, the king’s perception of his ownentitlement as rex et sacerdos to rule is expressed here with spectacu-lar brilliance. The artistry of the gospel is a lustrous display of theking’s Heil, felicitas, fortuna , the prerequisite distinctions for rulershipthrough the assurance of divine benevolence. It mattered to engagein this glory by association with the Biblical David and Solomon,

his select status, his quali cations, his legitimacy and entitled majesty.250

The introduction of sacerdotal concepts and of such symbolic ritualpractices as the anointing of the Carolingian imperial head of Charlesthe Bald was a deliberate attempt to underscore the claimed asso-ciation with the Old Testament kings, rst appreciated by Alcuinand those others around his grandfather Charlemagne, who proposedthe Imperium Christianum; the liturgical imperial acclamation formulasechoed Germanic tribal and Roman military practices, while theever-increasing emphasis on o fficial imperial ‘portraits’, as well asCharles’ the Bald inclination to wear a diadem and veil in the Greek imperial fashion, served to elevate the image, the ideal of the impe-rial ruler in the tradition of the Roman emperors and reestablishearlier ideas of the sacerdotal essence of the ruler, in the Imitatiosacerdotii . The luxurious settings of the e ffigy, with their display of monarchical splendor and implied power are the equivalent of accla-mations of a king of Biblical stature.

There are several other dedicatory representations of Charles theBald. Considering that in 838 Charles’ ascent to the western throne

249 Mütherich, Gaede, p. 108.250 Schutz, Germanic Realms , passim.



260

had been at the expense of Pepin’s son’s right to the succession andthat his reign was not actually exceptionally brilliant, we can see

that these ‘portraits’ are the work of image makers projecting theartistic aura of the ideal ruler, the idea of the great augustus, animage somewhat at odds with reality. The image may well havebeen thought of as an instrument with which to advance the not so

veiled ambitions of Charles’ imperial future. As a result the repre-sentations of Charles succeeded in creating the enduring image of the illustrious Carolingian ruler. In addition there are the ruler por-traits imprinted on coins.

A very richly ornamented Psalter dedicated to Charles’s brother,Ludwig the German, during the second quarter of the 9th century,does not contain an idealized ruler portrait of that king. The Psaltershows one unidealized representation of a cruci xion group with aprostrate gure, identi ed as Ludwig, embracing the base of theCross. (Plate 17a) This pose would be in keeping with Ludwig’s reli-giosity. Theological questions were a constant preoccupation of thisrather learned king. 251 Educated in the seven liberal arts, on occa-sion he seemed more interested in the interpretation of certain Biblical

passages by Hincmar of Rheims and complex questions in theologythan in political discussions with his brother Charles. HrabanusMaurus was close to him, so it is not surprising that Ludwig theGerman elevated him to the archbishopric of Mainz. Though thescriptoria of his realm, Fulda, Reichenau, St. Gallen, Lorsch, Corvey,produced a considerable number of hagiographical and historio-graphical works, it is unlikely that his court had its own scriptorium.The literary activity during his reign is noteworthy, including numer-ous splendid manuscripts commissioned by him, presented and ded-icated to him by Hrabanus Maurus and Walahfrid Strabo, forinstance. 252 These attest to the king’s active interest in the intellec-tual issues of his day. The beautifully illuminated Psalter belongs toa continuing tradition of exquisitely colored, intertwining Insular andFranko-Saxon imaginative ornamentation of golden initials and let-ters which does not favor the use of miniatures. (Plate 17b) In theGerman realm the elaborate and luxurious ruler representations willhave to await the Ottonian Period.

251 Wallace-Hadrill, p. 333. See also Hartmann, pp. 212–222.252 Hartmann, pp. 218 ff .



, 261

XIV. Illuminated manuscripts—Christ in Majesty

The enthroned Christ of the Godescalc Gospel has been discussed atlength. In principle such a depiction of Christ in Majesty, a Majestas

Domini , was a common apocalyptic feature, painted or as a mosaic,in the main apse of churches and a frequent ornamental page inthe gospels. Characteristic motifs show Christ contained in an ovalprecinct, the mandorla—aureole—almond, seated on a globe, sur-rounded by symmetrically placed tetramorphs. This glorious precinctmay also be a lozenge. Among the miniatures of the Vivian Bible such a majestic representation of Christ, placed in a diamond shapedtetragon, combines the major prophets of the Old with the Evangelistsof the New Testament. (Plate 17c) A text identi es the illumination:

The heavenly king gleams worthily, and the prophets [also shine]Here, and the four evangelical heralds. 253

It is a composition, which represents the four corners of heaven andearth in which the prophecies of the Old are realized in the NewTestament and ful lled in Christ. That is the ultimate truth of the

Christian message. A simple linear frame of purple, gray and goldenlines contains the whole composition. While the Evangelists in theirformal writing poses are usually arranged in a clockwise manner, inthis Bible the haloed gures are diagonal opposites: top left John,bottom right Luke, top right Matthew, bottom left Mark. Against adeep purple background all but Luke are seated on a wing-backed‘throne’, two are writing, Mark is thinking while he cranes his headunnaturally to face upward, Luke is dipping his pen into his inkwell.Each one has an opened box of books at his feet. Medallions at the

corners of the tetragon contain the busts of the four major prophets: vertically Isaiah and Jeremiah, horizontally Ezekiel and Daniel. Isaiahand Daniel hold opened Old Testament scrolls. Ezekiel and Jeremiahhold closed Old Testament books. Just inside the corners of thelozenge are the tetramorphs holding the pertinent Gospels. The sym-bols are arranged clockwise from the top: the Eagle of John, theAngel of Matthew, the Ox of Luke and the Lion of Mark. Thewings of each are spread to help ll the triangle. The Eagle andthe Lion hold books. All enclosures are composed of the same three

253 See Dutton, Kessler, p. 117, Fig. 10.



262

colors: purple, gray and gold. The intended meaning is the closecohesion and interrelationship of all gures, united in Christ. Christ

is seated on a globe at the very center of the page, within the man-dorla of two intersecting purple circles in the shape of the gureeight. Under the cyclonic folds of an enveloping golden toga hewears a light blue tunic. On his raised left thigh he rests his handon an upright book, his open right hand holds up the oblate, assymbol of his Body, between raised right index nger and thumb toface the viewer. His youthful face with large sympathetic eyes isframed by a forked beard and long brown hair, which falls onto hisshoulders. The head is encircled by a crossed halo. All gures aresomewhat elongated. Two golden stars ank the medallion of Isaiah,while windblown golden vegetation lls the animated blue spacesabove the medallions. Purple and light blue are the background col-ors for the miniatures. The colors, lozenge and the medallions sug-gest the shape of the cross.

In addition to the ruler portrait and four miniatures of the Evan-gelists, the Gospel of Lothair also contains a picture of a Christ in Majesty.Much simpli ed in intention, it features the tetramorphs in the four

corners, beginning with the Eagle of John at the top left, the Angeltop right and Lion and Ox from right to left. The latter are quitecontorted as their heads are turned upward to the enthroned Christ.Within a large mandorla, Christ sits on a globe in virtually the iden-tical pose as is given to him in the Vivian Bible.

Charles’ Coronation Sacramentaryfrom Metz contains a Christ in Majestycomposition, which introduces several new elements. (Plate 18a) A

very similarly positioned Christ holding book and host as the oth-ers, is seated in the large aureole. Seraphim, angels with six purplefolded wings ank the mandorla. Beneath them are placed personi -cations of the Roman pagan gures Oceanos on the left, and Terra/Gaia on the right. Oceanos is a semi-nude reclining water and river god,resting his right arm on a jug from which water ows. His legs arerobed in a swath of purple material. A large sh head protrudesfrom the other side of his legs. Terra is a reclining semi-nude earthand fertility goddess, clad in white, with two children at her breasts.Two frames enclose this composition: an outside frame with simu-lated gem settings, an inner one decorated in sections, mainly withgreen leaf motifs, but also purple marble imitations. The motifs of Oceanos and Terra/Gaia will undergo some modi cations till Oceanos is identi ed with Jordanes Fluvius and Terra/Gaia holds a snake to her



, 263

breast and a cornucopia in the crook of her arm. The Sacramentaryalso contains a highly decorated initial page of the letter T on which

Christ is cruci ed. Above the arms of the cross appear gold and silver discs, with Sol , the sun god on the golden disc and a weeping Luna , the moon goddess on the other. (Plate 18b) It is interesting tonote how these pagan, Classical motifs were revived, to be integratedinto Christian art, thereby demonstrating their continuity.

The Gospels of Otfrid von Weissenburg, c. 868, contain anothersuch cruci xion scene with Mary and John, and a sun and moonrepresentation above the cross. 254 (Plate 18c) The pagan sun andmoon motifs will nd representation in art and architecture well intothe 16th century. The Sacramentarycontains yet another Majestas Domini page. (Plate 18d) Using the familiar colors for the background, thegures in the foreground and the designs of the frame, this is adensely populated and turbulent scene. The disciplined arrangementof the frame contains and restrains the enthusiasm. Christ in hismandorla is surrounded by choirs of angels, all animated and agi-tated, in euphoric transport over the vision of the Lord. Christ isseated on a globe against a blue background outlined in green, con-

tained in the golden enclosure of the almond. The pose and the col-ors are virtually identical with the previous poses and colors. Overa blue tunic Christ is enveloped in a golden toga. Only the outergarment is less cyclonic in the way it falls about the body. The lefthand holds the book supported on the left thigh, the foot slightlypropped up. Christ holds the host in his right hand. A beardless,invitingly friendly face with penetrating eyes is surrounded by a halo.Once again the apocalyptic tetramorphs support the mandorla fromoutside, beginning with the Eagle of John top left, Matthew’s Angeltop right, and contorted Ox and Lion of Luke and Mark twisting their heads upwards to look at the enthroned Christ. Beneath themandorla, four very similar subdued looking male torsos direct theirfurtive eyes upward. Without wings, they probably represent theoverawed Evangelists. They are divided into two groups by two of the purple wings of the six-winged seraphim standing on the lowestlevel. Instead of perspective and depth the surface is arranged two-dimensionally into superimposed layers of ascending plateaus. These

254 A. Goldschmidt, German Illumination. Vol. I. The Carolingian Period (Florence 1928,New York 1970), Fig. 62.



264

serve as the surfaces on which eight angels stand to ll efficientlyany remaining spaces. All gures have halos. All gures are robed

in the identical garments and colors as Christ. All eyes are turnedin veneration to face Christ. The gures display a range of emo-tions from ecstatic adoration to cowed timidity. This revelation of heaven projects the participation in the celestial divine service of theheavenly host, intimating the worship and glori cation of the divinemajesty in heaven as on earth. 255 The scene invites the enthused par-ticipant to share this elated vision of this euphoric knowledge of nalthings, as suggested in the Scriptures. These motifs also appear carvedon the ivory gospel covers and other ivories, as well as embossedon the covers of sheet gold.

XV. Illuminated manuscripts—Narrative style

Among the illuminated gospel manuscripts several models of narra-tion stand out. Derived from late Roman and early Christian reliefs,many miniatures assemble gures related to speci c events. Reference

to the anecdote telling the story of St. Gregory and one of his scribesdepicted in the Coronation Sacramentaryof Charles the Bald has alreadybeen made. The Drogo Sacramentary(c. 844–855), written in gold onthe nest parchment, colored in pale pastels, elaborates forty-onecapital initials with Biblical scenes depicting speci c events relating to the Life of Christ. 256 (Plates 19a, 19b, 19c, 19d) This in itself isnew and not without problems. While textual narrative makes itself clear to the listener, pictorial narrative depends on a degree of ini-tiation into the story to be told. Otherwise the depiction of an eventmisses its narrative intention. Without this initiation a monumentalletter C , ornamented with golden acanthus vines with red edging would be quite obscure, were it not placed into the text of theChristmas story, despite its domination of the page, and despite thefact that within the letter, a historiated initial, individual scenes of the nativity are placed into the intertwine—the Virgin Mary’s bed,

Joseph as an uninvolved observer, ox and ass at the crèche, the bathof the infant Jesus. To accommodate the shepherds, an elaborate

255 Staubach, p. 227.256 See Braunfels, pp. 208 ff . See Porcher, in Hubert, et al., pp. 158 ff . Also Diebold,

pp. 45 ff .



, 265

ornamentation extends into the inner space of the capital letter. Onlythe prior initiation into the story can make the language of pictures

clearly meaningful. Similarly there is the highly ornamented initialD eus which shows the reeling guards, and the dramatic meeting of the Three Maries with the angel at the empty tomb and being told, He is not here: for he is risen.This scene was soon to give rise tothe Easter Plays. In all instances the tectonic forms of the capitalletters are subverted into writhing and enclosing organic, perforatedintertwines, a ne, original recapitulation of Mediterranean and north-ern traditional stylistic characteristics. Within the letter D itself smallscenes depicting events in Christ’s interactions with the Maries areintertwined within the ornamental acanthus vines. The vines enfoldthe letters like living ivy. One of the Maries is at his feet, probablythe scene when Christ identi ed himself to her as the Messiah. Themain scene, however, shows the Three Maries before an elaboratetomb structure, being greeted by the angel, with the guards reeling,off to the side. Like this capital letter, the inventive initials areextremely carefully thought out. Thus for the Ascension of Christ,the whole inner space of a foliated capital C is lled with Christ

taking the Hand of God, reaching out of Heaven, as he ascends arock formation, anked by two angels and with Mary and the apos-tles witnessing from below. Here the human gures are reminiscentof those appearing in the Utrecht Psalter.257 Many initials are providedwith special compartments in which gures can be accommodatedamong the tendrils and foliage to o ff er support by means of picto-rial commentary for the textual message. Eventually these organicintertwines with humans, animals and vines will characterize theornamental friezes of the Romanesque style. Old Testament scenesare selected for their prophetic character, New Testament scenes forthe extent to which they show the prophecies ful lled in Christ’spassion.

The Vivian Bible contains scenes from the life of St. Jerome, 258

while the Grandval Bible from Tours, contains two pages of co-existentnarrative registers intended to be read sequentially, one page telling

257 See Chazelle, Cruci ed God , p. 254.258 B.M. Kaczynski, ‘Edition, Translation and Exegesis. The Carolingians and the

Bible.’ in Sullivan, Gentle Voices , p. 176, for a discussion of the page. See as wellDiebold, pp. 71 ff .



266

the story of Genesis from the creation of Adam, by a youthful look-ing God, 259 to the expulsion from the Garden of Eden, and Eve giv-

ing birth in sorrow and Adam working the soil with bitter e ff ort,(Plate 20a) the other showing Moses on Mt. Sinai receiving the Codeand preaching to the people of Israel. These are condensed extractsfrom richer pictorial cycles. The mid-ninth century Bamberg Bible retells the same Genesis sequence, by arranging on four tiers sil-houetted gures separated by vegetation. 260 (Fig. 9) Despite the sim-ilarities of these representations, there exist su fficient variations toindicate the possibility of a lost common source.

The miniaturists of the Carolingian Period, some known by name, 261

also found a focus for their narrative skills and creative phantasy inthe illumination of psalters, traditional collections of the psalms,hymns and prayers, originally intended for liturgical use and com-munal prayer, singing and recitation. The psalters served educationalpurposes for the young as well, in that they were also used as basictexts for reading and memorization. The clergy had to know thepsalters by heart, a task of several years. 262 By means of an inex-haustible use of parables, metaphors and similes they succeed at mak-

ing textual abstractions of the Christian message pictorially visible,perhaps as aids to memory. Three illustrated manuscripts are espe-cially worthy of note: the Psalters from Stuttgart, Utrecht and St.Gallen. Each re ects a somewhat di ff erent intention pertaining topictorial narrative, in that illustrated scenes are inserted directlybetween the lines into the appropriate places in the commentariesof the psalms. This represents a Carolingian innovation. The minia-tures are not given an independent illustrative page. The Psalterium

Aureum, from St. Gallen, is a variant.The Stuttgart Psalter is a vibrantly illustrated manuscript with some

259 Braunfels, p. 390. See Dutton, Kessler, p. 112 for the poetic texts and Figs.5, 6 for the illustrations.

260 Kessler, pp. 13 ff ., and Figs. 1–4, for a detailed analysis. See O. Pächt, Buchmalerei des Mittelalters (Munich 1985), p. 29. See Maguire, ‘Magic and Money’, in Nees,

Approaches , p. 94, who indicates that once fourteen circular ornaments showing headshad surrounded the page, but that at a later point nine had been cut out, perhapsto be used as amulets.

261 Alexander, p. 6f.262 Van der Horst, The Utrecht Psalter in Medieval Art , p. 36f., 81. Also Contreni,

in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History, p. 729. See also Contreni, ‘Pursuitof Knowledge’, in Sullivan, Gentle Voices , p. 116.



, 267

colored and capital initials and three hundred and sixteen vividlycolored narrative scenes. In this Psalter vivid colors are set o ff against

one another: reds, gold, purples, skin tones and greens provide enliven-ing accents and contrast. (Plate 20b) The Psalter was produced atSaint-Germain-des-Prés, c. 820–30. Three groups of pictorial com-mentaries illustrate the psalms: illustrations of psalms making refer-ence to the Old Testament, scenes with textual relevance to speci cpsalms such as the elaborated reference to Psalm 42:2 (Vulgate 41:2),showing the familiar stag allegory of the soul seeking water, andevents from the New Testament anticipated in the psalms. King David, the psalmist, anticipates Christ. The pictorials then are anattempt to cross-reference Old and New Testaments, to interlink tex-tual and visual references into a coherent context. Old and NewTestaments function as type and anti-type, as prediction and real-ization, as promise and ful llment. The texts of the psalmists rep-resent the Old Testament. The pictorial projection represents theNew Testament. The two together point to the knowledge of thenal things, which matter. Among these, ve can serve as samplepictorial illustrations for selected texts from the Psalms: 72:6, 10–11,

69:21, 9:4–6, 91:13, of the King James Version.Psalm 72:6 (Vulgate 71:6) states He shall come down like rain uponmown grass; as showers that water the earth.This text is illustrated withthe angelic Annunciation to the Virgin Mary. (Plate 20c) Against apurple background the angel approaches an enthroned Mary fromthe right. A dove descends toward her. Verses 10–11, tell of kingsbearing gifts, Yea, all kings shall fall down before him; all nations shall serve him. (Plate 20d) The vignette used to illuminate this passage sets theThree Kings following the star, bringing gifts to an enthroned VirginMary and Jesus, seated in an arch. The composition mirrors themosaics in San Appollinare Nuovo in Ravenna. The background tothis composition is green. Psalm 69:21 (Vulgate 68:22) reads Theyalso gave me gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.These lines recommend the circumstances of the Cruci xion whenChrist remarked that he was thirsty and a sponge soaked in waterand vinegar was passed up to him. (Plate 21a) In this scene a sol-dier carrying a large pail extends the sponge to a very stylized andunproportional cruci ed Christ. John and Mary approach from theleft. Again the background is green. Psalm 9:4–6 deals with therejection of the unworthy: For thou hast maintained my right and my cause;



268

thou satest in the throne judging right. Thou hast rebuked the heathen, thou hast destroyed the wicked, thou hast put out their name for ever and ever . . . their

memorial is perished with them.The illustrator chose to show Christ in Judgment. (Plate 21b) Against a green background Christ sits on aglobe holding a scale, with the angel Michael holding a list. Dolefullooking individuals approach the judge. A purple con guration rep-resents the ground. Psalm 91:13 (Vulgate 90:13) introduces a motif which was to prove popular. Thou shalt tread upon the lion and the adder;the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.The Latin textspeaks of asps and basiliscs and it is a combination of these, whichwe will see again in the ivory carvings. In the Stuttgart Psalter arather martial Christ is shown with his red cape ying behind him,armed with helmet, chain mail shirt, military boots and thrusting lance in his right. (Plate 21c) This Christ is the e ffigy of the victo-rious Roman general. He represents the Church Triumphant. In hisextended left hand he holds an open book. Against a green back-ground Christ stands with his left leg on the head of a lion, withhis right on a coiled and rearing snake, thrusting the spear pointinto the forked tongues. An angel approaches from his right. The

approving Right Hand of God reaches out of Heaven into this realm.Despite the exclusionary directives of the Libri Carolini , primary textswith signi cant relevance for the Christian faith are complementedwith signi cant narrative illustrations to bring the texts alive, includ-ing the literal understanding of gures of speech. The numerous inte-grated pictorial representations use the human e ffigy in contexts,which are quotations by other means. The pictures are textual para-phrases. In that sense they are not just mere ornamentation, thoughthey do have ornamental value. A ‘bilingualism’ of texts and imagesspeaks to us from these pages. As was mentioned above the quota-tions from the Psalms are given prophetic power, that things wereindeed foretold so that they could happen. The complete original,of course, had no such intention. The artist selected speci c excerpts,which would exemplify the foreshadowing and serve as allegoricalreferences to make the link between the psalms and the NewTestament. Clearly a deliberate link is created here between king David, the psalmist, and Christ, to demonstrate the oneness of Oldand New Testaments.

The Utrecht Psalter , is an innovative and exemplary key work madebetween 816 and 823, or c. 835 at the monastery of St. Peters atHautvillers under the auspices of Reims, perhaps even for the empress



, 269

Judith. 263 Godescalc may have been involved in its creation. 264 Aug-mented by the Lord’s Prayer and the Apostolic Creed, it is kept at

the University Library at Utrecht. Hence the name. Indications arethat this psalter did not have a liturgical function, but was used asa prayer book, a reading text, one to be studied. 265 An ornamentalaffinity links the vignettes of this psalter with those of the Ebo Gospel made at the same scriptoriumat the same time. A textual a ffinity con-nects this psalter with the one kept at Stuttgart and it is held, thoughwithout demonstrable proof, that older, even Byzantine sources wereheld in common by the artists as they prepared their commenting

visualizations. It di ff ers signi cantly from the rather static Stuttgart Psalter in that it is quite original and consists entirely of dynamic,sketchy line drawings in a sepia colored ink on parchment. Withone hundred and sixty-six monochrome pictures, composed of sev-eral scenes, it is the most extensively decorated psalter manuscript.All but forty have subsequently been retraced, 266 sometimes a detract-ing emphasis. As if intended to feign antiquity these illuminated textsare arranged in three columns per page. Often the vignettes areunderstandable, pictorial commentaries and literal illustrations of

specic words and phrases and events mentioned in the verses of the psalms. In some of the animated vignettes poetic license makesthe translated pictorial syntax quite obscure and seemingly unmoti-

vated, without identi able connection to the text of the psalm, letalone the New Testament. The style is characterized by frenziedhastiness, dynamic movement, nervous excitement, agitated gesticu-lation, frenetic volatility and sketchy shorthand and caricature, as if a turbulent wind were blowing through the landscapes. Closer exam-ination betrays a super cial homogeneity of style. The illustrationsmay be the work of three artists. Such indications as the di ff erentsize of heads, the slenderness of bodies, poor compositions, vacantspaces, point to distinct artists. 267 Most unclassical is the lack of any

263 Van der Horst, Utrecht Psalter , p. 82. See also Braunfels, pp. 158–179, 376f.See also C.M. Chazelle, ‘Archbishops Ebo and Hincmar of Reims and the UtrechtPsalter’, in Nees, Approaches , pp. 97–119. Chazelle, p. 99, proposes a date as lateas the 840s/50s for the Psalter. Also Chazelle, Cruci ed God , p. 241. See also Nees,Early Medieval Art , p. 200f.

264

J.H.A. Engelbregt, Het Utrecht Psalterium(Utrecht 1963), p. 139f. Summarizesthe history of the manuscript. See also van der Horst, Utrecht Psalter , pp. 12, 23 ff .265 Van der Horst, Utrecht Psalter , p. 37.266 Van der Horst, Utrecht Psalter , p. 45f.267 Van der Horst, Utrecht Psalter , pp. 47–54.



270

rational arrangement of the available space. Instead, a surprisinglynew and enthusiastic vitality explodes on these pages. As if the result

of stream of consciousness realizations, quite unrelated, but perhapssequential scenes may appear in a coexistent manner and give asense of perspective to the seemingly freely roaming thoughts, placedat random into planes of independent and unrelated narrative andnon-narrative episodes, de nitely an artistic challenge. Sometimes theillustrations appear to be aligned with the columns of text as if theywere to be considered a speci c part of the column only to becomeincorporated into a wider panel, such as a landscape, populated witha crowd of civilians, or a military force. To us the representationsof humans, with their owing garments and expressive eyes, havesomething of the caricature about them. It has been suggested thatupon closer examination these gures represent only a few typescapable only of a limited number of gestures. 268 However, they aresupple, agile, contorted, capable of assuming any pose or position,seated, prone, standing, bending or leaning, any gesture, tilt of thehead, as individuals or as groups of three or four, or as a large,crescent shaped crowd. However, without bene t of the textual ref-

erences, the sketches are quite meaningless.269

Occasionally the illus-trations indicate that the artists knew the commentaries pertaining to the psalms and sketched allusions contained there among thosedealing speci cally with the psalms. 270

The gural inventory is repetitive and may function like a Leitmotif in several instances . The formulaic illustrations include an enthronedChrist in the mandorla, evangelists, hosts of angels, such pagan per-sonications as Oceanos, Terra, Sol, Luna/Selena and stars, walled cities,gates and towers, temples and canopies, priests making sacri ce, bat-tle scenes and sieges perhaps re ecting Carolingian realities, such asthe illustration to Psalm 44, barbarians attacking the City of God,

268 J. Porcher in Hubert et al., p. 103.269 However, see Chazelle, ‘The Utrecht Psalter’, in Nees, Approaches , pp. 100 ff .,

interprets fol. 90v. showing the circular group of seated gures around three cen-tral gures to be the selection and elevation of an archbishop and the fastening of the pallium about his shoulders and that it records an actual event, either Athanasiusor someone like him appearing before a council, or establishing the links of the

Carolingian church with an ancient tradition, such as the central role of councilsin church government. The scene may concern the profession of his orthodox faithby Ebo, thereby dating the Psalter to 816–35, or by his successor Hincmar of Reimsin 845.

270 Van der Horst, Utrecht Psalter , p. 71f.



, 271

sailing ships and boats, groups of soldiers frequently representing theungodly, mounted troops, infantry, standing, advancing, in combat

and falling, attacking and defending, eld workers plowing with oxenor cows, viticulture, also lions ravaging cattle and humans, snakes,browsing deer and stags, goats, birds, varieties of vegetation, peopleat table, eating and drinking, servants, masters and representationsof kings, Saul and David in palace settings. At least twice, Psalms38 and 77, Frankish monarchs assume Davidic identity. (Figs. 10,11) Several cruci xions of Christ and one of St. Peter anticipate aNew Testament event and one pertaining to the lives of the apos-tles. Artistic ingenuity is evident everywhere even if frequently theillustrations are quite obscure, as even a close reading of the psalmsdoes not help with the identi cation of the scenes. Such abstractconcepts as justice, truth and mercy are represented metaphoricallyas female gures. In a psalm of seventy-two verses the imaginativepictorial representation of the text can be a challenge. The scenesor part of scenes may be represented as if following a general matrixand not necessarily following a close reading of the text. At mosttimes the illustrations require the textual basis to be comprehensi-

ble. A stretch of the imagination is always required.271

Thus the textof the First Psalm speaks of the godly man who delights in the lawand in his law doth he meditate day and night.(Fig. 12) Under a canopywith six columns, a fastigium, sits a man in the meditative writing pose of an Evangelist with an angel behind him. Sun, moon andstars shine above to illustrate his activity ‘day and night’. Enthronedon the seat of the scornful across from him sits the ungodly man. Backedby soldiers, these ungodly shall not stand in the judgment , hence they areshown cast into the pit of hell, . . . but the way of the ungodly shall per-ish . The godly man shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water.. . .The Utrecht version is somewhat smudged, though the copy in theBritish Museum shows clearly a reclining man, poised like a rivergod, resting his arm on a tilted jug from which pours a river anda tree grows beside it. Evidently not all the illustrations follow thetexts, nor do the texts lend themselves to easy pictorial demonstra-tion. 272 The sequence of narrative details of the 23. Psalm can eas-ily be identi ed among the pictorial detail. (Fig. 13) Its six verses

271 Beckwith, p. 45.272 See Nees, Early Christian Art , p. 201.



272

can all be ‘read’. Identi ed with the Vulgate 273 number XXII, theidenti ed David, the psalmist, rests by owing waters, holding a sta ff ,

which an angel also supports from behind with his right, and pour-ing oil from a horn with his left hand. The valley of death resem-bles a cave from which ‘enemies’ are shooting arrows. A set tableis prepared before him and a cup like vessel in his left is tipped andover ows. A temple with altar represents the ‘House of the Lord’.Flocks of sheep, cattle and rock climbing goats complete the scenearound the bottom left. Here, as well as in the other illustrations,the artists have elected to simplify their images. In the 43. Psalmthe text dealing with the misfortunes of Israel is not treated in asliteral a manner, but in a gurative analogy of a besieged city. (Fig.14) To us the cartoonist seems even capable of humor, as when heshows Christ stepping o ff his globe and out of the mandorla, hand-ing his lance to an angel, to echo the Lord’s saying, now will I arise (Psalm 12:5). For the Carolingian miniaturist this was not funny, forhis literal understanding demanded this scene to be taken as a seri-ously sincere literal meaning of the word. (Fig. 15) Frequently theNew Testament gure of the enthroned Christ is used to represent

the presence of the Old Testament God. Both God and Christ areequated with the divine logos . The illustrations assume a prepared-ness to see promise and ful llment in the allegorical links betweenOld and New Testament references in order to facilitate a Christianreading of the Old Testament.

A comparison of the illustrations of the two Psalters reveals sim-ilarities and obvious di ff erences. In both Psalters the subject is manand his activities. Both aim to illustrate passages of text by meansof ‘visual quotations and commentaries’, and both try to draw connec-tions between the psalms and any references, which might pre gureevents of the New Testament. In that respect the Stuttgart Psalter ismore obvious in that it is more contained, episodic and focused ona speci c event. It appears to be more stylized, less accomplished inits artistry and it is ‘expressionistic’ in the explicit use of its vivid poly-chrome. The Utrecht Psalter is monochrome, more implicitly ‘impres-sionistic’, much less circumscribed, expansively panoramic and mostoften a pot-pourri of a multitude of narrative elements on one page,

273 Kaczynski, ‘Edition’, in Sullivan, Gentle Voices , pp. 177 ff . concerning St. Jerome’spreoccupation with the Psalter. See Diebold, pp. 107 ff .



274

to illustrate. This may be owing to the circumstance that the artisthad additional commentaries available as sources and that the illus-

trations are derived from these commentaries, rather than from thetext of a speci c psalm. Once one scene fuses with the next into awhirling narrative congregation of gural detail, its textual locationcan be most di fficult to establish, especially if in response to his ownstream of consciousness he gives expression to the association of ideasdeveloped from an idea in a text. It then happens that sophisticatedideas coexist on the page with naively interpreted references andpassages from the text. The artistic work points to a synthesis inwhich artistic freedom combines with the freedom of textual inter-pretation and application to establish a creative realm of theologi-cal learnedness. The softly contoured, curvilinear, cloudlike geographicalfeatures are contrasted with the angular, linear demarcation lines of temples, walls and cities. The result is an exceptional work in whichthe miniaturist knew very well how to make maximum use of theavailable space, of pliability and movement. Resolving the ensuing puzzles in terms of the speci c text is a trying activity. However,even for the less engaged visitor of the psalter, the illustrations have

an enticing attraction. The horror vacui , however, does not seem tohave been overcome and may indeed play a signi cant role in thefascination with it. Though copied several times, regrettably, theUtrecht Psalter did not establish a traditional style from which a live-lier form of animated illustration would develop. A sti ff formalismwill prevail for a long time.

St. Gallen, one of the chief monasteries of the eastern realm, hasbeen discussed at length for its scriptorium, which, owing to its Insularheritage, turned out some very ne manuscripts and psalters, suchas the Folchard Psalter , with innumerable spectacular ornamented ini-tial capitals that clearly reveal the link with the Irish tradition. Thatthe royal monastery of St. Gallen had a very rm allegiance to theCarolingians and their Davidic principles of a Christian Empire isextensively demonstrated by the Golden Psalter of St. Gallen, thePsalterium Aureum. Composed during the peak period of the last half of the 9th century, this very ne psalter is written completely ingold, as its name indicates. In addition to elaborate initials, the psaltercontains among others, thirteen illustrations focused on the life andreign of king David. 274 One shows David being anointed by Samuel.




, 275

(Plate 22a) The setting is an arch lavishly embellished with oral vines sprouting from it and enveloping it. The columns are covered

with green leaves against a red background. Blooming vegetationcovers the ground. A large ornamental plant lls the space betweenthe two gures. A larger prophet Samuel pours oil from a horn uponthe head of David. Inscriptions identify the two gures. A wholepage illustration shows an enthroned David under an archway, seatedfrontally, pointing his right hand to his chest in the manner of Christ.It is an awkward representation in the style of the o fficial gospels.He is holding his instrument while he is composing the psalms,anked by two musicians and two dancers below him. In the span-drels above the arch the Hand of God reaches in, top right, whilean angel gesturing his blessing, oats in at top left. None of thesegures is particularly graceful as it moves across the page. Againsta purple background the gures are pink or green, outlined in gold.The columns and arch are green or purple, ornamented with gold.

This color scheme is maintained throughout. Best known are real-istic military scenes identi ed with Joab, David’s general. On facing pages the innovative artist shows light and heavy cavalry on the

march, on the other the siege of a city and the surrender of sucha city. (Plates 22b, 22c) Di ff erent from the Utrecht Psalter , here theillustrations refer to the title heading of the psalms, that when Joabreturned, and smote of Edom in the valley of salt twelve thousand.The sceneconsists of three elements—a mounted standard bearer out front, fol-lowed by three staggered, helmeted, chain mail wearing hastati , dra-goons, carrying lances. One carries a round shield. Over their heads,the artist placed a group of ve cavalrymen without armor, mountedon three pacing horses. One of their horses is galloping. It is themost skillfully represented horse. There is something un nished aboutthis page, as there is a shortage of horses and horses’ legs as theyoverlap one another. The running horse and its rider have not beencolored. Similarly the tail of the standard bearer’s horse has not beencolored either. Beneath the horses the billowing purple ground sup-ports sparse green vegetation. Of interest is the standard carried bya bearer. It is a long, tapering, pennant-like dragon banner, scalyand serpent-like, spewing re. Late Roman and Byzantine vacillashad assumed that motif. It may surprise to see green horses. Theothers are pale, or a reddish brown. Some latter-day wag felt thepictures needed an extra touch and in strong black added a mus-tache to one of the light cavalrymen and made the front horse into



276

a virile stallion. The forces are advancing from left to right. Theponies themselves appear to be of a small breed, judging by the

length of the riders’ legs but while the horsemen’s right legs are vis-ible beneath the belly of the horse, their left legs are not. On thefacing page heavy cavalry and heavy infantry are shown attacking a forti ed town. Just as the hastati on the preceding page, all sol-diers are wearing hauberks of chain mail to protect the body to theelbows and to the knees. All are helmeted, ghting with spears andbows and arrows. The fallen lie outside the walls. The gural pro-portions vary. This time the banner is more of a ag, with threepointed ys with tassels attached. Ground and groundcover resem-ble that of the previous page. Four infantrymen have only four legs.The horsemen again sit on too few, legless horses. Two are green.Here too the color scheme is the same. The lower part of the pageshows the towers and the gate in ames and the civilians on thepoint of surrender. The defenders appear to be the fallen dead out-side of the walls.

It is worth noting that the compositions indicate a relatively highdegree of observed animation. Only at rst glance do the horses

appear to be posed in a repetitive manner. They do suggest move-ment. The horsemen sit their horses well. Hands, arms and legs,bodies and heads are convincingly poised. Even the fallen rest inacceptable positions. The artist appears to have chosen the momentbefore the impending event, such as the surrender of the city, whenthe degree of anticipation is highest, thereby introducing a momentof tension into the action on the page.

It would seem that these unique pictures re ect some aspects of reality. While the walled towns resemble those drawn in the Utrecht Psalter , the walls are painted in alternating color patterns in red, goldand green. This coloring is reminiscent of the color designs on theoutside of the Lorsch arches, to be dealt with below. The artistmakes no attempt here to show the Biblical gures in authentic dress.The horse trappings, complete with stirrups, the armaments of thesoldiers are reliably consistent with other contemporary depictions of the Frankish inventories of arms. Only one sword is visible, raised.



, 277

XVI. Engraved crystals

Vaguely related stylistically to the drawings of the Utrecht Psalter (c. 830) are several rock crystals incised with intricate, miniaturescenes. Twenty are extant, six others are attested. Generally shapedlike magnifying glasses, relics may once have been enclosed behindthe stones. 275 The best known is the superb, large circular LothairCrystal (c. 860) named after king Lothair II, king of Lotharingia(855–869) who according to an inscription around the center of thecrystal had commissioned it. Perhaps made at Aachen, documentedin 944 at the abbey of Vausort on the River Meuse, it is now inthe British Museum. 276 In eight episodes, isolated, but only seem-ingly randomly arranged miniature groups are gathered around thecenter. 277 The narrative depicted on the disc deals with the Biblicalstory of virtuous Susannah from the Book of Daniel. (Fig. 16) Sheis shown located within a hortus conclusus , resisting the seduction bythe two false Elders while in her bath, then being charged with adul-tery. Susannah’s persecution, the prophet Daniel’s intervention andher nal triumph have been seen as an allegory of the early church. 278

The story is too close an analogy with Lothair’s II own attempts toobtain a divorce from his barren wife Theutberga in his own enforcedmarriage, in order to marry his concubine Waldrada, thereby legit-imizing their son and ensuring the succession and the continuity of his realm, and proceeding against her with the false testimony of two bishops, until the pope himself intervened to prevent the divorce(865).279

275 G. Kornbluth, Engraved Gems of the Carolingian Empire (University Park, Pennsylvania1995), pp. 1, 19 and pp. 25 ff . for a grouping of these gems. See also Nees, Early

Medieval Art , p. 202f.276 P. Lasko, The Pelican History of Art: Ars Sacra, 800–1200 (Harmondsworth 1972),

p. 48f. Also van der Horst, Utrecht Psalter , p. 212f.277 Kornbluth, pp. 31–48, analyses the scenes speci cally and the details per-

taining to this gem. See Nees, ‘Art and Politics’, in Sullivan, Gentle Voices , p. 212f.278 Beckwith, p. 68. See Brunner, p. 138, for historical details. See. Braunfels,

p. 388, for details of the inscriptions. See especially Kornbluth, pp. 38 ff., for a dis-

cussion of the Susanna/Ecclesia associations.279 Fried, in McKitterick, New Cambridge Medieval History, p. 150, indicates thatpope Hadrian II removed the bishops of Cologne and of Trier from their sees forsupporting the king’s divorce. See also Hartmann, pp. 56 ff . See Kornbluth, p. 37f.Also Nees, Early Medieval Art , pp. 239 ff .



278

The crystal was clearly a token of reconciliation, suggesting thatproper social and religious form triumphs over personal inclination

and perceived political necessity. However, Lothair II did not renounce,nor resign himself to the pope’s intervention. The stylistic similaritywith the Psalter rests with the many animated miniature scenes,which populate the narrative. The seemingly hovering, vibrant gureshave that same dynamic, nervous gesticulation about them that hasbeen noticed in the decorations of the Utrecht Psalter. The isolatedgroupings vary from the Psalter in that brief inscriptions identify therepresented scenes, i.e. a Latin reading knowledge is clearly an assetto the beholder when deciphering the scenes. Ground out frombehind in reverse, the stark white of the engravings contrast bril-liantly when placed against a dark background. The sophisticatedprecision of the gem cutter’s skills in executing the great detail onsuch small surfaces is astonishing considering the limited space avail-able and technology involved. 280

Although the 4th century Roman diatretari had carved the cagecups around Cologne and passed their glass making skills using waterdriven drills and grinding wheels on to their Frankish successors,

these crystals are worked with new techniques. The techniques involvedin the incising of the rock crystals, quartz, were newly invented inthe west. Their scenic subject matter is entirely and independentlyChristian, without even oblique allusions to the Carolingian Impe-rium Christianum.281 Considering the brittle and fragile nature of quartz,which permitted no mistakes, the polished clarity of the work is spec-tacular. Using a diamond- or int-tipped scriber, the artist wouldrst sketch the scene before setting to grinding it into the stone. Thesketch and the engraving were usually not totally congruent. It hasbeen shown elsewhere that in Germanic personal ornamentation raresemi-precious, opaque stones were used in the protective magic of amulets because they were thought to be imbued with particularallegorical powers. A splendid large crystal as this one would havebeen of truly elitist value. The crystals are intaglios, i.e. the scenesare carved below the surface into the reverse, to be viewed throughthe stone. 282 Though it has not been determined where the actualproduction centers of this genre were located, probably in Lotharingia,

280 Kornbluth, pp. 5–16, for a discussion of materials and methods.281 Kornbluth, pp. 4, 13f.282 Kornbluth, p. 5f.



, 279

the style used suggests great familiarity with the work of the studiosand scriptoria of Lotharingia, especially around Aachen, Metz and

Reims. We see that same approach to the sporadic organization of the pictorial surface. The primary interest in the narrative contentand its ethical importance had precedence over any calculated senseof presentational form. Of interest is the use of Biblical narrative forpersonal reasons in an entirely secular context. Does this piece alreadysignal a non-religious intrusion into the otherwise religion dominatedartistic art forms? Unfortunately this large crystal, 10.5 cm in diam-eter, broke across the middle. Because of their smaller format andtheir protective settings, the others have generally survived intact.

The later, Ottonian, so-called Cross of Lothair in the CathedralTreasury at Aachen, has inserted in its lower portion a rock-crystalincised with a portrait and identifying inscription of the same LothairII, (855–869) who also gave his name, Lotharingia, to the region.This crystal was originally cut as a seal, probably at Aachen. A Roman gem or coin may have served as a model. It is one of sev-eral still extant. It is stylistically related to the Susanna group. 283

Another rock crystal, now in the British Museum, is a large, awed

oval Cruci xion from St. Denis.284

It may have originated in thePalace School of Charles the Bald (846–869). (Fig. 17) This theme,carved on crystal, presents a convincing symbiosis as the disinte-grating and corruptible esh is depicted in the icy durability of therock crystal. 285 Indicating the same technique, it shows a carvedCruci xion, with medallions of pagan Apollo and Selena represent-ing a personi ed Sun and Moon above the Cross, justi ed by theeclipse at Christ’s death, symmetrically balancing Mary and St. Johnturned toward the Cross on either side. Both raise a piece of clothto their faces. None of the bodies is anatomically correct. While theCross, Sun and Moon received only super cial treatment, the work-manship of the other gures is that of the Lothair Crystal. Dispositionsof the bodies, details of heads, arms and legs and especially of themany folds of the garments, move this work into the very vicinityof the Lothair Crystal. The female gures especially show consider-able a ffinity. A dead snake is coiled around the base of the cross,

283 Kornbluth, pp. 58–63, for a detailed discussion of the gem.284 Kornbluth, pp. 100–106, details the characteristics of this gem.285 Kornbluth, p. 17f., refers to the tradition of this idea extending from the Old

Testament, to St. Paul, Gregory the great, and Hrabanus Maurus.



280

which conquers and overcomes death. These gures are part of aconventional Carolingian iconography.

