An Empire of Memory (7 page)

Björn Weiler and Simon MacLean (eds.), Representations of Power in Medieval Germany, 800–1500

(Turnhout, 2006), 155–8. Timothy Reuter suggested that Otto III was more committed to

appropriating a Carolingian legacy for the simple fact that not many Carolingians were still alive.

Timothy Reuter, ‘The Ottonians and Carolingian Tradition’, in Janet L. Nelson (ed.), Medieval

Polities and Modern Mentalities (Cambridge, 2006), 279.

29 e.g. Conradi II. Diplomata, ed. H. Bresslau, MGH Dipl. Ger. (Berlin, 1957), iv, nos. 2, 41, 46.

Conrad did not offer a single diploma for Aachen.

30 Henry III offered only one diploma for the Marian chapel at Aachen and it did not mention

Charlemagne. See Heinrici III. Diplomata, ed. H. Bresslau and P. Kehr, MGH Dipl. Ger. (Berlin,

1957), v, no. 94. But see Heinrici IV. Diplomata, ed. Dietrich von Gladiss and Alfred Gawlik, MGH

Dipl. Ger. (Hanover, 1941), vi/1, no. 254; also no. 283.

31 Lambert of Hersfeld, Libelli de institutione Herveldensis ecclesiae quae supersunt, ed. O. Holder-

Egger, MGH SRG (Hanover, 1894), 38: 353. See also Bonizo of Sutri, Liber ad amicum, ed. Ernst

Dümmler, MGH LdL (Hanover, 1891), 1: 586–7; and the comments by Bernd Schütte, ‘Karl der

Grosse in der Historiographie der Ottonen- und Salierzeit’, in Franz-Reiner Erkens (ed.), Karl der

Grosse und das Erbe der Kulturen (Berlin, 2001), 248.

22

The Franks Remember Empire

Charlemagne’s kingdom’.32 Only when the succession to the throne had been

stabilized and the Capetians firmly established could those sympathetic to the

Capetians begin to reach out to the Carolingian past. Abbo of Fleury (d. 1004)

was among the first to do so, claiming that Hugh Capet stood in the line of

Constantine, Charlemagne, and Louis the Pious.33 In a poem dedicated to Robert II

the Pious (996–1031), Adalbero of Laon (d. 1030) stressed that Robert’s legitimacy

derived from his descent from the Carolingians and Ottonians.34 It was not until the

1070s and 1080s though, under Philip I (1060–1108), that the Capetians them-

selves took the first steps towards embracing the Carolingians. Even then, this move

back towards the Carolingians fizzled in the 1090s and was not taken up again until

the time of Philip’s successors (Louis VI and Louis VII), who worked this program in

conjunction with the abbots of Saint-Denis, Suger and Odo of Deuil.35

In these moments of uncertain attitudes toward the Carolingians, particularly in

West Francia after the ascension of Hugh Capet in 987, it became common for

texts to promote the idea of imperium Francorum, imperial authority stemming

from the essential Frankishness of the Capetians’ domain.36 This conception of

Frankish identity was not new though and seems to have derived from the late

ninth century. The Franks survived, even if the Carolingians did not. Emperor

Louis II of Italy’s (855–75) letter to the Byzantine ruler Basil I (867–86) argued

forcefully for the continued unity of the Franks in ‘flesh, blood, and spirit’, despite

the recent political division of the empire.37 But even earlier, as Mary Garrison has

pointed out, the Carolingians were not known as ‘the Carolingians’ until the

eleventh century. These rulers were, simply, Franks––an essential part of a larger,

united community. This was, at the very least, a change from the Merovingians,

who were indeed referred to by their dynastic name.38

32 ‘Eodem anno unctus est in regem Remis civitate Hugo dux, et ipso anno Robertus, filius eius, in

regnum piissimus rex ordinatus est. Hic deficit regnum Karoli Magni.’ Historia Francorum Senonensis,

MGH SS 9: 368. Even into the reign of Robert the Pious though, some still pined for the Carolingians.

See Jason Glenn, Politics and History in the Tenth Century: The Work and World of Richer of Reims

(Cambridge, 2004), 212–14.

33 Joachim Ehlers, ‘Karolingische Tradition und frühes Nationalbewusstsein in Frankreich’, Francia, 4

(1976), 223. We must be careful about overgeneralizing though. A 990 diploma from Hugh Capet for

Sainte-Croix in Orléans confirms the privileges granted by Hugh’s Carolingian predecessors. Cartulaire de Sainte-Croix d’Orléans (814–1300), ed. Joseph Thillier (Paris, 1906), no. 39.

