English Historical Review
© Addison Wesley Longman Limited
0013-8266/97/2
Charlemagne's Will: Piety, Politics and the
Imperial Succession
E I N H A R D , writing Charlemagne's Life, chose to end with the enactment of his erstwhile master's last will and testament. Thanks to Einhard's pioneering work, the first post-Roman Emperor in the west is
also the first Frankish king for whom a will survives.1 The text of the
document is accepted as unambiguously genuine.2 Yet it has been almost
wholly ignored in previous discussion, and used solely in Karl Brunner's
fine but methodologically idiosyncratic study of the high politics and
prosopography of the court in Charlemagne's last years.3 Indeed, any
student of the secondary literature alone would be unaware of the
element of literal truth in the conventional characterization of Louis the
Pious, the second Carolingian Emperor, as 'Charlemagne's heir'.4
Charlemagne's will has a dual historiographical importance. Firstly,
for the political historian, it offers unparalleled insights into Charlemagne's relationships with his family, his followers and the Church,
the three principal beneficiaries. It is a priceless - yet previously unused
- source for Charlemagne's own attempts to order his family and his
Empire in the last years of his life. Placed in the context of contemporary political thought and the historical traditions associated with the
Carolingian family, it becomes an unrivalled witness to Charlemagne's
own understanding of his political achievement. Moreover, in Einhard's
eyes, the will also overshadowed the first years of Louis the Pious's
reign, a document of central importance in the complex politics of the
succession crisis of 810 to 817. Rereading the will in the light of
Einhard's understanding of it allows a wholesale reinterpretation of this
crucial episode in Carolingian history.
1. The ninth-century Gesta Dagoberti, ed. B. Krusch (Monumenta Germanise Historica [henceforth MGH], Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum II), pp.396-425, esp. cc. 39, 46, 49, pp. 416-19, 422,
423, refers to a written will of Dagobert I, but the discussion of the succession to Dagobert is
extrapolated from the historical compilation known as Fredegar, which mentions no such document.
For the date and context of the work (St Denis in the 830s) see M. Buchner, 'Zur Entstehung und
Tendenz der Gesta Dagoberti', Historisches Jahrbuch,x\vu (1927), 252-74.1 must thank Guy Halsall
and Paul Kershaw for bringing this source to my attention.
2. The will constitutes chapter 33 of Einhard, Vita Karoli, ed. O. Holder-Egger (MGH, Scriptores
rerum Germanicarum [henceforth SRG], Hanover and Leipzig, 1911), pp. 37-41.T. Sickel, ^cta regum
et imperatorum Karolinorum digesta et enarrata (2 vols., Vienna, 1867-8), i. 416, n. 19, suggests that
Einhard may have touched up the wording. Even Einhard's arch-critic, Louis Halphen, does not
dispute the genuine nature of the will, although he does query Einhard's assertion that it was carried
out: tginhard. Vie de Charlemagne (Paris, 1923), p. 103, n. 1.
3. K. Brunner, Oppositionelle Gruppen im Karolingerreich (Vienna, 1979), pp. 69-95.
4. For example I can find no discussion in the studies on Charlemagne, Karl der Grojie. Lebenswerk
undNachleben,ed.W. Braunfels(4 vols., Aachen, 1965), or Louis the Pious, Charlemagne's Heir. New
Perspectives on the Reign of Louis the Pious (814-40), ed. P. Godman and R. Collins (Oxford, 1990).
The only previous study is A. Schultze, 'Das Testament Karls des Grossen', Aus Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte: Gedachtnisschrift fur G. von Below (Stuttgart, 1928), pp.46-81.
EHR Sept. o 7
834
C H A R L E M A G N E ' S WILL: PIETY, P O L I T I C S
September
Secondly, the will is significant for the social and cultural historian.