A superior work, also Lotharingian, from Trier (883–915), are theminiatures carved on the Cruci xion Crystal now in the AugustinerMuseum in Freiburg. 286 This gem has been damaged on both sides.(Fig. 18) Again the gures, movements, gestures, garment folds arerelated to those of the other crystal engravings, but show a higherdegree of articulation than the Cruci xion Crystal from St. Denis.Sun and Moon, each holding a triple amed torch, as if to light thedarkness of the eclipse, accompanied by starbursts, are treated moreelaborately. The superscription above Christ’s head is legible. Threerivulets of blood stream from the wounds in Christ’s hands. Thistime four gures ank the cross with upturned faces. Each has abase on which to stand. On the left Mary stands higher than thesoldier Longinus with the lance poised to pierce Christ’s side. Onthe right John, holding a book, stands on higher ground than thesoldier Stephaton o ff ering Christ the sponge soaked in vinegar. Againa serpent is coiled at the base of the cross. 287 Heavenly bodies andthose on earth bear witness to the events. The iconographic com-

position will reappear on ivory carvings.What impresses immediately about these Cruci xion Crystals isthe cold clarity and con dent homocentricity of the art. There is nodistracting ornamentation. The concentration rests entirely on thenarrative presented by the stark expressiveness of the clearly cutgures and their activities involved in the representation of theepisodes. No extraneous decorative detail to soften the scene. No

vegetation and no residual stylistic elements of the centrifugal organicornamental forms of the Insular Style . Only human gures, cut as if in ice. The Cruci xion Crystals in particular focus exclusively on theChristian message of the Cruci xion as distinct illustrative image.The restless decorative imagination of pre-Christian art has disap-peared from this genre. These northern artists have restricted theirtechnical skills to imparting a sense of symmetry and composurethrough the extreme precision and sharp de nition to the incisedgures important for the clear statements of the sequence of the nar-rative. In this sense the scenes do not resemble the rather rambling,asymmetrical, conversational forms of the Utrecht Psalter . Here the

286 Kornbluth, pp. 63–67. for details concerning the Freiburg Cruci xion.287 Kornbluth, p. 67, for an interpretation of the serpent.



, 281

homocentric principles of Mediterranean art have triumphed. TheLothair Crystal illustrates an even more tectonic principle of com-

position in that its episodic scenes are arranged centripetally aroundthe scene in the center in which the innocence of Susanna is estab-lished. More than the illuminations and the ivories, the carvings sil-houetted on crystal impart a heightened abstract transparency to thescenes, as the incised skeletal tracery is contrasted against a seem-ing void, within which one could nd an access to the in nity beyondthe Christian image. Stylistic elements suggest that the three crystalsdiscussed here originated in the same artistic province. Their stylewill reappear in the iconography of some ivories.

XVII. Ivories

The ancient Greeks had discovered that if ivory was soaked in vine-gar it could be peeled in layers and cut into panels. Already theyhad produced polychrome panels and there are still pieces on whichthe coloration is evident. That today the panels tend to be white

creates a misleading impression of clarity and purity.Bone and ivory carvings and engravings are well represented inthe Germanic inventories of Pre-Carolingian times. However, theCarolingian ivory carvings nd their inspiration in the late Classicalheritage of the Roman Empire and Early Christianity. The ivorydiptychs, of the consuls, for instance, already served as models forthe formal poses of the Evangelists, discussed above. Similarly thearcade settings of the generally Classical tradition, exempli ed in the6th century Throne of St. Maximian, in Ravenna, (Fig. 19) alreadyreferred to when dealing with the Evangelist illustrations of the gospelmanuscripts, nd an apparent continuity with the Carolingian carvers.But, already the arcaded gures of the Evangelists and of John theBaptist on the ivory throne show, upon closer observation, that thearchitectural elements are very shallow and that the gures are notin the same plane, probably an indication of its eastern origin.Sometimes this is very obvious, as when the feet seem to step outof the arcade and even break out of the frame. Owing to the lack of depth, they are both in and out of their niches as when shoul-ders and arms overlap the columns, while their feet are set betweenthe column bases, or placed over several steps at once without being placed on one of them. By studying the ivory and the carvings of



, 283

other, two-dimensional tradition suggests something otherworldlyabout these ivories.

These carved ivories are primarily book covers of religious texts,many of them made at the same sites as the manuscripts with whichthey were bound. It is therefore not surprising that pages and cov-ers would share stylistic denominators. 289 Two types of carved cov-ers exist—surfaces carved in deep or shallow relief and perforatedsurfaces. The available raw material would naturally restrict the ulti-mate size and shape of these carvings. Rectangular panels about 20centimeters long are most common. Larger surfaces are assembliesof several pieces.

Among the earlier covers carved in the manner of the ivory throneof Maximian are the two covers of the Lorsch Gospels , made in Aachenc. 810. 290 Though the covers are now separated—the back cover isat the Victoria and Albert Museum in London, the front cover, in1555 documented in Heidelberg, was shipped from there to Romeduring the Thirty Years War as part of the Palatine Library atHeidelberg, now at the Museo Sacro Vaticano—the two have to bediscussed together. (Figs. 21, 22) Each diptych is assembled of ve

separate panels, two placed horizontally at the top and bottom andthree panels placed vertically. On the back cover a rope-like mold-ing covers the cracks between the panels and around the frame, giv-ing the diptych a nished look. The front cover may have the molding missing so that the assemblage with all its marks of prior use is read-ily apparent. The ten pieces were probably used and damaged in aprevious Late Roman context and repaired by Carolingians and ttedfor this purpose. 291 The front cover of the book shows a youthfultriumphant Christ treading on the Beasts, anked by two angels; theback cover shows the Virgin and Child, anked by Zacharias and

John the Baptist. The front bottom panel shows on the left the ThreeKings in Phrygian dress before Herod and on the right the ThreeKings before an enthroned Virgin and Child, with the Star of Bethlehem above them. Architectural detail frames and divides thescenes on the panel. The bottom panel on the back shows, from the

289

Braunfels, p. 152.290 Volbach, p. 132f., plates 223, 224, suggests Byzantine originals, c. 500, pos-sibly made at Lorsch. See also Braunfels, p. 384. Also L. Nees, ‘Art and Politics’,in Sullivan, Gentle Voices , pp. 195 ff .

291 Lasko, p. 19f.



284

left, Joseph and Mary, the infant in a manger in a stable with oxand ass, and the angel announcing the news to the shepherds tend-

ing their ocks. Similar architectural detail provides some backgroundto the scene. These panels have the clear didactic narrative functionof announcing the good fortune of Christ’s birth for all mankind. 292

The top panels are a variation on the same Roman theme—two ying victories holding a medallion between them. Here, of course,the victories have been metamorphosed into angels. On the frontcover a radiant cross, crux gemmata , lls the medallion, while on theback the medallion is occupied by a bust of Christ with his handraised in a Greek blessing. Two artists seem to have worked on thesepanels indicated by the nuanced di ff erences in the articulation andmodulation of the contours of the angels, variations in the physiologi-cal details, such as their arms and hands, the owing robes and tas-sels and the depth of the relief. On the vertical panels the youthfulChrist and the left angel, as well as the angels holding the crux gem-mata are less contoured and not as deeply carved. The right angelon the front cover, the Virgin Mary and Christ Child, the twoanking prophets and the angels holding the medallion with the bust

of Christ are carved more deeply, more expressively with a greateremphasis on the linear fall of the robes. The scenes showing theNativity and the Three Kings are comparable in technique, equallyundercut.

The triple arcades of the vertical panels forming the diptych of the front cover are very similar to one another. Roof-like wedgesare tted over the outside panels. The arches themselves are fullydecorated with acanthus leaf designs and rest on classicizing ‘Corinthian’capitals. In the outside arches are placed two anking angels turnedinward toward Christ, very similar in conception and execution toone another and to the Darmstadt panel. Again the angels havestepped in front of the arches as their wings cover almost all of thecolumns. The moving body contours are carefully modeled and vis-ible beneath the rich and nely articulated folds of the garments.The head of each angel is framed by a scalloped halo. Each angelholds a ceremonial sta ff in the left hand and a scroll in the right.

292 Nees, ‘Art and Politics’, in Sullivan, Gentle Voices , p. 198f., argues that thegures in these scenes are copies from other, 5th century Christian panels.



, 285

Barefooted, the angels stand on a brick-like foundation or a marbleoor. The central niche is broader and varies from the others. While

the others have rosettes in the spandrel between the frame and thearch, on this panel brush like foliage lls the space. Here the utedcolumns are visible almost in their entirety. The surmounting capi-tals are most ornate, but individualistic in execution. The young andsmiling, triumphant Christ has curly hair which falls about his shoul-ders, with a cruciform halo behind his head. His garment is drapedin pleats and folds over his body allowing the contours of his erectbody to be visible. His right hand, with pointing index and middlengers, is folded across his chest. In his left hand he holds a book and in accordance with Psalm 91:14 of the King James version, ani-mals are at his feet—a snake along his right side, a miniature felineby his left shin, and a lion and a basilisk under his feet. Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt though tram-

ple under feet.As mentioned previously, the scene of the triumphantChrist trampling the lion and the basilisk was to become an often-repeated motif.

The triple arches of the vertical panels of the back cover are basic-

ally similar to those of the front, with some deviations. The reliefsare shallower. Here too wedge-shaped roofs over the arcades of theoutside panels. While the acanthus leaf design gures on the sidearches, the broader central arch is carved like a tympanum, withrecessed curves retreating into the interior. The spandrels of the out-side panels are ornamented with modest vegetative intertwine. Thoseof the center show space lling oral chalices with sprouting blos-soms. The uted columns of the niches on the front cover are mainly

visible, the hands and arms of the gures overlapping only occa-sionally. John the Baptist, left, and Zacharias, right, are shown asmature men with beards and owing hair, with John holding anopen scroll in his left and pointing to the Virgin and Child with hisright hand, while Zacharias, dressed as a priest, holds up a domedincense container in his left and a censer on chains in his right hand.Wearing sandals both men stand sti ffl y on a brick or marble oor.The fall of the folds on John’s right thigh is identical with the foldson the thigh of Christ of the other diptych. Set between clearly vis-ible uted columns, sectioned into both straight verticals and diag-onals, the capitals repeating the oral chalice motif, the central panelshows an enthroned Virgin and Child. The scene is familiar from



286

the illuminated Evangelist miniatures. The curtain backdrop over atravis rod, the cushion roll, the platform, the full, obscuring fall of

the robes, the body contours and the frontal pose give this scenesomething monumental. Characteristic for all of the gures is theunemotional appearance of the faces. Mary’s mask-like face with star-ing eyes is surrounded by a scalloped halo and a headdress bearing a cross above the forehead. The Christ child seated on her hip wearsthat cruciform halo and a rather mature expression on his face.Enveloped by the same obscuring drapery, he holds a book in hisleft hand to which he points with his right. Virgin and Child areactually inside the niche. Owing to the wedge-shaped ‘roofs’ the out-side panels are trapezoid with the shorter sides placed against theinner panel, creating a sense of depth, an impression reinforced bythe sloping molding covering the seams between the ivory panels.On the front cover this deepening e ff ect is less pronounced as thebases of the panels are rectangular.

The rather severe structure of the arcade settings gives the composi-tions a tectonic appearance. The overall e ff ect is static as architec-ture and gures complement one another. Were it not for the ying

victories there would be no suggestion of any movement at all. Evenamong the gures of the narrative bottom panels, there is at best aminimum dynamics, as the Three Kings all hold the same pose.

The array of Old and New Testament topics, secular themes anddecorative designs intended for book covers is exhausting. Personalornamental objects such as magni cent carved, perforated and inlaidceremonial and liturgical combs as well as pierced panels of inter-twining designs and animals, plaques, caskets and game pieces extendthe imaginative range of the carvers even more. These are amplyrepresented in Europe’s museums. In our discussion only a few of these motifs can be considered, such as a triple tiered diptych stillpresented in the Treasury of the Cathedral at Aachen, an Ascension,c. 810, both from the Palace School of Charlemagne at Aachen,now at Darmstadt, as well as a ‘Christ in Majesty’ from the Adagroup now also in Darmstadt; the Cruci xion Ivory, c. 820/30, if to be associated with Louis the Pious, or 840–870, if to be associ-ated with Charles the Bald, and now in Munich; a Temptation of Christ surrounded by scenes of a Nativity cycle, c. 840/50 fromMetz now in Frankfurt; the liturgical comb from St. Heribert, after850, also from Metz, now in Cologne, and the Tuotilo ivory book covers from St. Gallen, c. 900.



288

in this scene. His former presence, now missing from this cut andbroken panel, is sought by the throng.

The Majestas panel from the end of ninth century Lorraine iscontained in a rectangular frame of acanthus leaves. (Fig. 25) Thespandrels are occupied by the tetramorphs beginning once again topleft with the Eagle of St. John, the Angel of St. Matthew, the Oxof St. Luke and the Lion of St. Mark. The Angel holds an unfurledscroll in his hands representing his gospel, the others hold books intheir claws or hooves. The wings are shaped to ll the availablespaces. Christ as Pancreator is contained in a gure-eight wreathand pointed mandorla combination. This is a very static composi-tion. The pose is familiar from the illuminated pages. A cruciformhalo surrounds Christ’s head, his right hand is raised in blessing, hisleft hand rests on a book supported on his thigh. The body is exten-sively enfolded in fully draped garments, showing the body contoursonly very generally. Two seraphim, wrapped in six wings each, ank his shoulders. Representations of sun and moon are placed waisthigh in the mandorla. Two rosettes are added to the space near hisfeet, within the wreath.

Very well known is the splendid Cruci xion Ivory, now on thecover of the Book of Pericopes of the emperor Henry II, early 11thcentury, now in Munich. (Fig. 26) Without the ivory, the cover mayoriginally have been the detached back cover of the Codex Aureus of St. Emmeram. Placed into a precious gem encrusted frame decoratedwith Byzantine enamels and the tetramorphs in the corners, theCruci xion Ivory is the central panel, about 28 cm × 12.5 cm insize. A panel framed in acanthus leaves was widened with two addi-tional anges also ornamented with acanthus leaves. The panel, likeseveral others, is deeply cut high relief, even undercut and pierced,with gures related to those of the Utrecht Psalter.Stylistically it maypoint to Rheims or Metz. 295 The narrative is an assemblage of stock pagan and recent Christian motifs and represents an original com-position. In the upper corners of the inner panel two medallionsshow Apollo, the sun and his horse-drawn chariot, a quadriga, onthe left, and Selena, the moon, in a chariot drawn by cows, a biga,on the right. Between these the Hand of God reaches into the realm

295 See Chazelle, Cruci ed God , p. 239f. for the theological complexity of this com-position. pp. 246 ff . for the pictorial association with Psalm 115 of the Utrecht Psalter .Especially pp. 266 ff .



, 289

of angels, again Classical victories in conception, hovering above theCruci xion. To the left, stand a group of gures witnessing the

Cruci xion, a soldier, Longinus, pierces Christ’s side with a lance,while Ecclesia, carrying the victory pennant of the triumphant churchcatches in a chalice the blood which ows from Christ’s side. Thiswas to prove a productive Carolingian motif. To the right, standthe soldier, Stephaton, holding up the sponge soaked in vinegar, alarge jug for the sour wine, another bystander and a triumphantEcclesia. She is again holding up the victory pennant as she laysclaim to the succession to the world-disc held in the hands of Synagoga, sitting in front of the stylized Temple of Jerusalem. Sequen-tial narrative is presented here in a coexistent manner. It may be asuggestion of the Carolingian claim to the Davidic Jerusalem andhence legitimize the Imperium Christianum. The scene may also re ectcontemporary hostile views 296 and anticipate even more sinister con-sequences. At the foot of the cross the vanquished serpent is coiledabout the base. It is doubtful if the Carolingian viewer had any rem-iniscences associated with the world serpent of Germanic mythology.In the next lower panel the Resurrection is suggested by the angel

receiving the Three Maries in front of the empty, but multi-storiedSepulcher, while the guards cower in the acanthus bushes behindthe building. Beneath this strip is shown the opening of the gravesand the raising of the dead, with the lids ying o ff the co ffins andthe awakened literally jumping from their graves on Judgment Day.On the bottom level we are again dealing with familiar paganpersoni cations: on the left, the divine Oceanos, a cornucopia in hisleft arm and reclining on an urn from which water ows, in themiddle, striking an imperial pose, an enthroned divine Roma, 297 onthe right a crouching Gaia, the Earth Goddess, with a snake at herbreast and like Oceanos with a cornucopia in her left arm.

Clearly, this ivory panel tells the fundamental didactic narrativeof the Christian message: the causality of Christ’s Cruci xion and

296 Lasko, p. 30.297 See Chazelle, Cruci ed God , p. 269, for a di ff erent interpretation of this gure—

the Temple, and thus the transition from the old law to the new. This is a mis-taken interpretation, for the Temple and Synagoga seated in front of it, are challenged

by Ecclesia for the disc of the world. But see pp. 281f., 285f., concerning thissignicant group. Chazelle, pp. 286f., 292, considers a moralizing warning to beimplied in this transition of power, directed as an admonition at Charles the Baldand his imprudent display of ostentation, earthly glori cation, hubris, belligerence,ambition and sin, rather than such virtues as piety, humility, justice and peace.



290

Resurrection and the resultant rising from the dead of all who believe.The acquisition of divine authority by Ecclesia, the church Triumphant,

through Christ’s legitimizing blood justi es the displacement of Synagoga from the Temple and from its primary position. It bol-sters the claim through the use of Classical allegories of the Catholicpower of Rome, of water and earth, of fertility, of sky, sun andmoon and cyclical nature derived from a mythological mindset. Inconjunction with the promising spirituality of a belief in a sacri cialdeath and rebirth, all under the approving Hand of God and theHeavenly Host, the panel presents the legitimization of the ImperiumChristianumas a metaphysical amalgam of a new Pagano-Christiancosmos for the new Chosen People of God, the Franks. The blendof such animals as horses, cows and snakes, plants, humans, mytho-logical, ideological and religious elements results in a new narrativefull of dynamic detail, movement, action and interaction and theneed for much inference, reference and consideration on several intel-lectual levels. The panel records an awareness of social and culturalcurrents. The carver presents himself to have been a calm observerand narrator, certain of his faith.

At mid-century the carving studios at Metz were a decided cen-ter of the art. Triple tiered pierced narrative panels, familiar fromthe illustrated manuscripts pages, surrounded by modest carved organicframes are frequent. These in turn are aggrandized by splendid per-forated frames of astonishing space lling openwork design and areworks of art in their own right. A di ff erent approach was o ff ered bythe ivory cover of the Drogo Sacramentary, on which the cover isarranged in a set of nine panels. Another book cover reveals strik-ing similarities with the cover of the Drogo Sacramentary.This coveris entitled after its central, dramatic scene, Satan’s challenge to Christto tempt him to transform rocks into loaves of bread. (Fig. 27)Contained in a frame of acanthus leaves, this is an accomplishedindependent composition of two very well proportioned and realis-tically executed men, carved in high relief, separated from one anotherby a very convincing tree with large acanthus leaves. Men and treerise away from a plain black background into an independent plane.Thereby the artist eliminated from this minimalist scene all extra-neous distractions. The two confrontational gures are carved asindependent individuals, Satan standing on a stone, his bare toescurled around the edge of the rock, Christ standing on the acan-thus frame, his sandaled feet actually breaking out of the frame.



, 291

298 Schutz, Prehistory, pp. 280 ff .

Though separated, they are clearly linked in the dialogue of theirrespective body languages. They are two well-shaped gures, their

contours visibly molded under the pleats and folds of their garments.While Christ stands rmly on his left standing leg, his right placedslightly forward, Satan’s position is less comfortable, since both hislegs are clearly bent at the knees. In his left arm he holds a sta ff .With his right he points down to the rocks. Partly turned away,Christ, the protagonist, holds a small scroll in his left while with hisright he wards o ff the challenge. For the two actors in this charac-ter drama the body language is a substitute for the missing verbalexchange. Satan’s pointing gesture ‘pronounces’ the dare, Christ’sright hand formulates the rejection. In this little dramatization Satanis the antagonist. This highly skilled artist had a sense of the the-atrical as he drew the optical focus entirely onto the con ict in whichthe question has been raised and the answer given. This artisticintention is new.

The assembled frieze-like strips, which surround this central scene,are not its artistic equals. Clearly a di ff erent artist was responsiblefor these carvings. More like episodic scenes in comic strips in appear-

ance, the squat, solid and compacted gures tell the story of thenativity. Architectural elements are present in almost all of the seg-ments. These stylistic elements imply a link of this cover to that of the Drogo Sacramentary.Awkwardly shaped, thick-set, compacted andfacially quite unattractive, with soup-bowl type hairstyles on top of mask-like faces, they do not stand comparison with the accomplishedgures of the central panel. The Three Kings are shown riding horses. These are the most convincing, as is the head of the ass. A midwife appears to be assisting with the birth. The narrative scenesare not entirely self-evident, nor is the sequence of the events rep-resented. In the end the cover was not the most fortunate assem-bly. The cover points to distinct styles and skills coexisting incontemporary workshops.

The liturgical comb from Metz, formerly in the monastery of St.Heribert in Cologne, belongs into the middle of the 9th century.(Fig. 28) The pierced comb belongs to a northern tradition of per-forating surfaces rst seen in early Celtic art when perforated designsin gold bands created the optical ambivalence which encourages thatelusive play between design and background. 298 The dark background



292

as negative space may itself be quite meaningless except that it servesas a means to silhouette the lighter positive design of the foreground.

The perforated intervals emphasize the detail to be highlighted.Clearly, the taste for perforation had survived the centuries. Thepierced book covers mentioned above, illustrate this pro ling of thenarrative friezes most adeptly. This comb is a synthesis of the olderperforating technique with the Carolingian representative techniques.Both sides of the comb are framed by an acanthus leaf design, whichruns up the outside to culminate in splendid organic openwork acan-thus ‘trees’. On the reverse of the comb a ‘Tree of Jesse’ is repre-sented symbolically with a spread of foliage. Unfortunately the oneon the right has broken o ff . Two angels are tted into the leaf designs, their wings pointing up, while they are bent over, reaching down into two perforated rose windows. The teeth are cut to forma hemicircular frame on which the Cruci xion group stands betweenthe two rose windows. While the perforated friezes are nearly minia-ture sculptures in the round, the gures on the comb are carved inrelief of moderate depth. Flanking the plaque at the top of the crossare represented medallions with the heads of Apollo with a radiant

crown and Selena with the moon sickle, an allusion to the eclipseat the time of Christ’s death, very reminiscent of the images carvedinto the crystal Cruci xion at Freiburg, discussed above. Christ isbearded, with a moustache and long owing hair. His head is turnedtoward his mother. The draped cloth around his waist is pulled upto the thigh on his left and knotted at the waist, hence triangularin appearance. His feet are placed side-by-side, meaning that fournails were needed for the Cruci xion. Owing to the restricted spaceat the foot of the cross, according to the tradition, a kneeling Longinuswith the spear and the standing Virgin Mary are placed at the leftof the cross, while a kneeling Stephaton and St. John are crowdedinto the space at the left. All of the gures are of the compacted,thickset type, found on the other Metz carvings. We nd here thenthe combination of the Classical tradition of carved relief with thenon-Classical technique of perforation. In northern art abstractedornamentation for its own sake had once been a primary artisticfunction. It had survived in the calligraphic ornamentation of thecapital initials. On this ivory the essential representative portion show-ing the contained and closed narrative human gures in static relief,placed on a rm and plain background, has become an equal part-ner with the dynamic ornamental portion consisting of forceful and



, 293

convincing openwork design. The angels provide the fusing transi-tion. Two equally distinguishing decorative techniques are joined in

the use of surface ornamentation and perforated silhouettes, as oldernorthern ornamental techniques reasserted themselves. Essentiallyframeless, the composition is very reminiscent of the unframed dec-orative pages of the illuminated manuscripts. On this comb the dis-tinct alternatives between Mediterranean homocentricity and northernornamentation have reached an accord. Embellishment and narra-tion have become equal and integral parts of this ornate object.

The last ivories to be considered are referred to as the TuotiloIvories , from St. Gallen, dated to the end of the 9th century, namedafter the monk who carved them. Front and back covers of a gospel,the ivories were perhaps a diptych before they were set into a sil-

ver embossed and gem encrusted frame. 299 The gems are in cabo-chon settings, in which metal anges are raised to clasp the stones.The embossing shows distinct foliage on the two covers. The back cover seems to date to the 9th century, the front to the 12th. Theivory on the front is particularly overwhelmed with detail, both guraland ornamental, to the degree that the many gures in turn create

an almost decorative impression. The didactic narrative is nearly lostin the overcrowding. Tuotilo sacri ced the rational and pedagogicalclarity of thematic composition for an exaggerated accumulation of the related detail. The central panel deals with a Majestas represen-tation at the center, surrounded by all the motifs associated with theapocalyptic Christ in Majesty motif. (Fig. 29) The central portion of this ivory is completed above and below by elaborate sections of pierced and undercut, tightly controlled curvilinear acanthus designs.The two sections combined cover only a little less surface than doesthe central panel. The back cover is more equally divided into threetiers. At the top is a larger, similarly perforated and undercut acan-thus design containing a hunting scene in which a dog is shown ying at the neck of a stag. The central section shows the VirginMary anked by two pairs of angels identi ed as an Ascension, anearly treatment of the topic. (Fig. 30) The bottom section is almostsecular in that it retells one of the stories associated with St. Gallus,in which the Saint bids a bear to gather wood for a re and rewardshim with a loaf of bread.

299 Lasko, pp. 63 ff . Also Braunfels, p. 391. Also Nees, Early Medieval Art , p. 222f.



294

The Majestas panel on the front cover has some details, whichdepart from the usual representations. Here Christ is shown enthroned

in the mandorla, seated on a cushion roll, his feet placed on a plat-form actually located outside of the oval. His hands are help up,with a book in his right, rather than his left hand resting on thebook supported on his left thigh. Flanking his head are the Greek letters A and V , signifying the apocalyptic Beginning and End. Thetetramorphs, holding their gospels, surround the mandorla immedi-ately, beginning with the Eagle top left, the Angel top right, the Oxbottom right, and the Lion bottom left. Immediately above the Eagleand the Angel are placed Apollo with the radiant crown and Selenawith the moon sickle, both holding cornucopias. Filling the top cor-ners of the panel are the enthroned Evangelists in human form, sit-ting in front of a building, writing on their unfurled book rolls. Belowthem, and anking the mandorla are two seraphim with the sixenfolding wings, with the last two Evangelists crowded into the cor-ners. Between them and right across the bottom we nd a reclin-ing Oceanos resting his right elbow on the jug from which waterows. His legs extend into the center. From behind his feet, and

quite unexpectedly, the gaping jaws of a wolf ’s head rise upward.On the right, Gaia leans against Luke, holding a cornucopia in herleft arm and an infant at her breast. A mushroom-capped tree growsfrom behind her feet. A blend of amassed traditional and novel mes-sage bearing detail characterizes this panel.

As mentioned, above and below this panel of gures, the deco-rative spaces are perforated and undercut, symmetrically con guredacanthus ‘ gure-eight’ designs. The spaces are rationally arrangedand very clearly articulated. Not of the erratically linear type of northern intertwine, these mirror images are clearly ‘Classical’ inappearance. The appeal is to an antique esthetic sense of propor-tion, balance and harmony. The nearly equal equilibrium betweengure-space and ornamental space restores to the ornamentation itsearlier importance, while the optical e ff ect of the overcrowding reducesthe gures to having a rather ornamental quality. Figures and orna-ment are spatially equated.

The back cover is arranged in three equal tiers, but has only onesuch ornamental area. Perforated and undercut, it is larger than theothers and arranged in only six dynamic circular space lling acan-thus slings. The top strip shows a lioness tear at the throat of a cowin the middle circle. The vegetation and the hunt combine to give



, 295

the panel a dynamic quality. The middle tier, the Virgin Maryanked by two pairs of angels, is rather static in the simplicity of

its composition, focusing entirely on the central gure. However,were it not for the inscription above the tier— ASCENSIO SCE

MARIE —, neither the group nor the action could be identi ed moreclearly. A minimum of vegetation is barely scratched along the ground,implying that the Ascension is about to take place. When comparedwith the Ascension scene from the Darmstadt panel, this scene doesnot have a similar dynamic crush of people. The bottom tier is moreclearly inventive in its narrative intention. A cross on a sta ff dividesthe panel in two: on the left Gallus deals with the upright bear car-rying a log, on the right he shares a loaf of bread with it, whileanother companion sleeps. According to the legend, Gallus and twocompanions were camping in the woods for the night. While thecompanions slept, Gallus prayed. A bear came from the mountainsand licked up the morsels of food that had fallen on the ground. Inreturn Gallus asked the bear to gather wood for the re, which thebear did, whereupon Gallus shared a loaf of bread from his pouchcommanding the bear to hurt neither man nor beast. The bear

heeded the request. The didactic intention is clear in this narrativestrip of gures. 300 The viewer, however, must rst know of the ‘mir-acle’ for the frieze to have meaning. The story, of course, belongsto a wide range of medieval, folkloristic stories in which animalsunderstand and obey the words of saints. On the left side of thecarving stylized trees and bushes, related to the vegetation on thefront cover, represent the forest. The saint, a crook in his left hand,raises his hand in blessing toward the bear, rearing on its hind legs,which is carrying a large log. On the other side of the cross, a monk is asleep on the ground, while Gallus is shown placing the breadinto the paws of the bear. Here too the visible body language letsthe viewer deduce the dramatic dialogue. Inscriptions over the twolower panels direct the viewer to their correct understanding.

There are of course purely ornamental ivory panels of great beauty,such as the book cover from Würzburg Cathedral, (Fig. 31) withsplendid vegetative designs very reminiscent in appearance of thoseon the liturgical comb from St. Heribert or on the ornamental por-tions on the panels carved in the Alemanic area of central Europe

300 Nees, Early Medieval Art , p. 224.



296

such as those carved by Tuotilo at St. Gallen. The Würzburg pan-els have in common that animals are placed prominently into the

space lling vegetation, most clearly a medallion with the ApocalypticLamb, but also a bear, a boar, a pair of lions and birds picking atfoliage or grapes, or actually at the oral ornamentation of the pan-els. They are distinct from one another in that on the left paneleight of the animals are centered in eight of the lunettes created bythe foliage, while on the right panel only three such lunettes areoccupied with one large bird in each. The ivory panels are under-cut and cover a gold base.

Ivory panels and personal ornamental objects were not the onlyexamples to which the carvers paid attention. Containers, both cylin-ders and reliquary caskets were also made of ivory. Cylindrical pyxes,to keep the consecrated wafer of the Eucharist, cross sections of tusks, were carved with religious scenes in fairly shallow relief, quiteworn in appearance. Only very few have survived, such as the pyxin Vienna, (Fig. 32) carved with the nativity scene, including suchcurious gures as a Salome. 301 The reliquary caskets, which, as theirname indicates, contained saintly relics, are more common.

Two caskets now in the museum at Braunschweig can serve astypical illustrations. The rst, is of Anglo-Saxon origin, probablymade at Ely, and identi ed with the convent at Gandersheim, datedto the late 8th century, is perfectly carved from walrus ivory and istrimmed with brass ttings. 302 (Fig. 33) Its lid is roof-shaped. Thesurfaces are sectioned into animated squares, whirligigs, lled with

variations of northern open intertwine and overlay with each strandterminating in an animal, such as a salamander, bird-like creaturesand winged beasts of fantasy. The metal trim is partly engraved andpartly cellular with cloisonné inlay—powdered glass melted in cellsmade of golden ridges soldered onto a surface, harking back to theolder Celto-Germanic styles of surface ornamentation.

The other casket, also possibly to be associated with Gandersheim,was made over one hundred years later. Like other pieces it wasmade in Lorraine, perhaps at Metz, and consists of wood, coveredwith panels of carved ivory. (Figs. 34, 35) It has been repaired withpieces of ivory and more recent decorative formerly gilt bronze

301 Volbach, p. 120, pl. 97.302 Braunfels, p. 373.



, 297

ttings. These also serve a functional purpose. It re ects very wellthe thematic transition, which has taken place in the intervening

years. The abstract curvilinear intertwines have been replaced byChristian narrative. The casket is again house-shaped in design. Thesides tell episodes from the life of Christ. The end panels show theAnnunciation and the Nativity respectively. The front and rear pan-els represent his Baptism and the Cruci xion, styled in a mannerresembling the engraved gems. Clearly the Cruci xion gures cen-trally in Carolingian art. Close inspection shows that some of thepanels depict novel details not found in the traditional narrative for-mulas. The left end panel depicts the Annunciation, showing anangel approaching a seated Virgin Mary, placed in an arcade. Theright end panel shows the Nativity in an arcaded setting framed inacanthus leaves. A handmaiden is included in the composition, stand-ing behind Mary. Joseph is seated on a stool, his face resting in hisright hand. In the gabled lid an angel is descending onto the scenebelow. Perhaps an indication of the casket’s primary function as acontainer for baptismal vials of ointments, the front panel empha-sizes a prominently placed Baptism showing Christ standing in the

River Jordan, a clumsy attempt to show owing water, pouring outof a large jug held upside down by a large river god, the formerOceanos. An undressed Christ, surrounded by the mandorla, is vis-ible in the water. A clothed John the Baptist is in the water withhim and places his right hand on Christ’s head. Two angels areapproaching from opposite sides, their hand veiled as if carrying clothing. On the lid panel above, a large dove, carrying vials, comesdown over the head of Christ, while several descending angels bear-ing baptismal objects, ll the remaining space. Two angels occupythe corners. A frame of acanthus leaves surrounds the composition.The back of the casket shows a Cruci xion across the whole sur-face. Over the acanthus design on the bottom a modulated ground-cover provides an uneven base on which all gures stand. To allowChrist’s feet to stand on the snake, the upright of the cross is shorter.The cruci ed Christ is somewhat larger than all of the other gures.The assembly of gures di ff ers from the norm. A group of womenapproaches from the left, actually intruding on the acanthus frame.Longinus, resting on his spear, faces them and points his index ngerat them as if engaged in conversation with them. It is a momentafter he has pierced Christ’s side. Ecclesia with the victory pennantin her left holds up a chalice in which she catches the blood spurting



298

from Christ’s side. Christ’s arms are unproportionally long. His halois of the familiar cruciform type. Under his left arm stands Stephaton

supporting his right arm on the sta ff to which the sponge is attached.The jug of sour wine is at his feet. He extends his left arm towarda male gure on his left, the converted centurion, who points hisright index nger in the direction of Christ. His left holds a largestaff . Their body language suggests a discussion. To his left anothertall robed gure, perhaps St. John, stands against the acanthus frame.The changes in the formulaic composition leave it unclear whomthese gures are supposed to represent. The Virgin Mary is not oth-erwise identi able on this panel. Mary and John have been removedfrom their immediate association with the Cruci xion. Sun and moonare not shown on this panel either, but rather on the lid. There onthe left a medallion shows Apollo/Sol in an ascending chariot drawnby two horses, balanced by a medallion showing the moon goddessSelena/Luna in a descending wagon drawn by two cows. A handholding a wreath reaches into this space, while two anking angelsdescend as if in a dive. The unidenti able gures and missing personi cations, the curious positions assumed by Longinus and

Stephaton, the gestures of the bystanders, all indicate a departurefrom the familiar representations. In order to accommodate Christ’shead and the cross bar of the cross, the acanthus frame had to bemutilated. Stylistically these gures di ff er from those on the othersides of the casket but resemble those engraved on the rock crystals.They are more delicate and seem to be the work of a di ff erent artist.Ecclesia and her pennant of victory, as well as the representationsof Sun and Moon, closely resemble the gures on the Cruci xion Ivory.As is the case with the other panels, an outside frame of simplepunched and geometric design frames everything.

What stylistic developments might be re ected in these ivories? In view of the brief and limited selection of examples it may not beproper to suggest a generalization. A di ff erent selection might allowdiff erent conclusions. However, a transition seems to be clearly indi-cated in the preparation of ivory panels during the 9th century.Some were rst carved as diptyches before nding use as book cov-ers, so that cover and text are not necessarily contemporary andstylistically at variance. Some may indeed be re-used antique pan-els, or Carolingian panels closely based on lost antique models.Though earlier Christian ivory panels carved in the Carolingian man-ner are generally not known, they strongly suggest imitative begin-



, 299

nings derived from the Classical heritage. This tradition is re ectedin the choice of acanthus leaves for the vegetative designs and the

placement of compact gures in static, arcaded settings. The empha-sis on tectonic, architectural detail then yielded to the gradual intro-duction of movement, dynamics in crowd scenes, the arrangementof drapery and its pleats and folds, and with it an emotionalism inthe groupings of gures. These are less overtly dependent on Classicalmodels and begin to make visible didactic narrative programs, asthe attempt is made to bring the events of the faith alive in pic-tures, to make the abstract scriptural texts more tangible throughthe involvement of the emotions and the perception of the senses.In the East Frankish kingdom perhaps more than elsewhere, grad-ually the earlier ornamental abstractions of curvilinear intertwinesreassert themselves with rather Classical interpretations to claim nearlyequal space with the narrative scenes on the decorated surfaces.Though ivory panels were to be carved in future, the work in pre-cious metals combined with gem and pearl encrustations was to gainincreasing popularity.

XVIII. Gems, precious metals and bronzes—Liturgical Art

One can almost envisage the competitive spirit making itself felt asthe goldsmiths working in their studios of the monastic establish-ments or of the respective Palace Schools tried to have more of theirwork accepted for the preparation of the precious manuscripts. It isevident that manuscript production was the primary activity during the Carolingian period. However, it has also been amply demon-strated elsewhere 303 that the Germanic goldsmiths had all the nec-essary sophistication of skills in their synthesis of ornamental techniquesof chip carving, engraving, embossing, and working with sheets of gold foil, gold wire, granules, ligree, cloisonné, enamel and cabo-chon techniques, associated with the traditional portable objects andregal and ceremonial garb of the Germanic arts and crafts. Verymany of these skills continued to be practiced as the cloister artsand it is not surprising that northern traditions of abstract ornamen-tation should parallel Classical traditions of representative narrative

303 Schutz, Tools, Weapons and Ornaments .



300

and of surface ornamentation. The extant evidence strongly suggeststhat profane works were either not commissioned very often or have

not survived. It is known that precious metals were not abundantlyavailable and since much gold was taken out of circulation, the gild-ing of baser metals was a common practice. In view of the nearlyinnite demand for cultic vessels and objects, liturgical art had a pri-ority to which other wishes were subordinated. No doubt much wasrefashioned to conform to the taste of later periods, such as the coverof the Book of Pericopes of Henry II. New now is that most of themetal work of the goldsmiths will deal with at surfaces to be embossedin conjunction with accomplished, raised gem encrustations. Theresults are the spectacular examples of liturgical art. The most impor-tant embossed object is the golden altar of St. Ambrogio in Milan.One in St. Peter’s in Rome had a surface plate weighing more than200 pounds. 304 The products of these skilled artisans will representsuch a high degree of artistry, great material as well as high esthetic

value, that the work will be esteemed as spiritual work rather thanas craftsmanship, the artist being willing to see in his work some-thing miraculous, achieved with divine help and defer the accom-

plishment to the Virgin Mary instead of seeking credit for himself.305

Rather than being relegated to the ‘crafts’, this work should beidenti ed as ‘decorative arts’. The lustrous beauty and gleaming splen-dor of precious metals, ivories, pearls and colorful gems, of orna-mental contours, textures and sparkling material opulence will haveachieved a dazzling e ff ect. Their considerable material weight andgreat value was certainly recorded. Yet their real estimation lay inthe grandeur of their uplifting spirituality, ampli ed by the mysteri-ous, magical properties attributed to gold and to gems. Their assem-bly on a silver altar, or in association with silver or even goldenantependia, hung with precious fabrics, will have contributed to theedifying ritualistic illusions of the liturgical and sacramental proce-dures of the o ffice.

The southern bronze smiths and casters brought north also maketheir contributions to the specialized crafts in the manufacture of large door panels, grillwork and large castings in the round. 306 Theembossing of contours and of sculptures in the round is then anexpression of the introduction by foreign craftsmen, of humanistic,

304 V.H. Elbern, Goldschmiedekunst im frühen Mittelalter (Darmstadt 1988), p. 77.305 Elbern, p. 10.306 See Braunfels, pp. 135 ff .



, 301

307 Smith, ‘Roman Relics’ in Smith (ed.), Early Medieval Rome , pp. 317 ff . See Geary,Living with the Dead , pp. 78, 179f., who argues that the policies of these kings werea consistent attempt to exploit popular devotion as a means of control.

Mediterranean concepts and part of the Carolingian rediscovery.This goes so far as the renaming of the imported bronze casting of

a bear sow (c. 200) into the Roman she-wolf, just to emphasize thecontinuity with Rome.

During the Bronze Age it was possible to determine the prove-nance of decorated bronze objects by the characteristics of the orna-mentation. Engraved designs on metals were of northern and embossedof southern origin. Today spectroscopy allows a more accurate geo-graphic location of the origins of the component metals. The bestbronzes would consist of 9 parts copper combined with 1 part tin.When highly polished, the e ff ect would be golden. The tendency togild the bronze objects indicates how one wanted to appreciate thesebronzes. During the many intervening centuries this simpli cationwas a ff ected by stylistic changes, though fundamentally this distinc-tion still seems to apply during the transitions of the Carolingianperiod. The northern pagan approach is represented by the metalwork of the Insular Style , as for instance in the intertwining orna-mentation on the silver beaker from Pettstadt, now in Nürnberg.(Fig. 36) Once gilt, interlaced animal and vegetative motifs around

the rim and down the sides created large empty surfaces, perhapsmeant to be lled with other plaques. The intertwines seem to havebeen the exclusive ornamental purpose. However, the southernChristian and humanistic approach triumphs by the middle of the9th century.