34 Ehlers, ‘Karolingische Tradition’, 224–5. Robert claimed descent from the Carolingians because

he sat on the Frankish throne. He claimed descent from the Ottonians because his grandmother was

a daughter of King Henry I (919–36).

35 Matthew Gabriele, ‘The Provenance of the Descriptio qualiter Karolus Magnus: Remembering the

Carolingians at the Court of King Philip I (1060–1108) before the First Crusade’,Viator, 39 (2008),

93–117; and Gabrielle M. Spiegel, ‘The Cult of Saint-Denis and Capetian Kingship’, Journal of

Medieval History, 1 (1975), 43–69.

36 Ehlers, ‘Karolingische Tradition’, 213; and Nelson, ‘Kingship’, 76. Ehlers takes imperium here to

mean ‘empire’ but a better translation would be ‘authority’. I will deal with this idea in much greater depth in Chs. 4 and 5, below.

37 Steven Fanning, ‘Imperial Diplomacy between Francia and Byzantium: The Letter of Louis II to

Basil I’, Cithara, 34 (1994), 4–9.

38 Mary Garrison, ‘Divine Election for Nations: A Difficult Rhetoric for Medieval Scholars?’ in Lars

Boje Mortensen (ed.), The Making of Christian Myths in the Periphery of Latin Christendom (c.1000–

1300) (Copenhagen, 2006), 301–6.

The Birth of a Frankish Golden Age

23

Perhaps the most striking thing about this appeal to a transcendent ‘Frankish-

ness’ is how it survived across centuries. For instance, Notker the Stammerer

counted himself as a Frank, despite his proud descent from Alamannian nobility.

The key point is that these identities were not seen as mutually exclusive. Being an

Alamann meant having local ties. Being a Frank meant belonging to something

larger. Notker writes, ‘When I say Francia, I mean all the provinces north of

the Alps; for . . . , at that time, because of the excellence of the most glorious

Charlemagne, the Gauls, the Aquitanians, the Aedui, the Spaniards, the Alamanns,

and the Bavarians all prided themselves on being paid a great compliment if they

earned the right to be called Franks.’39 These peoples, it seems, did not summarily

abandon their other identity when being called ‘Franks’. They held both together.

The contemporary Bella Parisiacae urbis of Abbo of Saint-Germain-des-Prés also

shows a great flexibility in how it uses ‘Franks.’ For Abbo, a Frank could be an

inhabitant of a specific geographical area east of the Seine or it could mean anyone

who was ruled by a Carolingian. Notker and Abbo’s contemporaries, the Lombard

Andreas of Bergamo, the anonymous Saxon Poet, and Archbishop Ado of Vienne

display similar sentiments.40 At the end of the ninth century, being a Frank seems

to have meant consciously associating oneself with a larger, European identity and

with an idealized memory of Charlemagne’s reign. Being a Frank seems to have

been a statement that his Golden Age was a part of your heritage.

R E L I G I O U S H O U S E S A N D T H E I R C H A R L E M A G N E S

Of the datable forgeries included at the back of the MGH’s collection of Charle-

magne’s diplomas, over 70 percent (68 out of 97) date to the period between the ninth

and the early twelfth centuries and, almost without exception, these forged diplomas

originated in the religious houses of Charlemagne’s old empire.41 Many of these

forgeries have to do with Charlemagne’s alleged role in the foundation of these religious

houses. In the tenth century, the monastery of Gerri (in the Pyrenees) forged two

diplomas, each calling Charlemagne a just and pious emperor who had restored

the monastery after it had been destroyed by the pagans.42 At about that same time,

the archbishop of Ravenna ‘found’ a diploma from Charlemagne giving him power

39 ‘Franciam vero interdum cum nominavero, cum omnes cisalpinas provincias significo, quia . . . in

illo tempore propter excellentiam gloriosissimi Karoli et Galli et Aquitani, Edui et Hispani, Alamanni et Baioarii non parum se insignitos gloriabantur, si vel nomine Francorum servorum censri

mererentur.’ Notker, Gesta, ed. Haefele, 13. English tr. adapted from Notker the Stammerer, Gesta

Karoli Magni, in Two Lives of Charlemagne, tr. Lewis Thorpe (London, 1969), 103. See also the

comments of Goetz, Strukturen der spätkarolinischen Epoche, 72–3. On Notker’s personal identity, see

Innes, ‘Memory, Orality’, 11–12, 31.

40 MacLean, Kingship and Politics, 60–3; Godman, Poets and Emperors, 183; and Rosamond

McKitterick, Perceptions of the Past in the Early Middle Ages (Notre Dame, Ind., 2006), 29. See also

the extended discussion of 11th-cent. Frankish identity in Ch. 5, below.