Early medieval charters in general, and wills in particular, have enjoyed
an historiographical renaissance of late.1 Historians are, moreover, increasingly aware of the central importance of the process of commemoration, in particular the liturgical commemoration of the dead, within
early medieval society; recent years have seen the first attempts at a
history of death in the early Middle Ages.2 As Einhard was not the only
contemporary commentator who was interested in Louis's prosecution
of his father's wishes, it is possible to counterpoint the document itself
with a range of contemporary views of its enactment. Charlemagne's
will thus presents an unparalleled opportunity to dissect the specific,
social meaning of inheritance and testamentary bequest, and to investigate the relationship between a written document and legal action.3
The will is transmitted only via Einhard's Life. Einhard, after whetting
his audience's appetite with a fine list of portents, ends his work at the
first Carolingian Emperor's deathbed, before capping all with his last
will and testament. Typically following the cue given by his literary
model, Suetonius's Lives of the Caesars, in discussing his subject's will,
Einhard transforms this precedent: the will in the Life of Charles is
placed centre stage, quoted in full, following Christian historiographical
1. U. Nonn, 'Merowingische Testamente. Studien zum Fortleben einer romischer Urkundenform
im Frankenreich', Archiv fur Diplomatik, Schriftsgeschichte, Siegel- und Wappenkunde, xviii (1972),
1-129, is fundamental, and supplemented by a series of case-studies (in chronological order): M.
Weidemann, Das Testament des Bischofs Berthramn von Le Mans vom 27. Man 616: Untersuchungen
zu Besitz und Geschichte einer Frdnkischen Familie im 6. und 7. Jahrhundert (Mainz, 1986); U. Nonn,
'Erminethrud -eine vornehme neustrischen Dame um 700', Historisches Jahrbuch, cii (1987), 135-43;
P. J. Geary, Aristocracy in Provence: The Rhone Basin at the Dawn of the Carolingian Era (Stuttgart,
1986); J. L. Nelson, "The Wary Widow', Property and Power in the Early Middle Ages, ed. W. Davies
and P. Fouracre (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 82-113; and B. Kasten, 'Erbrechtliche Verfiigungen des 8. und
9. Jahrhunderts. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Organisation und zur Schrifthchkeit bei der Verwaltung
adeliger Grundherrschaft am Beispiel des Grafen Heccard aus Burgund", Zeitschrift der SavignyStiftung fur Rechtsgeschickte, Germanische Abteilung, cvii (1990), 236-238. G. Spreckelmeyer, 'Zur
rechtlichen Funktion friihmittelalterlicher Testamente', Recht und Schrift im Mittelalter, ed. P. Classen
(Sigmaringen, 1977), pp.91-114, is a useful overview. The closest contemporary parallels to Charlemagne's will are found in the royal wills from ninth- and tenth-century England. .
2. The literature is vast. The best starting-point on commemoration is Memoria. Der geschichtliche
Zeugniswert desliturgischen Gedenkens im Mittelalter, ed. K. Schmid and J. Wollasch (Miinster, 1984),
with many references. For the history of death, O. G. Oexle, 'Die Gegenwart der Toten', in Death in
the Middle Ages, ed. H. Braet and W. Verbeke (Louvain, 1983), pp. 18-77, is fundamental. Also useful:
P. J. Geary, Living with the Dead in the Middle Ages (Ithaca, 1994); M. McLaughlin, Consorting with
Saints: The Ideology of Prayer for the Dead in Early Medieval France (Ithaca, 1993); and F. Paxton,
Christianising Death: The Creation of a Ritual Process in Early Medieval Europe (Ithaca, 1990). On
charity and death, O. G. Oexle, 'Mahl und Spende im mittelalterlichen Totenkulte', FriihmittelalterUche Studien, xviii (1984), 401-14, and J. Wollasch, 'Gemeinschaftsbewufitsein und soziale Leistung im
Mittelalter', ibid., ix (1975), 268-86.
3. The interaction between the legal superstructure of the documents and the social logic dictating
their content has been the subject of the most stimulating recent work on medieval social history, most
notably B. H. Rosenwein, To Be the Neighbor of Saint Peter: The Social Meaning of Cluny's Property,
909-/049 (Ithaca/London, 1989) and S. D. White, Custom, Kinship and Gifts to Saints: The Laudatio
Parentum in Western France, IOJO-I IJO (Chapel Hill, 1988). Most of the essays in Property and Power
in the Early Middle Ages, ed. Davies and Fouracre, draw on this approach in discussing the earlier
period.