The Irish monks who were active in the Germanic realms during the Merovingian Period brought with them the cult of relics. Thesewere kept in miniature ‘graves’, reliquary caskets and burse-reliquariesmade of a covered wooden core, in the shape of a pilgrim’s pouch,provided with arrangements to facilitate hanging, on walls for instance.The fact that such relics were portable, meant that their metaphy-sical properties were transferable from location to location, therebyeither adding to the sanctity of an established site or bestowing anew sanctity where there previously had not been any. From the reignof Pepin III to that of Louis the Pious this practice had the e ff ectof creating extensive networks between places of origin and the nalresting places and serving as a continuing, cohesive social bondextending over centuries. 307 The northern styles of surface decoration



302

were still being practiced and it is quite evident that the Irish reli-quaries and the styles of ornamentation for portable objects came to

be complementary. The number of examples is extensive and theyare well represented in the museums of Europe. The techniquesmentioned above can all be found on these reliquaries. One neexample is the Enger Reliquary.308 It will have to serve as a represen-tative sample for the many others. (Plate 23a) Dated to c. 700,according to legend Charlemagne gave it to his Saxon adversaryWidukind on the occasion of his baptism, when Charlemagne him-self raised him out of the waters, and his acceptance of Frankishsuzerainty and of Christianity in 785. If this was so, then Widukindbequeathed it to his Saxon monastery at Enger, where it may actu-ally have been made, perhaps on the occasion of this death in 807.The ridge across the top of this burse-reliquary consists of ve goldenlions sculpted in the round. A message pertinent to the baptism canbe read into these lions. According to Christian legend, frequentlyrepresented in stained glass windows, lion cubs are stillborn and stayso until the father lion breathes on them and then on the third daythey come to life. The pagan Widukind was dead until he was bap-

tized and then he gained life as a Christian. This allusion is mostprobably coincidental, since it is unlikely that the reliquary was madefor just this occasion. The lions may also be a motif inherited fromthe Romans who had set up lions as guardians against evil spiritsover graves and sacred monuments. 309 In this case they guard thesaint’s reliquary. Here the reliquary can function as the miniaturegrave of the saint. It is of Merovingian stylistic provenance, preciousenough to be a reconciling gift following the many years of con ictbetween the Frankish king and the Saxon duke. The obverse of thisreliquary betrays the increasing rationalization of surface ornamen-tation through the symmetrical placement of thirteen cabochon gemsand cameos, which anchor connecting lines of spatial demarcation.The symbolism of the number four, here expanded to twelve, lendsa multi-leveled cosmic signi cance to the surface. Three horizontalrows of three gems each mark the top, middle and bottom of theburse. In the top row, two are carved cameos. The ve gems placed

vertically and horizontally form a cross, terminating in deep red

308 Braunfels, p. 370.309 Schutz, Romans , p. 93.



, 303

stones, garnets. The central stone, a dull dark blue, forms the cen-ter of another group of ve light, somewhat translucent stones. That

stone at the center of the cross is circled with white pearls, mostprobably symbolic of Christ. Radiating lines of red cloisonné link allof these stones aligned either at right angles or diagonally. Theyform a square, a rhombus and a cross. The zones thus created bythe outlines of red cloisonné are then lled with constrained cloi-sonné animals, such as snakes, sh and birds. Some of the latterclearly are birds of prey. Others are doves. These beings representa new animated creation under the sign of the cross. 310 The ratio-nalization of anchor points and spatial organization not withstand-ing, at rst and second glance the overall surface is a confusing assembly of forms and colors, arranged in seemingly random andindistinguishable array, quite in keeping with the Germanic tech-niques. In many instances the ux or inlay has fallen out of the cells,revealing clearly the manufacturing technique which sees the cellscreated by soldering vertical ridges of gold onto a golden surfaceand then lling the cells created with contrasting matter. In manylocations on the surface the cells have also fallen o ff , making this

surface well suited for the study of this decorating technique. Theanimals of the upper part of the surface are two birds and two sh;of the lower half four snakes in gure-eight design and two birds.The overall impression is kaleidoscopic. A border of mainly red cloi-sonné surrounds the entire surface. While the ends are also in cloi-sonné, the reverse of the reliquary belongs to the newer humanistictradition of representing gures in arcade settings on embossed sheetgold. (Fig.) Rather rudimentary in execution, six half gures arearranged in two tiers of three gures each. The central bottom arcadeshelters the Virgin Mary and the Child. The niche above showsChrist with the cruciform halo, anked by two angels. The othertwo gures anking the Virgin and Child represent Peter with thekeys, on their right, and Paul. Whatever the actual date of its man-ufacture, this burse-reliquary is characterized by the transition of decorative styles. Perhaps the poor state of preservation allows theconclusion that the colorful, ‘pagan’ side was relegated to the walland that the golden side was actually preferred and that the changein taste had already taken place.

310 Elbern, p. 27.



304

Another spectacular reliquary (33 × 21× 7.5 cm) is the one associ-ated with St. Stephen, originally kept in Aachen, now in Vienna.

(Plate 23b) Though extremely valuable for its total surface covering,cabochon settings of row upon row of closely spaced multicoloredgems, set in indentations, its artistic value is much compromised. A cross of larger gems is barely discernible. The face of the burse isthe work of a craftsman without artistic aspirations. Its sides are dec-orated with hunting and shing scenes, reminiscent of the nervousstyle of the Ebo Gospel .311 The burse is supposed to have containedthe blood-soaked earth of the executed St. Stephen, the rst mar-tyr. Was the material value of the reliquary meant to re ect the spir-itual value of its content? 312 The reverse is of much later manufacture.The ridge is Gothic.

Two brilliant examples represent the Insular Style during theCarolingian period: the Tassilo Chalice , still in the monastery atKremsmünster in Upper Austria and the First Cover of the LindauGospel , now in the Pierpont Morgan Library in New York. 313 Theobjects tell of a con uence of insular and continental techniques,perhaps in the area surrounding Salzburg. While the ornamentation

on the ‘slender’ chalice is rather ‘Celtic’ in appearance, stylisticallyit is not related to the Irish chalices, which are broader than theyare tall, 314 that of the book cover has greater resemblance with theAnglo-Saxon buckle from Sutton Hoo. Lombardic elements con-tribute a third element. The chalice is a historical document, whichsurvived into our time by virtue of it being of copper. (Plate 25a)Had it been of gold, as its inside cup actually was, it would havebeen melted down during the Austrian Secularization at the end of the 18th century. Being a unique survivor the chalice bears a tremen-dous burden of responsibility. It is singled out and treated with arespect that may actually be misplaced, if it were known what otherexamples have been lost over time. Providentially the Chalice is amarvelous work of art. The chalice is an historical monument inthat it records the marriage of Duke Tassilo III of Bavaria with

311 Braunfels, p. 387.312 See Geary, Living with the Dead , pp. 200 ff . for a discussion of the evaluation

of relics and their worth.313 Braunfels, p. 89, suggests that when particularly valuable pieces of liturgicalart were needed one turned to Anglo-Saxons or those trained by them.

314 M. Ryan, ‘The Derryna an Hoard and Early Irish Art’, in L. Nees, (ed.), Approaches to Early Medieval Art (Cambridge, Mass. 1998), p. 55.



, 305

Liutpirc, the daughter of Desiderius, king of the Lombards, c. 768/69.It may have been donated to the monastery of Kremsmünster on

the occasion of its foundation, c. 770. 315 The cultural details of thisevent are recorded on the vessel itself. The history of this situationhas already been discussed above. The chalice is also something of a challenge directed against the Carolingians. With similar intent,the foundations of the cathedral built by bishop Virgil in Salzburg were deliberately much larger than those of the Carolingian churchof St. Denis. Tassilo’s mother was the sister of Pepin, so that Charlesand Carloman were Tassilo’s cousins. Tassilo’s link with the estab-lished older kingdom of the Lombards, made him at least of equalstatus with the usurping Carolingians, if not their better. The textand the abbreviations on the hollow conical base of the chalice for-mulate the position and infer the claim. A circular text reads + TAS-SILO DUX FORTIS + LIUTPIRC VIRGA REGALIS+ , meaning ‘Tassilothe brave Duke and Liutpirc the royal Sprout’. The digni ed toneof this inscription indicates the formality of this commission. In theterminology he associates himself with military strength, she with abudding twig. The crosses separate the text into male and female

sections. Above the Tassilo section two male gures in silver medal-lions contain a torso with youthful and beardless face pressing thengers of his right hand to his chest. His head is anked by the let-ters T, M , interpreted to refer to the soldier Martyr Theodor, a rstname much favored for the sons of the Agilol ngian dukes of Bavaria.To his left, an older bearded face but with the same gesture isanked by the letter I, B , Johannes Baptista , the patron saint of theAgilolngian dukes, as well as of the Lombardic royal line. Abovethe Liutpirc section a female portrait, with her right hand holding a scepter pressed to her breast, has the letters P and T placed besideher head. These initials have been identi ed to mean Panhagia Theodelinda , Highly respected Theodelinda. Theodelinda was theBavarian princess who in 589 had become the great queen of theLombards. Beside her a charming female torso with the anking let-ters M, T , interpreted to mean Maria Theotokos , Mary, Mother (bearer)of God. 316 Quite clearly the august assembly of secular and religious

315 Volbach in Hubert, et al., p. 210.316 P. Stollenmayer, E. Widder, Der Kelch des Herzogs Tassilo(Rosenheim 1976),

pp. 13 ff .



306

personages infers a glory by association for this royal couple estab-lishing a princely claim of the highest order. What did the Carolingians

have to match this? The political implication was to have seriousconsequences. The unhappy outcome of this rivalry for Tassilo hasalready been discussed.

The conical base is linked to the cup by means of an ornamentednodule, above which is placed a rotating ring of gilt beads. Whenheld in the priest’s left hand during the Eucharist, while his right istted into the hollow base, the ring acted as a ‘ball bearing’, allowing the priest to rotate the cup without changing the position of his lefthand on the chalice. The large cup, able to hold 1.75 liters of wine,depicts in ve silver medallions portraits of Christ and of the fourEvangelists and their emblems. The Christ e ffigy is aligned verticallywith the name Tassilo and the medallions of the two male saints onthe base. Here again a message waits to be deduced. The TassiloChalice is more than an historical document. It is an icon, whichincorporates the essential sacramental mystical elements of the faith.

The chalice, 25.5 cm tall, is also a work of art, of exceptionalbeauty in itself. It is the only one of its kind. The fact that the his-

torical themes represented on the chalice re ect the Bavarian andLombard situation so closely makes it unlikely that the chalice wasimported from far away. The craftsmen must have been at home inthe Bavarian duchy. They themselves, however, may have been of or very closely associated with the Hiberno-Celtic traditions of orna-mentation, for the dominant ornamentation e ff ects the carpet pagesof the Insular Style , though a close inspection of the chip carving reveals itself to be of the Animal Style found on Germanic bulas.(Plates 25b, 25c, 25d) Into these elds of writhing intertwines, medal-lions bearing e ffigies have been inserted. Clearly the decorative ele-ments have captured a moment of tension in the transition fromnorthern pagan ornamentation to didactic Christian representation.The confounding ornamental interlace, formerly the primary self-satised ornamental intention, has been relegated to the secondaryrole as frame of the message carrying e ffigies representing the Christianfaith. The techniques of ornamentation include chip carving, engrav-ing, niello—a mixture of silver, copper, lead and sulfur—, and ampleuse of silver and gold. The ornamentation leaves no empty spacesanywhere on the chalice. The medallions are silvery in appearancewith golden accents. Most of the carpet ornamentation is gilt. Eachof the medallions is encircled with a golden linear Germanic braid



, 307

design of gure-eight overlays and intertwines, the sort, which wouldunravel if pulled at one end. The ovals are linked as if with golden

= signs. All the spaces between the ovals are decorated with chipcarved designs of the pagan northern Animal Style , characterized bydisjointed linear assemblies, reminiscent of the recon gured bracteatsfound in Saxony. The lip of the cup is encircled by a frieze of inter-twines separated by semicircles of silver, linked with roofs. All of these con gurations are lled with the chip carved serpentine inter-twines and dismembered body parts characteristic for the style. Thesame holds true for the triangular spandrels, which ll all spacesaround the medallions.

As was mentioned, the silver medallions on the cup contain theeffigies of Christ and of the Evangelists with their tetramorphicemblems. The details of the gures are outlined sharply in con-trasting black niello. Owing to an impact, probably a fall, the Christmedallion had separated from its copper base. During the repairs,the silver plate was riveted to the cup, leaving six rivet marks onthe surface without relevance to the composition. The Christ e ffigyis a half- gured Majestas Domini representation. His youthful bearded

and mustachioed face is framed by a full head of owing hair. It issurrounded by a doubly grooved golden halo. Horizontal goldengrooves above shoulder height represent a band on which appear indark niello the Greek letters A and V , Beginning and End, signify-ing the Apocalypse from Revelation. Vertical and forked golden groovesintimate the back of the throne. His garments are edged in gold.The right hand is raised in an elegant gesture of the Greek bless-ing. His left is rather unproportional and understated. The medal-lion now also bears the additional letters I and S , meaning Jesus Salvator , Jesus the Savior, on both sides of the head. Being Latinwords rather than Greek, it is held that these were added during the repairs. Their intention is clear: to stress the quiet solace andsublime composure represented by the majesty of the Savior. Thefour medallions showing the Evangelists are less clearly de ned becauseof the more turbulent ensemble created by crowding each Evangelistand emblematic being into the limited space of the medallion. Outlinesin niello and lines of emphasis in gold create a chaotic e ff ect foreach medallion. These gures are not so well drawn as the Christeffigy, and are more erratic in execution and actually rather expres-sionistic in e ff ect.

Of interest is the nodule, more than just a physical link between



308

cup and base. In among the intertwine are fastened nine diamondshaped designs, composed of some 200 independent petals, forming

rosettes. These are attached separately, riveted to the base and delin-eated in niello. Only one of these petals has been damaged and lost.The number nine totals the number of medallions: four on the baseand ve on the cup, guratively transforming the chalice into a cos-mological entity.

Despite the space lling decorative technique, which covers allpossible surfaces, these surfaces are arranged into well-organizedzones, each delineated by thin silver strips reinforced by niello lines.With the component parts linked, the cup displays a hieratic con-tinuum of a lower order of individuals related or associated with thegiven historical and political situation on the base and the higherspiritual and theological order of the faith. Christ and the Evangelistsare the Gospels and in the Transubstantiation of the Eucharist, thewine is Christ’s blood. By means of the chalice and the wine, theselect celebrant in the Eucharist participates in the mystical unionwith the divinity. The chalice suggests, that Tassilo saw himself tohave been so chosen.

Originating during the very early Carolingian period the TassiloChalice projects a stimulating work, which demonstrates very well themelding of two stylistic and cultural realities represented by the pagannorthern Insular and Animal Styles with the Christian humanism andthe homocentric intentions of the Mediterranean cultures.

It is noteworthy that the combination of pagan and Christian ele-ments has been noted before, as on the Cruci xion Ivory, where thepagan elements were of a humanistic, Classical origin. Here the paganelements are vestiges of the northern tradition of organic surfaceornamentation. Though the non-iconographic designs of braid andcomplicated interlace will continue in the elaborate decoration of incipit capitals in illuminated manuscripts, as ‘carpet pages’ this issomething of their last Hurrah. Once relegated to their secondary,non-narrative role as ornamental frames, they will soon be pushedoff the surfaces altogether, to clear the space for geometric bordersand message oriented, homocentric narrative, dependent on anthro-pomorphic representations.

Known as the First Cover of the Lindau Gospel , it is actually itsback cover, probably added at a later time. 317 (Plate 26a) It is held

317 Volbach, in Hubert et al., p. 213.



, 309

to be a nearly contemporary work of the chalice, though dated asearly as c. 770 or as late as c. 830. This cover is also a melding of

pagan and Christian elements, with the aspects of the pagan northern Animal Style retaining the dominant role on the cover. The Christianelement is represented in small, arcaded Christ e ffigies on the armsof the cross, stylistically related to Lombardic work, 318 and in veryadvanced and sophisticatedly articulated miniatures, embossed scenesof the Evangelists assuming their formal writing poses, accompaniedby their emblems. The original Christian elements have beenmodi ed. 319 On this cover the cross, in de nite ‘Maltese’ outline, hasbeen given the focal position with the later addition of the letterssymbolizing Christ, such a XPS DMS , Christus Dominus , at the verycenter, and although the stylized busts of Christ with cruciform halosare very apparent, the arms of the cross are ornamented with fan-tastic animals and interlaced salamander-like creatures extending outinto the blue frieze of the frame, while other ‘baroque’ motifs fromthe arms of the cross are continued into the golden frieze on theright and on the bottom. The space between the arms of the crossis lled entirely with creatures representing the animated universe

under the cross in the form of a maze of pincer jawed, tail biting,intertwining snakes, salamanders, birdlike and serpentine canine crea-tures. It cannot be missed that here too the lling patterns are end-lessly repeated motifs, as if excerpted from some in nite scheme.Accurate symmetry does not appear to have been the objective inthe space lling designs of these sections. Each of these elds isnished with chasing along the edges. Beaded gold wire surroundsmany of the surface areas. At the center of each of these spaces aprecious gem—amethysts, emeralds—occupies a cabochon setting.The cross received particular attention. Pearls and gems accent thecross symmetrically, with pearls being placed at all the tips of thecross and around the juncture of the arms and on the vertical armsof the cross, 16 pearls in all. The Christ e ffigies and the other con-torted fantasy birds are covered with champ-levé enamel, while otherdelineations are done in red cloisonné. Above the Christ e ffigies onthe vertical arms of the cross and contained in a red cloisonné lunette,are two anthropomorphic or zoomorphic gures of dismembered,

318 Elbern, p. 24.319 Braunfels, p. 366.



310

randomly reassembled bodies with too many hands clasping dislo-cated parts. While on three of the e ffigies the lapels of the mantle

are arranged in two arches down the front of the body, on one of them the lapels form a de nite X , perhaps intended to suggest theGreek letter Chi, one of the symbolic Greek letters abbreviating theChristogram. Abstract designs or mask-like faces ll the spandrelsleft between the diverging tips of the terminals of the cross. On onelong and one short side the frame is composed of very decorativesh and bird motifs done in multicolored cloisonné, interspersed bysubdivided circular and square red cloisonné patterns. One short sideis decorated with LaTène looking Celtic appliqués, also to be foundlling spaces on the cross. Gems in cabochon settings are regularlyspaced around three sides of the frame. The cover is completed onthe long sides by strips of geometrics, except for a short section of interlacing pattern. To ‘modernize’ the cover, sectors were later pro-

vided (c. 870) in the four corners to accommodate the Evangelists.In view of the established Germanic expertise, the sophistication of these embossed settings, and perhaps also the champ levé enamelson the e ffigies, do not necessarily suggest a later rather than an ear-

lier date of completion of this cover.Despite the perhaps chaotic impression left by the description of this cover, the optical e ff ect of this surface is entirely satisfying andamazing. The arrangement of the surface decorations is su fficientlyrational and symmetrical in organization, with just enough human-istic detail, to indicate that both the northern pagan and southernhumanistic traditions are in contention of the surface, but that thelatter is gaining on the former. The Tassilo Chalice made that evenmore evident. The Front or Second Cover of the Lindau Gospel , c. 870,produced at the Palace School of Charles the Bald, clearly indicatesthat the transition from the dynamic northern designs to static hasbeen accomplished. (Plate 26b) It is a totally rationally designed,symmetrically planned, equally proportioned spatial arrangement of the surface. Though the display of precious gems, pearls and goldis priceless, the border is almost uninteresting with its considered lay-out of cabochon setting of gems and pearls encrusted in acanthusleaves. An animated creativity has been fettered by the orderly intel-lect, to produce a rather unimaginative surface. The frame consistsof an outside setting of pearls alternating with small multicoloredprecious stones, containing an inner setting of large precious stones,green, blue, red, containing another inside row of alternating pearls



, 311

and precious stones. The arrangement may be seen as a sequenceof crosses. The space within that frame is divided into four equal

rectangles of gold onto which are set clusters of nine gems and pearlsarranged in the shape of crosses centering on a light blue stone,such as an aquamarine. In the two upper elds, above and belowthe clusters, embossed and contorted angels are tted into each toll as much of the space as is possible. The two lower elds haveembossed and contorted humans tted to ll as much of the spaceas possible. Nothing about them suggests that they gured among the traditional personages shown attending the Cruci xion. All gures,whether angelic or human, oat in an ideal golden, otherworldlyspace. The cross too is that space, itself outlined by gem and pearlencrustations. On the upper part of the cross, embossed medallionshaped Moon and Sun are placed above the plaque with the embossedinscription HIC EST REX JUDEORM (sic). The longhaired head of Christ is surrounded with a ligreed and cruciform emerald halo.Blood is shown owing from Christ’s hands and from his right side,pointing to the mystical understanding of the scene. A skirt-like loin-cloth is knotted below his waist and his feet are placed side by side,

in the Romanesque fashion. The cross has lost its pre-eminence anda very prominently contoured gure of Christ now dominates thecover. The human e ffigy as proclaimer of the Christian messageremains triumphant. A self-satis ed approach to artistic representa-tion for art’s own sake, ‘l’art pour l’art’, has become ‘art engagé’,art in the sancti ed service of the faith and the church.

The Carolingian climax of gem encrusted, embossed, golden gospelcovers is the Codex Aureus of St. Emmeram. (Plates 27a, 27b) Made forCharles the Bald, c. 870, and stylistically related to the Second Coverof the Lindau Gospel , the emperor Arnulf bestowed it to the monasteryof St. Emmeram in Regensburg. The art of its manuscript has beendiscussed above. In brief an imposing frame of gems, pearls andligree borders on four L -shaped areas of embossed human situa-tions, which in turn are the frame for another frame of encrustedgems. 320 These form a cross, dividing the embossed surfaces, with anencrusted ridge creating a rectangle where the arms of the crosswould join, in which a Majestas Domini is enthroned. A mass of alter-nating sapphires and emeralds, interspersed with pearls, all set in

320 Diebold, p. 56, suggests that the elevated gem encrustations protected theembossing of the thin sheet gold cover when the codex was opened.



312

sophisticated gold cabochon acanthus claws, provide the color con-text of this magni cent border. Only a few pearls are missing. Because

the gems are raised on miniature platforms, the gems suggest a three-dimensional contextual ‘architecture’, perhaps an early idea of aChristian universe, of the heavenly Jerusalem. Intricate ligree pro-

vides complementary ornamental artistry, which lls any spaces leftbetween the gems. The highly accomplished, embossed gures of thesurrounding inner elds consist of two narrative groups, the veryfamiliar Evangelists with their inspiring emblems, and those whichgure in scenes from the life of Christ. The gold foil will have beenmolded over a softer, carved or impressed model, such as leather.The Evangelists, seated on elaborate thrones, face inward from rec-tangles on the outside corners of the central rectangle. Counterclockwisefrom the top left they are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John with booksor unrolled scrolls, an irregular sequence. The emblems have becomeminor details and are awkwardly forced into the corners. The scenesfrom Christ’s life complete the L -shaped space: clockwise from topleft the scenes show Christ and the adulteress, Christ driving themoney changers from the temple in Jerusalem, Christ healing the

blind, and the leper. One may wonder why just these four sceneswere selected. With the exception of the last embossed scene, allshow some stylized architecture in the background. The scene withthe leper shows an abundance of vegetation. All details, especiallythe gures, are nely embossed, speaking an elegant body language.They are contoured in a somewhat static, elongated manner, remi-niscent of the gures of the Utrecht Psalter. The central rectangleshows the majestic Christ in the mandorla, enthroned on the worlddisc, his feet resting on a smaller embossed disc. His head is sur-rounded by the cruciform halo, his hair ows over his shoulders, onhis left thigh stands a book supporting his left hand. His right handis held at the height of his chest, in the Greek gesture of blessing.His robes are folded about the body to accent the contours of hisbody. Four sunbursts are placed in the corners. As a synthesis of Carolingian stylistic and thematic models and intentions this coverrepresents an extraordinary phase of surface treatment. The usualrepresentation of this cover obscures a feature, which makes thiscover an astonishing, symbolic work. An oblique view shows thatthe gems are elevated on arcaded structures of varying height anddesign, creating a veritable cityscape of classical temples and other



, 313

such structures. The colonnades which surround the central goldplaque, with Christ in the mandorla, resemble a sacred precinct

around which the other structures are assembled. The idea of a spec-tacular Imperium Christianummade visible, of a Heavenly Jerusalemas described in Revelation(21:16–18) recommends itself. The ensem-ble creates the impression of a sacred shrine. The ornamentationhas become a static, tectonic arrangement of encrusted material dis-play, entirely subordinated to the humanistic narrative message of the Christian faith. The two dimensional representations of the spir-itual components and the three dimensional elements of the mater-ial composition form a persuasive holistic ensemble. As such it is anoriginal work at the pinnacle of the goldsmith’s art. Clearly booksin general and such manuscripts and their covers especially are theoutstanding examples of the representative elements of the liturgicalarts. No doubt there existed a latent con ict between this sumptu-ous ostentation and the idea of Christian humility and poverty. Nodoubt, however, that the use of jewels and gold in the liturgical con-text was also the only conceivable, tangible manner in which mancould express his awe and respect for the ‘golden’ Word of God, as

illustrated in the manuscripts by the use of golden lettering on pur-ple parchment. The optical pagan fascination with the radiance of gems and gold is a meditational transposition performed by theChristians into the abstract manifestation of the invisible God.

During the next century the Ottonian tradition, already referredto when dealing with the setting of the Cruci xion Ivoryon the Book of Pericopes of Henry II, will continue with this manner of surfacetreatment. Only the Codex Aureus of Echternach will feature engravedgures on panels of gold.

A last example of the use of gem encrusted gold foil is the Arnulf Ciborium, c. 870, the only original Carolingian portable altar. (Plate28) It was donated to St. Emmeram by king Arnulf of Carinthia(887–899), and emperor after 896. Some of the ideas applied to theciborium may have originated in the same workshop of the PalaceSchool of Charles the Bald, as did the cover of the Codex Aureus of Emmeram. Arnulf may have commissioned the ciborium after hisascent to the throne. About one hundred years later both pieceswere restored, at which time the inscription naming Arnulf as Godloving donor may possibly have been inscribed. It is now in theTreasury of the Residence in Munich. The ciborium, 59 × 31× 24 cm,



314

is a portable architectural superstructure, to be placed on the altar,with a wooden core of oak, covered in embossed gold foil. A slab

of green porphyry, which forms the altar stone, is set into the raisedbase of this portable altar structure. A canopy, raised on four columnsand arches, supports a second level, which contains a deep rectan-gular recess, to accommodate the host during mass. Short columnscarry a four-gabled roof. Except for the altar stone, all surfaces arecovered with embossed, decorative scrolls or narrative gures relatedto the New Testament. These gures move in a more animatedmanner, just as their garments appear to be more windblown. Therooines are set with precious and semi-precious stones in rich ligree,the gables are outlined with gems, as are all edges. The triangularspaces formed by the gables show the Trinity by such gures as theHand of God, the Lamb and the Dove. An archangel with a globeis represented on the reverse. The surfaces on the roof show suchNew Testament scenes as the Raising of the youth of Nain and of Lazarus, Call of St. Peter— PETRE AMAS ME , the Allegory of theBirds in the Sky, or the Lilies in the Field. (Fig. 37) The spandrelsdisplay seraphim. The altar stone is faced with cloisonné enamel

designs in the petal shape of a St. Andrew’s Cross. Signi cant sec-tions of these ornamental details are now missing. The earliest suchportable altar, c. 800, was preserved at Adelhausen/Freiburg. Redporphyry was used in this instance. (Fig. 38)

For centuries to come the esthetic values determining the style of decorative surface treatment has been fundamentally established. Theprimary interest has been focused on the humanistic image sur-rounded by an ornamental context of objects of great material value.While the earlier styles, both Insular and Animal , had used humanforms, these were applied in a dismembered manner of decorativeelements, the new esthetics demanded to use the identi ed gure ina known context to demonstrate and reinforce as narrative the didac-tic message of the Christian faith. For the viewer the visible repre-sentation of forms and fabulous wealth is intended to serve as a‘catalyst’ which, through meditation, will stimulate a spiritual real-ization and an intellectual understanding, in terms of the faith, of the invisible. Recognition of the familiar is to lead to the cognitionof the great abstractions.

Perhaps the best-known bronze casting of the Carolingian Periodis the unique miniature equestrian statue of an idealized Carolingianemperor, (Figs. 39a, 39b) originally part of the cathedral treasure at



, 315

Metz and now in the Louvre. 321 It was once gilt. Often identi ed asa representation of Charlemagne, the statuette may actually repre-

sent Charles the Bald, perhaps made on the occasion of his coro-nation at Metz, 869, following his seizure of the lands of LothairII 322 or an idealized ruler. The statue is modeled on Roman eques-trian statues, such as the one of Marcus Aurelius, or is it ConstantineI, in Rome. It is also known that Charles had such a statue, per-haps wrongly attributed to Theoderic the Great, and possibly of theByzantine emperor Zeno, removed from Ravenna to Aachen, thereto be set up in the palace complex. Walahfrid Strabo made refer-ence to it in his Versus in Aquisgrani palatio editi anno Hludovici impera-toris XVI. De imagine Tetrici . Porphyry columns and Classical capitalswere part of that transport. There is no account of the disappear-ance of this equestrian statue. The columns, the statue and then thisstatuette could serve as a working illustration of Charles’ attractionto things Roman and his insistence on the derivative nature of hisrule from that of Rome and of the Carolingian Renovatiolinking antiquity with the new political reality in Europe. Artistic expressionand political intention were complementary aspects of the same

supreme will. We shall see that Charles’ preoccupation with Ravennawent even further when he modeled his Palace Chapel, a projectionof the Heavenly Jerusalem, on the Byzantine church of San Vitale inRavenna and referred to Aachen as the Roma nova and his palaceas the Lateran.323 Roman originals and replicas were used to impresson all the continuity of the Roman past as a Frankish present inAachen. Though the head of the statuette resembles the head oncoins issued by Charlemagne, this head is actually removable, as arethe rider and the saddle blanket, the horse’s tail and its hoofs. 324

There are no other extant portraits of Charlemagne. Any that por-trayed his heroic deeds on the documented palatial murals have notsurvived the ruin of the buildings. The simplistic stone statue of Charlemagne standing in the church in Müstair may belong to the9th century though it bears an inscription, which dates it to a laterperiod. By contrast, there are several representations of Charles the

321

Volbach, in Hubert, et al., p. 224.322 Wallace-Hadrill, p. 251, cites Hunert, et al., p. 225.323 H. Fillitz, Das Mittelalter I, Propyläen Kunstgeschichte in 18 Bänden(Berlin 1969),

p. 18. Also I. Wood, ‘Culture’, in McKitterick, Early Middle Ages , p. 190.324 Braunfels, p. 373.



316

Bald, who went to considerable lengths to stabilize the perceptionof the imperial personage, especially that of his own person. In view

of his contentious succession to his father’s and hence his grand-father’s throne, it would be consistent with his interest to emphasizehis royal relationship between emperors of Christian antiquity andwith himself. The resemblance of the rider of such a statuette withhimself could very well have been intended to demonstrate the con-tinuity and legitimacy of his claim to the imperial throne in 869.

It is quite unknown where and when this unique statuette wasmade. It was rst registered at Metz and may actually have beenmade there, or in the itinerant palace workshops of Charles the Bald,wherever they were located. The Palace School at Aachen has alsobeen suggested, because the manes of the cast lion heads on thedoor panels leading into the cathedral, and even the casting tech-nique of the lion and horse heads, show a stylistic similarity withthe mane of this horse. 325 The statuette was cast in individual partsand stands about 24cm tall when assembled. The rider is propor-tionally larger than the horse, unless it was intended to represent apony. It is now accepted that the bronze used for the two pieces is

the same and that horse and rider were cast at the same time. Thehorseman is an imperial e ffigy with enough detail of physiognomyto suggest at least an idealized portrait. Einhard’s description of Charlemagne is such that it could t the appearance of the statuette.The garments on the statuette could resemble the Frankish garb of which Einhard speaks in his Vita Karoli , but then it does not reallydiff er from all the garments depicted in the manuscripts either.Charlemagne may have frowned on seeing himself singled out thus,not at all in keeping with his sense of subordination to the king of Heaven. A clue that the horseman might be Charles the Bald derivesfrom the representation of Charles the Bald anked by two bishopsin his Coronation Sacramentary.There he is shown wearing ‘garters’ justbelow the knees. This feature is present on this equestrian minia-ture as well. Perhaps the two objects were made at the same time.Several of the horsemen shown in the Golden Psalter of St Gallenwear garters below the knees. The haircuts, leaving ears visible, areequally similar. The laced shoes on the statuette resemble the shoesworn by his ruler portrait in the Codex Aureus of St. Emmeram. His

325 Lasko, p. 13.



, 317

mustache here recurs on the statuette. These coincidences suggestthat the statuette originated in the same workshops as did the man-

uscript and was also meant to represent Charles the Bald. Theseworks could all be contemporary, c. 870, were it not for the cir-cumstance that the Palace School of Charles the Bald had no stu-dios working in bronze, while the Palace School of Charlemagnedid. 326 However, a stylistic link has been shown with the ivory carv-ings from Metz. 327 The crown does not resemble the ones depictedon the ruler portraits. It is a metal band with four equally spacedprotruding palmettes and designs on the band. The e ffigy carries anorb in his left hand and an ornamented sword sheath protrudes frombelow his cloak. When seen from the right, the gure holds its righthand, possibly a later addition, as if it had held something vertical,like a scepter. A bula fastens his mantle on his right shoulder. Fromthat angle the rider appears rather sti ffl y ‘wooden’. While the horsehas its head angled to the left, the ‘emperor’ looks quietly composed,rigidly forward, awkwardly digni ed. A saddlecloth is visible, but nostirrups. It is curious that all of the harness strapping disappearsunder the saddlecloth. Even the reins end at its edge and not in the

hands of the rider. Thus an actual link between the rider and thehorse is not evident. In all details, this equestrian composition isquite di ff erent from the horsemen represented in the Golden Psalter of St. Gallen. There the riders hold the reins, their legs are longerand their feet rest in stirrups.

The horse appears to be an alert and more spirited mount thanthose belonging to the troop of cavalry of the manuscript from St.Gallen. Here too the proportions are a bit o ff , in that the horse’shead is smaller than the larger and muscular neck would require.Other details demonstrate quite accurate observation and realisticexecution. Depending on the viewer’s angle, it appears to be toss-ing its head against the taut reins. Proudly prancing it is a compactsculpture, left front leg raised, right hind leg moved forward, walk-ing. The anatomical detail is only generally articulated and not tooaccurate in places, as in the modeling of the horse’s raised left knee,for instance.

326 Lasko, p. 13.327 E.G. Grimme, Bronzebildwerke des frühen Mittelalters (Darmstadt 1985), p. 15,

who summarizes the studies concerning this sculpture.



318

This equestrian statuette is noteworthy because it bears consider-able responsibility, being the only (surviving?) statuette of its or any

other kind. Were there no other miniature equestrian statuettes? If not, then why only this one? It is di fficult to imagine that the skilledbronze casters were assembled in order to reserve their casting exper-tise for only this one mounted gure, without it being part of a spe-cialist tradition? The links to any tradition are missing. Was Alcuin’slegacy a factor? Horse and rider were made using the ancient ‘lostwax’ method, whereby clay gurines were coated in wax, carvedprecisely and then surrounded by a mantle of clay. When the claywas red, the wax would run out from the drain holes at the bot-tom and the hollow space thus created would be lled with the hotmetal. After cooling, the clay mantle would then be broken and themetal form submitted to secondary, precision nishing, including gild-ing. Most probably these metal workers had been among the manyartisans, which Charlemagne had brought north expressly to per-form speci c tasks, as the various documents indicate. Had they thenreturned south? Since bronze is a relatively rare commodity, it isalso most probable that many more bronzes have been lost than

have been preserved. Recycling for the manufacture of cannons dur-ing later wars, but also for later artistic needs will have played arole in removing other bronzes from view.

Several other examples of the bronze-casters’ expertise are still inevidence in the Palace Chapel in Aachen, which in its details makes

visible the Carolingian idea of the state: of the original ve pairs,four pairs of door panels have survived in their original locations inthe capella palatina , the Palace Chapel, the largest pair, hung in thelate 18th century portico of the main entrance placed into the largeat-arched niche of the Carolingian westwork, all cast in one pieceeach, 4 meters high, each panel weighing 34 hundredweight; 328 threepairs, 2.4 meters high, are used for the doorways to three interiorchapels; a large hollow-cast pine cone and an elaborate grillwork balustrade which surrounds the upper level of the octagon interior.The originality of the door panels is to be found in their having been cast entirely in bronze. By contrast Roman and Byzantine doorsconsisted of wooden planks covered with sheets of bronze.

328 Grimme, pp. 8, 11. Braunfels, p. 136f.



, 319

The doors are something of a technological wonder in the Northduring this early period. The remains of molds have been found,

indicating that the doors were made at Aachen. The fact that theirreserved design is entirely Classical in appearance underscores thelikelihood that the craftsmen were from the south. (Figs. 40a, 40b,40c) The extensive experience of northern metal workers, casting small portable ornaments, would probably not have quali ed themto assume such a challenging task. At rst glance the door panelspersuade one that the sense of style, which entered the work, isrational, organized and entirely tectonic. Each panel is divided intoeight equal, rectangular, inset co ff ers. The chapel doors are dividedinto six panels, the central ones being large rectangles with largelions’ heads, o ff set in the middle, while the upper and lower co ff ersare square. Pellets interrupt the acanthus leaf designs, which formthe moldings constituting the frames of these chapel doors. On alldoors deep channeling separates the co ff ers. On the main doors eachcoff er is framed by a beveled triple border—an equidistant astra-galus design on the outside, followed by a frame of gouged inden-tations separated by ridges, and another frame of smaller pellets.

Raised lines separate the patterns. A molding of larger beads sur-rounds each door panel of the main entrance. Each panel createsan optical e ff ect of severe discipline. Bronze lions’ heads are cen-tered on the second of the bottom inside co ff ers. Large bronze ringswere placed in the mouths of the lions’ heads leading into the chapels.It is the manes of engraved curling strands of hair of these lions’heads, which resemble the mane, and tail of the equestrian statuettementioned above. Constant touching lets the bronze of the headsgleam through, lending a faint echo of the original gilding of all of the doors. Each head is placed on a larger disc, a wreath of 24acanthus/palmette designs. The doors are unique in their represen-tation of a merging of motifs found in other artwork. 329 In the pas-sage way just inside of these doors there is a crouching Romanshe-wolf, which Charlemagne brought to Aachen, hence these doorsare referred to as the ‘wolf ’s doors’. (Fig. 41)

Across from the she-wolf stands a massive, rather crude bronzecasting of a pinecone, 91 cm high. (Fig. 42) The pinecone may per-haps not go back to Roman times, but was once intended to be the

329 Lasko, p. 11.



320

centerpiece of a fountain placed in the Carolingian atrium in frontof the Palace Chapel. Each one of the cone’s scaly protrusions has

a tiny hole to allow the water to trickle out, or to spurt out in ane spray. Four gurines were intended for the square base of thecone, but the cast was damaged during the manufacturing processand only three gurines are visible today. They are interpreted torepresent the four rivers of Paradise. The casting was never repairednor actually nished, suggesting that the fountain was never built.It has been suggested, 330 that the pine cone is a copy of a 1st cen-tury fountain erected in the atrium of St. Peter’s in Rome during the 4th century and that Charlemagne transferred the idea to hisatrium in Aachen. Aachen sources indicate that the pinecone theredates to c. 400. Whichever the case may be, evidently the ideabehind the bronze casting is intended to provide another of severalideological links showing the Carolingian Renovatioand its continuitywith ancient pagan and early Christian Rome.

Much better evidence of the bronze casters’ skills are the techni-cally superb railings, which close the space between the eight pillarsof the upper level of the octagon. 331 (Figs. 43a, 43b, 43c, 43d) The

throne was placed on that level for the coronation of Otto I, withits back toward the west work, so that the altar would be visiblefrom there. Five multiple sections of balustrade are placed waist highin front of the throne into the space between the pillars, while onlyfour multiple sections extend over the space between the other pil-lars. Pairs of columns are placed inside the railings. Double sets of alternating design make up the four sections of each section of balustrade. The designs are not easily classi ed since each sectionof the railing is a play of variations with the variations of other sec-tions. Their variety clearly points to the ‘geometric’ imagination of the craftsmen. Not any of the designs are Celto-Germanic, thoughthey suggest a ‘northern’ intention. The bronze smiths worked inthe rational and organized space lling styles of the southern Classicalarchitectural traditions. Thin and narrow uted pilasters, topped withCorinthian capitals divide some of the spaces into which the emphaticbars of secondary frames may be suspended, linked by stays to thelarger frame. At top and bottom these sections may have simple

330 Lasko, p. 11.331 Braunfels, p. 379f.



, 321

staggered moldings, or a continuing pattern of arabesques, convo-luted vegetative motifs, such as ornate acanthus leaves. The perfo-

rated patterning of geometric grillwork lling the secondary frameis complemented by the pattern of stays to form a persuasive spacelling design. The perforated design of the adjoining section may bea variation of that motif. (Figs. 44a, 44b, 44c) As was mentionedabove, the sections are arranged in alternating placements. Insteadof pilasters a repetitive perforated motif, such as a row of eurs de lys , or open oral chalices may provide the dividing framework, theinner space to be lled with translucent rectangular or diagonal vari-ations of cross formations everywhere. Rosettes and other circulardesigns may gather the intersecting lines of these crosses. As wasmentioned, the balustrade in front of the throne is divided in vesections. The central one is hinged for opening. It consists entirelyof vertically placed rectangles. The other four sections are based ona vertical cross pattern, with diagonal cross bars linking the inter-secting points of each cross, so that upended square patterns areplaced within squares. The sections with the pilasters have beentermed ‘Roman’ and ‘Classicist’, the others are ‘Frankish’. 332 Originally

gilt, the balustrade no longer gleams golden.The Carolingians were experts at seeking out and transforming Classical inspirations into accomplished works of art. The Carolingianswere so skillfully adept at imitation, that Classical models cannoteasily be distinguished from Carolingian imitations and originals.Their intention was to establish a continuity between their own devel-oping esthetic sense and that of the Roman past. So far the discus-sion of the cloister arts, of manuscript illuminations, of secularliterature, of the treatment of ivories, crystals, gem encrustations, pre-cious metals, of styles and techniques and the artistry of the Aachenbronzes has accented Charlemagne’s ideas. The extensive Carolingianrevitalization of the Classical heritage in terms of the many aspectsof a Renovatio, the deliberate link with the Davidic elements of theOld Testament in religion and politics led to the con rmation of Aachen as the new and better Athens, the Roma nova , in Christian

332 See Braunfels, p. 135f. Grimme, p. 9f., Figs. 2, 3. Grimme mentions thatthese railings had been removed and along with the antique columns were intendedto be sent to Paris in 1794, during the wars of the French Revolution. When thisdid not happen, they were restored in 1843.



322

guise as the New Jerusalem. Two centuries later the emperor OttoIII revitalized the idea of Aachen as caput mundi when he surrounded

it with a periphery of churches. Architecture was suited most ide-ally to o ff er the context in which almost all of these developmentsexperienced a visible synthesis.



1 Schutz, Prehistory, p. 253f.

PART C

PALACES AND BASILICAS

XIX. Architecture—Palaces

The archeological evidence indicates that in addition to religiousarchitecture, there once existed an abundance of secular building.Most of that is no longer visible, having been razed to the founda-tions and any occasional vestiges are now only apparent from theair by means of outline shadows. Many have been incorporated intosubsequent buildings. This is complicated by the fact that secularbuilding in stone, such as castles, was not to be introduced till thefollowing centuries. Stone was not the obvious building material forsecular purposes. Useable foundations and forti cations were incor-porated into new construction. Only in the case of the Carolingian

palaces has archeology made a serious attempt to recover the foun-dations and, recently, attempted scienti c reconstructions. A smallnumber of examples of Carolingian church architecture has remainedto this day. However, plotted on a modern map, these sites suggesta mystical, in depth ‘defensive’ system of religious establishmentsdirected toward the east. The metaphysical power of their relics radi-ated a transcendental line of protection.

