An Empire of Memory (31 page)

Epistolas expositio, PL 117: 779–81. On Haimo, see Second Thessalonians: Two Early Medieval

Apocalyptic Commentaries, ed. Steven R. Cartwright and Kevin L. Hughes (Kalamazoo, Mich.,

2001), 14.

50 Nithard, Historiarum libri III, ed. E. Müller, MGH SRG (Hanover, 1907), 44: 1–2. See also the

discussion in Natalia Lozovsky, ‘Roman Geography and Ethnography in the Carolingian Empire’,

112

The Franks Recreate Empire

Looking through Montier-en-Der’s cartulary, we can see how important Frank-

ish identity was at the monastery and how the language of Frankish rulership may

have entered Adso’s lexicon. The charters that survive from Adso’s own time as

abbot, especially those given by Count Heribert of Vermandois, are heavy with the

language of Frankishness, describing how this particular count––as a Frank––

would protect Montier-en-Der as Charlemagne and Charles the Bald had done

before.51 But earlier documents say more. Charles the Bald appears repeatedly, in

both real and forged diplomas, as a generous patron who was concerned for the

good of the whole populus christianus.52 A late eighth-century diploma dates itself

by mentioning that Charles, king of the Franks, now imperavit across all regna.53

So here we are, with Adso Dervensis and Liudprand of Cremona, over a century

removed from the dissolution of the unified Carolingian empire, and Charle-

magne’s ‘empire of memory’ lives on, now to be reborn at the end. Towards the

end of the tenth century, in Adso’s De antichristo and Liudprand’s Relatio, the

Franks have a special role to play and their ruler––the rex Francorum––will resurrect

a universal Christendom, defined by a Carolingian ideal.54

Adso’s text was immensely popular in the Middle Ages. One reason for its

popularity likely stems from the way that the text tethered the future to the

contemporary political situation, in this case using the fact that prophecy had not

yet been fulfilled (the continuation of imperium in the Frankish kings, versus its

foretold fall) to reassure Gerberga that the end was not near. Her husband’s

continued reign was a bulwark against the coming of antichrist.55 The early

redactors of Adso’s texts were similarly moved to create their versions in reaction

to the vagaries of contemporary, primarily Ottonian imperial politics. Generally,

these later versions of De antichristo dominated Western thought about the Last

Emperor until the first half of the eleventh century, when, as we have seen, the

Tiburtine Sibyl was reworked in northern Italy and new types of imperial specula-

tion arose around the Ottonian and Salian courts. In the 1080s, two strands of the

Last Emperor legend came together in a long letter to Emperor Henry IV written

by Bishop Benzo of Alba.

Speculum, 81 (2006), 349–57; and on Nithard’s conception of Charlemagne, Steffen Patzold, ‘Eine

“loyale Palastrebellion” der “Reichseinheitspartei”? Zur “Divisio imperii” von 817 und zu den

Ursachen des Aufstands gegen Ludwig der Frommen im Jahre 830’, Frühmittelalterliche Studien, 40

(2006), 47–8.

51 The Cartulary of Montier-en-Der, 666–1129, ed. and tr. Constance Brittain Bouchard (Toronto,

2004), nos. 24, 26.

52 Ibid., nos. 12, 14, 16 (real), and 21 (forged).

53 Ibid., no. 23. Bouchard notes that, given its placement in the cartulary, the monks of Montier-

en-Der thought the diploma was given during the reign of Charles the Bald, although it almost

certainly dates to the time of Charlemagne.

54 Hughes, Constructing Antichrist, 171–2; and Claude Carozzi, Apocalypse et salut dans le

christianisme ancien et médiéval (Paris, 1999), 21–2.

55 Daniel Verhelst, ‘Adso of Montier-en-Der and the Fear of the Year 1000’, in Apocalyptic Year,

83; Hughes, Constructing Antichrist, 168–71; and Konrad, Antichristvorstellung, 144. There are 171

known surviving manuscripts of the tract and its many variations, dating from the 10th to 14th cents.

De ortu, ed. Verhelst, 3.

The Franks’ Imagined Empire

113

Benzo’s letter is rife with suggestions that contemporary political events echo the

events of the end and that Henry would be the Last Emperor. This type of

speculation seems to have been in the air in the second half of the eleventh century.