EHR Sept. 97
1997
AND THE IMPERIAL SUCCESSION
835
tradition and the dictates of rhetoric.1 The will, drawn up in 811 and
effected in 814, is projected as a final declaration of Charlemagne's
personal and political heritage.
The form of the document is intriguing as, in part at least, it follows
that of an official act. The introduction of the witnesses to the will marks
it out as an official document, a constitutio or ordinatio.2 Yet the idea of a
witness list is perhaps borrowed from private charters; it was unprecedented for those present to sign capitularies in this manner, although
episcopal subscription of synodal decrees might provide a model. A
comparison with the succession agreement or Divisio Regnorum of 806
is helpful in explaining the document's form.3 While no copy of the 806
capitulary with subscriptions survives, the Royal Annals give an account
of its promulgation which invites comparison with the 811 divisio of
treasure and its witness list:
... the Emperor held an assembly to confirm and preserve peace among his
sons and to make the division of the kingdoms into three parts, so that each
should have a part to protect and to rule if he should survive his father. A
testamentum was drawn up ratifying his decision, and it was confirmed by the
oaths of the Frankish magnates. All of this was recorded in writing and
carried by Einhard to Pope Leo so that he would agree it. After reading it the
pontiff gave his consent and signed it with his hand.4
It is a short step from confirmation by oath to subscription; Classen
comments on the 'charter-like form' of the 806 capitulary.5
Both the 806 succession agreement and the 811 will may share a
common inspiration. The 806 Divisio is the earliest Frankish document
definitely influenced by the notorious forged Constitution Constantini
(the so-called Donation of Constantine) which was concocted by someone close to the Papacy at some point in the second half of the eighth
century, and describes Constantine's conversion to Christianity and his
(spurious) grant of secular rights in Rome and the crown of the western
1. The parallels between Einhard and Suetonius in the discussion of wills are noted by Halphen,
£ginhard, p. 93, n. 4. The will was stressed by M. Innes and R. McKitterick, 'The Writing of History', in
Carolingian Culture: Emulation and Innovation, ed. R. McKitterick (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 195-220,
at p. 204, and, apparently independently and with differing conclusions, by M. S. Kempshall, 'Some
Ciceronian Aspects of Einhard's Life of Charlemagne', Viator, xxvi (1995), 11-38, at 23-5.
2. See Schultze, 'Testament', p. 48; S. Abel and B. von Simson, Jahrbucher des fra'nkischen Reiches
unter Karl dem Grojien (2 vols., Leipzig, 1883), ii. 454; B. von Simson, Jahrbucher des fra'nkischen
Reiches unter Ludwig dem Frommen (2 vols., Leipzig, 1874-6), i. 15. I cannot agree with Schultze's
comment at p. 47 that the will's references to a division per praeceptum should be read in the light of
Roman private law: in the Carolingian period a praeceptum was a royal document.
3. MGH Leges sectio III, Capitularia Rcgum Francorum (henceforth Cap.) (2 vols., ed. A. Boretius
and V. Krause, Hanover, 1883-97), H:i»6 (no. 45). On the title's authenticity, see P. Classen, 'Karl dcr
GroSe und die Thronfolge im Frankenreich', Ausgewdblte Aufsatze von Peter Classen (Sigmaringen,
1983), pp. 205-29, at p. 217, n. 5 9; the MS titles underline the similarity of the division of political power
in 806 and that of treasure in 811.
4. Annales Regni Francorum, ed. F. Kurze (MGH SRG, Hanover, 1890), s.a. 806, p. 120; trans. B. W.
Scholz, Carolingian Chronicles (Michigan, 1970), p. 85.
5. Classen, 'Karl der Grofie und die Thronfolge', p. 217, also noting that the 806 document (like the
will) is presented as a testamentum, in contemporary usage a charter.