Forti cations were in use certainly since the Bronze Age. Thesemade use of natural locations, which could be reinforced by ditches,

earthworks and palisades and by c. 100 B.C., late Celtic times, asthe Altburg near Budenbach, Otzenhausen, ‘Runde Berg’ at Urach,Manching with immense rock wall perimeters on natural table-rock formations. 1 The Romans did not generally make use of these Celticoppida , but the Alemans, Franks and other Germanic tribal groupsdid occupy some of them. The archeological investigations of thesehill forts have revealed sequences of occupation of these defensivesites by Merovingians and their subjects and allies and by Carolin-gians and their successors. In the lowlands, where natural stone was



324

scarce, by the 9th century, forti cations were erected by raising aconical mound of earth in a strategic location, such as promonto-

ries, a fork in a river, or on an island, or by making an island. Theearth dug up to raise the mound could create a wider body of waterto act as a moat. Several palisades would reinforce defensive peri-meters. Originating in France, this lowland type of forti cation, bear-ing a French designation, is the motte. Almost any convenient hillcould then be topped with a defendable and inhabitable tower, akeep, or donjon, in French. Several baileys could support the keep.Eventually they would be the focal point of a defendable precinct,possibly consisting of more than one motte . Wood-earth constructionsprevailed for centuries and not till the 11th and 12th centuries didstone structures become the forti cations of choice. In 864 Charlesthe Bald issued an edict that the raising of forti cations was underthe jurisdiction of the king, 2 though during periods of royal weak-ness, this edict could not be universally enforced. At the same timeit is a question here of forti ed or moated manors rather than ‘cas-tles’. In general one tried to locate these sites where natural featuresof the terrain could be exploited to a maximum. Their size varied

with the political importance of their lords. Erosion, neglect, destruc-tion, relocation, integration into later buildings, territorial redistrib-utions and changes in strategic importance a ff ected the fortunes of most of these sites.

The terminology applied to the princely residences was adoptedfrom Roman usage. As was demonstrated elsewhere, 3 such terms asvilla, castellum, castrum, praetorium, aula and palatium were in use through-out the former Roman provinces. In Ravenna, the mosaic in Theo-deric’s San Appollinare Nuovoclearly identi es the residence as Palatium.Eventually the Constantinian basilica in Trier, the former Augusta Treverorum, will be named Aula Palatina , reviving the tradition. Theroyal palaces come to be termed palatium regium.The annals will usethis term for the royal sites at which the king-emperors actuallypresided over governmental a ff airs, along with curtis regia and villa regia , the word curtis meaning ‘court’. Eventually the term palatium isapplied exclusively for Carolingian foundations. From the 9th century

2 G.P. Fehring, Einführung in die Archäologie des Mittelalters (Darmstadt 1987), p. 121.3 Schutz, Romans .



325

onward any such forti ed sites were also called castrum, castellum.4 Theadministrative needs of the Frankish kingdoms were such that a form

of government had to be favored which made the rulers into itin-erant kings. Their capital was where the court was. The king andhis large entourage had to be treated to a higher standard of accom-modation wherever the king’s personal attention was most needed,especially during the winter months. A prepared, fully equipped andprovisioned palatium would serve as royal residence as needed. It fol-lows that these sites were most often located in the royal domains,where the power of the crown was concentrated, though this prob-ably did not exclude surprise visits on unsuspecting nobles. 5 It madethe ruler more immediately present and allowed his people to par-ticipate in the splendor and luster of the monarch and of his court.Not every palatium could be expected to host the lengthy meetingsof the royal and imperial diets, conferences attended by the mightyof church and state and their own courts, in permanent quarters.The royal records make a point to identify the sites to which thekings retired, for Easter or to hunt for example, especially for Christmasand the winter. After 794 Charlemagne and subsequently Louis the

Pious favored Aachen. After 806 Charlemagne hardly ever left it.He had declared it the sedes regni , the royal seat. In 799 Charles hadreceived the sorely abused pope Leo III in Paderborn. Worms wascited sixteen times. Louis the Pious liked to celebrate Easter atFrankfurt. The empress Judith gave birth there to Charles, the Bald.Diets were frequently held at Ingelheim, including the one that con-demned Tassilo to death. His residence in Regensburg became apossession of the crown. Following the partition of the realm othercenters were identi ed as royal seats and those most favored enjoyedthe royal-imperial patronage in the form of donations and gifts. Thatis how the Codex Aureus arrived in St. Emmeram, when Arnulf of Carinthia built his imperial palace in Regensburg. The German wordPfalz will be used as the preferred term.

The archeological evidence from several sites suggests that a Pfalz consisted of a large hall for the receptions, derived in design fromthe Roman basilicas, the living quarters, a chapel, the courtyards for

4 G. Binding, Deutsche Königspfalzen von Karl dem Großen bis Friedrich II (765–1240),pp. 21–26.

5 Reuter, Germany, p. 87f.



326

the management of the farms and domestic estates, and the forti -

cations. Most of these buildings were of stone and some of the rooms

were even heated. Wood construction was scattered about, used forthe quarters of occasional guests, sta ff and servants, the shops sta-bles and barns, usually nearby if not actually included in the precinct.Primary responsibility lay with these farming establishments—thePfalz had to be provisioned by stables, dovecotes, henhouses, kitchens,bakeries, abattoirs, breweries, workshops for spinning and weaving,pottery, wood and leather work, barns, granaries, such storage facil-ities as cellars and the like and shponds. As we have seen else-where, vegetable and herb gardens needed particular attention. Sucha site would have to be su ffi ciently productive to support all of theneeded sta ff and yield su ffi cient surplus to receive any visiting largeentourages of even the most important lords. Initially earthworks,moats and brush fences with wooden gates were deemed adequatelyprotective obstacles. With the invasions of the Vikings more defend-able structures, of wattle and daub for instance, had to be erected.The core buildings of a Pfalz then were the great hall, the princelyquarters and the chapel. With the major exception of Aachen, very

little of the evidence has survived. The remains of the Pfalz atIngelheim were destroyed as recently as 1689 during the wars of Louis XIV. It is reasonable to conclude that the great nobles, nota-bles and court functionaries and administrators of the realm willhave had their own houses in the vicinity of the major and fre-quently visited palaces. The housing complex at Aachen was exten-sive. Some land grants are still extant.

While very little is known of the personal princely quarters of sucha Pfalz , the great halls are better documented in literary sources.However the murals of great rulers decorating the great hall inIngelheim were the product of Ermoldus Nigellus and his poeticimagination, which relied on descriptions by Classical authors asVirgil, and Ovid describing sites of Classical narrative. There thewell dressed walls of the palace were supposedly decorated with sec-ular themes taken from ancient and more recent history. The greathalls will have had painted walls but with undeterminable detail. 6

Just a small number of these palaces can be discussed here:Paderborn, Frankfurt, Ingelheim and Aachen.

6 See Binding, p. 103. However, see Bullough, Renewal , pp. 66, 95, n. 122.



327

Excavations between 1964 and 1983 have brought clarity to theparticulars of the Pfalz at Paderborn. (Fig. 45) The name of the site,

the source of the River Pader, retains its animistic mystery—waterspringing out of the earth. It was mentioned above that Paderbornhad been founded as an aggressive and defensive forti ed site dur-ing Charles’ wars with the Saxons sometime before 777. In 777 asynod was convened there. Several attempts to erect a church anda palace met with destruction but by 799 the land must have beenstabilized and paci ed, for Charles received pope Leo III there. Atthis occasion a large church was consecrated. Leo had come with a

very large entourage. The site rose to great strategic and commer-cial signi cance during the 9th century, thanks in part to the dis-play of valuable relics. An area of about 800 square meters wassurrounded by drywall about 1.5 meters thick. The palace churchalso served as a mission and parish church and bordered on a ceme-tery with many women and children burials. In 799 this church wasreplaced with the much larger three-aisled basilica mentioned above.Towards the NW the aula regia , the great royal hall, 10.3 × 30.9meters, was located. Stylistically it was related to the Germanic royal

halls.7

A passage connected it with the church. Structural modi

cationsultimately enlarged the building. At the beginning of the 11th cen-tury the Pfalz was torn down and replaced by a larger hall. Thishall burned down during the later 12th century and was used as aquarry during the early 13th century, to provide the raw materialfor the new cathedral. Fragments of capitals, (Fig. 46) pottery, glassand colorful plaster from murals have been recovered, (Fig. 47) allow-ing the conclusion that in view of the frequent royal visits, this Pfalz will have o ff ered comparable comforts to its royal and imperial inhab-itants and guests. The structural foundation outlines indicate mucharchitectural activity in the space between the church and the palace.With the Christianization of the Saxons and the subsequent ascentof the Saxon line of the Ottonians to the throne, this Pfalz soon lostits military function. Paderborn had been integrated into a network of bishoprics.

In 794 Charles founded a Pfalz on the northern terminal of a fordover the River Main to be called Franconofurd , hence Frankfurt. Theford had been used for many centuries and especially by the Romans

7 Fehring, p. 135.



328

to cross the Main when marching from the two-legion castrum at Mogontiacum/Mainz to the forti cations along the limes . An elevation

there, still called the Römerberg , had been forti ed by the Roman legio XIV. The Romans abandoned the site during the 3rd century A.D.and during the intervening Merovingian centuries the need for cutstones had led the remains of the buildings to be ‘quarried’, rst forsimple houses and then for the northern defensive perimeter of thePfalz . A continuity of occupation can be assumed in what must havebeen a substantial settlement already then. Already in 794 Charlemagnehad presided over a synod in the aula sacri palatii , suggesting the exis-tence of a great hall, but quite probably the church, for Charles,having celebrated Christmas at Würzburg, celebrated Easter therethat year and stayed in Frankfurt for eight months. Three key agendaitems were Adoptionism, the reintroduction of the veneration of iconsby the eastern church and the renewed confession of Tassilo. Histhird wife Fastrada died there. However, it was not till the reign of Louis the Pious that Frankfurt appears regularly in the documents.Repeatedly he stayed there and his son Charles, to be called theBald, was born there in 823. Following the partition of the realm

in 843 Ludwig the German made Frankfurt his preferred residence,staying there on 30 occasions, sometimes for months on end. In 852Hrabanus Maurus came from Mainz to consecrate a new palacechapel. Ludwig was to die there in 876. Regensburg had becomehis other center. 8

Originally located on a peninsula, the Pfalz was protected by theriver and swampy terrain to the east and north. The Carolingianbuildings are strictly oriented. The core buildings extended over 117meters. A long passage connected the great hall, the aula regia , withthe palace chapel. Additional construction of three large rooms anda small corridor extended the great hall toward the west. The foun-dations of the western building were of basalt, neatly complementedby Roman fragments and red sandstone. The uniform use of whitemortar indicates an uninterrupted period of construction. The thick-ness of the foundations suggests these buildings to have been two-or multi-storied. The great hall measured 26.5 × 12.2 meters. Additionalconstruction may also have extended the great hall toward the eastfrom where the passage led to the chapel, a hall church datable to

8 Fehring, p. 117f.



329

790 and related in type to the church, which had been consecratedin 777 in Paderborn with Charles in attendance. A smaller Merovingian

church had been located there before. In 852, during the reign of Ludwig the German an aisle was added on the south side, balanc-ing the northern extension of the connecting passage into the church.Recently several Merovingian (?) graves, including a rich burial of a little girl, were found beneath the palace complex. 9 A transept withapse at the eastern end completed this church. 10 By then Einhardhad provided the design of such a church nearby, at Steinbach andat Seligenstadt. The Pfalz in Frankfurt does not seem to have sur-

vived the 13th century. Its reputation was sustained when for cen-turies to come Frankfurt was chosen for the imperial coronations of the Holy Roman Empire.

The Carolingian Pfalz at Ingelheim was not nally destroyed tillthe wars of Louis XIV, 1689, when he tried to claim the inheri-tance of his sister-in-law, Liselotte of the Palatine. Around 1400 itsterrain had been declared open to general settlement, its conditionhaving deteriorated to a point beyond repair. Much earlier alreadythe cities had become preferred locations for royal and imperial vis-

its. Ingelheim was a royal domain some 15 kilometers west of Mainz,already occupied during the 7th century according to the potteryfragments found there. For the Frankish kings the site was strategi-cally and politically important because of its location on the RiverRhine and its proximity to the seat of the powerful archbishop of Mainz. Jurisdiction of the churches of the area rested with the dis-tant bishop of Würzburg. Charles is documented there for 774. Fromthere he sent troops against the Saxons. From there Tassilo wasoverthrown in 787. There Charles spent Christmas 787 and Easter788, and during that June, the diet sentenced Tassilo to death fortreason. Evidently the needs for such a long stay and for such largecrowds had to be met, perhaps not too well, for Charles never againspent the winter months there, preferring to stay at Worms, Frankfurt,Würzburg, Regensburg and after 794 at Aachen. On several occa-sions he was at Ingelheim during the spring and summer. For Louisthe Pious Ingelheim was a favorite point of departure for his hunts,as well as the location to meet the great imperial embassies from

9 Innes, State and Society, p. 35. See Schutz, Germanic Realms , and Tools, Weapons and Ornaments , for examples of other church burials.

10 Fehring, pp. 118 ff .



330

Byzantium and of other kings. (Fig. 48) Thus Ermoldus Nigellusrecords the occasion of the baptism of the Danish king, Harald, and

of his entourage there in 826. The record is a lengthy biography in verse dedicated to Louis the Pious, In honorem Hludovici , asking forhis reinstatement into the emperor’s grace. Ermoldus prepared a lav-ishly detailed and poetic record of the event. 11 The imperial dietsmet there repeatedly during his reign. Louis died there in 840, onan island in the Rhine. Following the partition of the realm of 843the Pfalz came under the jurisdiction of Ludwig the German andWorms became the site of the royal assemblies and Ingelheim was

visited brie y only on two more occasions. Arnulf came in 893 and897. Ludwig IV, the Child, was the last Carolingian to visit in 904and 909. Ottonians and Salians used the Pfalz with great frequency.

This Pfalz was conceived as a rationally organized plan, consist-ing of a rectangle, 99.5 × 91.5 meters, and a semicircle with a basediameter of 87 meters. The axis of the complex runs E–W, the rec-tangular structure on the left, west, the semicircle on the right, east.The southwestern corner of the complex was probably the aula regia ,the royal hall, 33 × 14.5 meters in size, with an estimated height of

13.4 meters and with a large apse, 8 meters high. Four windowsperforated the apse. The proportions of the hall suggest that it wasprobably modeled on the Constantinian hall in Trier. This aula islarger than the one at Paderborn, though smaller than the one atAachen. Multicolored plaster was still attached to the walls andamong the debris. The northwestern corner could not be determined.To the east, a large courtyard may have formed an atrium framedby colonnades to the north and south. Another colonnade or wallseparated this rectangular structure from the semicircular courtyardand colonnaded building. This structure had an exterior radius of 45 meters. Doors connected the inner rooms with the colonnade. Atmidpoint of the arc was inserted a 10 meters wide entrance hall.Where the semicircle joined the rectangle, the later Ottonian, cru-ciform palace chapel was placed. Directly across from there a largehall was set at right angles. Seven equidistant towers were placedtwo meters in front of the circling perimeter. All of the masonry isidentical allowing the conclusion that all construction was simul-taneous. The foundations of this exedra are 2.5 meters deep and

11 Ward, in Godman and Collins, p. 216f. See also Bullough, Renewal , p. 241f.



331

1 meter thick. A drainage channel was placed beneath the south-east towers and fresh water was brought in from eight kilometers

away. 12 During the later Carolingian period, perhaps under Louisthe Pious, a large bath was installed. Compared to the other palaces,the design of this Pfalz was signi cantly di ff erent, without obviousantecedent nearby. One fragment indicates that the columns of thecolonnade had Corinthian capitals. (Fig. 49) Another decorative frag-ment shows a vine, leaves and grapes surrounding an inner panelof mythical horses. (Fig. 50) There is not much more to indicateornamentation and splendor of these palaces. One can only drawinferences from what materials were used in the Palace Chapel atAachen and wonder if such materials were used at all to embellishthese palatial structures with wall paintings, white and gray marble,and walls and oors, red and blue porphyry for oor designs andcolumns, lustrous metals, precious draperies and the interplay of lightand color, all of it animated by the movement of people within thesespaces. (Fig. 51)

The continuing accessibility of the octagonal Palace Chapel atAachen has focused most attention on this Pfalz .13 This aspect, how-

ever, has made the site the most important of all. That the area for-merly occupied by the palace complex has been built over contributesto this emphasis on the chapel even more. That the residential com-plex was drawn out on a slope has today separated the former greathall from the chapel. During the 14th century this former aula regia ,not actually documented by that name, was restored in the Gothicstyle and refunctioned as the city hall of Aachen. Its association withCharlemagne was reemphasized when in 1851 the artist Alfred Rethelrevived the art of fresco painting with eight paintings retelling eventsfrom the life of Charlemagne. The Roman site on which the palacewas located was a square measuring 1500 feet to each side. (Fig.52) The baths, large enough to accommodate hundreds, occupiedthe SE section. The Pfalz then is anchored by the great hall, 17.2 ×

44 meters, just outside of the square in the north and the octago-nal chapel in the south, connected by a passage, 120 meters long,and interrupted at right angles by a rectangular building of unspeci eduse, c. 15 × 30 meters. Poets speak of a game park stocked for hunt-ing with a stream running through it, with sh, in which the king

12 Fehring, pp. 105–116.13 Braunfels, pp. 125 ff . See also R.E. Sullivan, Aix-la-Chapelle , pp. 40, 56 ff .



332

could pursue his pleasures of the hunt. Archeological investigations,suppositions and conclusions have tried to reconstruct the original

physical appearance of these buildings from among the maze of foun-dations of subsequent modi cations and additions. 14 As elsewhere, intime ancillary prestigious residences for the magnates of the realmand the princes of the church and all of their entourages, as wellas accommodations for the suppliers of the court and their need forstorage would complement the buildings of the palace. Their pre-cise location can no longer be identi ed, but only a reliable, sophis-ticated, complete and resident infrastructure assuring the supply of necessities of the crown and of the individual courtiers could makesuch a court possible.

In pre-Roman, Celtic times the god Grannus was associated withhot springs venerated for their healing powers, his presence being indicated by the name of the site. Roman syncretism in terms of the interpretatio romana adjusted and assimilated all cults and allowedthe continuation of non-Roman gods sometimes in Roman guise. 15

Modern Aachen was called Aquae Granni in Roman times andthe baths were frequented by them, the Merovingians and early

Carolingians because of the hot springs. The thermal springs provided the initial focus for the site and according to Einhard’s Vita Karoli 16 account for the aging Charlemagne’s preference for Aachen.A con uence of circumstances contributed to the choice of the royalseat being located at Aachen. The need for a permanent admistra-tive center of the realm was indicated. With increasing age Charlesbecame less itinerant. The site lay in the ancestral lands of theCarolingians and as early as 766 the waters attracted Pepin III, theYounger, to spend Christmas and Easter at Aquis villa/Aquisgrani .From 768 onward the references to Charles’ stay there increase infrequency and after 794 to his death, unless on campaign or inRome, 800, he resided there permanently. Structural improvementshad added enough features to make a comfortable stay possibleregardless of seasons. (Figs. 53a, 53b) The dendrochronological dat-ing of timbers indicates that this became possible during the 770s

14

Fehring, pp. 80–97. See Braunfels, pp. 129–134. Also Sullivan, Aix , p. 56f.15 Schutz, Romans , pp. 57 ff .16 Thorpe, p. 77. Chapter 22 provides insight into Charlemagne’s private life,

including his predilection for steam baths and his habit to bathe with his courtiersand retainers, even bodyguards. He su ff ered fevers and was lame.



333

and 780s as during that time the Pfalz also became su ffi ciently rep-resentative to receive the highest diplomatic missions there, from the

Byzantine emperor, for instance. Those around him may have rec-ommended that he build a capital, like his rolemodels the BiblicalDavid and the emperor Constantine. The counsel may have coin-cided with his intention to create a Roma nova with a palatium to becalled the Lateran was being realized. Eventually the idea of a New

Jerusalem on earth was melded into this vision. There are no recordsextant which specify the dates of the building program of the palacecomplex, nor of the Palace Chapel, other than that in July 798columns were being erected and that in the winter of 804/805,according to later sources, pope Leo III consecrated the church. 17

(Fig. 54) Construction continued into the reign of Louis the Pious.The addition of exterior chapels and the addition of the Gothic choirduring the 14th and 15th centuries, as well as the heightening of the roof over the dome of the octagon following several res as lateas the 17th century, have modi ed the internal and external appear-ance of the Palace Chapel.

XX. Architecture—Wall painting

A small number of clearly identi able Carolingian religious build-ings or parts of buildings have been preserved, not all of them byany concern for preserving the past, but some more by accident,indiff erence or even because of a lack of funds. Of the former, de-tailed reference will be made below to the churches at Müstair, Malsand Naturns when discussing murals. Located along the River Adige,they were way stations. At best these buildings represent the frag-ments of an activity without any claim to continuity.

Murals are a relatively contained subject for discussion. One onlyknows of some from unreliable literary records, in which authorsclaimed to describe them. In Central Europe a very few exampleshave survived. New construction has absorbed older foundationmasonry, the e ff ects of climate have caused deterioration of any wallpainting and changing tastes have contributed to their removal orat best to being covered. In some instances a dilemma frustrates the

17 Binding, p. 76f. reviews the literature concerning this point.



334

restorers when later murals of artistic signi cance cover earlier art-work. Where the buildings have survived, the murals generally have

not. A very few examples are extant because they had been paintedover, but even there only few incomplete examples remain. Thusthe church of St. Emmeram in Regensburg, still the largest Carolingianstructure in Germany, contains Roman spoils and remnants of an8th century early Carolingian colonnade, still outlined in yellow andred. The upper room of the arched hall at Lorsch has lower ‘wain-scoting’ of colorful squares above which a painted colonnade dividesthe surfaces of the walls, lending to the hall a modest grandeur. Thebest preserved examples were either overlooked or whitewashed andare to be found in such remote parish and monastery churches asin the Swiss canton of Graubünden, the convent church of St. Johannat Müstair and east of the Ofen-Pass and south of the Reschen-Passfollowing the road into the valley of the Adige in the South Tirol,in northern Italy, in the small chapels of St. Benedikt at Mals andof St. Prokulus at Naturns. 18 It appears reasonable that the parishchurches and monastic establishments along the way through theAlpine passes would attract pilgrims and itinerant painters going S–N

or E–W. It will be demonstrated, that though in regional proximityand contemporary, the stylistic di ff erences in sophistication, compo-sition and dramatization of the events are marked, as western Caro-lingian monastic, Lombardic, Byzantine and even Syrian in uencescan be identi ed. It is interesting to note, that there is no compelling link between the painting of murals and the illumination of books.Libraries and scriptoria did not necessarily stimulate wall painting,though at St. Gallen, they appear to have complemented one another.

St. Johann in Müstair, reputedly founded by Charlemagne him-self as a royal monastery, was originally a Benedictine monastic foun-dation, probably datable to 780/90. (Plate 29) Here then the term‘Carolingian’ does not only refer to the historical period. Referenceto it rst appears in a prayer-fraternity recorded between 800 and826 at Reichenau. The Carolingian foundation was badly damagedby re after 1079. Shortly after 1087 it was converted into a con-

vent. As part of the imperial domain, it can be assumed that theartistic style represented on the murals of this most important Caro-lingian church, represents the o ffi cial Carolingian style. 19 All the walls

18 See Hubert et al., Carolingian Art , pp. 19 ff .19 Braunfels, pp. 94, 367.



335

of the Carolingian hall church and its three apses, an eastern innovation that had come west through Lombardy (there are also two

additional niches), had been covered with murals, probably during the 9th century, perhaps at the same time, before 881, as those atMals. The ceiling may also have been painted. The e ff ect of mois-ture caused the colors to degenerate. Forty-nine framed areas on thewalls and two large pictures of the Last Judgment, supposedly theearliest treatment of the subject in western art, and of Christ’sAscension are still visible. Some have been removed to the Landes-museum in Zürich. (Plate 29a) The walls to the north, south andwest are decorated with Davidic themes, quite in keeping with theideas of the Old Testament and universal ideas of the Carolingianempire discussed earlier, which saw in David a pre guration of Charlemagne. Only some of the motifs can be mentioned here. Thusthe north wall also shows scenes from the life of Christ, (Plate 29b)such as Christ with children, with angels, with the adulteress and of Christ in purgatory. Other panels deal with the martyrdom of theapostles. On the south wall a two-paneled cruci xion has been pre-served, but only a few other panels. The cruci ed Christ is anked

above the arms by a destroyed Sun God/Apollo/Sol and a pre-served Moon Goddess/Selena/Luna and at the sides by Ecclesia andSynagoga. This composition will reappear in other genres of theCarolingian period. Flanking this group are the Virgin Mary andSt. John, who is using his pallium to wipe his tears. Next are twocruci ed criminals. The panel to the left shows the removal fromthe cross and the Three Maries at the grave. Unfortunately the gures are generally in a very poor state of preservation. Since thereis no evidence of any articulation of the walls, one can assume thatit was the intention of the local artist from the start to cover thewalls with murals. Fresco, painting on wet plaster, and seccotechniqueswere used equally. Of the murals it can generally be said that thestories of Old and New Testament events are narrated with soberand restrained composure. 20 The gures are well and realisticallyexecuted.

In the eastern section, the apses, the Carolingian murals had beencovered by later Romanesque wall painting. Some have been removedand relocated, others are still in place and in vivid color. The

20 L. Wüthrich, Wandgemälde, Von Müstair bis Hodler (Zürich 1980), pp. 17–20. Seealso B. Brenk, Die Romanische Wandmalerei in der Schweiz (Winterthur 1963), pp. 28–58.



336

Carolingian painting in the central apse, immediately above the win-dow, shows the Pantokrator, Christ in Majesty seated in a double

mandorla, decorated with a lozenge motif, the head surrounded bya cross and nimbus. (Plate 29c) Outside the mandorla are locatedthe tetramorphs, the evangelical symbols, of which, however, onlythe winged male gure representing St. Matthew is clearly identi able.The three others are too pale and too corrupted to name. TheHeavenly Host surrounds the mandorla. In the northern apse a gen-erally well preserved mural is focused on an enthroned male gure,set in front of two pillars, outlined in white, pointing at two wellarticulated haloed, toga-clad men, with a group of ve gures obliquelybehind his right shoulder. (Plate 29d) The two gures represent Peter,in front of Paul, at the court of the emperor Nero before whomthey dispute the validity of Christianity with Simon Magus, whosefall is depicted in the neighboring panel. The southern apse dealsentirely with the Romanesque depiction of the martyrdom of St.Stephen. The painter who executed these highly sophisticated fres-coes, in what must conform to the Imperial Style, was a craftsman

very familiar with Roman art. He was skilled in the Italian tech-

niques of fresco painting, with a good sense for selecting fertilemoments and with good narrative skills, and good powers of observation. He was accomplished in depicting the fall of robes, the plac-ing of feet, the dramatic gestures of hands and the positioning of bodies.

Where the Ofen Pass from the west, meets the Reschen Pass fromthe north, not far from Müstair, Mals occupies a strategic position,which in Carolingian times was under the jurisdiction of a Frankishterritorial count. (Plates 30a, 30b, 30c, 30d) In Roman times acastellumhad guarded this point along the via Claudia Augusta , theRoman road connecting northern Italy with Augusta Vindelicum, inRaetia , modern Augsburg. In the small church of St. Benedict thereare some very well preserved murals along the north and east walls, 21

among which this count has left his image as founder. Reconstructionof the south and west walls during the 17th century destroyed themurals along those sides. The remaining walls of the oratorium,10m × 6.40m, bear damaged meander friezes and fragmented pop-ulated architectural scenes. Originally there were two strips of ve




337

panels in each. While the lower one has been lost, the preservedportions of the upper one, tell of Biblical events and episodes in the

lives of saints, for instance of St. Gregory as a writing cleric in thecompany of three white doves, one resting on his shoulder whis-pering in his ear, another sitting on the book, touching his lips withhis beak, and a third ying into the room. To the left three reli-gious gures placed against a background of a colonnade of threearches appear in discussion with the one in the middle holding abook, perhaps a dispute over the writings of St. Gregory. A sceneshowing naked bodies being stretched and beaten with rods, hasbeen interpreted as showing king David having the Philistines ogged.These frescoes re ect a middling sophistication of taste. The east-ern, altar wall contains three early, recessed horseshoe apses, but notconches, still framed in a frieze of continuous single strand, gureeight, braid patterning. In the corner of the northern and easternwall a perforated, braided, gure eight, intertwining stucco orna-mentation is preserved of the kind, of which six had once framedthe arches as stuccoed pilasters with capitals. During the Secularization,c. 1785, the church had been converted into a carpenter’s shop and

these recesses had been walled in, hence the state of preservation.The central arch is higher than the other two. Above the windowopenings are represented, almost completely and frontally, on theleft a named representation of St. Gregory the Great in papal garbholding a codex, at the center Christ, in religious dress with a cru-ciform nimbus and long owing hair, holding a codex supported bytwo cherubim with halos holding an orb (l.) and a scepter (r.) andin the recess to the left, according to an inscription, St. Stephenholding a codex. Above these recesses and along the ceiling thedecayed remains of a painted colonnade had contained the busts,probably of saints or, less likely, of angels. Below these gures thespaces are blank, as if paintings had been lost. (Plates 31a, 31b, 31c,31d) Of particular interest are two important, unique patron guresplaced between the niches, turned slightly inward toward the gureof Christ, placed in square frames, their heads placed in white squares,indicating that both were still alive when the walls of the churchwere painted. The one donor on the right shows an expressivelyexecuted tonsured man of the church holding a model of a churchup to Christ as in o ff ering. It resembles the actual church building.This donor is probably the count’s resident priest. The other pictureon the left must be the count himself, who immortalized himself as



338

the actual donor and founder of the church. He is shown as a manof the world, holding his sword in both hands in front of him. This

sword identi es him as the wielder of political and judicial author-ity. A comes , count Hunfried is documented for the years 807–824. 22

This compact gure may indeed be he, most probably dressed inthe customary courtly garb of the day, as worn by the warrior elites:a tunic in a light color and leggings, tied with straps up to the knees.A blue cape appears tied at the right shoulder and is worn looselyover everything. A belt is not shown and the feet are missing. Hisfacial features are clear and strong and his hair is cut at an evenlength around the head. The sword belt and strap ends appearwrapped around the sheath of the sword, quite in keeping withGermanic tradition. These founders are set apart form the other pic-tures by their style of representation and probably the work of adiff erent master painter. While the gures in the recesses are char-acterized by a delicately colored, elongated and static elegance, allof the other paintings have a forceful and blunt robustness aboutthem. The compact ‘founder gures’ are of the best, which the 9thcentury produced beyond the court, especially surprising in their

physiological clarity, as they exude an eff

ective air of dynamic vital-ity. They seem to re ect a di ff erence in taste, perhaps a synthesiswith in uences from the recently integrated Lombardy. The depic-tion of the secular gure suggests very strongly that St. Benedict wasan Eigenkirche , the noble’s own proprietary foundation, priest andstructure supported with his own funds for the use of himself andhis family.

Forty kilometers downriver from Mals (Malles), in the town of Naturns (Naturno), located on the pilgrimage route, the small churchof St. Prokulus contains a variety of remnants of wall paintings fromseveral periods. (Plates 32a, 32b) The uppermost and best preservedstrip of frescoes dates to the Renaissance. Below that a swastikameander circles most of the oratorium. An angular braid patternprovides the frieze on the eastern wall. A large arch separates thealtar area of the chapel from the oratorium. Over the centuries alayer of soot had darkened the murals. Each of the top corners of the eastern wall created by the arch is lled with the triangular linedrawing of an angel with spread wings, holding a long staved cross,

22 M. Frei, St. Benedikt in Mals (Bozen 1987), p. 7. Also Braunfels, p. 374.



339

drawn in the Irish tradition and probably datable to the 8th cen-tury. 23 (Fig. 55) The faces of these angels reappear as busts within

the curvature of the arch. The walls and ceiling of the altar spaceis painted with murals of a somewhat later period. The strip of fres-coes probably dating to the early Carolingian period occupies partsof the central portion of the walls. It di ff ers signi cantly stylisticallyfrom the wall paintings at Müstair or Mals. There are no repre-sentations of Christ visible here. Perhaps there never were. A sim-ple, charming and amusing naivety characterizes the mural fragmentsfrom the Carolingian period, documenting some local practices. Onthe left wall several saints and angels are only visible in fragments.Theirs is a serious treatment. However, on the west wall, behind theright wing of the entrance door appears a curious, comic strip typeof caricature of a herd of cattle. Fragments of these cattle also appearon the left side of the door, along with very well executed remnantsof human gures in rich garments. The most complete one is how-ever headless. In the far corner of the right wall there is preserveda humorous narrative episode—St. Paul being helped to escape fromDamascus by being lowered over a wall, while townsfolk look on in

astonished anxiety. St. Paul appears to be sitting precariously on aswing, clinging on with undigni ed apprehension. He does not strikea graceful pose, balancing precariously on his perch. The picturemay be an analogy with the escape of the abused bishop Proculusfrom Verona. Hence the name of the church. The work must havebeen carried out by a local painter who had di ffi culties showing asitting body from the front. To us the dramatic nature of the eventassumes something of the comical. The scene may not have beenintended to have this e ff ect and may not have seemed comical tocontemporaries. No doubt it appealed to the worshippers on severallevels. A strip of sophisticated meander closes these compositions o ff

toward the bottom. These frescoes provide an example of what thesimplest narrative style made available to an unsophisticated public.

As was mentioned above, literary records provide supposedlydetailed descriptions of very extensive palatial wall paintings, in theCarolingian palace church, probably St. Remigius, a short distancefrom the palace, at Ingelheim, for instance. Though references to itare often made in the literature, the account by Ermoldus Nigellus

23 Braunfels, pp. 93, 367.



340

appears to be ctitious, since there is no evidence that this Pfalz actually contained a palace church. It describes the left wall of the

church having panels depicting Old Testament events, especiallythose focusing on David and Solomon, quite in keeping with theCarolingian Davidic ideas discussed above. New Testament themeswere illustrated on the right wall. Similarly the walls of the Ingelheimpalace were purported to have been decorated with secular themestaken from ancient and more recent history—Cyrus, Hannibal, Alexan-der the Great, to name some of the ancients; among the more con-temporary events were the foundation of Constantinople, the deedsof Theoderic, Charles Martel, Pepin, Charlemagne’s conquest of theSaxons, but not his coronation. In documenting this décor ErmoldusNigellus in his In honorem Hludowici , his song of praise of Louis thePious, with which he hoped to regain the king’s favor, appears tohave relied on poetic traditions and descriptions used previously byClassical authors, such as Virgil and Ovid, and not on his own obser-

vations. 24 The selection of the broad topics was guided by the his-tory of Orosius. At St. Gallen monks from Reichenau (841–872)applied the representations from the Old and New Testaments. These

are reputed to have been arranged in confrontational order, so thatthe stories of the two testaments could serve as type and antitype,complemented as promise and ful llment. 25 Thus the Loss of Paradiseand the Fall of Man and the Flood—the type, would be comple-mented and cancelled by the antitype, here by the Annunciation andthe Nativity. Though all of these have been lost, the preserved wallpaintings in the Alps give us an idea of these other murals. Only inRome and southern Italy are there some others.

XXI. Architecture—Basilicas

Within the inherent continuity of religious buildings the survival of architectural elements is more assured, even when the church hasbeen subjected to subsequent modi cations. 26 Church archeology hasrevealed many foundations of churches, which are no longer visible,

24 G. Binding, Deutsche Königspfalzen von Karl dem Großen bis Friedrich II (765–1240),p. 102f.

25 Hinks, pp. 95–102.26 I. Wood, ‘Culture’ in McKitterick, Early Middle Ages , p. 190.



341

because they have been incorporated in more recent buildings andare no longer visible. 27 The examples to be dealt with here are the

anastasis rotunda in the funerary church of St. Michael’s in Fulda,820–822, the former Einhard Basilica, 827, at Steinbach, the inte-rior of the Einhard Basilica in Seligenstadt, c. 832; the Carolingiannave and the classicizing capitals in the Carolingian basilica of St.

Justinus (c. 834) in Frankfurt-Höchst preserved as a decorative accent.The only authentic Carolingian westworks front the abbey churchat Corvey, begun 873, and, of course, the Palace Chapel in Aachen,after 780. Among the examples which survived, despite chance andindiff erence, two examples stand out—the gated hall in the formermonastery at Lorsch, after 764 and the Steinbach Basilica.

With the reign of Louis the Pious the accent was placed on themovement supporting religious reform inspired by the Rule of St.Benedict. The churches built during Louis’ reign re ect these reforms. 28

Among these reform churches the Einhard Basilicas serve as goodexamples. Compact buildings consisting of a long nave, connecting altar and choir sections with one or more apses in the east with amultipurpose area in the west, without unnecessary details, are char-

acteristic. Steinbach is an example of such a church.When Einhard anticipated his retirement from imperial service,Louis the Pious granted him estates in 815, at Steinbach in theOdenwald and in Seligenstadt on the River Main, which Einhardhad requested. This gift was made expressly for services rendered,including his urging in 813 to have Charlemagne proclaim his sonLouis his imperial successor. In preparation for his withdrawal hehad erected at Steinbach a complex three-aisled, at roof basilica,which was consecrated in 827. In 815 a wooden church had alreadyexisted there and in 821 a larger stone church had been consecrated.Like other basilicas, one entered through a portal in the west to facethe altar in its apse in the east. (Fig. 56) The new basilica was pro-

vided with three altars, three choirs and three apses, and also abarrel-vaulted, cross-shaped crypt, something of a Carolingian inno-

vation, with three altar areas. (Fig. 57) Niches in the passage in thecrypt extended below the nave were intended as the last resting place

27 W. Jacobsen, ‘Allgemeine Tendenzen im Kirchenbau unter Ludwig demFrommen’, in Godman and Collins, pp. 641–654, discusses some of these vestiges.Also Stalley, p. 23, for a summary of the basilica style.

28 Jacobsen, in Godson and Collins, pp. 642 ff .



342

for Einhard and his wife Imma (Charlemagne’s daughter, or gloryby legendary association?), but not used. Einhard had acquired the

relics of Sts. Peter and Marcellinus from an itinerant entrepreneurand (wholesale) relic merchant based in Rome under dubious cir-cumstances (theft) 29 and under adventurous conditions the relics hadarrived in Steinbach. This merchant sold whole bodies as bags of dust and a few bones. As though the church was to serve as a shrine,below the apse space was provided to allow the installation and vis-itation of these relics. Miracles indicated that they did not want tostay there. All walls are still of original height. Made of brick, theyconsisted of brick six-pillar arcades, with clerestory windows aboveto allow the light to fall in. Though the arcades were walled in whenthe church was turned over to profane use after 1535, the interiorspatial divisions show the typical Carolingian work of at bricksthroughout. (Fig. 58) In accordance with the reforms greater litur-gical emphasis was placed on the eastern end of the church wherelarger arches led into the apsed altar bays, which, however, couldnot be reached from the side aisles. In addition, and also in accor-dance with the reforms, an altar screen, as high as the arcades, had

been installed as a barrier to the common people and once sepa-rated the nave from the altars and the apses and hence, the laymenfrom the priests and monks. To gain access to the crypt, the laityhad to enter from the side aisles. 30 The nave was 2.5 times as wideas the side aisles and twice as high as their walls. The bays createthe impression that the basilica was laid out with a transept, but thechurch did not have a crossing where nave and transept would haveintersected, but only a pseudo-transept. A single arch rose over thewestern edge of the altar apse. It functioned as the fastigium, thesacred space symbolizing religious dignity. The exclusive space beyondthe altar screen was barred to the lay worshippers, while their space,the nave, was neglected. Some Carolingian wall painting in red,ochre, white and orange can be made out in the apse and in broadbands below the roof beams above the clerestory windows. An opti-mal wall treatment might have displayed wall paintings resembling those in the later Ottonian church dedicated to St. George on the

29 Geary, Furta Sacra , pp. 52 ff ., and Geary, Living with the Dead , pp. 173f., 188 ff .for the questionable acquisition of relics by Einhard. Also Smith, ‘Roman Relics’in Smith (ed.), Early Medieval Rome , p. 323.

30 Jacobsen, in Godman and Collins, p. 648f.



343

island of Reichenau. Faint Gothic wall painting is still detectable onthe walls of the nave. From outside these bays were higher than the

side aisles, which were stepped down with sloping roofs. These aisleshave now been restored. (Fig. 59)

Though a near ruin today, this church is signi cant for severalreasons. Its substance has survived as a monument to Einhard. Themonastic precinct was contained within a wall. It was conceived asan oriented, compacted, at roof naved basilica with side aisles,which, however, were segregated from the altar area following theprinciples of the Anianian/Benedictine reforms. These stressed exten-sive male monasticism focused on the liturgy of the mass. 31 Previouslythe Carolingian trend was to build hall churches in which large num-bers could assemble. With columns not available, it used Romanbrick pillars rather than columns, angled clerestory windows largeenough to allow ample illumination and anticipated the design of later Romanesque church structures. Considering Einhard’s contri-bution to the sophisticated Palace Chapel at Aachen, one can won-der about the splendid nished appearance of this church, once upona time. If one can deduce from the illuminated manuscript pages,

then walls and columns must have had curtains and drapes workedwith gold thread between them, and also such lustrous metals ascandelabras and standing and suspended lights. How much of theavailable ornamental inventory of lamps, crowns, vessels and reli-quaries may have dazzled the worshipper then, will never be known.Screens, curtains and colonnades will have drawn lines of demarca-tion, segregating the participants in the service. 32 On the other hand,the splendor of these interiors may have been quite restrained. Locatedin an intractable valley more suited for a hermitage, Einhard leftthe site to the monastery at Lorsch, after which it was subject to

varying fortunes, as a convent and as a hospital. The monastic spacein the region had become crowded and the number of wealthy donorsfew, so that the economic limits of the region had been reached.The relocation of the relics from Rome to Steinbach had compro-mised their e ff ectiveness and contrary to expectations, the saints hadnot proved themselves and had not provided the singular attractionand protection, nor brought the required donations in gifts and land,

31 Innes, State and Society, p. 26.32 Geary, Living with the Dead , pp. 177 ff . deals extensively with the many aspects

of popular piety.



344

and not being a major foundation, Steinbach did not command itsown viable, lasting economic support. During the Romanesque period

the building was extended westward and anked by two towers. After1600 the other monastic buildings were demolished and the basilicabecame a barn. Then the western additions and the towers werealso dismantled in order to allow the in and out of farm vehicles.

Relics of saints originating in Rome had become particularly desir-able to have during the Romanizing reform of the Carolingian liturgyfor two reasons—though the saints were abstract, unattainable role-models they projected their fundamental support of the equallyabstract Imperium Christianum; because of their attraction of pilgrimsand of resources they provided an essential economic basis for themaintenance of the foundation. Einhard had ordered the transfer of the relics of the Roman martyrs, Sts. Peter and Marcellinus, decap-itated in 304, to this largest of still extant Carolingian basilicas intransalpine Europe. Apparently it was in a dream and through signs,that the saints themselves induced him to take the relics from Steinbachto Seligenstadt on the River Main for burial, 828, and to enshrinethem in a basilica erected there over their graves. There they imme-

diately regained their mysterious powers and began to attract thefaithful, devout tourists, and revenues in the form of their dona-tions. 33 Political considerations will also have motivated the reloca-tion to the more promising site. To deal with the new needs of ministering to the relics, already in 830 accommodation had to beprovided for those involved in the cult and hence he founded aBenedictine abbey. The support of the emperor and several bishopsgranted efs to provide the material means to realize and sustainthis project. It will be recalled that under Louis the Pious the ideaof the uni ed realm began to be transformed and in the context of the troubles Einhard asked to be relieved of his administrative dutieson behalf of the realm and to be permitted to retire to be with hissaints. The preservation of the uni ed Imperium Christianumwas to bethe role of saints and the archangels. Einhard placed particular faithin the archangel Gabriel. In that sense their service was at the same

33

Innes, State and Society, p. 44. Also Smith, ‘Roman Relics’ in Smith (ed.), Early Medieval Rome , p. 320f. for the variation in papal policies a ff ecting the translationof relics from Rome. Some popes used them to obtain political and military sup-port. Some rulers made the availability of saintly relics a condition of their supportof the papacy.