Pope Gregory VII, Robert Guiscard, and Alexius I Comnenus were all subject to

sustained eschatological speculation, specifically involving the Last Emperor leg-

end.56 This speculation was also particularly common at the courts of Henry III

and Henry IV. Henry III’s chancellery often used the title rex Romanorum, a title

we have seen to carry eschatological connotations.57 Anselm of Bésate, a notary and

chaplain for Henry III, sustained Liudprand of Cremona’s earlier claims about the

Ottonians by writing that Henry III would soon unite Greece, Judea, and Persia

under his rule, thus recreating the Last Emperor’s conquests as detailed in both

Pseudo-Methodius and the Tiburtine Sibyl. The anonymous 1062–3 Exhortatio ad

proceres regni moved Henry III’s future conquests to the shoulders of the new

Henry IV, saying the latter ruler would renew and unify Rome and smash the

Saracens. At about the time Benzo was writing, Bishop Rainer of Florence sug-

gested that Henry IV was the Last Emperor.58

Benzo first set out to define Henry IV as superior to all other rulers. The

Byzantine ruler is not even an emperor, no more than a basileus or rex Bizanzenus.59

Conversely, Henry IV cannot be given titles grand enough. He is imperator

imperatorum and the imperator christianissimus who defends Christendom from

its enemies.60 Twice, Benzo referred to Henry directly as rex Romanorum, the title

used by Henry III and given the Last Emperor in both the Pseudo-Methodius and

Tiburtine Sibyl. More significant still, Benzo included a purported letter to Henry

from the Byzantine ruler, where he essentially offered to submit to Henry’s power if

56 For more on Benzo himself, see Struve, ‘Kaisertum und Romgedanke’, 437–49. On Gregory

VII, see H. E. J. Cowdrey, ‘Pope Gregory VII’s “Crusading” Plans of 1074’, in B. Z. Kedar, H. E.

Mayer, and R. C. Smail (eds.), Outremer: Studies in the History of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem

(Jerusalem, 1982), 38–40; and Paul Magdalino, ‘Prophecies on the Fall of Constantinople’, in Angeliki

E. Laiou (ed.), Urbs Capta: The Fourth Crusade and its Consequences (Paris, 2005), 41–53. On Robert

Guiscard and Alexius I, see Paul Magdalino, ‘The Porphyrogenita and the Astrologers: A Commentary

on Alexiad VI.7.1–7’, in Charalambos Dendrinos, Jonathan Harris, Eirene Harvalia-Crook, and Judith

Herrin (eds.), Porphyrogenita: Essays on the History and Literature of Byzantium and the Latin East in Honour of Julian Chrysostomides (Burlington, Vt., 2003), 25; and idem, The Empire of Manuel I

Komnenos, 1143–1180 (Cambridge, 1993), 34.

57 Helmut Beumann does not think that the title carried any apocalyptic meaning but, if Last

Emperor speculation was otherwise current at the Salian court, then I think it difficult to support this assertion: Der deutsche König als ‘Romanorum Rex’, 46–52 (on Henry III’s use of the title), 80–3 (for the title’s eschatological uses).

58 On Anselm of Bésate, see Struve, ‘Kaisertum und Romgedanke’, 428–9. On the Exhortatio, see

Flori, L’Islam et la fin des temps, 245; Struve, ‘Kaisertum und Romegedanke’, 424–5; and below at n.

94. On Rainer of Florence, see Carl Erdmann, ‘Endkaiserglaube und Kreuzzugsgedanke im 11.

Jahrhundert’, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 51 (1932), 388–90; and Struve, ‘Kaisertum und

Romgedanke’, 444.

59 Benzo of Alba, Ad Heinricum IV. Imperatorem, ed. Hans Seyffert, MGH SRG (Hanover, 1996),

65: 152, 214, 226, 272, 302; and 312, 334; respectively. Note too that the Byzantine ruler is never

called rex Grecorum, let alone Romanorum, perhaps to stifle any association between the Byzantine ruler and Last Emperor.

60 Ibid. 88, 586, and 118 respectively. The former title may allude to Rev. 17: 14, when Jesus is

called ‘Dominus dominorum est et rex regum’.

114

The Franks Recreate Empire

he would come to the East in order to protect Christian liberty from the threats of

the Normans and pagans until the end of time.61 Elsewhere, Benzo clarified

Henry’s role in saying:

As the Sibyl’s prophecy relates, a long road lies before [Henry]. For when Apulia and

Calabria are placed in good order and put back in their former state, Bizas62 will see [Henry]

crowned in [Bizas’s] own land. Then without delay, [Henry] will go to the city of Solomon

and honor the Holy Sepulcher and the Lord’s other shrines, and be crowned to the praise

and glory of the one who dwells in eternity. Babylon, astounded, will come to Zion, wishing

to lick the dust from [Henry’s] feet. Then that which is written will be fulfilled: And his

sepulcher will be glorious.63

Twice Benzo asserted that Henry would pacify the whole of the West, be crowned

at Constantinople (hence becoming rex Grecorum et Romanorum), journey to

Jerusalem, and take the submission of all the enemies of Christ (represented by

Babylon). Note that Benzo’s Last Emperor fulfilled both Pseudo-Methodius and

Tiburtine Sibyl’s prophecies almost perfectly. But note too that, with only minor

modifications, this passage from Benzo could function quite effectively as a sum-

mary of Benedict’s Chronicon or the Descriptio qualiter. In each of these three texts a

ruler sets the West in order, travels to the East, demonstrates his superiority to the

Byzantine ruler, goes to Jerusalem, and cows the pagans into submission.