EHR Sept. 97
836
C H A R L E M A G N E ' S WILL: PIETY, P O L I T I C S
September
Empire to the Papacy.1 In several manuscripts of the 806 Divisio, Charlemagne's titulature mirrors Constantine's in the Donation; Einhard's journey to Rome in 806 to win papal approval for Charlemagne's succession
project probably relates to the forgery's claims, and Schlesinger has detected a
Constantinian Imperial idea underlying the 806 agreement as a whole.2 The
proclamation of Charlemagne as a new Constantine was, of course, a recurrent feature of his reign and indeed the Constantine tradition predated
Charlemagne.3 Lowe has shown how Einhard's conception of Charlemagne's
relation to Rome, as voiced in the Life of Charles, is based on the Donation; an
understanding paralleled by the patronage of the Church, and particularly the
Papacy, in the will.4 Both the will and the agreements on fraternal relations
included in the 806 divisio are styled constitutiones, like the Donation. It seems
likely that the influence of the Donation informs the very idea of a formal will
making a high-profile and public grant of royal treasure to the Papacy and the
Western Church, in such a manner as to preserve the memory of Charlemagne's pious act.
For all these peculiarities of form and public rationale, the 'donation of
Charlemagne' can also be placed in a context of Frankish testamentary
action.5 The Merovingian period produced an impressive series of wills drawn
up along lines dictated by vulgar Roman law in practice. By the end of the
eighth century, this Merovingian diplomatic form had fallen into
1. For a magisterial, concise, summary, see T. F. X. Noble, The Republic of St. Peter: The Formation
of the Papal State, 680—82} (Philadelphia, 1984) pp. 134-7; the most complete discussion remains H.
Fuhrmann, 'Das friihmittelalterliche Papsttum und die Konstantinische Schenkung: Meditationen uber
ein unausgefahrtes Thema', Settimane di Studio ... xx (Spoleto, 1973), 257-92; and the most recent
contribution is E.-D. Hehl, '798 - ein erste Zitat aus der Konstantinische Schenkung', Deutsches Archiv
[fur die Erforschung des MitteUlters], xlvii (1991), 1-17- The document is edited by H. Fuhrmann,
Constitutum Constantini (MGH Fontes juris germanici antiqui, Hanover, 1968). While the consensus
is that the 806 divisio and Einhard's VKare the first two Frankish documents on which the influence of
the donation can definitely be discerned, the date of its composition and influence in Rome are separate
issues. And in any case it is possible that the donation, or at least the material it contains, was influential
long before the document itself was directly cited: for the view that it informed Franco-Papal relations
from the time of Pippin onwards, see most recently J. Herrin, The Formation of Christendom (London,
1987), chs. 9-11 passim and esp. pp.385-7. I must thank Katy Cubitt for pointing me towards the
Donation.
2. W. Schlesinger, 'Kaistertum und Reichsteilung. Zur divisio regnorum von 806', Zur Kaisertum
Karls des Grojien, ed. G. Wolf (Darmstadt, 1972), pp. 116-72; Schlesinger's fundamental article first
appeared in Stoat und Verfassung. Festgabe F. Hanung (Berlin, 1958), pp. 9-51, and is reprinted in his
Beitrage zur deutschen Verfassungsgeschichte des Mittelalters (2 vols., Gottingen, 1963), i- 193-232.
3. Schlesinger's study should be placed in the wider context supplied by E. Ewig's classic 'Das Bild
Constantins der Grofien in den ersten Jahrhunderten des abendiandischen Mittelalters', Spdtantikes
und frankisches Gallien. Gesammelte Schriften (1912-73), ed. H. Atsma (Beihefte der Francia 3/i-ii, 2
vols., Munich, 1976-9), i. 72-113.
4. H. Lowe, 'Religio Christiana, Rom und das Kaistertum in Emhards Vita Karoli Magni', Storiographia e Storia. Festschrift E. Dupre-Theiseider (Rome, 1974), i. 1-20.