345

time service on behalf of the welfare of the realm. Already lay abbotof several monasteries, by 836 he had also become lay abbot of

Seligenstadt. It was here that he wrote the Vita Karoli Magni as hiscontribution to the preservation of learning. After 833 Ludwig theGerman supported this foundation, now under his jurisdiction. Docu-mented since 847, Seligenstadt means ‘site of saints’, or Ad Sanctos , thetwo saints in question.

The basilica and ring crypt at Seligenstadt, part of the Romanreform features which restricted the laymen’s access to the saints,were completed in 840. (Figs. 60a, 60b) By then the reform hadended. Modi ed during the following centuries, the interior has beenrestored to indicate its original stretched nave of Carolingian brick pillar arcades of c. 832. In the length of its nave it reverted to thetype modeled after that of St. Peter’s in Rome and hence di ff eredfrom the compacted nave of the reform church of Steinbach. Itscrypt was accessible from the altar area. It was mentioned abovethat columns were unavailable. Nine arcades open the nave to theside aisles. These are again half as high and wide as the nave. Theheight of the nave is that of the transept. Left blank and white today,

one would have to animate the clerestory walls with murals of theReichenau type in one’s imagination. Much light falls down fromthe clerestory windows. Stepped down, oblique roofs over the sideaisles visible along the exterior and unplastered sections of the pil-lars of the interior, allow a good impression of the original appear-ance of this Carolingian foundation. The interior of this churchclari es the appearance of the interior of the Steinbach basilica. Ittoo will have had a single arch in the altar area. The graves andrelics of the martyrs in the altars gave the Carolingian core of theabbey the attraction of a funerary and pilgrimage church, whichassured its continuing interest and prosperity into modern times.Behind its precinct wall, the monastery o ff ered sanctuary and orderin a chaotic and threatening world. Einhard will have provided apersonal link with Fulda and Aachen. The attraction of Seligenstadtwas such that already Ludwig the German had held an assemblyhere and that during the later periods the Salian and Hohenstaufenking/emperors had held court here, which under the Hohenstaufensled to the construction of a Pfalz .34 The insertion of early Gothic

34 Binding, pp. 389 ff .



346

forms introduced a crossing during the 13th century. During theBaroque period the patronage of the prince-bishop Franz von

Schönborn brought to the abbey the restoration, renovation andmodi cation in the Baroque style. 35 Einhard’s decision to move therelics of the saints there accounts for the di ff ering fate of his twomonastic foundations.

The parish church of St. Justinus in Höchst hides a Carolingianthree-aisled basilica with three apses within a Gothic exterior. Thearcaded nave is entirely Carolingian with high clerestory windows.(Fig. 61) It distinguishes itself from the two previous basilicas in thatit has colonnades with classicizing capitals rather than pillared arcades,but like them on the interior, the transept is not apparent as a sep-arate structural component. It can be considered to be an extensionof the basilica in Steinbach. 36 Located north of the Main, in thebishopric of Mainz, the bishop had the church built c. 834, as atriple aisled basilica with transepts and three apses. The open colon-nades are a less dividing element than the piers would have beenand as a result the light falling in from the clerestory above createsa very bright interior. As is the case with all clerestory windows the

association of the Word of God with the serene Heavenly Lightfalling into the sanctuary from above, its moving rays accenting diff ering features through the changing illumination, was a fertileidea. Light falling in from the apse and thereby backlighting whatwas on the altar, would e ff ect a sublime di ff used radiance of thecross on the altar. The clearly chiseled, chip carved and singularlycon gured capitals, with their uted trapezoid dosserets, dated toc. 825, re ect their modi ed Corinthian inspiration and indicateclearly the attempt to derive more modest original forms from theirantique models. (Fig. 62) Close examination of the foliage revealsthat they represent an identi able classicizing Carolingian type of Composite capital, partly Corinthian, partly Ionian, very similar tothe capitals in the octagon of the Palace Chapel in Aachen, (Fig.63) those of the reconstructed colonnade of the palace complex there,the column capitals in the interior of the westwork of Corvey and

very similar to the capitals on the outside of the portaled chapel atLorsch, and these in turn are akin to some of the capitals in theanastasis rotunda of St. Michael’s in Fulda. An original sense of ele-

35 O. Müller, Die Einhard-Abtei Seligenstadt am Main(Königstein i.T. 1973).36 A. Kottmann, Das Geheimnis romanischer Bauten(Stuttgart 1971), p. 42.



347

gance and esthetic re nement is becoming manifest. Individuallyarticulated leaves rise one above the other, while antithetical scroll-

work provides the basis for the abutments supporting the arcades.Subsequent stylistic modi cations have obscured earlier architecturalfeatures.

Beyond the Rhine valley, at the western slope of the Odenwald,c. 20km east of Worms, and nearly halfway between Worms andSteinbach, is located the former Benedictine monastery of Lorsch. 37

It was founded in 764 by Chrodegang, archbishop of Metz and pri-mate of the realm under Pepin III, as a jumping o ff point for theeastern penetration of the Odenwald, still a mountainous and forestedregion. Monks from the Benedictine abbey at Gorze (also foundedby Chrodegang in 745/749) near Metz were sent to Laurissa , a nobleestate, to consolidate the foundation. This is an interesting exampleof the manner in which networks of monastic establishments cameinto being as representatives of the various aspects of culture, bymeans of which the regions of the realm were opened to settlement,agriculture, commerce and educational in uences. It was a landscapein which numerous 8th and 9th century family monasteries, con-

vents, Eigenklöster , and Eigenkirchen, proprietary churches as well assmall basilicas were established. 38 As has already been noted, Steinbachwas founded some sixty years later, perhaps too late, for it had tobe ceded to Lorsch already in 819 at Einhard’s behest, to take e ff ectupon his death (840). The lack of donations made it less viable eco-nomically. Additional donations enlarged the economic and politicalbase for the expansion of the abbey at Lorsch to engage in a vig-orous building program appropriate for a royal Benedictine founda-tion. In 772 it was ceded to king Charles, thereby becoming a royalabbey. Following his conquest of the Lombards, builders and stone-masons returned with him to Lorsch. (Fig. 64) Already in 774 athree-aisled basilica could be consecrated and dedicated to the Sts.Peter and Paul and the martyr St. Nazarius, whose relics were pro-

vided by the pope already in 765. The consecration was attendedby Charles and the royal court, and bishops from Metz, Trier,Utrecht, Constance, Würzburg and distant Passau. It was performed

37 Innes, State and Society, pp. 14–18f., p. 101. See pp. 51 ff . for a summary of thefamily of the founders of Lorsch and the relationship between kinship and land,and its passage into the possession of the monastery.

38 Innes, State and Society, p. 25.



348

by Lullus, the successor of St. Boniface as archbishop of Mainz.Clearly this was a momentous event and a noteworthy beginning of

a foundation within a community of interests, 39 which, as we havealready seen, gained such extensive in uence and contributed sogreatly to the literary culture of the Carolingians. On that day in772 the abbey was already royal property, a royal monastery andabbey of the realm, for all holdings, former donations, had alreadybecome part of the royal domain in return for the king’s personalprotection, lands, immunity and the freedom to select its own abbot.The change in status did not diminish the number of donations. Thenew status also made Lorsch a Pfalz , and consequently subject tothe kings’ demands for resources and manpower. (Fig. 65)

Of all the original structures almost nothing is left visible. Muchwas set a ame, 1621, during the Thirty Years War (1618–1648), if it had not already decayed during the intervening centuries. Its greatlibrary was transported to Rome by Tilly, the general of the CatholicLeague. Thanks to archeology the foundations could be traced. Onlyone building has survived, the arched passage way, and even thatescaped just barely. (Plate 32c) Brie y, during the later 9th century

the abbey enjoyed the patronage of Ludwig the German and hisson Ludwig the Younger, which attracted prosperity and importanceto the region. However, in 1232 the abbey had passed into the juris-diction of the archbishop of Mainz who had the Benedictines expelledby force of arms. The Cistercians could not maintain themselves,whereupon it was occupied by Premonstratensians till they too weredriven out in 1555. The property became embroiled in the politicalstruggles and changed hands repeatedly until it came into the pos-session of the same prince-bishop, Franz von Schönborn, who waspatron in Seligenstadt. The buildings of the abbey became a con-

venient quarry. In 1797, during the turmoil of the French Revolution,the only historically valuable building, the Carolingian gate-hall, hadbeen sold at auction, but the wrecker had gone bankrupt before thedemolition could proceed. At some point the arches had been lledin to maximize on the inner space. The early 19th century beganto appreciate the losses and started to reverse the process of forget-ting. One hundred years later even the arches were laid bare again.Excavations within the precinct toward the southeast suggest the for-

39 Innes, p. 54f.



349

mer existence of another such gated hall. Perhaps there was a third. 40

Four gates provided access through the irregular precinct perimeter.

(Fig. 66)Within the extensive architectural complex the archway (c. 790?

or after 850?) suggests something about the buildings that have beenlost. Access to the basilica was through a westerly gate of the precinctwall and through the rectangular atrium in which the freestanding gate-hall had been placed at about ¼ away from that western entrancethrough the wall. It will have had chie y a retarding, ceremonial,processional function by means of which greater anticipation, grav-ity and dignity was imposed on the entourage about to enter thebasilica, ‘Jerusalem’, perhaps in imitation of the e ff ect of Roman tri-umphal arches. This arched structure, ‘an explicit homage to Rome’ 41

dedicated to the Virgin Mary, or St. Michael, is another unique andmemorable example of Carolingian architecture. Hidden within thedesign of the structure are repeated and overlapping isosceles trian-gles. Similar to the style of Roman arches, this ‘triumphal arch’ pre-sents itself with very articulated polychrome western and easternfacades, perforated by three dark red archways of equal size, anked

by half-columns on the lower level; perforated by three windows onthe west side, but only two on the east side, and accented by ten uted pilasters and gables on the upper level. Until the restorationsof 1935, the arches had been walled in, so that the present viewwas not there to be appreciated. The gate is a rectangular two-sto-ried structure, 25 cubits, almost 11 meters long and 16 cubits,

just over 7 meters wide. 42 On either side turrets shelter winding stairsleading to the upper level and a chapel, its walls still with traces of Carolingian murals. The original roof was not so steep as the Gothicone added during the 14th century. Great care was devoted to theexternal appearance of this structure. The four half-columns are dark red, capped with a variation of the classicizing Carolingian Compositecapitals, part Corinthian palm leaf and part Ionian volute, of graylimestone, with elaborate superimposed standing leaves, topped o ff

with plume like scrolls, volutes, to be met again in Fulda. On thesecapitals rests a carved limestone frieze with a curvilinear design likeno other. Carved in deep relief, the continuous design resembles the

40 A. Corboz, Frühes Mittelalter (Friburg 1971), p. 51. See also Braunfels, p. 374.41 Stalley, p. 39.42 Kottmann, pp. 20 ff .



350

open chalice of a ower. Above the three arches, a progression of nine areas is framed by ten dark red uted pilasters, capped with

Ionian type capitals of gray limestone, and dark red pointed gablesof uted pilasters. The capitals suggest an Ionian heritage by meansof the typical inward spirals at the top. Two rows of ve circles each ll the space between and below the spirals. A beaded line termi-nates the base of the capital. Centered above the arches of the west-ern view are three arched windows. As mentioned, on the easternside there are only two such windows. The overall polychrome e ff ectis achieved by means of three varieties of patterning in red andwhite. Dark red serves as the accent color. Red sandstone is theindigenous rock of the Rhine valley and used everywhere. Throughthe use of contrasting white the variety of the design is highlighted.Around the three arches a regularly alternating pattern of squarelyplaced red and white sandstone tiles creates a regular design. Thered tiles, twelve for each arch, are complete while the white tileshave been cut to t the curvatures. A red horizontal line creates arectangular area with the higher entablature of gray limestone, carvedin low relief with an abstract foliage pattern. Within that space the

alternating red and white square tiles are set on one corner, twotiles high. Again only the white tiles have been trimmed to ll thespace regularly. The entablature divides the whole façade in half.Above the entablature and between the pilasters, the entire surfaceis animated by hexagon red tiles complemented by white triangles,so that each hexagon is created by the intersecting lines at the cen-ter of a subtle six-pointed star design, the Star of David. The over-all impression is of an unclassical, erratic display of forms andreticulated colors. The building has something experimental about itand quite clearly invites a dialogue with the meditative observer.(Fig. 67)

The intentions behind that Davidic design have been dealt withat length above. Equally signi cant is the approximate link withancient Rome, illustrated by the triple ‘triumphal’ arches, the half columns and the orders of the capitals, and even through somereused sandstone blocks, and with Christian Rome in that the Lorschgate-hall also resembles the gateway to the atrium to Old St. Peter’sin Rome. In an understated fashion the building may represent yetanother rhetorical attempt at linking a con uence of cultural stylesand religious, political and ideological intentions on the way to devel-oping an individualistic and authentic style.



351

As was the case with other stylistic examples, their uniqueness sug-gests a responsibility for them, which is perhaps too much of a bur-

den for their fragmentary nature. They were not selected for theirexcellence or unique esthetic value in their own time, nor on theirlink with Classical models and more often than not survived bychance, because of a wrecker’s bankruptcy, by ‘the skin of theirteeth’, rather than because of anyone’s appreciation, no matter howforcefully expressed. Had this gateway not survived we would surelybe the poorer for it, yet what can it tell us about Carolingian tri-umphal arches in general? Were communications such that new ideaswere recognized as such and emulated? What idea lay at the basisof this building? What does the varied assembly of incomplete ele-ments tell us about the character of the original building, which pre-sents itself today in modi ed form? We can conclude that the varietiesof church architecture were a rhetorical response to a perceived psy-chological and emotional need. Despite the inconclusiveness of theexamples cited, the attempt to represent something of a picture willbe made to relate the architectural vestiges to their time, withoutattempting to demonstrate that the isolated examples represent any

inherent continuity whatever. By themselves each example points toan exchange of new associations and connections.The practice of erecting sacred precincts can be found within the

cultural traditions of Central Europe, certainly since the Hallstattperiod. That the speakers of the Indo-European languages sharedwith other cultures the veneration of such natural phenomena asunexpected springs and rocky outcrops, rocks and trees is generallyaccepted. One came upon them accidentally and deemed them tooff er access to the spirit world. They ful lled a mysterious function,which imbued the Celtic oppida as well. It is of interest in this con-nection that the Synod of Litinae of 743 chastised the recently Chris-tianized western Saxons for engaging in superstitious practices, among them the worship of sacred groves, called nimidae. The word wasmost probably a transfer from Celtic in which vocabulary the wordnemetonexists for ‘grove’, and was used for the creation of manyplace names. 43 Latin knows nemus , and Greek nemos , suggesting thatan ancient name and context were continued in the concept of theconsecrated precinct. As was illustrated above, Aachen, Paderborn,Steinbach and many more contained the idea of water in their very

43 Schutz, Prehistory, p. 304.



352

names—water, spring, brook—as they were founded near water, inforests, on hilltops or elevations. The people saw themselves living

in a demonic spirit world in which they had no protection fromforces and supernatural beings over which they had no control. Chris-tianity knew to occupy old pagan cultic sites when it discovered themand to ensure that the old sacredness continued in this new form.It would not have been prudent to allow the old cultic site to con-tinue as a religious site in competition with the new religion. When,according to the story, St. Boniface felled Donar’s oak at Geismar,he was sure to saw the tree into boards for use in the constructionof the new church.

However, as weapons, discord, fear, danger and chaos were excludedfrom the nemeton, peace, sanctity law and order reigned within theprecincts of the sacred groves. The concept of the nemetonwas trans-ferred to the Christian sites and sanctuaries in the otherwise terrorizing wilderness. The new enclosures gave these sites new meaning andfeeling. The ritual of consecration created a mystic space, purged of the demonic and diabolical, and puri ed it for a new edifying existencein the Word of God. The relatively low walls of the enclosures were

not intended to function as military defensive perimeters, but asdemarcations setting o ff the consecrated ground from a chaotic wilder-ness. Moses’ encounter with the burning bush, during which the Voicetells him to remove his shoes, for he was standing on holy ground,may have contributed its Biblical signi cance to the ritualistic approachto the sanctuary. As elsewhere, at Lorsch a ritual procession prob-ably consecrated the outside of the wall, preceding the reverend pas-sage from a world of dangers through the symbolic gate in theprecinct wall into the safety of the consecrated realm, making astately, rich and colorful entrance into the atrium. Carrying gem en-crusted Bibles and sacramentaries, as well as resplendent crosses,shining vessels and sacred implements, the ceremonial processionpassed through the arches, aware of the sanctity of the dedicationto the archangel Michael, the representation of the militant church,the priests singing and praying, waving incense, sprinkling holy water,as they advanced through the colonnade. These were all intendedto emphasize the aura of the digni ed entrance into this Holiest of Holies. The distance between the gate in the wall and the church,probably lined with symbolic way stations, built up excitement, ten-sion and apprehension in the participants in the religious exercise,to be relieved in the catharsis of the o ffi ce and of its message.



353

Once the worshipper had entered the church he found the inte-rior divided into sections of sanctity. Not all areas of the interior

were equally accessible to all. The basilica, as the large assemblyhall, derives from the pre-Christian meeting place for the purposesof conducting markets and public a ff airs in antiquity. Its conversioninto a Christian place of worship evolved almost logically. The rel-ative proximity of the Constantinian basilica in Treveris/Trier wouldhave provided a tangible example for the large hall churches com-ing into being. Now called the Aula Palatina the large hall is char-acterized by a deep apse into which the altar came to be placed

very much in the same place where the emperor’s throne wouldonce have been located. A monumental arch passes overhead of thethrone. At Steinbach, the arch and the altar screen created a spe-cial area, once a site of great splendor of material, fabric and the-atrical, cultic ceremony. Separated from the nave by altar screens,this space obtained a sacred connotation, especially once the relicswere introduced into the altar area. (Figs. 68a, 68b, 68c, 68d) Inthe oriented church interiors these elements provided the most pow-erful protective magic against any threats from the east. With the

Virgin Mary or the archangel Michael protecting the western ap-proaches, the intervening space was indeed consecrated ground. Thechurches strove to project themselves as abstractions. Arches, altarscreens and dedications to martyrs and saints were to remain a fea-ture associated with churches.

In 816 Benedictine monks from Corbie in northern France foundedthe monastery of Corbeia nova with the task to promote the mission-ary work in the recently Christianized lands of the Saxons towardthe east and north. Its German name of Corveyderives directly fromthe Latin. The empress Judith and her sister queen Hemma maybe associated with the endowment of the abbey, located in the home-land of their mother. 44 The emperor Louis the Pious granted per-mission to relocate in 822 and bestowed on the foundation extensiveestates and such liberties as the free choice of abbot, an indepen-dent judiciary, and dispensation from military contributions in menand materiel. As early as 833 the community is granted the rightthe hold markets and to mint coins. These were a su ffi cient basis topromote the economic, cultural and religious preeminence of the

44 Ward, in Godman and Collins, p. 215. See also Braunfels, p. 191f.



354

monastery. Owing to the traditional hostilities of the region whichonly about two decades earlier had ended with the Christianization

and paci cation of the Saxons, the monastery in their midst assumeda more defensive character. The rectangular perimeter consisted of an encircling moat and a strong wall, which extended to the RiverWeser. Towers forti ed the four corners and gate towers secured theentrance into the monastery precinct. The site was originally thelocation of a Roman castellum. A village evolved outside the precinct.

Work on the three-aisled basilica will have begun soon after 822.In 836 the relics of St. Vitus were transferred from St. Denis andwhen consecrated in 844, the church was dedicated to the martyrSt. Stephen. 45 A simple entrance hall was removed when the uniquewestwork was raised from 873 to 885, the only 9th century west-work still extant. It rose as three towers (Fig. 69) before being modi edto its current Romanesque appearance in the middle of the 12thcentury. The basilica was rebuilt during the 18th century. On thewestwork the modi cations can be read quite easily materially andstylistically. Flat stonework characterizes the original Carolingianstructure. With its astonishing verticality and its compact massive-

ness it easily convinces the viewer that God is a mighty fortress, for,even without the Romanesque modi cations, this westwork rises likea solid wall, with only a few narrow slits to perforate the masonry.(Figs. 70a, 70b) The monastery’s advanced and exposed location sodeep in recently hostile Saxon lands, could account for the defen-sive appearance of the westwork. When associated with the triumphaltriple entrance arches, which allow access to an entrance portico,the idea of a synthesis of the triumphant temporal power with theChristian church acquires visible form. Two additional doors or con-

verted Romanesque windows are at the center of the two towers.Two sets of three windows are inserted above the triple entrance.Above the central entrance there is a narrow projection, opened bytwo windows and a niche at the top. Below the upper of these win-dows a Carolingian consecrating inscription places the site into thecare of God and the protection of his angels. Originally a squaretower rose above the core of the westwork, set back the width of the two anking towers, but of the same height. The triple arches,

45 According to Corboz, p. 176, with the fall of Jerusalem to the Arabs in 637,the source of relics shifted to Rome and from there to the monasteries of Gaulfrom where they were transferred to new sites further east. See Braunfels, p. 387.



355

combined with the triple towers will have recommended the triunenature of the faith. During the middle of the 12th century that tower

was sacri ced to the Romanesque alterations. But a plan of thisimpressive, monumental westwork shows how the sections are super-imposed precisely one upon the other. The massive weight of thiswestwork descends on the visitor once he or she enters the west-work. The oor of stone slabs is original. Designated as crypt becauseof the grave nds, the badly lit structure is a square with corridorsalong the north and south sides and with a slightly wider easterncorridor separating the westwork from the nave of the church.Evidently the idea of installing a subterranean crypt had not yetbecome a permanent xture. Repeatedly, and consistent with theFirst Book of Kings and with Revelation, the number 12 and the duo-decimal system gure prominently on many occasions in manuscriptscenes and buildings. The entire structure rests on a set of twelveouter supports, four pillars as part of the wall, eight pillars aroundthe outside and four columns grouped at the center of the vaultedlower storey. The pillars are made of stacked layers of alternating gray and reddish stone. The column shafts are monolithic, cut from

one piece of solid stone each, surmounted with those distinct, com-pact Carolingian Composite capitals. The upper storey is designedas an independent extension of the lower storey. (Fig. 71) Twelvepillars are placed exactly above the pillars one storey lower, but thereare no columns, as this space reaches up into the two-storeys high

vault of the former tower. The walls appear as monumental arcadeswith additional perforating arches set higher up in the white walls,allowing the light to ood in from outside the encircling ambula-tory. (Figs. 72a, 72b, 72c) Dedicated to St. John, it may have beenintended to create yet another abstract space, yet remains of Carolingian wall paintings have been uncovered indicating extensiveornamental strips with vines and all manner of foliage, but alsomarine creatures and epic action scenes with gures with Classicalmythological intent. The overall e ff ect can only be imagined, hereat the edge of the eastern frontier. This vast, bright hall has beentermed the imperial oratory or court chapel, in which the itinerantemperor could hear mass, or from which the emperor and the courtcould look down to witness the o ffi ce in front of the altars in thenave of the basilica. This notion may be an inference from the later,similar placement of Otto’s throne on the upper level in Aachen. Itmay not have been a Carolingian practice at all, and it soon became



356

obsolete. 46 Today that eastward view of the nave is obstructed bythe large baroque organ, which now occupies the entire front of the

structure. Indeed the whole interior of the nave is a richly ornamentedbaroque church, which replaced the badly damaged building fol-lowing its destruction during the Thirty Years War. The astonish-ing simplicity of the Carolingian entrance to the westwork and theopulent Baroque church interior are an incompatible contrast.

Other than tapered abutments, nothing graces any of the func-tionality of the massive pillars. By contrast the columns, ornamentedwith elaborate classicizing capitals, played a more decorative andceremonial role. (Figs. 73a, 73b) As was mentioned previously, thecapitals of the four columns in the crypt are noteworthy for theirforceful design. They are very reminiscent of the classicizing capi-tals at Höchst, but while those were more elaborately and completely nished, the workmanship on these pseudo-Corinthian capitals is lesssophisticated and seems to have been left un nished above the cap-ital. On the occasional capital the ornamentation on the foliage hasnot been completed.

What would have motivated the construction of this imposing west-

work with its very impressive structural details? A general answercan be found in the attention paid to architecture in the service of renovatio, the outward attempt to restore the images of the RomanEmpire, especially vis-à-vis Byzantium. As triumphal architecture thewestwork proclaims the earthly power of the Carolingians derivedfrom an association with the authorization by God. Frequent refer-ence to the Carolingian liturgical reforms has been made above.Though it insisted on the centrality of only one altar, with theexpanding reverence of evangelists, apostles, archangels, and the ven-eration of the relics of martyrs and other saints, the need for addi-tional altars was felt strongly. 47 It was also mentioned that the cultof angels was gaining in importance. While the eastern area of thechurch had been secured through the cultic centrality of the altarprecincts, the militant archangel Michael as protector of the gate-way and Peter and Paul and the relics of the martyr St. Nazariusat Lorsch and now the superimposition of two sancti ed chamberswith the inscription on the outside of the westwork at Corvey, and

46 Stalley, p. 49, proposes a Carolingian liturgical function for this vast space.47 Fillitz, p. 171.



357

the traditionally preferred choice and dedication of its independentupper storey to St. John, placing the protection of the church and

its walls into the Hands of God, the saints and the angels, are indi-cations of the perceived need to protect the accesses from the west.The fact that abbots were buried under the oor of the lower levelof the westwork indicates that an occidentation of the churches wasunder way. In later periods churches would quite regularly be ori-ented and occidented. In later variations the archangel Michael willbe shown wielding a aming sword. Usually conceived as the guardianarchangel at the entrance to Paradise, he was placed in this role atthe entrances to the porticos of churches, often called ‘Paradise’.Reference to this was already made above during the discussion of the manuscript illuminations, in the context of the anastasis/resur-rection rotundas marking the Holy Grave in the Church of the Sepul-cher in Jerusalem. Entrance into the church in the form of baptismwas understood as the ascent from a living death and rebirth intothe sojourn among the blessed in another life. The anastasis was cel-ebrated as a cult with the cross as central symbol of the predictedResurrection. For the Carolingians the ideas of a Heavenly Jerusalem,

Paradise and the Heavenly kingdom had become equated. Paradise,with the meaning ‘garden’, was a term frequently applied to the por-tico or atrium of churches and hence associated with a columnedstructure, such as the westwork interior at Corvey. Its triple towerssuggest ‘the mighty fortress of God’, which with the inscription sym-bolized the Heavenly Jerusalem. With this system of protectionsassured, it would appear that the Easter mystery of the Resurrectionof Christ was becoming the focus of the liturgical year and thatEaster, celebrating the passion of Christ, began to mark the stationsof the cross within the interior of the building which the faithfulcould retrace, along with the increasing dramatization of the Eastermass, with its tropes and sequences, the former to be associated withTuotilo and the latter with Notker Balbulus, both of St. Gallen. TheEaster Plays will evolve from this and ultimately demand space inthe whole church interior. The Christmas Plays were never to gaina similar signi cance.

In Central Europe the anastasis/resurrection rotunda par excel-lence is to be found, though in partly restored form, in the funer-ary church at Fulda. (Plate 32d) It had been located in the monasticcemetery to the north of the cathedral, (Figs. 74a, 74b, 74c) at thetime the largest church north of the Alps, and dedicated to the



358

archangel Michael, whose cult was promoted by St. Boniface. Themonastery had been founded in 744 by Sturmius, one of St. Boniface’s

followers, perhaps in a ceded forti ed royal residence, on the banksof the River Fulda. In 751 Fulda received its papal privilege. 48

Originally built in 820–822, on the Michaelsberg overlooking thecathedral square, the church was rebuilt during the late 11th cen-tury, retaining signi cant elements of the original Carolingian planand structure. (Figs. 75a, 75b) St. Michael’s central rotunda, largelyOttonian, is a conscious replica of the Constantinian Church of theSepulcher in Jerusalem, subsequently, and in keeping with the grow-ing signi cance of the cross, tted into a cruciform structure. In thatit is not unique. Entirely original Carolingian is the crypt, in whicha single squat column supports a circular stone, 13 meters in diameter.The perimeter of that stone supports a colonnade of eight columns,each of which is visible from any of the arms of the cross of thechurch. (Fig. 76) The Ionian-inspired capitals of these columns aremainly original and some relate to those at Lorsch, as was mentionedabove. At the center is the altar with the shrine for relics, originallyoccupied by a replica of the Holy Grave, a reminder of its original

in Jerusalem. An ambulatory surrounds the columns of the rotunda.Explanations have been advanced to account for these features.The single column in the crypt has been interpreted to symbolizethe organic entity of the world and been seen to represent Christbearing the world, the round stone as an analogy of in nity and theeight columns as the eight Benedictions. (Figs. 77a, 77b) The Sepulcherin Jerusalem was equated with the center of the world since in itwas the base of the cross, hence the worldly as well as the Heavenly

Jerusalem. On the world disc envisaged by Isidore of Seville, thebase was that of the T , which represented the oceans separating thesurface of the Earth. 49 On such a ‘map’, this base was the meta-physical point, which was represented by every such point. Henceevery abstract base of every cross represented that spot on Golgotha,since that spot could not be xed but required movement. As wasmentioned, the cross was gaining signi cance by displacing its func-tion as an object of torment and death and acquiring a meaning as

48 Innes, State and Society, pp. 21f., 29f. concerning the attraction of economic sup-port of the monastic foundation at Fulda. See McKitterick, Books, Scribes and Learning ,pp. IV, 303f.

49 Corboz, p. 174.



359

symbol of resurrection and rebirth— anastasis . An expression of thispreoccupation with the cross is of course to be found in Hrabanus

Maurus’ Liber de laudibus sanctae crucis , In Praise of the Holy Cross,discussed above. It will be recalled from our discussion of the Fountainof Life manuscript illuminations in the Godescalc Gospel and the Gospel of St . Médard at Soissons, both from Aachen, that the architecture of the Fountain with its eight marble columns in the same plane andall visible at the same time, which in a symmetrically arranged struc-ture should not be visible, is clearly deliberate. In Fulda too, the

viewer’s point of view is at right angles to the columns. Whoever‘drinks’ from the altar, this Fountain of Life, will enjoy everlasting life. The altar/shrine/fountain itself symbolizes the springs, whichrepresent the Gospels, while these in turn indicated the faith in Christand the cancellation of death. The eight columns are perhaps anallegory of the Eight Benedictions, of which the fourth promises sati-ation to those who hunger and thirst for justice. (Figs. 78a, 78b,78c, 78d) The rewards will be theirs in heaven. In this context thearchitecture of the altar and the columns yield another stylistic con-sideration, that of the anastasis/resurrection rotundas marking the

Holy Grave in the Church of the Sepulcher in Jerusalem, and thenOld St. Peter’s in Rome, as well as many others, and here in thechurch dedicated to St. Michael in Fulda. The St. Médard manu-script from Soissons, contains two representations of the Fountain of Life, representing the tomb of Christ and rebirth through Baptismand Paradise, the one contained in an ellipse over a set of CanonTables indexing the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, the other as afull page representation related to the Fountain page of the Godescalc Evangelistary.

References to the Palace Chapel at Aachen have already beenmade when discussing the Pfalz and the artistry of the metal work-ers represented in the chapel such as the large cast doors, the pineconeand the grillwork of the upper level of the octagon. In passing, ref-erence has also been made to some of the architectural detail con-cerning the core buildings of the Pfalz such as the great hall, theprincely quarters and the chapel. 50 While the Palatium contained theoffi ces of concrete power through which all administrative threadsran, the Capella represented the abstract peak of the endeavors of

50 Sullivan, Aix-la-Chapelle , pp. 33–63.



360

the palace school and its work shops in terms of the concentrationof ideas, education, learning, knowledge and scholarship as espoused

by the Liberal Arts, religion, art and architecture impressed the pointthat Aachen was also the cultural center. It is this chapel to whichwe shall return our attention, for it is both beginning and culmina-tion of the thought processes, which animated the age. Distinct fromthe other elongated horizontal basilicas built at the time, the octag-onal Palace Chapel was a vertical statement, which has to be seenas an act of faith, and as such is an optical summation of the faith.(Figs. 79a, 79b) It was a splendid proclamation that the church tri-umphant established a new uni ed community set to combat theforces of disorder and a demonstration that it was the king/emperorwho had been entrusted by God, not by men, with the task of chang-ing confusion, disorder and chaos into order, as acts in accordancewith divine commands and a realization of the Imperium Christianum.An early perception of the Divine Right of Kings, the king’s abso-lutism was derived from the responsibility inherent in the guardian-ship of the Christian realm. The king was the major domoof God.

It was demonstrated how the extensive Carolingian revitalization

of the Classical heritage included the deliberate link with Constan-tinian Imperial Rome and with the Davidic elements of the OldTestament in religion and politics. Combined with literary and artisticintentions, such as the integral nature of the bejeweled and illumi-nated manuscripts, the esthetic synthesis contributed to the con rmationof Aachen as the Roma nova , in Christian guise as the New Jerusalem.Architecture and its ornamentation was suited most ideally to o ff erthe increasingly sophisticated basis from which almost all of thesedevelopments of ideas and emotions underwent a visible synthesis of Celtic, Germanic and prominent Mediterranean aspects of style.

Beyond knowing that Odo of Metz designed the Palace Chapel,there are no records extant which specify the dates of the building program of the palace complex, nor of the Palace Chapel, otherthan that in July 798 columns were being erected and that in thewinter of 804/805, according to later sources, pope Leo III conse-crated the church and dedicated it to the Virgin Mary. 51 Constructionwas to continue into the reign of Louis the Pious and thus re ectedthe in uences and contributions of two generations of scholarship

51 Binding, p. 76f. reviews the literature concerning this point.



361

and ideology. Charlemagne’s intention to create a real and idealRoma nova with a palatium to be called the Lateran was being realized.

It has been pointed out, how in many sectors the Carolingiansrelied on a cross-section of skilled populations, artists and craftsmenfrom within the distant reaches of the empire and from beyond, andhow in the instance of the Palace Chapel, an interior of great beauty,decorated with gold and silver, materials and ideas were importedfrom Italy, because, as Einhard put it, Charles was unable to nd mar-ble columns for his construction anywhere else, and so had them brought fromRome and Ravenna.52 This is a statement easily made, but one musttry to envisage what this meant logistically. To transport such aheavy, yet fragile cargo through the Alps and over the poor roadsof the day, over such a great distance, is an astonishing feat andnot easily entertained. Expense was no obstacle when one considersthat the vast Avar treasure had passed into Carolingian hands. It isless-well known that the whole region was scoured for Roman build-ing materials, such as the forti cations of Verdun, to erect this build-ing. The Roman continuity could also be demonstrated with localmaterials. 53 It certainly re ects a powerful will, supported by great

wealth, intent on demonstrating both continuity of imperial succes-sion and legitimacy of the traditional context. This context is bothOstrogothic and Byzantine, of which one is derivative of the other.Theoderic the Ostrogoth and Byzantine vice-roy was understood tobe represented on the equestrian statue, which Charles had trans-ported to Aachen, clearly a deliberate association. It would not havebothered Charles if the statue actually were one of the emperor Zenorather than Theoderic, the understanding had merit either way. ThatWalahfrid Strabo did not see Theoderic in a favorable light, indi-cates a shift in perception by a later generation. While Theodericwas still alive, the construction of the church of San Vitale was begun,supposedly funded by a banker, but certainly also with Byzantinefunds, sponsored by the emperor Justinian, after all, it had been thelast capital of the Western Empire. For Charles the glory by asso-ciation could not be more welcome when he had his builders useSan Vitale as a model for his Palace Chapel in Aachen. Frequentlythis association between San Vitale and the Chapel in Aachen has

52 Thorpe, p. 79.53 Braunfels, p. 131f. See C. Hahn, ‘Seeing and Believing: The Construction of

Sanctity in Early Medieval Saints’ Shrines’, in Nees, Approaches , p. 124.



362

been seen as too close a relationship, by identifying the Chapel asan attempted copy of San Vitale.54 (Figs. 80a, 80b, 80c)

It is true that there are some basic similarities, such as the octa-gonal structure inside of both but not outside, the inner arcades com-bined with superimposed and integrated colonnades reaching intothe upper, third level, and the use of sheets of grained marble todress all surfaces. The visitor to both churches would, however, noticesigni cant di ff erences, beginning with the observation that while theexterior of San Vitale has eight, the Aachen exterior has sixteen cor-ners. The mausoleum of Theoderic in Ravenna has ten sides. Theinner octagon in San Vitale is a petalled arrangement of seven arcaded,two-storeyed niches with an eighth extended to form a choir, theone with the carpet mosaics of the emperor Justinian and the empressTheodora, and the brilliant apocalyptic mosaic in the vault. Each of the arcaded niches is supported by two superimposed columns atboth levels. Aachen enfolds the visitor in the harmony of its struc-tural and ornamental details. A modest apse was subsequentlysuperceded by the Gothic choir. In Aachen there is no emphasis onthe altar within the octagon. The lower level is formed by angled

pillars without bene

t of additional columns, abutments supporting striped arches. The pillars are now clad in patterned sheets of mar-ble veneer. Originally the surfaces were probably painted. Althoughthe inner space plays with the vertical upward sweep, a heavy hor-izontal molding interrupts this optical upward sweep, invited by theupper arcade, which rises to include the third storey. (Plate 33a)However, at midpoint abutments interfere with the rapid glanceupward. As on the rst level, angled pillars are superimposed on thepillars below. Beginning at the gallery of the second level, the clerestoryand above it the triforium are attainable by means of stairs in thetwo anking towers, and continuing onto the third level, the arcadedsections are subdivided by pairs of monolithic columns of bluish mar-ble or green porphyry brought from Ravenna. (Fig. 81) These columnsare set back from the edge and the grillwork, ush with the mold-ing. At the height of the abutments on the pillars, the columns arecapped with classicizing Composite capitals—Corinthian combinedwith Ionian volutes—and bare dosserets surmounted by abutments.The abutments support ornamented triple arcades. Unknown in

54 See Nees, Early Medieval Art , p. 102f. See Stalley, pp. 67 ff .



363

Ravenna, these features combine to retard the temptation to let theeyes sweep upward and induce a contemplative halt, to delight in

the astonishing wealth of textures, contrasts, designs, straight linesand curvatures, shapes, forms and colors all around the second levelof the octagon. The visitor is invited to be awed by the space beforeletting his eyes rise to the next level of arches, columns and capi-tals and before being stopped by the striped arches of the upperarcade which frame the ascent of columns. Eight times the vieweris called upon to react to the integral compositions of the arcadesof the octagon. He will not become aware that the height of thedome equals the diameter of the octagon. Windows cut into thewalls above the arches allow the beams of light to fall in and by itschanging nature animate the impressions created by the mysteriousinterior. Windows at the second and third levels illuminate that space.At the second level a network of buttressing striped arches reachesfrom the pillars of the inner octagon to the outer walls, creating aninner skeleton of supports, bridging a sixteen-sided ambulatory aboutthe octagon. This ambulatory is covered with intersecting, thoughrenewed, highly mosaic-decorated cross-vaulting. 55 These serve to sta-

bilize the structure, which is surmounted by a dome, 31 meters high,the highest vaulted space north of the Alps. Not only is the domenot based on Classical models, but much of the chapel interior isoriginal and both solicited great admiration from contemporaries.(Fig. 82)

Originally covered with golden mosaics, renewed in 1881, thisgolden dome was the culmination of the golden tesserae used in theornamentation throughout the chapel. The original mosaics havebeen lost. 56 Today the restored mosaic of the octagon dome showsChrist in majesty surrounded by the winged tetramorphs toward thecenter, with a procession of the twenty-four elders in reverence of the enthroned Christ around the base of the dome. The dome isdivided into eight triangular areas converging at the top. Just belowthe dome mosaic gures of apostles ank the windows. Unfortunatelychanges over time have obscured the original opulent decoration andthe renovations and modi cations between 1900 and 1913 under thepatronage of the emperor William II, preoccupied with concerns,

55 Sullivan, Aix-la-Chapelle , p. 44f.56 Diebold, p. 89f. argues that the original resembled the Adoration of the Lamb

in the Codex Aureus of Emmeram.



364

here and elsewhere, of his own continuity, have created some falseimpressions about the ornamentation of the space, as marble slabs

on walls and pillars, and mosaics in the vaults have re ned the previously more robust interior. As it happened, Aachen was incorpo-rated into the France of the Revolution and then into the Napoleonicempire, when some columns and grillwork were broken out to betaken to Paris. Napoleon too wanted to stress his legitimacy andcontinuity through objects. Some columns were not replaced. 57 Anelement of impermanence and ux thus a ff ected approaches to thepreservation of the octagon during the 19th century.

What is not obscured by added chapels and still visible of thesouthern exterior is rather modest. The walls of coarse, undressedstone are perforated by a few windows and quite undecorated, wereit not for eight pairs of pilasters and ‘Corinthian’ pilaster capitalsplaced to reinforce the corners of the upper portion just below theroo ine, intended to counteract the down and outward pressure of the dome. The distinct, though modest, appearance of the exteriordome over the octagon is more recent workmanship. The contrastbetween the plain, even crude exterior and the resplendent interior

could not be more marked. Even the entrance, despite its sugges-tion of a Roman arch of triumph, does not betray what awaits the visitor upon entering the octagon. Of any painted walls— oral andgeometric designs—not enough remains even to speculate. As wasmentioned, today there is much added golden mosaic throughoutthe interior, which the intruding light and candlelight sets aglitter ina mysterious manner. (Plate 33b) Other colors complement the goldendesigns. Contrasting marble plaques are set into the walls and usedto emphasize delineations of designs, and all of these are visiblethrough the grillwork. The view through the intervals between pil-lars, columns and arches creates an optical maze as the several planesof galleries on opposite sides of the octagon fuse into one single

visual plane of echoing forms and colors overwhelming the wor-shipper with the impression of a complex, but ordered cosmic entity.When not set with chairs, the center of the octagon reveals a 19thcentury oor design consisting of elaborate mosaic patterns of circles,triangles and lozenges of inset stones, creating an intricate carpetdesign covering the entire oor. Fundamentally, it resembles intri-

57 Diebold, p. 68f.



365

cate Roman mosaic, consisting of two ornamented squares placed toshow eight interlinked corners, touching an octagon outline at the

midpoint of each side. Triangles and lozenges ll in the remaining spaces. Concentric circles of imaginatively ornamental intertwinescomplete the frame. Heavily centered circles surround the outside of the composition. A carpet like border de nes the edge of the oormosaic. It is held that the emperor’s seat was at the center of thisoctagon. The designs on the original stone oor can only be imag-ined, most probably consisting of tiles set in geometric designs.

This and other similar interiors presented forms of art and archi-tecture to a relatively restricted audience. In that regard it was ‘pub-lic’ art, subject to changing tastes and constant dangers. Not visibleto the ‘public’ was the art of the precious books: the illuminatedmanuscripts, precious ivories and gem encrusted book covers, reservedfor special occasions and accessible only to the few. Today these arescattered across Europe, in cathedral treasuries and libraries.

What is the signi cance of an environment of octagons and of anenthronement at the center among them?