The similarities between Benzo’s work and these particular sources of the

Charlemagne legend may not have been a coincidence. Much as we saw in Chapter

1, Charlemagne was becoming the standard by which all rulers were judged during

the eleventh century and Benzo’s tract is no different.64 In book 1, Benzo devoted

an entire chapter to an imagined speech Charlemagne gave to Henry. The speech

begins with Charlemagne recognizing Henry’s power, saying that Henry was

Charles’s ‘friend of friends’, who had been made in his own image. Charles then

went through his own accomplishments, comparing them with Henry’s own

(generally greater) endeavors. For instance, Charlemagne received an elephant

from the king of the Persians but Henry received a lion and other amazing beasts.

61 Benzo, Ad Heinricum, ed. Seyffert, 214, 226, and 226–8.

62 The legendary founder of Byzantium.

63 ‘Adhuc enim longa sibi restat via, sicut Sybille testatur prophetia. Nam ordinatis et in statum

pristinum collocatis Apulia scilicet atque Calabria videbit eum Bizas coronatum in sua patria. Deinceps erit egressio eius usque ad urbem Solimorum et saluto sepulchro ceterisque dominicis sanctuariis

coronabitur ad laudem et gloriam viventis in secula seculorum. Stupens igitur Babylon desiderans

lingere pulverem pedum eius veniet in Syon. Tunc implebitur, quod scriptum est: Et erit sepulchrum

eius gloriosum [Isa. 11: 10].’ Benzo, Ad Heinricum, ed. Seyffert, 144. Isa. 11: 10 is used similarly in the Tiburtine Sibyl, Explanatio, 185; and Pseudo-Alcuin. See below at n. 100. Huguette Taviani-Carozzi

notes that this route––Apulia, Calabria, Byzantium, Jerusalem––is the same one attempted by Robert

Guiscard and later his son, Bohemond of Taranto. See Huguette Taviani-Carozzi, La Terreur du

monde: Robert Guiscard et la conquète normande en Italie, mythe et histoire (Paris, 1996), 485.

64 Hannes Möhring has argued that Benzo’s letter was a conscious attempt to insert Henry IV into

the Charlemagne legend. See Hannes Möhring, ‘Benzo von Alba und die Entstehung des

Kreuzzugsgedankens’, in Karl Borchardt and Enno Bunz (eds.), Forschungen zur Reichs-, Papst- und

Landesgeschichte: Peter Herde zum 65. Geburtstag von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen dargebracht

(Stuttgart, 1998), 177; idem, Der Weltkaiser der Endzeit: Entstehung, Wandel und Wirkung einer

tausendjährigen Weissagung (Stuttgart, 2000), 157.

The Franks’ Imagined Empire

115

A legate from the bishop of Jerusalem sent Charles many relics, mementoes of the

Holy Sepulcher, and a standard, but by the will of God Charlemagne said that

Henry will become the standard-bearer for all Christendom, having been sent the

Holy Shroud, pieces of the True Cross, and pieces of the crown of thorns in the

hopes that Henry will be victorious over all his enemies.65

But Henry was even more. He was a Christ-type––a savior, or messiah. This is

significant because the Last Emperor functions as a Christ-type too, a messianic

figure who would unite Christendom and prepare it for the final battle between

good and evil. The Last Emperor is both figure and fulfillment––prefiguring Christ

of the Last Days, but fulfilling the figure of Christ portrayed in the Gospels. Just as

the Last Emperor will hand the world over to God at his death, so too did Christ at

his death, and as he will again at the end of time.66 Honorius Augustodunensis,

writing in the early twelfth century, explicitly drew on this parallel when he wrote

that, just as ‘on Palm Sunday, when the Lord went to Jerusalem and was met by a

crowd with palms, this is [now] the time when the Last Roman Emperor will go to

Jerusalem and, as the Sibyl wrote, give his kingdom to God the Father’.67 Benzo’s

letter foreshadows Honorius. Henry IV will be treated as if a redeemer by all the