5. Compare Kasten, 'Erbrechtliche Verfugungen', 246, and Spreckelmeyer, 'Zur rechtlichen Funktion', p. 110, who stress the unusual aspects of its form and omit it from their discussions, obscuring the
similarities of content with contemporary documents.
EHR Sept. 97
1997
AND THE
IMPERIAL SUCCESSION
837
disuse, and bequests were presented in the form of straightforward
donations, with personal effects, moveables and on occasion landed
estates, being granted to friends or relatives as eleimosina for posthumous distribution for the good of the deceased's soul.1 The term divisio,
which is how Charlemagne's will styles itself, is a well-attested ninthcentury usage: it primarily concerns the distribution of moveable wealth
to heirs and for the good of the testator's soul.2 Charlemagne's divisio is
exceptional in that it deals only with moveables, but this is a result of his
exceptional position as a ruler - his landed estate passed on with the
Crown rather than being shared out between kin and other beneficiaries.
In its aims, the will thus has strong affinities with contemporary testamentary practice; indeed, its prologue could almost stand as a definition
of Carolingian eleimosina:
His essential objects in planning this division have been to ensure that the
largesse in alms which Christians solemnly offer from their possessions
should be made methodically and sensibly from his own fortune.3
The prologue (echoing the 806 succession agreement) also stresses the
need to prevent fraternal discord over inheritance.
The will stipulates that the contents of Charles's treasury are to be
divided into three equal parts, two of which are to be sealed and, on
Charles's death, distributed to the twenty-one metropolitan churches of
the Empire. Each of these twenty-one parts is to subdivided so that
two-thirds is shared amongst the suffragan sees whilst one-third stays
with the metropolitan. The will makes it clear that these gifts are made
'in the name of alms' by Charles's heirs and friends. The final third of
Charles's treasure is to pay for day to day expenses until the Emperor's
death, and is then to' be subdivided into four equal parts. The first is to
go, again, to the metropolitans and to be treated in a similar manner to
the mass of the treasure. The second constitutes the 'allotted share' of
Charles's legitimate sons and daughters, and the legitimate children of
his sons.4 The third quarter is to be given to the pauperes 'according to
1. Nonn, 'Merowingische Testamente', for the Merovingian background; on Carotingian developments the best discussion is Kasten, 'Erbrechtliche Verfiigungen', esp. 240-84, although the state of
research is such that the older study by L. Auffroy, L 'evolution du testament en France des origines au
XII sielcle (Paris, 1899) should also be consulted. See also J. Wollasch, 'Eleemosynarius. Eine Skizze',
Sprache und Recht. Festschrift R. Schmidt-Weigand, ed. K. Hauck et al. (2 vols., Berlin/New York,
1986) ii. 972-95, esp. 975-6.
2. Compare the 'will' of Eberhard, count of Friuli, Cartulaire de I'abbaye de Cysoing, ed. I. de
Coussemaker (Lille, 1886), no. 1, pp. 1-2; the divisio of movable effects appended to the grant of the
nobleman Dadila's estates to the church in 813 (C. Devic and J. Vaisette, Histoire Generate de
Languedoc, ii [Toulouse, 188 5],/>re«ves cols. 81-4); Louis the Pious's deathbed bequests (Astronomer,
Vita Hludovici, c. 63, ed. G. H. Pertz, MGH Scriptores [henceforth SS] II, pp. 604-48, at p. 647), and
Charles the Bald's regulations, especially concerning his library, as he left for Italy in 876 (MGH
Cap.II.358-9, no. 281, c. 12). The last two examples exhibit the influence of Charlemagne's own will.