Mystic number symbolism involving multiples, especially of the

number four, evidently plays an important role in determining thecosmic order re ected by the octagonal spaces. This symbolism con-tributes to the originality of the building. The symbolism placed intothe numbers 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12 in their many variations and multi-ples has shaped much projected cosmic understanding of the cre-ated world, divine inattainability, harmony, completion and ful llment,to mention just a few. Beginning in the octagonal dome, only thefundamental apocalyptic idea has been retained. Originally the twenty-four elders rose from their thrones and with the tetramorphs ven-erated the Apocalyptic Lamb, the Agnus Dei , at the center and theenthroned Christ. 58 This mosaic had to be recon gured in the 12thcentury when the suspension of the emperor Barbarossa’s chande-lier had to be accommodated. The Lamb was removed and theenthroned Christ perhaps inserted at this time. 59 The dome mosaic

58 Revelation 4:6–10. Braunfels, p. 135, supposes the mosaicist to have beenbrought in from Italy, perhaps Rome.

59

E. Stephany in E.G. Grimme, Der Aachener Domschatz (Düsseldorf 1973), pp.XX, 63. See Braunfels, pp. 135, 379, who indicates that the mosaic was destroyedduring the 19th century, redrawn between 1873 and 1881 on the basis of a 17thcentury sketch and other descriptions, whereupon the mosaic was installed by aVenetian, Antonio Salvati.



366

today, based on recreated sketches, shows the enthroned Christ receiv-ing the adulation of the twenty-four elders, who o ff er him their leaf-

crowns as the tetramorphs surround him in the dome. The Lambis no longer featured in the composition. The number 4 has manysymbolic applications, beginning with the understanding that it rep-resents the earthly universe, the four corners of Earth and the fourcorners of Heaven. The apocalyptic tetramorphs represent the fourEvangelists and their gospels, which are associated with the four riversof Paradise, and the four rivers, which irrigate the four realms of the earth. The complementary nature of these gures is re ected intheir summation in the Majestas gure of the enthroned Christ, whorules over all things. According to Revelationthe cube also representsthe Heavenly Jerusalem of the Apocalypse. The number 24 is theproduct of several multiples, including the number 12, which is inturn associated with the hours of the day, of the night, of the monthsand with the zodiac, that is to say, a reference to the cosmic orderand especially to the Heavenly Jerusalem in Revelation21: 10–17, 21,and to the many references in Revelation7:4–8 to the many multiplesof 12. Thus the octagon is 12 × 12 = 144 Frankish feet in diam-

eter (medieval foot was longer than a modern foot). Each of the 8sides is 18 feet long for another total of 144 feet, just as the wallsof the Heavenly Jerusalem were 144 cubits long. 60 All other exter-nal dimensions are divisible by 12. The number 8 is the number of the New Testament. It announces the Blessedness of future eons.Already the Baptistery of the Arians in Ravenna contained an octag-onal baptismal basin, because it was associated with the eighth dayof Creation, because of Christ’s Resurrection eight days after PalmSunday and the beginning of a new life through the baptism. Thesomewhat later church of San Vitale continues this theme. Eight thenis the number of the rebirth through the Resurrection to EternalLife. The octagon therefore is related to the anastasis rotunda, suchas we saw at Fulda. For Pythagoreans and Neo-Platonists multiplesof the number 8 referred to heavenly wisdom and to the rstbornof Creation. The number 8 also represents ful llment, harmony andeternity. Several centuries later the emperor Barbarossa and his wifeBeatrix still had a vivid understanding of the signi cance of thesenumbers when they had a chandelier suspended from the dome as




367

a representation of the Heavenly Jerusalem over the spot whereCharlemagne was supposedly buried. This chandelier consisted of a

‘wall’ of 8 circular sections, reinforced by 16 bastions—8 towers and8 turrets. They understood it as a demonstration of harmony in unityin conformity with the octagonal dimensions of the inner building and the sixteen corners of the exterior. Notions of a ‘Golden Rome’,a ‘Heavenly Jerusalem’, the Imperium Christianum, played into thisstructure from the beginning. An inscription suggests as much. 61 Itseems that the attempt was made here to capture the cosmic entityof divine, abstract space in more than a square or rectangle and totranslate transcendental intuitive, intelligible knowledge into identi- able shapes. Behind these multiples lies the number 2, representedby the pairs of columns, which is at the basis of all polarities anddualities. In this context the polarity, which attracts us, is the deathand rebirth, apocalypse and anastasis confrontations. Charlemagnemay have intended the Chapel to be his funerary site. The octagonimplies its function as a baptistery. This apparent duality, however,is a harmonious reduction of all symbolism into unity in which allpolarities are resolved in Christ.

To what extent was Charlemagne motivated by this mystical sym-bolism? Was he moved by his esthetic appreciation of Classical formswhen he asked that the building materials be dismantled in Italyand moved to Aachen, or did he see in them mainly the impliedexpressions of power and the will to substantiate his legitimacy andproclaim the continuity to his right to rulership? Was the PalaceChapel intended to express in an idealized form the wish of a merg-ing of Heaven and Earth in a spiritual dimension that he knewwould not be realized on Earth? Only one year after the consecra-tion of the chapel by pope Leo III, with the Divisio regnorum,Charlemagne reverted to the traditional Frankish division of the royalinheritance between his three sons in 806, motivated by the fear thatupon his death discord might arise in the realm. A more basic humannature was to take precedence over the immediate high ideal, thoughthe idea of this ideal has survived in various guises over time.

61 Stalley, p. 71, n. 7. The inscription reads translated from the Latin: ‘Whenthe living stones are assembled harmoniously, and the numbers coincide in an equalmanner, then rises resplendently the work of the Lord who has constructed theentire hall.’



368

Not until the coronation of Otto I, was the throne set up in the rst gallery. 62 (Plate 33c) Till then it stood, most probably, at the

center of the octagon. It is conceivable that the oor of the octa-gon had a oor mosaic akin to the one in place now. That the over-lapping and interlacing squares could include what has been saidabout octagons and the number 8, suggests that the placement of the throne allows the claim to the sacerdotal stature to whichCharlemagne aspired. He did think in eschatological terms, of Aachenas a New Jerusalem and a Second Rome and of himself as a mys-tic incarnation of David, Salomon and Constantine, under whom auni ed universal Christian Empire on Earth re ected the unity of Heaven. Though Charlemagne recognized the pope’s spiritual author-ity, yet the protection, which the emperor extended over the papacy,was tantamount to domination. As sacerdos, he saw himself as God’srepresentative on earth and placed himself between Heaven andEarth, between the celestial sphere and terrestrial realm, betweendome and oor, and in that he played the interpretative link for allmankind as guide toward the realization of the universal Christiankingdom. It will be recalled that Charles had accepted the princi-

ples outlined in St. Augustine’s De civitate dei , on the felicity of Christianemperors. Augustine had stressed that the earthly kingdom was merelya re ection of the eternal kingdom of God. While God’s kingdomwas eternal, the earthly kingdom was subject to God’s purpose. Sincethe spiritually and intellectually projected ideal celestial order couldnot readily parallel the real terrestrial order, the emperor sought thefunction to bring this about. The later ruler portraits bear this out.It is perhaps surprising then, that the octagon, to the extent that itis a summation of ideological, artistic and architectural elements,contains no direct personal representation of Charlemagne. As hasbeen demonstrated throughout, this is consistent with the contem-porary manuscripts, in which Charles sought no personal represen-tations, in marked contrast to his successors. It is as though theedi ce was to enshrine his name.

62 Binding, Königspfalzen, p. 79.



CONCLUSION

The attempt has been made to trace the skilful policies by whichthe Austrasian Carolingians acquired control over the monarchy andassured their own supremacy by means of a careful rearrangementof the power structure of the Frankish realm. By virtue of the con-solidation of their family’s power, the joint military and monasticpolicies of expansion, supported by the allegiance of the papacy,brief setbacks could not prevent the nal rise of the Carolingians.Assured of their own felicitas , their Heil , they consolidated their posi-tion through the military intervention on behalf of the papacy, besetby the Lombards, and with papal cooperation used the support of the church to turn away from the Roman Empire as preserved inConstantinople.

It was Charles, to be known as Charlemagne, who was chargedto reinforce the notion that the Franks were God’s chosen people

and he God’s chosen ruler and representative to guide the ChristianEmpire as Christ’s rst servant. He wanted to be emperor of suchan empire, not of a continuation of imperial Rome. Had he notreturned from his wars against the Saxons and the Avars as themajestic conquering hero? Was he not now in position to wield bothtemporal as well as religious authority over a theocracy, which heruled like a new David, leading his chosen people. The pope appealedto him as a new Constantine and the papacy participated in his ele-

vation to such an exalted position from which it was his charge tocombat the enemies of Christ in the visible kingdom of which Christwas the invisible Lord. In the visible kingdom God had armed theking with the Two Swords of the Two Authorities of royal powerand priestly authority, so that as rex-sacerdos he could protect thechurch from all falsehood and all attack. The proclamation of Charlesas imperator et augustus during his coronation in Rome on ChristmasDay 800, apparently not entirely to his liking, nalized the processwhich made Charles the equal of the Byzantine emperor. The break with Constantinople came in 803. Hereafter Charles dropped thedesignation Romanum imperiumand replaced it with the idealisticRenovatio Romani imperiumas a new Imperium Christianum. For our use,the term Renovatioindicated a kaleidoscopic, recapitulating preferenceover the term Renaissance .



370

Charlemagne deviated from the principle of single succession whenhe attempted to regulate the succession by continuing the adminis-

trative power-sharing practices of the past. These had not been totallysuccessful when his other sons died and by default Louis, the Pious,his only surviving son, saw his sole succession as a divine judgment,but nevertheless felt the need for several papal coronations to con rmthis selection. He must have known that he was the father’s reluc-tant choice. That his father had crowned him was not deemedsuffi cient to him. With the succession of the three sons of Louis thePious, the intended administrative territorial assignments turned intoMerovingian-style fratricidal animosity and tripartite division, asadministrative aws and centrifugal forces, already apparent during Charlemagne’s last years, already erupted during Louis’ reign. Inaddition Louis’ favor of the papacy contributed to its ascendancy.The universalist state of combined secular and spiritual power wasgiving way to regional particularism and gradual dismemberment of the realm. In the context of the Imperium ChristianumGod’s graceempowered the emperor to protect and guide the church and torule his people, not by any right of inheritance but by virtue of the

exalted divine judgment. Proper guidance was provided him by hisclose princely associates in the church, which contributed to thedetermining intrication of the in uence of the church in the a ff airsof the state in the pursuit of establishing God’s kingdom on earth.Louis’ disposition to see himself a sinner on the throne was detri-mental for the realm as with repeated confessions and abasementshe allowed others to exploit their advantages. The church especiallywas cha ng under the Two Authorities rst insisting that the free-dom of the church remain inviolate and then demanding a soledetermining role over its own a ff airs. Louis’ repartition of the realmamong his sons to accommodate his late son Charles caused frictionand open revolt among them. In the end Charles, the Bald, acquiredthe west and Ludwig, the German, the east, anking Lothair, theeldest, who maintained the title and the middle kingdom within theempire. Earlier Louis had once again confessed his sins, declaredhimself unworthy to rule and a penitent. When the power strugglereturned in Louis’ favor, he renewed his coronation. Even thoughLouis had sent royal regalia to Lothair, declaring him his successor,Lothair did not have the support of his brothers. They defeated himin a most signi cant battle at Fontenoy in 841 and then swore anon-aggression pact against him in the Oaths of Strasburg of 842.



371

Linguistic divisions were appearing, while the stability of the realmwas challenged externally by the recurring invasions of Northmen.

These sailed far up the rivers into the interior, reportedly bringing turmoil and destruction wherever they appeared, highlighting theinherent weaknesses of the overextended centralized political struc-tures and any military defenses.

The Treaty of Verdun of 843 partitioned the realm in three, untilthe Treaty of Meersen of 870 eliminated the dividing section betweenthe East and West Frankish kingdoms, which had been entrusted toLothair. Reasons of defense demanded a territorial pragmatism, whichforced the reappraisal of the practicality of the idealistic universal-ity of the Christian Empire. Subsequently the implementation of thisillusory abstraction became the responsibility of the papacy, a roleit was only too eager to assume. As long as he was alive, Charlesthe Bald saw himself and was shown as the blessed ruler of such alofty realm and did more than his brothers to establish the inde-pendence of the rex christianum. Towards the end of his reign he didobtain an imperial coronation on the same day as his grandfatherhad and delighted to be referred to propagandistically as the ‘splen-

did David’, even though this exultation lacked any real merit. AfterCharles the Bald was crowned emperor by the pope at Christmas875, he tried to move the imperial center from Aachen into his ownrealm, and by removing much treasure and art. The principle wascon rmed that only a papal coronation in Rome had any validity,while at the same time the papacy had compromised its signi canceby becoming a toy of local interests and factions.

Ludwig, the German had been named sub-king in the territoriesto the east of the Rhine and with varying fortunes he tried to con-solidate a realm out of the eastern components. Despite a lacking administrative and social infrastructure, Ludwig inadvertently pre-pared the basis of an independent political entity yet to develop.Owing to the lack of comparable institutions, this Eastern Frankishkingdom was to re ect fundamental structural di ff erences from thewestern part. The king was less constrained by Gallo-Roman andRomano-Frankish checks and balances. As de facto king of Bavariathe northern regions had only peripheral relations with his southernkingdom. Towards the southeast he could score some uctuating suc-cesses. Upon his death partitioning of the kingdom among his sonsfollowed the Frankish pattern.

Ludwig’s grandson, to be know as Charles the Fat, once again



372

ruled a nominally united eastern kingdom and in 881 was crownedemperor in Rome by the pope, in the hope that he was the only

one quali ed to reunite the entire kingdom. It was to be the lasttime because the two kingdoms had reached such a state of inde-pendence that the implementation of any principles community of interests and of unity was futile.

On the one hand the Carolingians had promoted tribal identities;on the other hand, the idea of an idealized Christian realm unitedby a common faith, and based on an imposed centralized adminis-tration, held together by personal loyalties between the rulers andtheir subjects founded on oaths of fealty, had weakened. In the faceof growing particularistic interests, spurious claims, many fratricidalwars and threatening territorial necessities, centrifugal forces a ff ectedthe cohesion of the parts. There was no Carolingian left to com-municate the cohesive idea of the vast, nearly ungovernable realm.Charles’ weakening mental faculties, perhaps epilepsy, and growing general incompetence caused the eastern nobles to revolt against himand to elect Arnulf of Carinthia in 887 and when Charles died in888, Arnulf successfully took on the Vikings and refused the pope’s

invitation to come to Rome. Not till 894 did he campaign in Italyand in 896 he was crowned emperor but su ff ered a serious strokesoon after. He secured the succession for his four-year old son,Ludwig, the Child. Arnulf stands out by virtue of his reliance on hisaristocrats rather than on the church. It was this high nobility, increas-ingly more hereditary and independent, around which the regionalduchies of Saxony, Lotharingia, Franconia, Swabia and Bavaria beganto coalesce, their self-reliance, wealth, military power and regionalinfrastructures ultimately outbalancing the fading power of the cen-tral royal authority. In the last decade of the 9th century and intothe 10th, Slavs and especially Hungarians posed a very serious threatto the eastern kingdom from beyond the eastern frontiers. In viewof the immaturity of the central authority, the coordinated defenseagainst these attacks fell to the eastern duchies. With the death of Ludwig, the Child, in 911, the eastern magnates of the council of regents resorted to an election which placed the Franconian dukeKonrad onto the royal throne. For a very short while the directCarolingian link was maintained.

The Carolingian renovatio ourished with the idea of the universalempire, the Imperium Christianum, as long as religion provided themotivation for secular activities within the realm. It declined with



373

the collapse of the myth of a uni ed realm, the departure from theideal state and the increasing secularization of the political life towards

the end of the 9th century.Although the conventional 19th century term Carolingian Renaissance

is still current, the process described by it was not uniformly repre-sented throughout the empire and really more of a recapitulation of the various tendencies in the cultural contributions of the regionsthan a ‘rebirth’. One is increasingly inclined to reassign the pro-portions of indebtedness for the burst of cultural activity during theCarolingian period. Both Charlemagne and Louis the Pious used theword renovatioon their seals, a renovation, and transformation, restora-tion and renewal, even rebirth were productive Carolingian concepts,which in their secular and religious guise pertained to varying degreesto an extensive range of cultural activities. It bears emphasizing thatuntil recently the indebtedness to the past was focused completelyon all aspects of the Roman heritage per se and that the CarolingianRenaissance was no more than a rejuvenation of most things Romanand within which anything of merit was Roman, or at best a clearcopy, indistinguishable from its original model. Not considered to be

more than imported oddities di ffi cult to explain were the astonish-ing authentic works based on Celtic and Germanic styles and thefact that the Germanic north had authentic contributions to maketo this cultural recapitulation.

More recently a nuanced appreciation of the debt to the Classicalpast has been established. The link with the Roman past has beendiff erentiated to pertain to the late Classical, Christian Roman past,to the times of the emperors Constantine and Justinian and the earlyChristian Empire, rather than to the Rome of the pagan Caesars.The Carolingians were intent on drawing a clear demarcation betweenAncient Rome and themselves and, as was demonstrated, resistedthe pope’s implied association with Rome’s pagan rulers.

Continuing reassessment of the Early Middle Ages indicates thatthese ages were not so dark and that the preceding Merovingianperiod was not characterized by complete ignorance. A need for lit-erary competence had been present among the senatorial Gallo-Roman elites surviving in the administration of the state institutionsand in the o ffi ces of the church. Admittedly the enthusiasm of theearly Christian faith did much to displace the pagan authors andtheir works for fear of their interference with the new faith, if theworks did not provide references to practical use. While the former



374

was only apparently neglected and rejected because of its content,the latter gained increasing emphasis for its required educational

skills to satisfy functional needs for literacy within the Carolingianscribal and administrative culture. It was the copyists of this periodwho preserved and distributed the works of the ancient authors.

Not all developments were equally applicable to all parts of theCarolingian empire. While the older West Frankish church, Mero-

vingian and Carolingian, could rely on the relative independent basisof its identity, this was not to become the case east of the Rhine.There the more recent Anglo-Saxon consolidation of Christianityunder St. Boniface was accomplished under the auspices of thepapacy, with the result that for centuries to come the structure of the ‘German’ church was to remain much more closely bonded toRome and hence come much more under all manner of Romanin uence. The Bavarians, also heirs of older, more independent, moreHiberno-Scottish church institutions, had developed a system of mutual support between themselves, the Lombards and Rome andused it to reinforce their own political position toward the Franksuntil under Carolingian pressure the pope unexpectedly turned on

them. The First Cover of the Lindau Gospel and the Tassilo Chalice are testimonies to this nonconformity. The reduction of Bavarianindividuality was the result, leading to a cohesive integration withinthe East Frankish church. The Second Cover of the Lindau Gospel was proof of the new conformity. A long-term northern openness toRome was given. It was to prove a long-term handicap.

Owing to the extensive socio-cultural continuity from Roman timesonward the renewal in Gaul, Lombardy and Italy took on a di ff erentguise from that of the eastern, more recently conquered CentralEuropean parts of the Frankish realms. Large sections did not evencome totally under Frankish hegemony, let alone under any Classicalcultural in uence until the end of the 8th century. Only little of thewestern frame of reference, intellectual tradition and cultural infra-structure extended into the east-rhenish regions of the Frankish king-dom. Gradually the cultural leadership of the courts passed to themonastic centers. Without territorial links to a ‘Classical’ past, devel-opments in the east were all the more noteworthy. The Alemanic,Bavarian and Frankish monasteries of the Carolingian east initiateda new beginning based on only few precedents, so that the term‘renaissance’ is not appropriate there. What did burst on the scenewas a brief period of activity in secular literature written in Old



375

High German. The e ff ort, however, was to be short-lived and to beeclipsed by a large volume of religious literature written in Latin as

the link with Christian writing fully evolved. Literacy meant Latinity.At the same time the abstract decorative styles associated with Celticand Germanic surface treatments were replaced by Mediterranean,representative, narrative and message-oriented forms of Christianexpression. Astonishing was the owering production in the portablearts such as illuminated manuscripts, ivory carvings and metal work and even architecture, which projected the eastern centers into aprominent position.

The Carolingian intention to idealize the Christian kingdom onearth, the Imperium Christianum, into a replica of the Heavenly Kingdomgave to religious education a primary role and necessitated the mul-tiplication of the available religious books. Roman models derivedfrom Roman state symbolism were represented in Carolingian archi-tecture; Roman Law incorporated into the tribal law codes; Romanacclamation formulas appeared in liturgical guise; the Vitae of saints,missionaries and kings followed Roman examples; the ivory book covers derived from Roman consular diptyches; Christian motifs fol-

lowed late Roman examples, the most important being the Majestas derivations from the Roman Cosmocrator representations paralleling the growing emphasis on ruler portraits in the Roman manner inthe context of sacerdotal concepts. Novel were the Old Testamentreferences to a chosen King David and the attempt to establish thefoundations for a Davidic kingdom on earth populated by a newchosen people, in synthesis with the ideas of continuity with a post-Constantinian Christian Empire, a new Rome, a new Jerusalem.

To make this vision a reality the resources and talents at Charle-magne’s disposal were mobilized. Scholars, theologians, grammari-ans, artists, craftsmen and architects were attracted to the Carolingiancourt ‘schools’ with the creative freedoms to develop their respectivemasteries in the service of a grandiose design. A practical primaryexpectation of the schools was teaching a fundamental functional lit-eracy for admistrative purposes at various levels of competence inthe various jurisdictions of state and church, which required the doc-umentation of all manner of transactions. The curriculum taught thetrivium and the quadrivium, i.e. the Christianized Seven Liberal Artsas an aid to unlocking the mysteries of Revelationand of God’s Will.The trivium, the study of Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric, was takento satisfy the functional needs. It fell upon the scriptoria of the great



376

monasteries to provide copies of the mundane primary teaching textsas well as of the rare copies of ancient and early Christian books

and of resplendent scriptures and ornamented liturgical texts. St.Gallen, Reichenau, Lorsch, Würzburg, Fulda were the monastic foun-dations, which developed extensive library deposits for local use andfor circulation and distribution in the e ff ort to expand Christianlearning and use literature to persuade people to participate in thepursuit of the realization of the ideal. Extensive networks of inter-dependent monasteries existed within and beyond their episcopal andarchiepiscopal jurisdictions, which shared in this persuasion. Of par-ticular interest are the complex and costly infrastructural require-ments in raw materials in skins, dyes, inks, gems and precious metals,and skilled human resources necessary before book production couldbe entertained.

In the context of religious literature, the dreams and vision of visionaries gure prominently. Since these were taken to be inspiredby God, the warnings, which they usually contained, were directedat the potentates to warn them against immanent threats and dan-gers, which might jeopardize the Heavenly Kingdom on Earth. Con-

tributors to the pursuits of Alcuin were Einhard, Hrabanus Maurusand Walahfrid Strabo. Alcuin and Einhard were joined in formu-lating and promoting the Carolingian political and theological inten-tion of transforming the Franks and Charlemagne into a new chosenpeople of Israel and a new David, and projecting a universal king-dom of heaven and earth. Hrabanus Maurus provided the frame-work in which the empire was ecclesia . He was a highly intellectualcompiler and commentator, who practiced an accumulative, ency-clopedic type of religious scholarship entirely subordinated to Scriptures,intended to safeguard an inventory of the imperiled core of all knowl-edge and a scholarly tradition without which the anticipated statecould not be attained. Conditions on earth had to be elevated to bea t match for the envisioned heavenly order. He was the rolemodelfor a new generation such as the poet Walahfrid Strabo, the philol-ogist Lupus de Ferrières and the theologian Otfrid von Weissenburg,not because of his methodology, but for providing them with thegigantic shoulders on which they could develop their literary origi-nality. In his poetry Walahfrid could command a medicinal, ‘scienti c’pragmatism based on practical experience and empirical observation,without seeking Christian validation. Nevertheless, he rose to highpositions in the church. Otfrid von Weissenburg is of signi cance



377

because of his attempt to raise a form of Old High German to lit-erary stature in his Book of Gospels.

It is of interest that for a brief period a short-lived attempt wasmade to write secular texts in German rather than Latin. InitiallyGerman was used in a pagan, cultic context, but then also in thelaw codes and religious texts. An early Latin-German dictionarydeserves particular attention. It contained an OHG version of theLord’s Prayer. Fragments of heroic narrative, of accounts of theCreation, of the end of the world, of the Harmony of the Gospels,of the Life of Christ were composed in epic form using OHG suc-cessfully, with the express intention to address the people in their

vernacular. A laudable attempt, it was an inconclusive achievement.German was not to gain a long-term foothold in the universalChristian use of Latin. The German vernacular and its worldly poetic,heroic and fatalistic themes could probably not be reconciled withthe ideas basic to the Imperium Christianum.

Einhard reports that Charlemagne ordered the preservation of Germanic heroic poetry and although the ancient sources refer tosuch a tradition among the Germanic peoples, there is no direct evi-

dence to their existence. Indirect evidence comes from the NorseEddas , which betray South-German origins for the heroic lays, leg-ends and sagas of high poetic quality. In a mytho-poetic process his-torical events and personages passed into narrative epic tales andheroic characters. In the transformation of an oral tradition people,places and events were ctionalized as entertainment within the oralculture of the age. Only later did the monastic scribal culture givethem a more stable format as recorded written German text. Attila,Theoderic the Great, Alboin and their women were joined by ctitiouspaladins, placed into patricidal or fratricidal situations dominated bypagan fate or God’s will and Christian judgment. Some charactersreappear in several epics. The edifying value lay in the presentationof Germanic fatalism, the awareness of human limitations, a belief in a woeful destiny, the negation of a fear of death, the proclama-tion of duty, loyalty and heroism. The praise of feminine beauty,constancy and faithfulness, the description of rich garments and orna-ments, of splendid weapons and armor, exotic places and meals,were at the core of the entertaining narratives. Generally this OHGmaterial has been transmitted in Christianized form, yet not com-patible with the intentions of the ideal. Many of these narrative ele-ments will nd a synthesis in the later Nibelungenlied . In the context



378

of the renovatio, the secular German component was restricted to pop-ular culture from where it quickly receded as a literary language.

Advanced by the convents and monasteries, Latin continued to assertitself as the language of the Christian realm, of all intellectual pur-suits for centuries to come, far into the Latin Middle Ages.

Astonishing are the high levels of artistry achieved in the easternregions in the workshops of the cloister arts in such areas as man-uscript illumination, ivory carving and metal work. The areas of thearts and crafts show most clearly the dimensions, which the blend-ing recapitulation assumed. The Christianization by Irish and Anglo-Saxon missions supported and reinforced abstract but original native,northern styles characterized by random curvilinear designs andorganic traceries, evident in the astonishing display initials. Too non-communicative, they proved not useful and were fairly quickly over-layered by representative Roman Christian forms of disciplinedexpression, harmonious symmetry, human and animal forms, narra-tive content and message oriented art of Mediterranean Christianity.Several spectacular works, such as the Tassilo Chalice and the rstcover of the Lindau Gospel mark this transition.

The intention to establish an imperial consciousness in the nameof a universal Imperium Christianumrequired the educational, pre-emi-nent representation of the human e ffi gy. The realistic representationof the human form of the Evangelists prepared the way for the ide-alized ruler portraits of the 9th century. Already the Insular Style sup-ported the depiction of human forms among the ornamented displayinitials and symbolic carpet pages. Placed centrally on the pages, thegrowing emphasis on these e ffi gies of Christ, the Evangelists andtheir symbolic emblems contributed to the marginalization and elim-ination of the calligraphic ornamentation until the imaginative non- gurative designs themselves found an ornamental role on the largedisplay capitals on text pages, until they nally also disappeared. Itwas replaced by the repetitive use of the same original idea, with-out any signi cant variation. Two innovations establish themselves:the emblems of the Evangelists, the tetramorphs, become eminentrepresentations, and the placing of the Evangelists and their emblemsin decorated arcades and colonnades, and subsequently more elab-orate architectural locations become formulaic. These motifs are thelegacy of Classical artistic traditions, which will become pictorialaxioms in medieval art.



379

In the last decades of the 8th century the workshops of the PalaceSchool at Aachen produced splendid illuminated liturgical texts, such

as the Godescalc Gospel . Of exceptional beauty and e ff ectiveness, Christand the Evangelists are represented in highly individualistic fashion.Placed in the midst of surface covering detail, each page is a car-pet page by other means. Yet the gures dominate the wealth of structural surface detail within their spaces. Each Evangelist has hisemblem hovering above him clearly indicating its inspirational role,as if prompting the author of his Gospel with the text to be writ-ten. Now the background architecture suggests itself to be a cityscape,the Heavenly Jerusalem. A novelty is the representation of a Fountainof Life. This is a symmetrical structure deliberately composed of eight columns set in a paradisic landscape surrounded by animals,which come to drink at the fountain. The fountain symbolizes theGospels, the faith in Christ and the cancellation of death. It pointsto the anastasis , the Resurrection. A generation later the motif reap-pears in another gospel also from Aachen, preserved in Soissons. Inaddition to twelve richly ornamented Canon Tables, this gospel alsofeatures a ‘Veneration of the Lamb’, an apocalyptic scene in which

the Twenty-four Elders adore the Sacri cial Lamb. Columns setagainst an impressive theatrical architecture, surmounted by thetetramorphs, the page summarizes the principles of the faith, theedi ce of the church and the teleological and eschatological knowl-edge of nal things and times as foretold in Revelation. Impressiveabout these Carolingian gospels is the ample use of vegetation, birdsand animals and especially the lavish use of such luxurious, lumi-nous colors as gold, amber, orange, ochre, yellow interacting withcrimson red, a wide range of brilliant deep blues, azure, turquoiseand emerald greens, deep purples and mauves.

The composition of these pages begins to allow the introductionof a narrative, marginal commentary to be inserted into non-essen-tial spaces and it is interesting to note here that while the key rep-resentation of the Evangelist in his formal writing pose is symbolicallystylized, the narrative commentaries are much more realistic inappearance. Greater realism characterizes the so-called Ada groupof Imperial Coronation Gospels from the Palace School at Aachen.Here the Evangelists, with superimposed tetramorphs are placed inarchitectural settings suggesting a sacerdotal backdrop of palatialdimensions. It is possible that it was the intention to compare the



380

sublime magni cence of the imperial abstraction with their tran-scendental majesty in an ideal entrance to a metaphysical realm.

Unmistakable in these portraits of the Evangelists is the centrality of the human gure. There is no space lling and surface covering ornamentation or ancillary detail here. Except for very large goldenhalos, these gures are powerful, majestic images. Seen together,these gures are contemporary representations, without any indicationof stylistic development. They do not speak of an evolving, coherentCarolingian Style, but rather of several individualistic approaches, asif each represented an independent tradition.

It seems as if the Evangelist representations had to be fully devel-oped, before the artists could entertain the preparation of idealizedruler portraits. The rst of these was the dedication portrait byHrabanus Maurus, c. 840, which showed an idealized e ffi gy of theemperor Louis the Pious as the Soldier in Christ. It was not a por-trait by any means, but it was soon followed by depictions of enthronedsacerdotal gures. The dedication miniature of Charles the Bald inthe Vivian Bible of c. 845, associates the king textually with the BiblicalDavid, enclosed in a large mandorla, a sacred space normally reserved

for the Christ e ffi gy. Pictorially Charles, David and Christ resembleone another facially. Clearly Carolingian kingship is linked here withthe idea of the Davidic Christian Empire, the Franks as the NewIsrael and Charles as the new David. At about the same times,c. 850, the Gospels of Lothair portray the emperor enthroned in animperial, arcaded setting, seated in the manner of an Evangelist. Aninscription links Lothair with David and his princely claims to bethe chosen of God over his brother Charles, in their fraternal con ict.The occasion documented in the Vivian Bible , in which the book ispresented to Charles the Bald, indicates a political agenda. It is aclaim to legitimacy, reinforced through the Hand of God openedover his head, extending to Charles his select status as the chosenand protected of the Lord. Charles’ position was questionable. TheDavidic association, the blessing Hand of God, con rm the divineauthorization of his reign. His Coronation Sacramentaryreinforces thisclaim even more as on yet another ruler portrait the Hand of Godactually holds the crown over his head. The Codex Aureus of St.Emmeram represents a lavish coronation of Charles in an ideal space.Charles wears the crown, with God’s open Hand just above his head,as if the coronation had just been completed. The scene is placedon a most splendidly decorated page, asserting the claim to conti-



381


nuity, legitimacy and divine installation by virtue of God’s choiceand grace. Clearly, the optical, artistic e ff ect of the royal image had

the function to express to all the sanctity and consecration of thesacerdos . The scene leaves little doubt that Charles the Bald wantedto proclaim his entitlement to reign by acclamation. His disputedaccession to the throne made it necessary to activate a propagan-distic image of the ideal ruler. By contrast, his brother Ludwig’sdepiction is very humble. From early on Charles may well haveaimed for the imperial crown.

In religious art, whether on murals, in manuscripts or on ivorybook covers, a common depiction is the Majestas Domini motif show-ing the apocalyptic Christ in Majesty. It usually shows Christ seatedin an oval precinct, or a lozenge shaped tetragon, the mandorla,usually surrounded by the Evangelists and/or the tetramorphs, indi-cating the ful llment of the New Testament in Christ. To accom-modate the gures in their restricted spaces, they are frequentlyforced to assume very awkward and constrained poses. Sometimesangels gure in these compositions. The Coronation Sacramentaryof Charles the Bald introduces secular motifs below the mandorla, taken

from Classical iconography. It shows the reclining gure of Oceanos resting on a jug from which water ows. It also shows the gure of an earth goddess, Gaia/Terra , with children at her breasts. Both of these motifs will return on other works in association with pagansun and moon representations as Apollo, the sun god, and as Selena/Luna ,the moon goddess. These two motifs will show themselves to be par-ticularly tenacious for the next ve hundred years. Consistently thesescenes invite the participation in the euphoric visions of nal things.

References to abbreviated examples of narrative detail have beenmade when they appeared in the spandrels on the illuminated pagesof the liturgical texts. While the key themes maintained their posi-tions of emphasis, peripheral elements began to ll out the story withminiature, gural, rather than textual, detail. Outstanding in thisregard is the Drogo Sacramentary.It is related to a gospel in whichornamented capital initials represent the tetramorphs individually inletterform according to the rst letter of each of the gospels. 1 In theSacramentary, splendidly introduced by two elaborate ivory book cov-ers with six scenes related to the birth, betrayal and death of Christ,



382

the artist selects forty-one vignettes from the New Testament andintricates them into the calligraphic, intertwining, vegetative orna-

mentation of the historiated capital initials. The pictorial content of these initials thereby imbues the letters with a magical and mysticalquality. The artist’s inventiveness is ingenious in the manner in whichhe sends the viewer on little ventures of discovery for the cleverlyintegrated scenes. In other gospels Old and New Testament scenesare paired for the demonstration of promise and ful llment. Theserepresentations have something of a digest nature about them, artis-tic shorthand, condensed abstracts, and extracts. Special categoriesof illustrated liturgical texts are the Psalters, collections of psalms.They were a rich inventory of references to events, which could beillustrated. Among many, three Psalters stand out: the Stuttgart Psalter ,the Utrecht Psalter and the Golden Psalter from St. Gallen. The Stuttgartand Utrecht Psalter have the illustrations interspersed directly betweenthe lines of the text. The Psalterium aureumfrom St. Gallen displaysa di ff erent technique. While the Stuttgart Psalter contains three-hun-dred and sixteen vividly colored scenes from the psalms, interlink-ing foreshadowing Old Testament references with New Testament

interpretations, equating king David with Christ, the Utrecht Psalter consists of one-hundred and sixty-six sepia colored, monochrome ink sketches on parchment. These vignettes demand a search for loca-tion and meaning in the texts to which the artist makes reference.Some references are quite oblique and obscure. The scenes and gures are characterized by a frenzied nervousness, always vividlydynamic and occasionally even humorous. Because many scenes and gures appear on the same page it is not always clear when onescenic reference ends and the other begins, and where sequentialideas appear in coexistent fashion. The Golden Psalter from St. Gallencontains a concentration of thirteen illuminations illustrating the lifeand reign of King David. Best known are the three military scenesdepicting troops on the march and engaged in the siege of walledcities, perhaps the most customary aspect of Carolingian warfare.Inadvertently they shed light on the arms and armor of the Frankishforces of the day. Accurate attention to detail is consistently evident.Each of these Psalters was completed with a high degree of realis-tic animation and movement, with a good sense of anticipation incapturing the events.

Narrative also found itself engraved on crystals. While traditionalscenes of the Cruci xion, complete with sun and moon representa-



383

tions, are not unexpected, there are some examples carved in glassdealing with peripheral events from scriptures, such as the sequence

of episodes dealing with the Biblical scandal involving the virtuousSusannah in her bath and the two Elders, voyeurs, who accused herof adultery. 2 The use of this story may have been as an analogy inan actual case in which Lothair II wanted to dispose of his wife, byhaving two bishops give false witness as to the queen’s faithfulness.The crystal may have been a token of reconciliation. Stylistically theminiature gures ground into the crystal resemble the miniatures of the Utrecht Psalter. They share some of the same charicaturisticangularity and agitated gesticulation. There are no extraneous details,neither vegetation nor calligraphy, to distract our focus from theactivities of the clearly cut human gures. The precise de nition of the incised tracery leaves a clear contrasting transparency.

The Classical and early Christian traditions of ivory carving con-tinued into the Carolingian period as a signi cant element of therenovatioas many stylistic devices were rediscovered by Carolingianartists. This art form was used primarily in the ornamentation of book covers, lidded boxes and pyxes. The Roman sources provided

certain motifs. A shortage of ivory made the recovery of pre-usedivory necessary, by shaving the relief o ff the panels or by splitting them. Initially the positioning of statuary gures in such architec-tural settings as arcades, already familiar from Ravenna and thenfrom the manuscripts, was intended to suggest an ideal space inwhich the formally placed, static gures seemed not actually to betouching the ground. Quite early, however, narrative elements express-ing a popular temperament were introduced in an ancillary fashion,as on the covers of the Lorsch Gospels , when the story of the ThreeMagi and of the Nativity are told in moderately dynamic imagesalong the bottom of each panel of the diptych. However, it was notlong before the moderate dynamics opened the way to dramaticallyplaced groups of ecstatic bodies, telling of the upward surge in aeuphoric attempt to ascend Christ-like into Heaven. Though someother similar panels, Majestas settings in ivory, were to be the moretypical. The most completely narrative ivory panel is preserved onthe cover of the Book of Pericopes of the emperor Henry II. A coex-istent representation of pagan ancillary motifs frames the Christianstory of the Cruci xion and the Resurrection in richly detailed nar-rative sequences. While the artistry of the ivory focuses the dramaticmessage in the narrative, the scenes also contain a propagandistic



384

element in the church’s claim to Christianity’s legitimate successionto primacy as the new chosen people over Judaism by virtue of the

blood of Christ and of Rome’s primacy through the association of Roman pagan and Christian elements, all under the benevolent Handof God. Another ivory shows a greater focus along Greek dramaticlines in the confrontation between Christ and Satan in the desert,when Satan tries to tempt Christ. By means of body language theartist reconstructed the crucial dialogue between them. This sceneon the inner panel is encircled with a frame of dramatic, narrativemoments from the life of Christ. Undercutting of some of the guresand some other details was a common technique, highlighting of the gures and ornamentation through perforation of the panels wasanother. The latter was a return to the interplay of positive and neg-ative space by means of which light foregrounds were silhouettedagainst contrasting backgrounds. The gures have become miniaturesculptures in the round. Such portable objects as liturgical combswere favored for this technique. A stylistic and thematic set of syn-theses is re ected in the Tuotillo Ivories , book covers set in decoratedand bejeweled frames, on which highly ornate and perforated scroll-

work is combined with the almost traditional Christian and Romanstock images of Majestas , tetramorphs, Evangelists, angels, sun andmoon bearing cornucopias, Oceanos and Gaia with inscriptions aboveand below the scenes on one panel, and a perforated scroll with anintertwined hunting scene in the other, a relief panel with the VirginMary and four angels at the center, and a legend depicted in relief at the bottom telling the story of St. Gallus and a bear. This ele-ment is nearly secular in intent. In addition to book covers the ivorycarvers also prepared ivory caskets perhaps decorated with northerndesigns, or with scenes illustrating key scenes from the life of Christ.It may be concluded that the earlier, Classical, static and architec-tural designs gradually yielded to movement, as colonnades werereplaced by moving folds and curtains. Assuming a degree of initi-ation, pictorial narrative techniques were intended to bring the scenesof the faith to life.

The Germanic metal smiths had given proof of their originality,their skills and techniques, their authentic sense of color to meet theexpectations of the renovatio. The shortage of gold combined with theneed for liturgical vessels and objects needed for the Christian ser-

vice, as well as of gold for gem encrusted reliquaries and book cov-ers, demanded great expertise in preparing the show of gold despite



385

its scarcity. Their artistry turned the object into an act of faith. Earlyexamples are the reliquary caskets and burse-reliquaries of gem

encrusted gold foil. Northern styles of surface decoration utilizedintertwining designs of birds, sh, snakes and salamanders to ani-mate the polychrome cloisonné surfaces on the obverse side. Strategic-ally placed gems created designs, which ordered the surface by meansof number symbolism into mystic spaces. Representations of saintswere beginning to populate the reverse sides with analogous intent.Sometimes the display of material wealth in the form of an over-abundance of gems on the surface disguised a lack of artistry. Twobrilliant examples display the Insular Style of surface ornamentationon metal best, the Tassilo Chalice and the First Cover of the LindauGospel.Again, being unique, both pieces bear immense responsibil-ity. Besides being an impressive work of art, the chalice was intendedto be a commemorative of an historical marriage between Bavariansand Lombards and as such a political document, a challenge to theCarolingians. Artistically it documents the insertion and growing assertion of the primacy of the human e ffi gy among the increasinglysecondary ornamental detail. More or less contemporary is the cover

of the Lindau Gospel , a very overt melding of northern pagan Animal Style and some Christian elements such as the dominating cross, theeffi gies and monograms of Christ and the Evangelists and theiremblems in the corners of the cover. An amazing melding of details,the cover is an entirely satisfying surface treatment. Unfortunatelythe style was to have no future and the cover no extant parallels orderivatives. The Animal Style was in full retreat. This became evidenton the Second Cover of the Lindau Gospel . The pagan dynamic inter-twines of the rst cover were replaced by the static and rationalChristian designs of the second cover. The orderly intellect had tri-umphed over an animated imagination. Embossing and symmetricalgem encrustation had replaced the complexities of the Insular Style.The new direction is famously illustrated on the architectural covertreatment of the Codex Aureus of St. Emmeram, on which a carefullyplanned arrangement of gems and pearls has been raised on arcadedplatforms to suggest a cityscape of temples and palaces. The sug-gestion that it is the Heavenly Jerusalem as described in Revelation,which is represented, recommends itself very strongly. Evidently inter-twining animal designs could not suggest this Christian objective. Forfuture centuries the style of surface decoration was determined by ahumanistic esthetic sense, which focused primarily on representations



386

of man in a rich material context. Identi able gures had to appearin recognizable scenes. The Christian message had to be clear in

the narrative. Contemplation of the identi able images in art was tolead to the cognition of the sacred abstract truths.