41 On these false diplomas, see Dieter Hägermann, ‘Die Urkundenfälschungen auf Karl den

Grossen: Eine Übersicht’, in Fälschungen im Mittelalter, 6 vols. (Hanover, 1988), iv. 433–43.

42 Pippini, Carlomanni, Caroli Magni Diplomata, ed. Engelbert Mühlbacher, MGH Dipl. Karol.

(Hanover, 1906), i, nos. 308, 309.

24

The Franks Remember Empire

over twenty-five other bishops.43 In the eleventh century, the monks of Psalmodi in

Aquitaine believed that the ‘most serene’ Charlemagne refounded the abbey and

placed another monastery under its jurisdiction after Aquitaine had been ravaged by

pagans.44 Ademar of Chabannes claimed that the monastery of Saint-Philibert of

Noirmoutier had been founded by Charlemagne (although it had not).45 Shortly after

Ademar wrote in the eleventh century, the abbey of Saint-Savin (near the Pyrenees)

pushed its foundation back to the time of Charlemagne, making their real founder,

Count Raymond of Bigorre (d. 958), the abbey’s refounder.46 The monastery of

Sant’Antimo in Tuscany got Emperor Henry III in 1051 to confirm their legendary

foundation by Charlemagne.47 In the middle of the eleventh century, a false diploma

for La Réole said that Charles had built that priory and also generously endowed its

mother house (Fleury) at the same time.48 Although the Astronomer said that Louis

the Pious had reformed the monastery of Conques, both the eleventh-century Chron-

icon sancti Maxentii Pictavensisi and Hugh of Fleury in the early twelfth century said

that this was actually Charlemagne.49 The bishopric of Bremen claimed in the

eleventh century that Charles had established its see.50 The bishops of Verden in

Saxony claimed the same in the early twelfth century.51 At about the same time, a

forged diploma asserted that the great Frankish emperor had given the church of St

Peregrin, which Charles had founded after seeing a vision of the saint, to the monastery

of San Vincenzo al Volturno.52

In claiming that Charlemagne had a hand in their foundation (or refounda-

tion), monastic authors accomplished two things. First, by linking themselves to

Charlemagne’s reign, they reinforced the character of his Golden Age. In his recent

study of the Charlemagne legend in modern France, Robert Morrissey suggested

that legends generally develop in one of two ways: either with a logic of narration

(horizontally, where contradictions are not allowed) or with a logic of accumula-

tion (vertically, where contradictions are alright).53 The existence of different

versions of the same event would indicate a legend developed by accumulation.

This latter type of development certainly was at work in the Charlemagne legend.

David Ganz gives the example of a ninth-century manuscript that has Einhard’s

Vita Karoli inserted into the middle of the ARF, just before the reign of Louis the

43 Carlo Dolcini, ‘Il falso diploma di Carlo Magno per la Chiesa di Ravenna (787)’, in Fälschungen

im Mittelalter, 6 vols. (Hanover, 1988), iv. 159–66.

44 Caroli Magni Diplomata, ed. Mühlbacher, i, no. 303.

45 Ademar of Chabannes, Chronicon, ed. R. Landes and G. Pon, CCCM (Turnhout, 1999),

129: 132. On the veracity of this claim, see Ademar, Chronicon, ed. Landes and Pon, 256.

46 Cartulaire de l’abbaye de Saint-Savin en Lavedan (v. 975–v. 1180), ed. Alphonse Meillon

(Cauterets, 1920), 249–50. This portion of the prefatory chronicle was written c.1059–69.

47 Heinrici III. Diplomata, ed. Bresslau and Kehr, v, no. 271.

48 Cartulaire du prieuré de Saint-Pierre de la Réole, ed. Ch. Grellet-Balguerie, Archives historiques de la Gironde, 5 (1863), no. 102.

49 Sources discussed and summarized in Walter Cahn, ‘Observations on the A of Charlemagne in

the Treasure of the Abbey of Conques’, Gesta, 45 (2006), 97–100.

50 Caroli Magni Diplomata, ed. Mühlbacher, i, no. 245.

51 Ibid., no. 240.

52 Ibid., no. 315.

53 Morrissey, Charlemagne, 13.

The Birth of a Frankish Golden Age

25

Pious.54 But the foundation legends originating at religious houses seem to have

primarily developed through narration. As each monastery added its own layer to

the Charlemagne legend, the list of his deeds grew longer. The Golden Age

reinforced itself. The development of the legend in this way is similar to a story

passed around a campfire, in which each participant adds a sentence to the overall

narrative. Each addition makes the overall story richer and perhaps more plausible

by reinforcing the themes of the story as a whole. Religious houses did not have to

compete for Charlemagne’s attention. There was, it seems, more than enough