Very impressive was the work of the bronze smiths, who wereable to cast objects in the round, as well as large objects and surfaces,along with more delicate grillwork. Most easily recognized is theunique miniature equestrian statue of a Carolingian imperial e ffi gy.Modeled on Roman examples, it may have been made in the sameworkshops, which produced the huge bronze doors and the sophis-ticated railings. The statue shows some accurate and realistic obser-

vation of detail, though the execution of the horse points to someinaccuracies in the representation of the anatomy. A large bronzepinecone, originally used in a fountain, also attests to the masteryof the smiths. Technologically impressive are the several pairs of large, solid bronze door panels of the Palace Chapel, all cast in asingle piece. Their size is managed optically through the rationalorganization and sober articulation of the surface treatment. Channel-ing, beveling, astragalus, bead, pellet and acanthus designs, as well

as large lions’ heads are arranged in a very disciplined manner, lend-ing to the doors a very tectonic quality. Surprisingly individualisticare the many cast bronze balustrades at the upper level of the PalaceChapel. Geometric in design and sectioned in pairs, each pair is a

variation of the design of another pair of railings. The same holdstrue for the surface treatment of these railings, decorated witharabesques, organic movement, oral motifs and a variety of space lling geometric designs of the grillwork itself. Variations of the crossare worked into the grillwork.

In their work with bronze, as with the work in the others medias,the Carolingian craftsmen and artists were so accomplished that itis tempting to see in their work demonstrations of the continuity of the Classical past, that Roman originals and Carolingian originalscannot easily be distinguished.

Central European Carolingian secular architecture has generallydisappeared, except in foundations and archeological outlines. Stonewas not the logical building material of choice, except in construc-tion intended for imperial representation, such as the Pfalzen, thepalaces scattered over the realm. Other forti cations were made of earthworks, wooden palisades and moats. These mottes have eithernot survived or been integrated into later, more permanent, medieval



387

forti cations of stone. More lasting were the royal seats, the palati ,self-suffi cient establishments capable of accommodating and supply-

ing large entourages of courtiers and retainers. Large audience halls,chapels and royal apartments will have constituted the core build-ings. Important personages of the court probably had their ownestablishment in the vicinity. The occasions on which the kings sum-moned the mighty of church and state to assemble for the diets atthese palati , and the length of time required for these occasions, madeorganization, accommodation, provisions, sanitation and so forth,

jurisdictions requiring great attention to detail. The availability of comforts, luxurious appearance, furniture and décor remains a mat-ter of conjecture, while descriptions tend to be unreliable, since theauthors seemed more intent on creating works of literature than doc-umentaries. Because parts of the palatium at Aachen are better pre-served, hesitant inferences can perhaps be drawn and a layoutreconstructed. The Carolingian audience hall continuous in the formof the modi ed town hall of Aachen. The Palace Chapel allows someconclusions about the possible appearance of interior spaces in theuse of marble, mosaic and painting on oors and walls.

In view of the ctitious account of the supposed wall paintings of the audience hall at Ingelheim, there really is no reliable informa-tion about that type of wall ornamentation in secular buildings. Evenelsewhere the information is sparse, as only a few examples havesurvived. New construction, climate and changing tastes have nottreated wall paintings kindly at all. However, a concentration of thesehas been preserved in mainly fragmentary form in the valley of theAdige and the pilgrimage route through the Alps. The most com-plete program of murals is located in the convent church of St.

Johann in Müstair in the Swiss canton of Graubünden. The murals,executed in frescoand seccotechniques, re ect the con uence of sev-eral stylistic in uences in the treatment of Old and New Testamentthemes. The Majestas of the apse is in accordance with the generalapocalyptic treatment of that theme. Davidic topics support the ideasof the universal Carolingian empire in the conception of an ImperiumChristianumand the Carolingian calculation that King David pre guredCharlemagne. Scenes from the life of Christ include a Cruci xioncomplete with sun and moon, Ecclesia and Synagoga, familiar fromthe other mediums. Soberly executed, the gures are presented withrealistic restraint. Later changes in taste cause some sections to bepainted over re ecting a new stylistic sense. Some distance to the



388

east along that road, the chapel of St. Benedict in Mals shows dam-aged murals, depicting some Biblical events, a writing St. Gregory,

Christ and St. Stephen and most interestingly, portraits of the found-ing patrons of the small church, one a churchman and the other awarrior, probably the local Frankish count. His secular appearanceallows conclusions about typical garb and armaments. Still furthereast, at Naturns, the small church of St. Prokulus complements theimpressions concerning religious murals. An amusing simplicity andcharicaturistic naivety marks the wall paintings of this interior. Cattle,people and, perhaps unintentionally, an amusing scene showing St.Paul being lowered over the walls of Damascus, make up the sim-plest Carolingian narrative ornamentation of the space. Again, the

very limited number of murals bears considerable responsibility rep-resenting Carolingian mural art. Were these at all typical?

Religious architecture is still visible in several examples. Somemore has survived, integrated as fragments in later churches. Among the extant buildings gure the Einhard basilicas at Steinbach and inSeligenstadt, the rst a ruin, the other a functioning church. Strippedof its veneer, Steinbach makes visible the aisled, arcaded at roof

basilica and its subsequent history. Seligenstadt, in its restored appear-ance, presents an original Carolingian, unadorned, white brick pil-lar arcade. It gives a good impression of the lighting available throughthe clerestory windows and generally acts as an elaboration of itspredecessor at Steinbach. By contrast the parish church at Höchstis a colonnaded interior with columns, adorned with carved classi-cizing capitals. These demonstrate their derivation from Classicalmodels in an attempt to strive for original forms. Their derivativeswill contribute to a Carolingian type of capital, found in other loca-tions. The arches at Lorsch provide a complementary idea of the

variety of designs and forms available to the Carolingian architectsand builders. It o ff ers a particularly informative insight into theentrances and approaches prepared for the celebrant prior to enter-ing this sancti ed space of the former abbey church. It can beassumed that the access to the abstractions of the rituals of the faithwould require a rite of passage for purposes of puri cation. Thoughunique today, it may not have been in its own time. The actualarched entrances giving access to the inner structure of the sancti edchurch may have ful lled a similar purpose, as at Corvey, where theentrance hall served as a crypt and the whole structure below andabove was ordered numerically with the symbolic numbers 4, 8, and



389

12 and the massive composition of the westwork bore down like theweight of the whole universe, or at least the world. This idea is car-

ried into the crypt of St. Michael’s at Fulda, where the whole anas-tasis rotunda rests on one supporting pillar in the crypt. With itsResurrection and ‘Fountain of Life’ symbolism, the anastasis rotundabrings into one focus the Death and Tomb of Christ and the rebirththrough Baptism into Paradise. In the case of the Palace Chapel inAachen it was again the octagonal rotunda, which proclaimed thechurch triumphant to have overcome the forces of disorder, anddemonstrated an optical summation of the faith in architecture. Hailedas a new David and Solomon, a new Constantine, the sacerdotalCarolingian emperors heard themselves proclaimed as their incar-nations, ruling a uni ed, universal empire on earth as a re ectionof Heaven. As God’s representative on earth the emperor saw hisfunction guiding all humanity to achieve that universal ImperiumChristianumin which the real is congruent in all things with the ideal.Through its mystical symbolism of numbers, objects and shapes, theoctagon of the Palace Chapel demonstrates the intention to projectspiritually and intellectually the abstract harmony of the material

world into a Second Rome, a New Jerusalem, within the unity of the Christian faith.An underlying intention of this book was the examination of the

coexistence of the ‘languages’ of signi cant primary texts and of signi cant objects in the historical context of Carolingian CentralEurope. Of the greatest importance for this cultural period was thecentrality of the word and especially the Word. The Word foundexpression by highlighting common elements in the cloister arts andcrafts of portable objects such as illuminated manuscripts, engravedcrystals, ivories and gem-encrusted precious metals. The contradictorycontinuity of certain themes through several centuries and across var-ious styles and materials, could demonstrate that the changes in theinterest of the renovatio imperii proceeded apace. These wordless textsspoke in agreement with the written texts of the age and underscoredthe political and theological persuasions, intentions and visions of themagnates of church and state. Even in the absence of written texts,the characteristics of the material evidence surveyed would, uponconsideration, have led to conclusions pointing to the Theo-politicalprogram advanced by the culture carrying elites. Architecture andits surviving interiors and exteriors allowed conclusions concerning the interaction between the spaces and their users. The Palace Chapel



390

in Aachen was a most brilliant attempt to make a personal experi-ence of the grandiose objective. In their historical, religious and artis-

tic contexts the whole complex range of evolving objects allowedseveral glimpses into a surprisingly coherent world, its kaleidoscopicchanges taking place simultaneously. In a manner of speaking, thefacets representing the material world were quite dynamic, drivenby their own inherent need for transformation and adjustment.Consequently the objects and the techniques, which they re ected,could be more advanced than the intellectual and spiritual contentwhich they were intended to convey. Humanity can cling to thefamiliar with nostalgia and conviction, while the drive inherent withinthe design of things can be considerably more disinterestedly pro-gressive. Eventually that design can obtain meaning within the con-current context of the whole culture. Changes in style make theseprocesses most recognizable.



SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

J.J.G. Alexander, Medieval Illuminators and their Methods of Work (New Haven 1992).A. Angenendt, Das Frühmittelalter: die abendländische Christenheit von 400–900 (Stuttgart,

Berlin, Köln 1990).B. Arnold, Medieval Germany, 500 –1300. A Political Interpretation(Toronto, Bu ff alo

1997). ——, Princes and Territories in medieval Germany(Cambridge 1991). J. Backhouse, The Illuminated Page. Ten Centuries of Manuscript Painting in the British

Museum(Toronto, Bu ff alo 1997). J. Beckwith, Early Medieval Art (London 1985).M. Bentley (ed.), Companion to Historiography(London, New York 1997).K. Bertau, Deutsche Literatur im europäischen Mittelalter, 800–1197 , vol. I (Munich 1974).K. Bierbrauer, et al. Studien zur mittelalterlichen Kunst, 800–1250. Festschrift für Florentine

Mütherich zum 70. Geburtstag (Munich 1985).G. Binding, Deutsche Königspfalzen von Karl dem Großen bis Friedrich II (765–1240)

(Darmstadt 1996).B. Bischo ff , Manuscripts and Libraries in the Age of Charlemagne , translated by M. Gorman

(Cambridge 1994).B. Boesch, (ed.), German Literature, A Critical Survey, translated by R. Taylor (London

1971).

E. Boshof, Ludwig der Fromme (Darmstadt 1996). J.K. Bostock, A Handbook of Old High German Literature (Oxford 1955).C.R. Bowlus, Franks, Moravians and Magyars. The Struggle for the Middle Danube, 788–907

(Philadelphia 1995).W. Braunfels, Die Welt der Karolinger und ihre Kunst (Munich 1968).B. Brent, Die Romanische Wandmalerei in der Schweiz , Dissertation, Universität Basel

(Winterthur 1963).K. Brunner, Oppositionelle Gruppen im Karolingerreich(Wien, Köln, Graz 1979).D. Bullough, Carolingian Renewal: Sources and Heritage (Manchester, New York 1991).

——, The Age of Charlemagne (London, Toronto 1965).A. Cabaniss, Son of Charlemagne, A contemporary Life of Louis the Pious , with Introduction

and Notes, translation based on Monumenta Germaniae Historica of Astronomus’,

Vita Hludowici imperatoris (Syracuse 1965).M. Carruthers, The Craft of Thought. Meditation, rhetoric, and the making of images,400–1200 , Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature (Cambridge 1998/2000).

C.M. Chazelle, The Cruci ed God in the Carolingian Era. Theology and Art of Christ’s Passion(Cambridge 2001).

——, Literacy, Politics, and Artistic Innovation in the Early Medieval West (Lanham, NewYork, London 1992).

R. Collins, Charlemagne (Toronto, Bu ff alo 1998). ——, Early Medieval Europe 300–1000 (New York 1991).K.J. Conant, Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture, 800 to 1200 (Harmondsworth

1959, 1973). J.J. Contreni, Carolingian Learning, Masters and Manuscripts (Gower House, Brook eld

1992).Constantius of Lyon, Life of Saint Germanus of Auxerre , translated by F.R. Hoare

(University Park, PA. 1995).A. Corboz, Frühes Mittelalter (Fribourg 1971).



392

J.S. Curl, Oxford Dictionary of Architecture (Oxford 1999).H. de Boor, Die deutsche Literatur, Von Karl dem Großen bis zum Beginn der hö schen Dichtung,

770–1170 ( Munich 1964).W.J. Diebold, Word and Image. An Introduction to Early Medieval Art (Boulder CO 2000).C.R. Dodwell, The Pictorial Arts of the West, 800–1200 (New Haven, London 1993).U. Dronke, (ed. and transl.), The Poetic Edda, Heroic Poems , vol. I (Oxford 1969).

J. Duft, Stiftsbibliothek St. Gallen, 7th revised edition (St. Gallen 1987). J. Duft, P. Meyer, Die irischen Miniaturen der Stiftsbibliothek St. Gallen(Olten, Bern,

Lausanne 1953).P.E. Dutton, (ed. and transl.), Charlemagne’s Courtier, The complete Einhard. Readings in

Medieval Civilizations and Cultures: II , (Peterborough, Canada; Orchard Park, N.Y.;Hadley, Essex 1998).

P.E. Dutton, H.L. Kessler, The Poetry and Painting of the First Bible of Charles the Bald (Ann Arbor 1997).

P.E. Dutton, The Politics of Dreaming in the Carolingian Empire (Lincoln and London1984).

G. Ehrismann, Geschichte der deutschen Literatur bis zum Ausgang des Mittelalters, Erster Teil (Munich 1959).

V.H. Elbern, Goldschmiedekunst im frühen Mittelalter (Darmstadt 1988). J.H.A. Engelbregt, Het Utrechts Psalterium, Een Eeuw Wetenschappelijke Bestudering

(1860–1960) (Utrecht 1963).F. Erichson, Die Geschichte Thidreks von Bern, Sammlung Thule, Altnordische Dichtung und

Prosa , second edition, vol. 22 (Düsseldorf, Cologne 1962)G. Faber, Das erste Reich der Deutschen, Geschichte der Merowinger und Karolinger (Munich

1988).C. Farr, The Book of Kells. Its Function and Audience.(London, Toronto 1997).

G.P. Fehring, Einfürung in die Archäologie des Mittelalters (Darmstadt 1987).H. Fillitz, Das Mittelalter I, Propyläen Kunstgeschichte in achtzehn Bänden(Berlin 1969).A. Freeman, with Paul Mayvaert, Opus Caroli Regis Contra Synodum (Libri Carolini)

(Hanover 1998).M. Frei, St. Benedikt in Mals , 4th revised edition (Bozen 1987).P.J. Geary, The Myth of Nations. The Medieval Origins of Europe (Princeton, Oxford

2002). ——, Phantoms of Remembrance. Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millennium

(Princeton 1994). ——, Living with the Dead in the Middle Ages (Ithaca, London 1994). ——, Before France and Germany. The Creation and Transformation of the Merovingian World

(Oxford, New York 1988).

——, Furta Sacra, Thefts of Relics in the Central Middle Ages (Princeton 1978).F.G. Gentry, J.K. Walter, (eds.), German Epic Poetry(New York 1995).F. Genzmer, Edda, Heldendichtung, Sammlung Thule, Altnordische Dichtung und Prosa , sec-

ond edition, vol. I (Düsseldorf, Cologne 1962).R.A. Gerberding, The Rise of the Carolingians and the Liber Historiae Francorum

(Oxford 1987).P. Godman, R. Collins (eds.), Charlemagne’s Heir. New Perspectives on the Reign of Louis

the Pious (814–840)(Oxford 1990).A. Goldschmidt, German Illumination. Vol. I, Carolingian Period (Florence 1928, New

York 1970).E.G. Grimme, Bronzebildwerke des Mittelalters (Darmstadt 1985).

——, Der Aachener Domschatz (Düsseldorf 1973).A. Hahn, Das Hlodivicianum. Die Urkunde Ludwigs des Frommen für die Römische Kirche von 817 , in Archiv für Diplomatik, Schriftgeschichte, Siegel- und Wappenkunde , vol. 21.

(Cologne, Vienna 1975).H. Harthausen, Die Normanneneinfälle im Elb- und Wesermündungsgebiet mit besonderer

Berücksichtigung der Schlacht von 880 (Hildesheim 1966) .



393

W. Hartmann, Ludwig der Deutsche (Darmstadt 2002).W. Hauk, B.K. Vollman (eds.), Frühe deutsche Literatur und Lateinische Literatur in

Deutschland, 800–1150 , vol. I (Frankfurt a.M. 1991).K. Hauk, Überregionale Sakralorte und die vorchristliche Ikonographie der Seegermanen, in

Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen aus dem Jahr 1981, Philologisch-Historische Klasse (Göttingen 1981).

G. Heinz-Mohr, Lexikon der Symbole, Bilder und Zeichen der christlichen Kunst , 7th ed.(Cologne 1983).

Y. Hen, M. Innes (eds.), The Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages (Cambridge2000).

Y. Hen, Culture and Religion in Merovingian Gaul A.D. 481–751(Leiden, New York,Köln 1995).

R. Hinks, Carolingian Art, A Study of Early Medieval Painting and Sculpture in WesternEurope (1935) (Ann Arbor 1962).

E. Hlawitschka, Vom Frankenreich zur Formierung der europäischen Staaten- und Völkergemeinschaft,840–1046 (Darmstadt 1986).

H. Holländer, Kunst des frühen Mittelalters, Malerei, Plastik, Architektur , Sonderausgabe(Stuttgart, Zürich 1991).

Hrabanus Maurus, Liber de Laudibus Sancti Crucis (Cod. 652) (Vienna, Nationalbibliothek) J. Hubert, J. Porcher, W.F. Volbach, Carolingian Art , transl. from the French (London

1970).M. Innes, State and Society in the Early Middle Ages, The Middle Rhine Valley, 400–1000

(Cambridge 2000).K.-U. Jäschke, Bonifatius und die Königssalbung Pippins des Jüngeren, in Archiv für Diplomatik,

Schriftgeschichte, Siegel- und Wappenkunde , vol. 23 (Cologne, Vienna 1977).W. Jungandreas, Die Einwirkung der karolingischen Renaissance auf das mittlere Rheinland

(Stuttgart 1986).B. Kasten, Königssöhne und Königsherrschaft: Untersuchungen zur Teilhabe am Reich in der Merowinger- und Karolingerzeit (Hannover 1997).

H.L. Kessler, The Illustrated Bibles from Tours (Princeton 1977).W. Koehler, Die Gruppe des Wiener Krönungs-Evangeliars (Berlin 1960).G. Kornbluth, Engraved Gems of the Carolingian Empire (University Park, Pennsylvania 1995).A. Kottmann, Das Geheimnis romanischer Bauten, Maßverhältnisse in vorromanischen und

romanischen Bauwerken, mit 228 Zeichnungen und 86 Lichtbildern(Stuttgart 1971).K. Langosch, Die deutsche Literatur des lateinischen Mittelalters in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung

(Berlin 1964).P. Lasko, Ars Sacra, 800–1200 (Harmondsworth 1972, New Haven, London 1994).H. Löwe (ed.), Die Iren und Europa im Frühen Mittelalter (Stuttgart 1982).

——, Deutschland im fränkischen Reich(Munich 1973).A. Masser, Bibel- und Legendenepik des deutschen Mittelalters (Berlin 1976).M. McCormick, The Origins of the European Economy, Communications and Commerce, A.D.

300–900 (Cambridge 2001).R. McKitterick (ed.), The Early Middle Ages, Europe 400–1000 (Oxford 2001).

——, The Frankish Kings and Culture in the early Middle Ages (Aldershot 1995). —— (ed.), The New Cambridge Medieval History(Cambridge, New York 1995). ——, Books, Scribes and Learning in the Frankish Kingdoms, 6th–9th Centuries (Gower

House, Brook eld 1994). —— (ed.), Carolingian Culture: emulation and innovation(Cambridge 1994). ——, The Uses of Literacy in Early Medieval Europe (Cambridge 1990). ——, The Carolingians and the Written Word (Cambridge 1989). ——, The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987 (London, New York 1983). ——, The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms (London 1977).W. Mohr, Die Karolingische Reichsidee (Münster 1962).H. Moser, Deutsche Sprachgeschichte (Tübingen 1965).B.O. Murdoch, Old High German Literature (Boston 1983).



394

O. Müller, Die Einhard-Abtei Seligenstadt am Main(Königstein i.T. 1973).F. Mütherich (ed.), Percy Ernst Schramm, Die Deutschen Kaiser und Könige in Bildern

ihrer Zeit, 750–1190 (Munich 1983).F. Mütherich, J.E. Gaehde, Karolingische Buchmalerei (Munich 1976).L. Nees, Early Medieval Art (Oxford 2002).

—— (ed.), Approaches to Early Medieval Art (Cambridge 1998). ——, A Tainted Mantle, Hercules and the Classical Tradition at the Carolingian Court

(Philadelphia 1991). J. Nelson, The Frankish World, 750–900 (London and Rio Grande, Ohio 1996). ——, Charles the Bald (London and New York 1992).W. Neumüller, Der Codex Millenarius , Part 1 (Graz-Köln 1959).F.T.X. Noble and J.M.H. Smith, The Carolingians: An English-Language Bibliography

(Kalamazoo 1997). http://www.wmich.edu/medieval/rawl/carolingian/index1.htmlF.T.X. Noble and T. Head, (eds.), Soldiers of Christ. Saints and Saints’ Lives from Late

Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (University Park, PA 1995).T.F.X. Noble and J.J. Contreni (eds.), Religion, Culture and Society in the Early Middle

Ages. Studies in Honor of Richard E. Sullivan(Kalamazoo 1987). J.J. Norwich, A Short History of Byzantium(Harmondsworth, London 1997).W. Ohnsorge, Ost-Rom und der Westen. Gesammelte Aufsätze der Geschichte der byzantinisch-

abendländischen Beziehungen und des Kaisertums (Darmstadt 1983). ——, Neue Beobachtungen zum Kaisertitel Karls des Großen, in Archiv für Diplomatik,

Schriftgeschichte, Siegel- und Wappenkunde , vol. 21 (Cologne, Vienna 1975).W. Otto, Die karolingische Bilderwelt (Munich 1957).O. Pächt, Buchmalerei des Mittelalters, Eine Einführung (Munich 1985).W. Pohl, I Wood, H. Reimitz (eds.), The Transformation of Frontiers From Late Antiquity

to the Carolingians (Leiden, Boston, Köln 2001).

W. Pohl, Die Awaren, Ein Steppenvolk in Mitteleuropa, 567–822 n.Chr.(Munich 1988).R. Priebsch, W.E. Collinson, The German Language , 5th edition (London 1962).H.-J. Reischmann, transl., Wilibrord—Apostel der Friesen, Seine Vita nach Alkuin und

Thiofrid (Darmstadt 1989).T. Reuter, Germany in the Early Middle Ages, c. 800–1056 (London, New York 1991).

—— (ed.), The Medieval Nobility. Studies on the ruling classes of France and Germany fromthe sixth to the twelfth century(Amsterdam, New York, Oxford 1978).

P. Riché, The Carolingians, A Family which forged Europe , transl. From the French, Les Carolingiens. Une famille qui t l’Europe , by M.I. Allen (Philadelphia 1993).

——, Die Karolinger. Eine Familie formt Europa , transl. from the French, Les Carolingiens.Une famille qui t l’Europe , by Cornelia and Ulf Dirlmeier (Munich 1991).

——, Education and Culture in the Barbarian West, From the Sixth to the Eighth Century,

transl. from the French by J.J. Contreni (Columbia N.C. 1978).D.M. Robb, The Art of the Illuminated Manuscript (South Brunswick, New York, London1973).

J.C. Russell, The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity. A Sociohistorical Approach toReligious Transformation(New York, Oxford 1994).

B. Sawyer, P. Sawyer, Medieval Scandinavia, From Conversion to Reformation circa 800–1500 (Minneapolis, London 1993).

B. Schimmelpfennig, Das Papsttum, Von der Antike bis zur Renaissance (Darmstadt 1988).R. Schneider, Das Frankenreich(Munich, Vienna 1982).H. Schnell, (ed.), Kunstführer, Nr. 601, Müstair—Münster, Graubünden, 13th and 20th

editions (Munich, Zürich 1975/1986).B.W. Scholz, B. Rogers, Carolingian Chronicles—Royal Frankish Annals, Nithard’s Histories

(Ann Arbor 1972).P.E. Schramm, et al . Die deutschen Könige und Kaiser in Bildern ihrer Zeit, 751–1190 ,

Neuau age (Munich 1983).



395

H. Schutz, Tools, Weapons and Ornaments, Germanic Material Culture in Pre-CarolingianCentral Europe, 400–750 (Leiden, Boston, Cologne 2001).

——, The Germanic Realms in Pre-Carolingian Central Europe, 400–750 (New York, Berne,Frankfurt a.M. 2000).

——, The Romans in Central Europe (New Haven, London 1985). ——, The Prehistory of Germanic Europe (New Haven, London 1983). J.M.H. Smith, Early Medieval Rome and the Christian West, Essays in Honor of Donald

A. Bullough(Leiden, Boston, Köln 2000). J. Snyder, Medieval Art, Painting, Sculpture, Architecture, 4th–14th Century(Englewood

Cliff s, New York 1989).H. Sperber, P.v. Polenz, Geschichte der deutschen Sprache , 6th edition (Berlin 1968).R.A. Stalley, Early Medieval Architecture (Oxford 1999).N. Staubach, REX CHRISTIANUS , Hofkultur und Herrschaftspropaganda im Reich Karls

des Kahlen. Teil II Die Grundlegung der ‘religion royale’ (Cologne, Weimar, Vienna1993).

H.-D. Sto ffl er, Der Hortulus des Walahfrid Strabo, Aus dem Kräutergarten des Klosters Reichenau.Mit einem Beitrag von T. Fehrenbach (Darmstadt 1985).

P. Stollenmayer, E. Widder, Der Kelch des Herzogs Tassilo, Der Tassilokelch des Stiftes Kremsmünster, Eine Dokumentation in farbigen Bildern(Rosenheim 1976).

R.E. Sullivan, (ed.), “The Gentle Voices of Teachers”. Aspects of Learning in the Carolingian Age (Columbus 1995).

——, Christian Missionary Activity in the Early Middle Ages (Aldershot, Brook eld 1994). ——, Heirs of the Roman Empire (Ithaca, N.Y. 1965). ——, Aix-la-Chapelle in the Age of Charlemagne (Norman 1963).E.A. Thompson, Saint Germanus of Auxerre and the End of Roman Britain(Woodbridge

1984).

L. Thorpe, Einhard and Notger the Stammerer: Two Lives of Charlemagne (Harmondsworth1981).F. Unterkircher, Abendländische Buchmalerei, Miniaturen aus Handschriften der Österreichi-

schen Nationalbibliothek (Graz, Wien, Köln 1967).K. van der Horst, W. Noel, W.C.M. Wüstefeld, The Utrecht Psalter in Medieval Art.

Picturing the Psalms of David (Utrecht 1996).A. Verhulst, The Carolingian Economy(Cambridge 2002).

J. Verseuil, Les Rois fainéants de Dagobert à Pépin le Bref (Paris 1996).P. Verzone, Werdendes Abendland (Baden-Baden 1979).W.F. Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten der Spätantike und des frühen Mittelalters , 3rd. ed. (Mainz

1976). J.M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Frankish Church(Oxford 1983).

L. Wallach, Alcuin and Charlemagne, Studies in Carolingian History and Literature (1959);Second amended edition (Ithaca, NY 1968).H. Watanabe-O’Kelly, (ed.), The Cambridge History of German Literature (Cambridge

1997).K.V. Welk, et al., Die Franken, Wegbereiter Europas. Vor 1500 Jahren: König Chlodwig und

seine Erben. Ausstellungskatalog-Handbuch, 2 vol. (Mainz 1996).L. Wüthrich, Wandgemälde, Von Müstair bis Hodler , Katalog der Sammlung des

Schweizerischen Landesmuseums Zürich (Zürich 1980).



INDEX

Aachen, 10, 36–68, 52, 61, 68, 70,74, 76, 78–80, 86, 88, 90, 95, 101,105, 107, 113, 116, 121, 125, 127,146, 174, 176–78, 189, 191, 213,229, 235, 242–43, 245, 252, 279,283, 286–87, 315–16, 318–21,325–26, 329–33, 341, 343, 345–46,351, 355, 359–61, 371, 379, 387,389

Abodrites, 59, 87, 104, 123acclamation, 9, 72, 78, 146, 237, 251,

259, 375, 381Ada School, 227administration, 26, 30, 57, 88–89, 118,

143, 147, 373Aetius, 205Agilol ngians, 43, 45, 305

Odilo, 32, 43–45Tassilo III, 43–48, 50, 60, 114, 157,

304–306, 308, 325, 329Agilulf, 233, 252 Agnus Dei. See LambAix la Chapelle. See AachenAlaric, 208Alboin, 377Alcuin, 65, 68, 73, 90, 151, 162, 169,

174, 176, 178–80, 184–85, 195,199, 215, 229, 318, 376

Alemania, 30, 32, 49, 98, 122, 124,158

Alemans, 25, 32, 42, 50, 95, 108, 158,

161, 185, 195, 203, 213–14, 295,323, 374Alsace, 23, 49, 98–99, 158, 200anastasis. See ResurrectionAnglo-Saxons, 24, 27–30, 33, 52, 56,

59, 90, 157, 161, 174, 195–97, 201,213, 216–17, 221, 226, 241, 304,378

Ansgar, 123Apollo, 187, 279, 288, 292, 294, 298,

335, 381 Aquae Granni . See AachenAquileia, 62, 176Aquitaine, 26, 30, 32, 49–51, 62, 76,

78, 81, 84, 86, 89, 93, 97, 103,107–108, 110, 120, 132, 173

archangelsGabriel, 344Michael, 353, 356, 358

architecture, 2, 5, 8, 14–15, 140, 142,145, 197, 216, 229–30, 232, 234,236–38, 247, 263, 282, 286, 312,323, 349, 351, 356, 359–60, 375,379, 386, 388altar screens, 353apses, 71, 244, 261, 329–30,

335–37, 341–42, 346, 353, 387arcades, 93, 226–29, 238–39,

281–82, 284, 286, 303arches, 71, 98, 226–27, 229, 232,

236, 238–41, 244, 253–54,257–58, 267, 275, 282, 284–85,310, 337–39, 342, 345–46,348–50, 353–55, 362–64, 383,388

basilicas, 341, 388capitals, 337, 388clerestories, 342–43, 345–46, 388colonnades, 257, 313, 330–31,

334, 337, 346, 352, 358, 388columns, 13, 53, 146, 228,

234–38, 240, 270, 281, 315,320, 346, 355, 358, 362, 364,388

crypts, 341, 345, 355–56, 358,388–89

dosserets, 346, 362

mosaics, 233–34, 244, 267, 362–64murals, 2, 145, 216, 220, 315,326–27, 333–36, 338–40, 342–43,345, 349, 381, 387–88

number symbolism, 188, 365, 385pilasters, 320–21, 337, 349–50, 364pillars, 227, 320, 336, 343, 345,

355–56, 362–64rotundas, 236, 341, 346, 357–58,

366, 389theatrical, 236transepts, 329, 342, 345–46wall painting. See muralswestworks, 198, 318, 341, 346,

354–57, 389Arnul ngians, 21, 84



398

artArnulf Ciborium, 313Ascension ivory panel, 287Cruci xion ivory panel, 288, 298,

308, 313crystals, 277, 279–80, 382glass, 13, 15, 142ivories, 9, 13, 15, 142, 145, 158,

169, 216, 221, 227, 230, 234,264, 268, 281–83, 286–89,292–93, 295–96, 298–99, 317,375, 378, 381, 383–84

ivories caskets, 286, 296, 384–85ivories liturgical comb, 286, 291Majestas ivory panel, 288reliquary caskets, 301–302Tassilo Chalice , 157, 217, 219, 226,

304, 306, 308, 310, 378, 385Astronomus, 80, 82, 86, 93, 95, 99,

101–102, 107–10Attigny, 95Attila, 203–204, 377Augsburg, 47, 132, 336Austrasia, 21, 23, 25–26, 30, 49, 52,

113, 157Austrasians, 19–21, 25, 141, 369

Austria, 62, 226, 304Avars, 12, 47, 51, 55, 57, 60–62, 84,122, 369

basileus , 85battles

Amblève, 26Andernach, 125Cannstadt, 32–33, 42Fontenoy, 110, 113, 121, 252, 370Saucourt, 211Soissons, 26

Tertry, 23Thiméon, 211Vincy, 26

Bavaria, 23, 30, 32, 43–44, 46, 48, 60,62, 76, 81, 93, 100, 108, 113, 119,121, 124, 126, 131–32, 195–96, 208,226–27, 304, 371–72

Bavarians, 25, 47, 50, 132, 213, 385Bede

Venerable, 141, 153, 161, 163, 199Benedict of Aniane, 90–91, 93, 95,

161Benedictine Rule, 90, 92, 150, 161,

341Benedictines, 23, 137, 186, 196, 348Boethius, 153, 163

book covers, 13, 283, 286, 292, 298,375, 381, 383–84Cruci xion ivory panel, 286Darmstadt Ascension ivory panel,

286, 295Darmstadt Majestas ivory panel, 286Lindau Gospel, 157, 217, 219, 304,

308, 310–11, 378, 385Lorsch Gospels, 282–83Temptation of Christ ivory panel,

286, 290Tuotilo ivory panels, 286, 293

Bremen, 59, 123, 168Brittany, 87, 102Brussels, 241–43, 245Bulgars, 106, 119Burgundians, 26, 50, 203, 205–206Burgundy, 25–26, 30, 49, 76, 98, 102,

105, 107, 113, 116, 129–30Byzantium, 8–11, 17, 39–41, 50–51,

67, 70, 72, 74–75, 83, 85–86, 122,124, 146, 160, 189, 203, 220, 227,241, 248, 269, 275, 288, 315, 330,334, 356, 361, 369

canon tables, 235–36, 238, 257, 359,

379capitalsComposite, 346, 349, 355, 362Corinthian, 237–38, 284, 320, 331,

346, 349, 356, 362, 364Ionian, 346, 349–50, 362

Carinthia, 48, 124, 129, 313, 325, 372Carolingian Minuscule, 135Carolingians, 9, 14–15, 17, 19–21, 23,

26, 29, 32, 35–39, 43–45, 50, 60,81, 92, 109, 129, 131, 140, 145–46,151, 155–56, 162, 165, 172, 219–20,

251, 274, 283, 305, 321, 323, 327,332, 356, 361, 369, 372, 385Arnulf of Carinthia, 21, 129–32,

256, 311, 313, 325, 330, 372Arnulf of Metz, 21Bernard (It.), 80, 93–95Carloman, 50, 83, 305Carloman (son of Ludwig), 124, 126Charlemagne, 9–10, 30, 39–40,

45–47, 49–57, 60–75, 79–80,82–86, 89, 91–93, 95, 107, 112,114, 118, 135–36, 140, 142–43,146–47, 149, 153, 156, 159–60,165, 170–72, 174–76, 189–93,203, 205, 215, 219–20, 229–30,233, 243, 245, 251, 259, 282,



399

286, 302, 305, 315–16, 318–21,325, 327–29, 331–32, 334,340–41, 347, 361, 367–70, 373,376–77, 380, 387

Charles III, the Fat, 118–19,125–27, 129–31, 173, 371–72

Charles Martel, 18, 26–30, 32, 39,52, 84, 158, 340

Charles the Bald, 9–10, 96, 98–99,101, 103, 106–13, 116, 120,123–27, 141, 159, 170, 173, 185,189–90, 211, 249, 251–53,255–60, 264, 310–11, 313,315–17, 324–25, 370–71, 380–81

Charles the Simple, 129, 132–33Charles the Younger, 85Drogo, 80, 109, 264, 290, 381Grifo, 30, 33Karlmann, 30, 32–33, 40, 42,

45–46, 49, 52Lothair, 81, 83, 85, 93–94, 96,

98–103, 107–108, 110–11, 113,116, 120, 122–23, 181, 186, 249,251–53, 262, 277, 370–71, 380

Lothair II, 277–79, 281, 315, 383Louis II, 116, 124

Louis III, 211Louis the Pious, 27, 50–51, 76,78–91, 93–104, 106–10, 114, 118,120, 136, 156, 159–60, 173, 176,178, 180–82, 184–86, 189–90,198, 203, 219, 235, 249–50, 255,286, 325, 328–29, 331, 333,340–41, 344, 353, 360, 370, 373,380

Louis the Stammerer, 126, 129, 173,211

Ludwig the Child, 131–33, 330, 372

Ludwig the German, 10, 62, 81, 85,90, 93, 98, 100–103, 107–11,113–14, 116, 118–26, 129, 159,165, 173–74, 179, 186, 190,197–98, 200, 211, 260, 328–30,345, 370–71

Ludwig the Younger, 122, 124–27,130, 211

Pepin (It.), 50–51, 61, 76, 83, 85Pepin I, 21Pepin II, 23, 25Pepin III, 19, 30, 32–33, 36–45, 49,

52, 63, 73, 90, 94, 136, 146, 305,332, 340, 347

Pepin the Hunchback, 83–84Cassiodorus, 162, 169, 203

Châlons, 76, 102, 109, 168Chosen People, 64, 212, 251, 290Christmas Day, 72, 75Church Fathers, 140–41, 149, 153–55,

160, 163, 166, 178, 200Church Triumphant, 268, 290Cicero, 139, 153, 156Cistercians, 348Classical authors, 156, 160–61, 172,

199–200Colmar, 99Cologne, 59, 105, 127, 132, 166, 168,

278, 286, 291Constance, 158Constantine, 18, 64, 71, 83, 136, 172,

179, 243, 315, 368–69, 373, 389Constantinople, 9, 50, 72, 74, 87, 94,

100, 132, 146, 159, 179, 333, 340,369

Constitutum Constantini , 74Donation of Constantine, 41, 94

continuity, 2, 8–10, 15, 17, 37, 39, 83,134, 138, 143, 145–46, 151, 177,189, 227, 258, 263, 277, 281, 301,315–16, 320–21, 328, 333, 340,351, 361, 367, 374–75, 381, 386,

389coronation, 41, 44, 63, 73, 78, 80, 86,94, 101, 103, 112, 124, 126, 247,255, 257, 320, 340, 368–71, 380

Coronation Gospels , 241, 245, 248–49,379

Cosmocrator , 9, 46, 375Cruci xions, 225, 263, 267, 271,

279–80, 288–89, 292, 298, 311, 335,382–83, 387

curriculum, 140, 148, 151, 166, 177,375

Darmstadt, 282, 287, 295David, 38, 63, 67, 71–73, 75–76, 79,

92, 136, 146, 162, 172, 176, 200,250–52, 255, 257, 267–68, 271,274–75, 321, 335, 337, 340, 350,360, 368–69, 375–76, 380, 382,387, 389

Desiderius, 43, 46, 49–50, 305Dhuoda, 141Diets, 46–47, 76–78, 80, 84, 95, 108,

129, 186, 329documents

Annals, 33, 36–37, 43, 45, 49,51–52, 54–55, 57, 60, 62, 67,70–72, 78, 85, 93, 95, 97, 173



400

Divisio regnorum, 75, 81, 93, 114,367

Liber ponti calis, 94Nithard’s Histories , 110, 113Ordinatio imperii , 80, 93, 98–99,

108–10, 114, 255The History of the Franks, 138

Dokkum. See BonifaceDorestad, 104

Easter Plays, 357Ebo, 90, 99, 102Ecclesia, 289–90, 297, 335, 387Edict of Milan, 41education, 97, 137, 143, 145, 149,

161, 166, 175, 185, 360, 375grammar, 141, 152, 155, 375Liberal Arts, 149, 151, 155, 360,

375literacy, 138, 140–41, 147–48, 154,

162, 166, 175, 191, 374–75quadrivium, 152, 154–55, 375rhetoric, 138, 175, 207trivium, 152, 154–55, 375

effi gies, 9, 146, 306–307, 309, 378,385

Eigenkirche, 338Einhard, 33–34, 49, 53–55, 61, 66, 68,70–72, 78–79, 82, 86–87, 90, 135,147, 154, 156, 160, 169, 173–74,176, 178, 185, 190, 192, 203, 245,316, 329, 332, 341, 343–45, 347,361, 376–77, 388

Empire, 41, 49, 68, 70–72, 75–76, 78,81, 87–88, 91, 93, 96, 99–100, 105,112–14, 116, 125, 129, 135, 142,146, 148, 151, 154, 179, 201, 335,361, 368–70, 372, 375, 380, 387,

389Enger, 57, 302Ermoldus Nigellus, 95, 213, 326, 330,

339–40Eternal Empire , 17, 69Eternal Victory, 17, 69Eusebius, 162, 238Evangelists, 221, 227, 230–31, 236,

238, 241–45, 248, 251, 257,261–63, 281, 294, 306–10, 312, 366,378–79, 381, 384–85St. John, 163, 224–25, 228, 230–33,

237, 242, 244–47, 261–63, 288,312, 355, 357

St. Luke, 225, 228, 230–33, 237,

242, 244–45, 247, 261, 263, 288,294, 312

St. Mark, 224–25, 228–33, 235–37,239–40, 242, 244–47, 261, 263,288, 312, 359

St. Matthew, 223, 225, 228, 230–37,242, 244–46, 261, 263, 288, 312,336, 359

tetramorphs, 184, 225–27, 229–32,236–38, 243–44, 248, 261–63,288, 294, 307, 336, 363, 365–66,378–79, 381, 384

fastigium, 226, 257, 271, 342 felicitas , 35. See Heil forti cations, 323

mottes , 14, 324, 386Fountain of Life, 230, 233, 235–36,

359, 379, 389France, 14, 17, 114, 168, 324, 353,

364Francia , 100, 120, 258Franconia, 124, 126, 131, 133, 372Frankfurt, 48, 54, 67, 108–109, 121,

211, 286, 325–27, 329, 341Franks, 17–18, 26, 35–36, 38–39, 42,

45, 50–52, 54, 56, 59–60, 64, 74,78, 87, 93, 106, 108, 121–22, 138,154, 158, 160, 165, 193, 195,202–203, 212–13, 216, 251, 290,323, 376, 380

Fredegar, 141, 169, 203Freising, 45, 195, 227Frisia, 28, 42, 104, 107, 121, 123,

129Frisians, 25, 27, 42, 56, 61, 106, 129,

214Fritzlar, 352

Gaia , 262, 289, 294, 381, 384Galen, 140Gallo-Romans, 9, 15, 35, 118, 138,

143, 147, 371Gallus, 158, 161, 164, 293, 295, 384Gascony, 87Gaul, 26, 42, 54, 137, 141, 144, 168,

374gems, 13, 15, 157–58, 169, 243, 258,

262, 278, 288, 293, 299–300, 309,311, 313, 321, 352, 384–85

Germany, 14, 28, 32, 53, 59, 114,119, 124, 132, 164, 168, 216

glass, 157, 278, 296, 302, 383



401

Godescalc, 379Gospels, 6, 156–58, 162, 184, 188,

192, 198–200, 217, 220, 223–24,227, 229–31, 233, 235–39, 241–43,245, 247–48, 251–52, 257, 259, 261,263, 282, 308, 359, 377, 379–80,383Ada Group, 241, 243, 282

Gothia, 258Grannus, 332Greenland, 205Gregory of Tours, 137, 139, 172Gregory the Great, 28

Haithabu, 59Hamburg, 59, 104, 123, 168Heil , 35, 259, 369Helisachar, 89, 98Hesse, 27, 52Hildesheim, 90, 168Hilduin, 89, 98Hincmar of Reims, 173, 260Höchst, 341, 346, 356, 388Holy Roman Empire, 74Horace, 156, 186Hrabanus Maurus, 101–102, 140, 159,

174, 178–85, 190, 192–93, 198–200,219–20, 249, 260, 328, 359, 376,380

Hungarians, 12, 123, 131–33, 164,372

Huns, 131, 204, 206–209, 213

Imitatio sacerdotii , 9, 146, 259Imperium Christianum, 4–5, 9–12, 17,

21, 35, 41, 48, 63, 67–68, 73, 79,88, 91–92, 97, 116, 135, 140, 142,144–46, 148, 151, 154, 177, 181,

198, 202, 215, 248–49, 255, 259,278, 282, 289–90, 313, 344, 360,367

Imperium Romanum, 11, 17Ingelheim, 47, 52, 325–26, 329, 339,

387investiture, 74Irish, 28, 44, 157–58, 160–61,

163–64, 216, 220–22, 225–26, 228,274, 301, 378

Irminsul , 53Isidore of Seville, 35, 153, 175, 185,

190, 195, 215, 358Islam, 12, 39Israel, 151, 380

Italy, 14, 33, 39, 46, 49–51, 60, 62,64, 76, 80, 94, 99, 103, 107–108,113, 116, 124, 126, 129, 131–32,160, 208, 220, 226–27, 229, 243,334, 336, 340, 361, 367, 372,374

Jerusalem, 71–72, 184, 227, 232–33,235–36, 250, 289, 312–13, 322,357–58, 360, 366, 368, 379, 385,389

John the Baptist, 240, 283, 285, 305 Jonas of Orléans, 90–91, 97 Jordanes, 141, 203, 262 Joseph, 264, 284 Justinian, 136, 361–62 Jutland, 59 Juvencus, 200

kingdoms, 88, 92, 145, 235, 299, 357,370, 375

Koblenz, 105, 116Konrad I, 134

Lambapocalyptic, 184, 237, 259, 296,

314, 365–66, 379Veneration of, 236, 257–58, 379Latini , 144, 216Latinity, 140, 147, 375Law

Roman, 145legitimacy, 8–10, 19–20, 30, 35–36,

38–39, 80, 83, 85, 109, 129, 132,145–46, 177, 256, 258, 316, 361,367, 380–81

libraries, 156, 158, 162, 166inventories, 155, 160–61, 163

Liège, 105, 252limes , 60, 328Liudol ngians, 131Lombards, 25–26, 30, 33, 36, 39, 43,

49–50, 74, 204, 226, 252, 305, 347,369, 385

Lombardy, 47, 60, 62, 113, 116,229–30, 338, 374

Longinus, 225, 280, 292, 297Lorraine, 116, 123–24, 127, 131, 133,

195, 372Lorsch

gate-hall, 348–50Lotharingia, 116, 123–24, 255, 278,

279. See Lorraine



402

Luidol ngians. See OttoniansLupus de Ferrières, 148, 179, 185, 376

Magdeburg, 60Magyars. See HungariansMainz, 29, 59, 76, 113, 121, 164, 168,

171, 178, 180, 190, 200, 260,328–29, 346, 348

Majestas , 9, 146, 250, 255, 257,261–63, 286, 293–94, 307, 311, 366,375, 381, 383, 387

major domus , 19, 21, 23, 26, 360Mals, 227, 333–36, 338–39, 388mandorla, 250, 253, 261–63, 270, 288,

294, 297, 312, 336, 380–81manuscripts

Abrogans, 195Atlakvida, 204–207Atlamal, 204–206Atli, 204–207Atlilied, 204–205, 207–208Bamberg Bible, 266Beowulf, 204Book of Kells, 157, 217, 219,

222–24, 226, 238Chanson de Roland, 51

City of God, 35–36, 66, 147Codex (51), 222, 225Codex Aureus from St. Emmeram,

256, 288, 311, 313, 316, 325,380, 385

Codex Millenarius, 226–29Coronation Sacramentary, 255, 262,

264, 316, 380–81Cutbercht Codex, 226De civitate dei. See City of GodDe de catholica contra Judaeos,

195, 215

De institutione clericorum, 185De rerum naturis, 185Drogo Sacramentary, 220, 264,

290–91, 381Ebo Gospel, 269Eddas, 204–205, 377Epistola de litteris colendis, 140Ermanarich, 204Etymology, 35Evangelienbuch, 192–93, 198,

200–201Evangelienharmonie, 198evangelistary, 230Folchard Psalter, 220, 274Godescalc lectionary, 229–30, 232,

235–36, 243, 261, 269, 359

Golden Psalter of St. Gallen, 162,274, 316–17, 382

Gospel of St. Médard, 235–36, 243,359

Grandval Bible, 265Heliand, 198–202Hildebrandslied, 196, 204In honorem Hludowici, 340lectionaries, 229–30, 232–33, 235Lex Salica, 195Liber de cultura moratorium, 186Liber de exodiis et incrementis . . .,

190Liber de laudibus sanctae crucis,

179, 219–20, 359Libri Carolini, 65, 268Libri scottice scripti, 222Ludwigslied, 211Malbergische Glossen, 195Merseburger Zaubersprüche, 194Mondsee-Wiener Fragmente, 195Muspilli, 196–97Nibelungenklage, 205Nibelungenlied, 204–205, 208,

213–14, 377sacramentaries, 6, 158

Sigurd, 204–205Stuttgart Psalter, 266, 268–69,272–73, 382

Thidrekssaga, 204–205, 207, 213–14Utrecht Psalter, 268, 272–78, 280,

288, 312, 382–83Versus in Aquisgrani palatio . . . De

imagine Tetrici, 189Visions of Wetti, 173, 188–89Vita Carolini, 34, 53, 135, 154, 174,

177–78, 190, 316, 332, 345Vita Hludowici, 80, 82

Vivian Bible, 249–51, 253, 261–62,265, 380Vocabularius Sti. Galli, 195Waltharilied, 204, 213Waltharius, 212, 214, 216Wessobrunner Gebet, 196–97Wieland, 204

Marcus Aurelius, 315Maximian, 227, 234, 281, 283Merovingians, 7, 9, 15–19, 21, 23, 25,

27, 30, 32, 34–35, 52, 81, 83–84,90, 102, 133, 135, 138, 141, 143,145, 149, 156, 164, 168, 170–71,192, 195, 204, 219, 251, 301, 323,328–29, 332, 373Brunehildis, 21



403

Childeric III, 32, 34, 38Chilperich II, 26Chlodovech, 17, 35, 41, 230Chlotachar II, 21Dagobert, 19, 21–22, 168Theuderic III, 23Theuderic IV, 30

Merseburg, 194Methodius and Kyrillos, 123Metz, 21, 37, 103, 109, 165, 170, 255,

262, 279, 286, 290–91, 296, 315–16,347

Middle High German, 192, 205Milan, 62, 300missi dominici , 76, 89, 150monasteries, 9, 23, 28, 40, 45, 48, 52,

54, 59, 80, 87, 90, 127, 142, 149,156, 165–66, 184, 216, 220, 226,274, 345, 374, 376, 378Corbie, 168, 353Corvey, 168, 260, 341, 353, 388Echternach, 144Eigenklöster , 30Freising, 144Fulda, 101–102, 127, 144, 157–58,

160, 164–66, 168, 173, 176,

178–79, 185–86, 193–98, 200,208, 220, 235, 260, 341, 345–46,349, 357–59, 366, 376, 389

Gandersheim, 296Hersfeld, 144Kornelimünster, 90Kremsmünster, 44, 219, 226, 304Lorsch, 124, 160, 165, 170, 260,

276, 341, 343, 346–48, 350, 352,356, 358, 376, 383, 388

Murbach, 166, 186, 195Reichenau, 82, 101, 144, 158–63,

171, 173, 185–86, 190, 193, 195,213, 260, 334, 340, 376Seligenstadt, 329, 341, 344–45, 348,

388St. Denis, 36, 44, 248, 255–56,

279–80, 305, 354St. Emmeram, 120, 197, 256, 288,

311, 313, 316, 325, 334, 380, 385St. Gallen, 144, 158, 161–62, 164,

170, 186, 213, 220, 222, 225,260, 266, 274, 286, 293, 296,317, 334, 340, 357, 376, 382

St. Médart, 100Steinbach, 329, 341–42, 344–47,

351, 353, 388Wessobrunn, 196

Würzburg, 36, 144, 157–58, 164–65,168, 295–96, 329, 347, 376

monastic foundations, 25, 42, 158, 168Monte Cassino, 33Monte Soracte, 33Moravians, 106, 122, 129, 131–32Moses, 63, 183, 189, 266, 352Münster, 59, 168Müstair, 315, 333–34, 336, 339, 387

narrative, 6, 15, 158, 177, 190, 196,198–99, 201, 203–205, 207–208,211, 217, 226, 240, 251, 256,264–68, 270–72, 277, 280, 284,286, 288–93, 295, 297, 299, 308,312, 314, 326, 336, 339, 375,377–79, 381, 383, 386, 388

Naturns, 333–34, 338, 388Neustria, 21, 25–26, 30, 45, 49, 108Nithard, 99, 101, 108, 110, 113, 169,

192 Noricum, 143Normandy, 47Notker Balbulus, 118–19, 357Noyon, 45number symbolism, 183

Nymwegen, 100Oceanos, 262, 270, 289, 294, 297,

381, 384octagon, 318, 320, 333, 346, 359, 362,

364, 366–68, 389Odo of Metz, 360Odoakar, 208–209Old High German, 143, 190–92, 375,

377Orosius, 340Osnabrück, 59, 168

Ostrogoths, 75, 191, 204, 214, 226,361Otfrid von Weissenburg, 179, 185,

192, 198, 200–201, 203–204, 263,376

Ottonians, 6, 57, 134, 159, 215–16,258, 260, 279, 313, 327, 330Henry II, 288, 313, 383Otto I, 320, 368Otto II, 164Otto III, 246, 322

Ovid, 153, 161, 186, 201, 326, 340

Paderborn, 59, 70, 168, 325–27,329–30, 351

Palace Chapel, 10, 79, 146, 315, 318,



404

320, 327–28, 330–31, 333, 339, 341,343, 346, 360Capella, 359doors, 319octagon, 360pinecone, 319railings, 320, 386she-wolf, 319

Palace School, 10, 170, 174, 176, 229,243, 252, 255, 282, 299, 310, 313,316, 379

palaces, 323, 325–31, 333, 340, 345,348, 359, 386aula regia , 327–28, 330–31palatium. See Pfalz

Pancreator , 233, 250, 288Pannonia, 62, 132Pannonians, 97Papacy, 23, 28, 33, 36–37, 39, 41–42,

45–46, 50, 65, 67, 69–71, 73, 81,91, 93–94, 99, 116, 126, 137, 175,368–71

Papal States, 40, 50, 62Paris, 25, 49, 97, 104, 106–107, 113,

129, 195, 364partition, 50, 76, 79, 81, 85, 90, 93,

96, 98–99, 107–108, 112–14, 116,120, 123, 125–26, 130, 325, 330Passau, 45, 62, 347patron gures, 337Paulus Diaconus, 153, 161, 174, 176,

204Pavia, 39, 50, 124, 159Pepinid Donation, 40

perigrinatio, 28Persians, 181Peter of Pisa, 153, 174, 176Pettstadt, 301

Pfalz. See palacespicto-poems, 180–81, 183, 249Pliny, 140Politik

Familien-, 20Hausmachts-, 20, 24, 27, 29, 34Kloster-, 20, 24Kultur-, 20Ost-, 19Real-, 19, 87, 114

popesFormosus, 131Gelasius, 69, 97, 107, 175Gregory I, 139, 220Gregory II, 28Gregory III, 39

Gregory IV, 99, 181Hadrian I, 45–47, 50, 64, 69, 233

John VIII, 124Leo III, 68–72, 85, 94, 325, 327,

333, 360, 367Paschalis I, 94Stephen II, 38–39Stephen III, 49Stephen IV, 78, 80, 94Sylvester, 41, 71Zacharias, 32, 36, 45, 283, 285

Porphyrius, 179portraits, 9, 146, 202, 243–45, 247–49,

253, 259–60, 306, 315, 317, 368,375, 378, 380, 388

precincts, 261, 313, 324, 326, 343,345, 348–49, 351–52, 354, 356, 381

Premonstratensians, 348prophets, 261Provence, 26, 30, 116, 132Prudentius, 200Psalms, 234, 267–68, 270–73, 285Psalters, 260, 266, 272, 382

Golden Psalter of St. Gallen, 266of Ludwig the German, 260Stuttgart, 266

Utrecht, 265–66Pseudo-Isidore, 116

Quierzy, 108

Raetia, 126, 143, 336Ravenna, 8, 10, 40, 62, 145–46, 189,

227, 229–30, 234, 267, 281–82, 315,324, 361, 366, 383

reformsAnianian, 343Church, 29, 33, 64, 75, 145

Church and State, 90church architecture, 341–42educational, 144liturgical, 7, 64, 145monastic, 90–91pastoral, 77State, 88

Regensburg, 44, 47, 60–61, 84,119–21, 123, 130, 144, 197, 256,311, 325, 328–29, 334

regni francorum, 136Reims, 76, 78, 80, 90, 94, 99, 102,

168, 171, 173, 260, 268, 279Renaissance, 6, 10, 16, 75, 147, 157,

164, 217, 348, 373Renewal, 142–43, 145



405

Renovatio, 6–7, 16, 136, 140, 144, 158,176–78, 226, 299, 301, 315, 320–21,369

renovatio imperii , 4, 75, 136, 156, 215,356, 372–73, 378, 383–84, 389

Resurrection, 235, 357, 359. Seeanastasisanastasis, 236, 341, 346, 357, 359,366, 379, 389

Revelation, 155, 197, 232, 238, 307,355, 366, 375, 379

riversAller, 55Danube, 60–62, 122Elbe, 55, 57, 60, 127Lech, 132Lippe, 55Loire, 105, 108, 159, 190Maas, 13, 90, 108, 127, 129Main, 133, 327–28, 341Rhine, 56, 60–61, 102–105, 108,

120–21, 158–59, 329–30, 346–47,350, 371

Schelde, 105Seine, 105, 108Weser, 55, 57, 127, 354

Roma nova. See AachenRome, 8, 28, 33, 36, 38–39, 45, 50,62, 67–68, 70–71, 74, 78, 88, 93,107, 113, 124, 126, 130, 145–46,163, 166, 174, 202, 233, 235, 290,300–301, 315, 320, 332, 340, 342,345, 348, 350, 359–61, 367–69,371–72, 384, 389

Roncesvalles, 51Rouen, 47, 104Rudolf von Fulda, 185

sacerdotalis ordo, 4Saint-Germain-des-Prés, 267Salzburg, 44, 48, 62, 122, 144, 197,

226, 229, 304Samuel, 38, 274San Appollinare in Clase , 227San Appollinare Nuovo, 227, 267,

282, 324San Vitale , 10, 146, 234, 315, 361,

366Saracens, 26, 106, 116, 124, 126,

129, 137Saxons, 12, 25–26, 51–57, 59, 61,

109, 122, 127, 165, 168, 191,198–99, 260, 302, 327, 329, 340,351, 353–54, 369

Saxony, 32, 42, 55, 57, 60, 62, 113,121, 124, 126–27, 131–32, 372

ScandinaviansDanes, 55, 59, 87, 97, 103, 106,

123, 129Vikings, 12, 59, 97, 103–107, 113,

119, 123, 126–27, 129–30,211–12, 326, 371–72

scriptoria , 9, 13, 156, 159–60, 162–63,165, 169, 172, 193, 200, 229, 235,245, 249, 256, 260, 269, 274, 279,334, 375

Selena, 34, 270, 279, 288, 292, 294,298, 335, 381

Sepulcher, 71–72, 235, 289, 357–58Slavs, 12, 21, 27, 55, 57, 59, 61–62,

87, 97, 106, 118, 122, 127, 133,372

Smaragdus, 90–91, 153Soissons, 26, 37, 45, 49, 99, 104,

170, 235, 359, 379Solomon, 82, 136, 163, 257, 340,

389Sorbs, 55, 131Spain, 46, 51, 54, 132, 258Speyer, 113, 186

St. Ambrose, 119, 202St. Andrew, 314St. Augustine, 35–36, 66, 147, 154,

165, 178, 368St. Benedict, 90, 178, 187, 336, 338,

388St. Boniface, 24, 27, 32, 36–37, 42,

44, 136, 145, 153, 164, 348, 352,358

St. Columban, 158St. Gregory, 153, 255, 264, 337, 388St. Jerome, 139, 172, 236, 265

St. John, 387St. Kilian, 164St. Martin of Tours, 119, 149, 180St. Michael, 235, 349, 359St. Michael’s, 341, 346, 358, 389St. Nazarius, 347, 356St. Paul, 163, 172, 303, 339, 388St. Peter, 287, 303St. Peter’s, 320, 345, 350St. Pirmin, 158, 160St. Prokulus, 388St. Stephen, 304, 336–37, 354, 388St. Vitus, 354statues, 75, 172, 189, 315, 361, 386

equestrian, 10, 75, 146, 189,314–15, 318, 361, 386



406

Stephaton, 225, 280, 292, 298Strasbourg, 110, 154

Oaths of, 43, 110–13, 121, 142,179, 192, 245, 252, 370

Sts. Peter and Marcellinus, 342, 344Sts. Peter and Paul, 347style

Animal , 223, 306–309, 314, 385Baroque, 197, 254, 346, 356Carolingian, 1, 64, 83, 136–37, 140,

143–45, 147, 154, 158, 164,174–77, 180, 201, 203, 216–18,221–22, 226–27, 240–41, 248,263, 272, 281, 292, 298, 311–12,318, 321, 323, 333–36, 341–42,355–56, 358, 360, 373, 380, 386,388

Gothic, 198, 204, 243, 304, 331,333, 343, 345–46, 349

Imperial, 336Insular , 6, 44, 157, 160, 163–64,

170, 216–17, 221, 226, 228–30,241, 260, 274, 280, 301, 304,306, 308, 314, 378, 385

Ottonian, 214Renaissance, 338

Romanesque, 198, 265, 311,335–36, 343–44, 354–55Suetonius, 154, 177Swabia, 113, 126, 131, 372Synagoga, 289–90, 335, 387synods, 32, 48, 67, 69, 74, 97, 107,

351

Tacitus, 203Testament, 9, 38, 79, 198, 272, 360,

366Last Will and, 79, 87, 156

Testaments, 160, 162New, 269, 314, 381–82Old, 15, 38, 63, 89, 92, 146, 177,

183–84, 220, 259, 321, 335,375

Old and New, 146, 163, 185, 234,261, 265, 267–68, 272, 286,335, 340, 382, 387

theocracy, 63, 92Theodelinda, 305Theoderic the Great, 9, 75, 146, 189,

203, 205, 207–209, 214, 227, 315,324, 340, 361, 377

Theodosius I, 136Theodulf of Orleans, 220

Thuringia, 23, 27, 30, 53, 109, 121,124, 126, 133, 157

Thuringians, 52, 108–109Tours, 76, 137, 139, 141, 160, 162,

169, 176, 178–79, 181, 248–49,251–52, 254, 265

treatiesMeersen, 113, 116, 123, 126, 371Ribémont, 127Verdun, 90, 113, 120, 125, 371

Trier, 62, 105, 127, 243, 324, 330,347, 353

Two Authorities, 68, 97, 175,369–70

usurpation, 10, 20, 83

Vandals, 203 vassalage

vassals, 43, 47, 92, 112, 121Verden, 55, 123, 168Verdun, 361Vienna, 195, 243, 245, 296, 304Vienne, 102Vikings. See ScandinaviansVirgil, 139, 153, 161, 163, 186, 201,

326, 340bishop, 44–45, 305Virgin Mary, 264, 267, 287, 292–93,

295, 298, 303, 335, 349, 353, 360,384

Visigoths, 203, 208Vitae , 9, 145, 375Vitruvius, 140, 160

Walahfrid Strabo, 82, 95, 101, 135,159–60, 173–74, 178–79, 185–92,260, 315, 361, 376

Welf, 95Wergeld , 56Widukind, 54–56, 122, 302Willibrord, 27, 30, 42Winckelmann, 241wives

Bertrada (P.III), 37, 44, 49, 136Chiltrudis (Odilo), 43Ermentrude (Ch.B), 113Fastrada (Ch), 84, 328, 353Hemma (LG), 119–20, 125Hildegard (Ch), 83–84, 159Himiltrud (Ch), 83Irmingard (LP), 84–85, 93–95

Judith (LP), 95–96, 98–99, 101–102,



407

107–108, 110, 113, 120, 183, 185,255, 269, 325, 353

Liutgard (Ch), 84Liutpirc (Tassilo III), 44, 47, 305Plectrudis (P. II), 25–26

Wodan, 53, 56, 194

Worms, 46, 52, 113, 325, 329–30, 347Wynfrid, 27

Zeno, 75, 189, 315, 361Zürich, 335



terminal histories and arthurian solutions 31

Plate 1a. Picto-poem of Christ the Savior from Hrabanus Maurus’ De laudibus sancti crucis , Fulda. Inv. Codex 652, fol. 6v. (Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek).



chapter two60

Plate 1b. Dedicatory page from Hrabanus Maurus’ De laudibus sancti crucis , showingHrabanus and Alcuin presenting the book to Otgar of Mainz, Fulda. Inv. Cod. 652, fol.2v. (Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek).




Plate 1c. Dedicatory page from Hrabanus Maurus’ De laudibus sancti crucis showing the

emperor Louis the Pious as Soldier in Christ. Fulda. Inv. Cod. 652, fol. 3v. (Vienna, Öster- reichische Nationalbibliothek).



chapter two60

Plate 2a. Display initial of the 51. Psalm, Folchart Psalter, c. 864/872. Inv. Cod. 23fol. 135. (St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek).



Plate 2b. Irish Gospel, c. 750, confronting pages showing a cross page and an initiStiftsbibliothek).



chapter two60

Plates 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d. Irish Gospel, c. 750, the Evangelists John and Marc, Matthew and ChriInv. Cod. 51. fols. 2, 78, 208, 266. (St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek).




Plates 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d.Codex millenarius , the Evangelists Matthew, Inv. Cim. 1, fol. 17v, 18r. andMarc, Inv. Cim. 1, fol. 109v, 110r) with their emblems. (Kremsmünster, Stiftsbibliothek)(Mille-

narius: Photo P. Amand Kraml. copyright Stift, Kremsmünster).



chapter two60

Plates 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d.Codex millenarius , the Evangelists Luke, Inv. Cim. 1, fol. 174v, 175r. and John, Inv. Cim.1, fol. 276v, 277r. with their emblems. (Kremsmünster, Stiftsbibliothek).




Plates 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d. Enthroned Evangelists with tetramorphs from theGodescalc Gospels,c. 781-783, Palace School of Charlemagne, Aachen—Matthew, Inv. lat. 1203, fol. 1r, Marc,Inv. lat. 1203, fol. 1v, Luke, Inv. lat. 1203, fol. 2r, John, Inv. lat 1203, fol. 2v. (Paris, Biblio-

thèque Nationale de France).



Plate 7a, 7b. Enthroned Christ, from theGodescalc Gospels , c. 781-783, Palace Schoo1203, fol. 3r. (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France). Fountain of Life, fromG

ace School of Charlemagne, Aachen. Inv. lat 1203, fol. 3v. (Paris, Biblio




Plate 8a. Fountain of Life, from the Gospel from Saint-Médard, Soissons, Palace School of Charlemagne, Aachen. Inv. Lat. 8850, fol. 6v. (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France).



chapter two60

Plate 8b. Veneration of the Lamb, from the Gospel from Saint-Médard, Soissons, PalacSchool of Charlemagne, Aachen. Inv. lat. 8850, fol. 1v. (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationalede France).




Plate 8c. Canon Table, from the Gospel from Saint-Médard, Soissons, Palace School of Charlemagne, Aachen. Inv. lat. 8850, fol. 7v. (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France).



chapter two60

Plate 9a. Evangelist Marc with lion emblem, from the Gospel from Saint-Médard, SoissonPalace School of Charlemagne. Inv. lat. 8850, fol. 81v. (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale dFrance).




Plate 9b. Initial page to the Gospel of St. Mark, from the Gospel from Saint-Médard, Sois- sons, Palace School of Charlemagne. Inv. lat. 8850, fol. 82r. (Paris, Bibliothèque Natio- nale de France).



chapter two60

Plate 10a. Writing figure, 6th century (Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale).




Plate 10b. The Four Evangelists with tetramorphs, from the Aachen Gospels, Palace Schoolof Charlemagne. fol. 14v. (Domkapitel Aachen. Photo: Ann Münchow).



chapter two60

Plates 11a, 11b, 11c, 11d. The Four Evangelists from the ‘Ada’ Gospels—Matthew, Marc, Luand John, Palace School of Charlemagne. Hs. 22 Ada, fol. 15v, fol. 59v. fol. 85v, fol. 127

(Trier, Stadtbibliothek).




Plates 12a, 12b, 12c, 12d. The Evangelists Matthew, Marc, Luke and John, from theCoronation Gospels , Palace School of Charlemagne, Aachen. Inv. SKXIII/18, fol. 15, fol. 76v, fol. 117,

fol. 178v. (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Treasury).



chapter two60

Plate 13. Charles the Bald as King David, miniature preceding the Book of PsalmsVivian Bible , c. 845/46. Inv. lat.1, fol. 215v. (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France).




Plate 14a. The enthroned emperor Lothair I, from theGospels of Lothair , c. 850, Tours.Inv. lat. 266, fol. 1r. (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France).



chapter two60

Plate 14b. The enthroned emperor Lothair I, from thePsalter of Lothair , Palace Schoolof Lothair, c. 850. Inv. Add. 37768, fol. 4. (London, British Library).




Plate 15a. Dedication page showing the enthroned Charles the Bald receiving the

Vivian Bible , c. 845/46. Inv. lat. 1, fol. 423v. (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France).



chapter two60

Plate 15b. St. Gregory from theMetz Coronation Sacramentary , c. 870, Palace School of

Charles the Bald, St. Denis (?). Inv. lat. 1141, fol. 3r. (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale deFrance).




Plate 15c. Ruler flanked by bishops, probably Charles the Bald,Metz Coronation Sacra- mentary , c. 870, Palace School of Charles the Bald, St. Denis (?). Inv. lat. 1141, fol. 2v.(Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France).



chapter two60

Plate 16a. Dedication page showing the enthroned Charles the Bald,Codex Aureus from St.Emmeram , Palace School of Charles the Bald. Inv. Clm. 14000, fol. 5v. (Munich, Bayeri

sche Staatsbibliothek).




Plate 16b. Veneration of the Lamb,Codex Aureus from St. Emmeram , Palace School of Charles the Bald. Inv. Clm. 14000, fol. 6r. (Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek).



chapter two60

Pate 17a. Crucifixion, showing Ludwig, the German, embracing the Cross. Psalter of Louithe German. Inv. Ms. Theol. lat. fol. 58, 120r.(Berlin, Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz

Staatsbibliothek).




Plate 17b. Initial page of Psalm 1 of the Psalter of Ludwig the German, before c. 850,Saint-Omer. Inv. Ms. Theol. lat. fol. 58, 3r. (Berlin, Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz,

Staatsbibliothek).



chapter two60

Plate 17c. Christ in Majesty,Vivian Bible , c. 845/46. Inv. lat. 1, fol. 329v. (Paris, Biblio- thèque Nationale de France).



Plate 18a, 18b. Christ in Majesty with pagan references,Metz Coronation Sacramentary , c. 870Denis (?). Inv. lat. 1141, fol. 6r. Ornamented capital initial T with crucified Christ,Metz Coron

of Charles the Bald, St. Denis (?). Inv. lat. 1141, fol. 6v. (Paris, Bibliot



Plate 18c, 18d. Crucifixion from the Gospels of Otfrid von Weissenburg, c. 868. Cod. 2bibliothek). Christ in Majesty with seraphim,Metz Coronation Sacramentary , c. 870, Palace Schoo

1141, fol. 5r. (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de Fran




Plates 19a, 19b, 19c, 19d. Ornamented capital Initials C, D, C and T. Drogo Sacramentary ,c. 850-855. Inv. lat. 9428, fols. 24v, 58r, 71v, 15v. (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France).



chapter two60

Plate 20a. Story of Adam and Eve. Garden of Eden scenes from theGrandval Bible ,

Tours, c. 840. Inv. 10546, fol. 5v. (London, British Library).



Plate 20b. Stag allegory, with Psalm 41, 2,Stuttgart Psalter , c. 820-830, Saint-bibl. fol. 23, 53v. (Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesb



Plate 20c. Annunciation, with Psalm 71:6,Stuttgart Psalter , c. 820-830, Saint-Germ83v. (Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbiblioth



Plate 20d. The Three Kings, with Psalm 71:10-11,Stuttgart Psalter , c. 820-830, Saintfol. 23, 84v. (Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbib



Plate 21a. Crucifixion, with Psalm 68:22,Stuttgart Psalter , c. 820-830, Saint-Germai80v (Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothe



Plate 21b. Weighing the souls, with Psalm 9:5,Stuttgart Psalter , c. 820-830, Saint-fol. 23, 9v. (Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibli




Plate 22a. The prophet Samuel anoints David,Golden Psalter , c. 890. Inv. Cod. 22, fol. 59.(St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek).



chapter two60

Plate 22b. Joab’s campaign,Golden Psalter , c. 890. Inv. Cod. 22, fol. 140. (St. Gallen, Stifts- bibliothek).




Plate 22c. Siege and surrender of a city,Golden Psalter , c. 890. Inv. Cod. 22, fol. 141. (St.Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek).



Plates 23a, 23b. Obverse and reverse,Enger reliquary , before c. 785. Inv.-Nr.: 88, 632. (Bermuseum).




Plate 24. Reliquary associated with St. Stephen, c. 830, Aachen. Inv. SCHK XIII/26.(Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Schatzkammer).



chapter two60

Plate 25a.Tassilo Chalice , c. 768/69, perhaps later (Kremsmünster, Stiftsbibliothek)(Photo Elfriede Mejchar, copyright Stift Kremsmünster).




Plate 25b, 25c, 25d. Ornamental detail of theTassilo Chalice (Kremsmünster, Stiftsbibliothek).



chapter two60

Plate 26a. First (back) Cover of theLindau Gospel , c. 770-830. Inv. MS1 (New York, Pier- pont Morgan Library, Photography: David Loggie).




Plate 26b. Second (front) Cover of theLindau Gospel , c. 870. Inv. MS1 (New York, Pier- pont Morgan Library, Photography: David Loggie).



chapter two60

Plate 27a. Direct view of the golden, gem encrusted gospel cover of theCodex Aureus of St.Emmeram, c. 879, featuring the ‘architecture’ of the gospel cover of theCodex Aureus of St.Emmeram,c. 870. Inv. Clm. 14000, VD. (Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek).




Plate 27b. Oblique view of the golden, gem encrusted gospel cover of theCodex Aureus of St. Emmeram,c. 879, featuring the ‘architecture’ of the gospel cover of theCodex Aureus of

St. Emmeram,c. 870. Inv. Clm. 14000, VD. (Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek).



chapter two60

Plate 28. Portable altar, theArnulf Ciborium , c. 870 (Munich, Schatzkammer der Residenz, Bayerische Verwaltung der staatlichen Schlösser, Gärten und Seen).



Plate 29. St. Johann, exterior, Müstair, Graubünden, Sw



chapter two60

Plate 29a. Mural, Ascension, St. Johann, Müstair. Inv. LM-11990. (Schweizerisches Landmuseum, Zürich).




Plates 29b, 29c, 29d. Murals of figures from the north wall. Mural in the Apse withmajestas.Mural of Peter and Paul before Nero; St. Johann, Müstair. (Stiftung Pro Kloster St. Johann

in Müstair, Photo S. Fibbi-Aeppli).



Plates 30a, 30b, 30c, 30d. Murals of St. Gregory (top right), flogging of the Phtom right). St. Benedict, Mals, valley of the Adig




Plates 31a, 31b, 31c, 31d. St. Gregory, Christ flanked by cherubim, St. Stephen inniches. Religious and secular patrons between the niches. St. Benedict, Mals.



chapter two60

Plate 32a. Mural of cattle. St. Prokulus, Naturns.



Plate 32b. St. Paul being aided in his escape from Damascus. St



chapter two60

Plate 32c. Gated hall at the abbey at Lorsch.




Plate 32d. Rotunda, St. Michael’s, Fulda.



chapter two60

Plate 33a. Palace Chapel, interior, Aachen. (Domkapitel Aachen. Photo: Ann Münchow).



Plate 33b. Legendary pelican feedings its young with its own heart. 19th century(Domkapitel Aachen, Photo: Andreas Herrmann)



chapter two60

Plate 33c. Octagon interior, upper level, marble throne, marble sheeted pillars, porphyry columns. Palace Chapel, Aachen. (Dom Kapitel Aachen. Photo: Ann Müchow).




1. Hollow altar with Carolingian candle sticks in the crypt of Regensburg Cathedral.Formerly the high altar of the Carolingian cathedral.



2. The emperor shown leading the horse of the pope to support the papal claim of the Constantioratorium of St. Sylvester in Santi Quattro Coronati, Rome. (Bildarchiv Foto




3. Inscribed lead plate found in a sarcophagus, 8th/9th century, pointing to the missionary activity of Fulda. The inscription reads OTTO XPIAN DE PAGANO ONO OCT,meaning Otto

become Christian died on the nones (7th) of October.(Fulda, Dommuseum).



4a. Christ with the emperor Constantine and pope Sylvester I.Restored mosaic originally installed by pope Leo III. Lateran

palace Rome (Photo P. Wilson).

4b. St. Peter with Charlemagsaic originally installed by p

(Pho



5. Roman marble sarcophagus showing the mythical abduction of Proserpina, c. A.D. 200, taken to hav years. It was probably among the columns and other classical objects transported north following his cam

the Cathedral).



chapter two60

6. Idealized royal figures of the Hungarians. Budapest (Photo H. Herrmann).

7. Porphyry column and Corinthian capital. Aachen, cloisters of the Cathedral.




8. The Lord’s Prayer from the Abrogans , an Old High German dictionary. Codex Sangallensis 911. fol. 320 (St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek).



chapter two60

9. Genesis scenes from the Bamberg Bible , c. 850. Inv. A.I. 5, fol. 7v. (Bamberg, StaatlicheBibliothek).




10. Illustration to Psalm 38, showing a crowned personage, Utrecht Psalter , c. 820, Haut- villers. (Utrecht, University Library).

11. Illustration to Psalm 77, showing a crowned personage, Utrecht Psalter , c. 820, Haut- villers. (Utrecht, University Library).



chapter two60

12. Illustration to Psalm 1, a man in meditation day and night sitting under a fastigium, Utrecht Psalter , c. 820, Hautvillers. (Utrecht, University Library).




13. Illustration to Psalm 23, itemizing all details of the text, Utrecht Psalter , c. 820, Haut- villers. (Utrecht, University Library).

14. Illustration to Psalm 43, analogy of a besieged city, Utrecht Psalter , c. 820, Haut- villers. (Utrecht, University Library).

15. Illustrations to Psalm 12, pictorial interpretation of text, Utrecht Psalter , c. 820,Hautvillers. (Utrecht, University Library).



chapter two60

16. The Lothair crystal, carved with the story of Susanna, c. 865, Vausort. Inv. 1855, 1201.5.(London, British Museum).



17. Crucifixion crystal, c. 867, St. Denis. Inv. 1855, 0303.1.(London, British Museum).

18. Crucifixion crystal, c. 8Diozösanmuseum. Inv. D

tine



chapter two60

19. Ivory throne of St. Maximian, early 6th century. (Ravenna, Archiepiscopal Palace).




20. Angel, ivory panel, 11th century copy, style of Palace School of Charle- magne, Aachen. Inv. Kg: 102. (Darmstadt, Hessisches Landesmuseum).



chapter two60

21. Ivory front cover, Lorsch Gospels , Three Kings before Herod and with the Virgin andChild, c. 810, Aachen (Rome, Museo Sacro Vaticano, Bildarchiv Fotomarburg).




22. Ivory back cover, Lorsch Gospels,Nativity, c. 810, Aachen. Inv. JX 856 (London, Victoriaand Albert Museum).



chapter two60

23. Scenes following the Resurrection of Christ, Ivory diptych, c. 810, Palace School of Charlemagne, Aachen. (Domkapitel Aachen. Photo: Ann Münchow).



24. Ascension, c. 810, Palace School of Charlemagne, Aachen. Inv. Kg 54:217. (Darmstadt, Hessisches Lan-

desmuseum).

25. Christ in majesty, ivory Liège. Inv. Kg. 54:208. (Darm

seu



chapter two60

26. Crucifixion Ivory, covering panel of the Book of Pericopes of Henry II , c. 820/30. Inv.Clm. 4452, fol. VD (Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek).




27. The Temptation of Christ, ivory book cover of the Drogo Sacramentary , c. 850, Metz(Frankfurt a. M., Liebighaus).



chapter two60

28. Liturgical ivory comb, c. 850, Metz, from St. Heribert in Cologne (Cologne,Schnütgenmuseum, Rheinisches Bildarchiv Köln).




29. Christ in Majesty, front ivory book cover from the Tuotilo Gospels , c. 900, St.Gallen. Cod. 53. (St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek).



chapter two60

30. Ascension of Mary, back ivory book cover from the Tuotilo Gospels , c. 900, St.Gallen. Cod. 53. (St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek).




31. Ivory panel book covers from Würzburg, after c. 850. Inv. M.p.th. f. 67 (Würzburg, Uni- versitätsbibliothek).

32. Ivory pyx with nativity. Inv. ANSA X42(Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum).

33. Reliquary casket of walrus ivory, 8thcentury, from Gandersheim. Inv. MA58(Braunschweig, Anton-Ulrich-Museum).



34. Scenes from the life of Christ, ivory casket, c. 880. Inv. MA59 (Braunschweig, An



35. Scenes from the life of Christ, ivory casket, c. 880. Inv. MA59 (Braunschweig, An



chapter two60

36. Silver beaker from Pettstadt, late 8th, early 9th century (Nürnberg, Germanisches Natio- nalmuseum).




37. Detail from the roof of the Arnulf Ciborium , c. 870 (Munich, Schatzkammer der Residenz, Bayerische Verwaltung der staatlichen Schlösser, Gärten und Seen).



38. Portable red porphyry altar from Adelhausen. Earliest of its kind, c. 800, made of oak, silver, cloisonnOn loan Adelhauserstiftung. (Freiburg, Augustinermuseum).




39a. Equestrian statue of a Carolingian emperor, 9th century, one of thePalace Schools, Metz. Inv. OA8260. (Paris, Musée du Louvre).



chapter two60

39b. Equestrian statue of a Carolingian emperor, 9th century, one of thePalace Schools, Metz. Inv. OA8260. (Paris, Musée du Louvre).




40a, 40b, 40c. Main portal door panels and details of the coffered sections. Aachen, PalaceChapel.



chapter two60

41. Roman bronze casting of a ‘wolf’ in the entrance to the Palace Chapel, Aachen.




42. Bronze pinecone in the entrance to the Palace Chapel, Aachen.



chapter two60

43a, b. Sections of railing from the upper level of the interior octagon of the Palace Chapelin Aachen. (Domkapitel Aachen. Photo: Ann Münchow).




43c, d. Sections of railing from the upper level of the interior octagon of the Palace Chapel in Aachen. (Domkapitel Aachen. Photo: Ann Münchow).



chapter two60

44a, b, c. Sections of railing from the upper level of the interior octagon of the PalaceChapel in Aachen. (Domkapitel Aachen. Photo: Ann Münchow).




45. Foundations of the Carolingian (bottom) and later palaces at Pader- born. (Paderborn, Kaiserpfalzmuseum).

46. Fragments of a Carolingian sandstone capital from the church nave(Paderborn, Kaiserpfalzmuseum).

47. Decorated plaster, palace walls, c. 799 (Paderborn, Kaiserpfalzmuseum).



48. Suggested reconstruction of the Pfalz at Ingelheim. according to A. Corboz, F




49. Damaged Corinthian capital from the palace at Ingelheim. Inv. S469(Mainz, Landesmuseum).

50. Decorative stone panel showing a winged horse from the Carolingian palace church, St. Wigbert, at Ingelheim. Inv. S3023. (Mainz, Landesmuseum).

51. Remains of a window architecture, limestone and sandstone 7th–8thcenturies. Inv. S3027a-d. (Mainz, Landesmuseum).



chapter two60

52. Plan of the Pfalz at Aachen according to Corboz, Mittelalter , p. 183.



53a. Restored Carolingian colonnade, Aachen. 53b. Original masonry of th



chapter two60

54. Suggested reconstruction of the westwork of the Palace Chapel at Aachen according to Corboz, Mittelalter , p. 53.



55. Flanking angels. St. Prokulus, Naturns, valley of the Adige, Ita



56. Einhard Basilica, Steinbach. Model. 57. Einhard Basilica, Stecrypt and altar screen, a

58. Einhard Basilica, Steinbach, present interior view of the nave. Note the walled-in arcades.

59. Einhard Basilica, StNote the walled-in




60a. Einhard Basilica, Seligenstadt. Exterior view of the nave.

60b. Einhard Basilica, Seligenstadt. Interior view of the nave, Carolingian brickworklaid bare.



chapter two60

61. St. Justinus, Höchst. Carolingian colonnades and capitals.

62. St. Justinus, Höchst. Detail of a Carolingian capital.




63. Carolingian composite capital, Aachen, cloisters of the Cathedral.

64. Fragment of ornamental altar stone, c. 800-840, Lorsch. Inv. Pl. 33:4.(Darmstadt, Hessisches Landesmuseum).



chapter two60

66. Gated hall at the abbey at Lorsch. Note the gentler slope of the original roof and theornamental details.

65. Original plan of the Benedictine abbey at Lorsch, according to Corboz, Mittelalter ,p. 34.




67a, 67b. Gated hall at the abbey at Lorsch. Detail of the arches, capitals andpilasters.



chapter two60

68a. Altar screens from St. John, Müstair, Graubünden, Switzerland.

68b. Altar fragment from Lauerach. (Bregenz, Vorarlberger Landesmuseum).




68c. Carolingian altar screen from the convent at Frauenchiemsee (Munich, Archäologische Staatssamlung, Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte).

68d. Carolingian altar screen from St. Johannis, Mainz. Recovered from thechurch floor. Inv. S3090 (Mainz, Landesmuseum).



chapter two60

69. Corvey. Proposed appearance of the original westwork according to Corboz,Mittelalter , p. 50.

70a. Corvey. Present appearance of the westwork.




70b. Close-up and consecrating inscription on the westwork.



chapter two60

71. Corvey. Crosscuts of the westwork—lower level (rt.), upper level (lt.) according

to Corboz, Mittelalter , p. 76.

72a. Corvey. Columns and pillars of the‘crypt’ at the lower level.

72b. Corvey. Spacial arrangement of thechapel of St. John at the upper level.

72c. Corvey. Traces of wall painting – thechapel of St. John.




73a, 73b. Corvey. Composite foliage capital and cornice.



chapter two60

74a. Carolingian capitals, after 744, comparable to the column capital in thecrypt at St. Michael’s in Fulda. From the monastery church founded by

Sturmius at Fulda. (Fulda, Dom Museum).

74b, c. Carolingian capitals from the nave of the Ratgar Basilica, c. 800(Fulda, Dom Museum).



chapter two60

78a, 78b. Capitals from the rotunda, St. Michael’s, Fulda.




78c, 78d. Capitals from the rotunda, St. Michael’s, Fulda.



79a. Westwork of the Palace Chapel at Aachen. 79b. Octagon of the Pala

the carolingians in central europe

Documents