3. I base my translation on L. Thorpe, Two Lives of Charlemagne (London, 1969).
4. ... altera afiliis acfiliahus suisfiliisqueacfiliahus filiorum suorum adsumpta... The will seems here
to contradict Einhard's earlier statement that in his last days Charles had wished to make another
testamentum which filias et ex concubinis liberos ex aliqua parte sibi heredes faceret, but failed to have
such a document completed. Einhard's suggestion that Charlemagne's true wishes were more generous
EHR Sept. 97
838
C H A R L E M A G N E ' S WILL: PIETY, POLITICS
September
1
the true custom and habit of Christians'. The final portion is to go to
the palace servants 'in a similar manner, in the name of alms'. Anything
found in the palace which has not been given by Charles to the chapel is
to be added to the final third of the initial division, so as to increase the
amount of alms given. Charles's books are to be sold, and the proceeds
likewise given to the pauperes.2 Finally, special provision is made for
four decorated tables: one is to go to Rome, one to Ravenna, the other
two are to be sold and the proceeds divided as the will lays down.
Although Einhard unequivocally states that Louis the Pious observed
these stipulations, modern commentators have been less sure and have
detected differences between contemporary accounts of the fate of
Charles's moveable wealth and the guidelines of the document preserved by Einhard.3 In actual fact, the four principal accounts of the
aftermath of Charlemagne's death - those of Einhard (writing between
817 and c. 825)4, of Louis the Pious's two biographers, Thegan (837) and
the 'Astronomer' (840-841), and of the historian Nithard (841-3) - do
not directly contradict one another. To expect all to mention the will
itself and to offer absolutely identical accounts is to make anachronistic
assumptions about the legal framework within which documents
to some of his family than the will allowed must be read with one eye on the evidence for the actual
bequests made from Charlemagne's legacy: i.e. Einhard is here clearly commenting on Louis the Pious's
conduct towards his kinsmen. What the intended comment was rather depends upon how we read the
evidence for Louis's handling of his father's inheritance: for my interpretation, which would make
Einhard quite close to Louis (but need not totally rule out a certain critical distance and an element of
special pleading): see infra, pp. 844-5. We need a full study of Einhard's attitude to Louis and the
politics of his reign.
1. On the meaning of pauper the classic study remains K. Bosl, 'Potens und pauper. Begriffsgeschichtliche Studien zur gesellschaftlichen Differenzierung im fru'hen Mittelalter und zum "Pauperismus" des Hochmittelalters', in his Friihformen der Geselhchaft im mittelalterliches Europa.
Ausgewdhlte Beitrdge z« einer Strukturanalyse der mittelalterlichen Welt (Munich/Vienna, 1964),
pp. 106-134. Bosl shows that in this period poverty is defined socially not economically: thus pauper is
best rendered as 'powerless'.
2. Compare Kasten, 'Erbrechtliche Verfiigungen', 255, for a Carolingian document which explicitly
cites the Biblical injunction to sell possessions and give to the poor to win eternal life; Charlemagne too
may have been following Biblical precepts.
3. For example, Halphen, tginhard, p. 104, with n. 1, and Kempshall, 'Some Ciceronian Aspects',
24-5. Kempshall attempts to cast doubt on the status of the final sentence of the Vita Karoli, which
states that Louis enacted the will: however, the omission of a final sentence in one manuscript (and this
manuscript associated with Hincmar's Rheims) does not make it a latter addition. In any case,
Kempshall's reading is problematical, in that if (as he argues) Louis was widely attacked for ignoring his
father's will, it would make no sense for even a partisan of Louis's to make an unbelievable claim that
Louis had obeyed the will rather than omitting an embarrassing episode. In actual fact no source claims
that Louis ignored the will, and both Einhard and Louis's own biographer claim that Louis did follow
the will; both were closely related to Louis's court and thus, while likely to favour Louis, unlikely to
make implausible claims.
4. The vexed issue of the date of the Vita Karoli is inseparable from that of Einhard's relationship to
Louis the Pious: the fullest discussion is H. Lowe, 'Die Entstehungszeit der Vita Karoli Einhards',
Deutsches Archiv xxxix (1983), 85-103. For arguments for an early date in the timespan advocated by
Lowe, see Innes and McKitterick 'The Writing of History', pp. 204-7.
EHR Sept. 97
1997
AND THE IMPERIAL SUCCESSION
839
worked, and the means by which information travelled and was remembered, in the Carolingian period.1
The account which stands at the greatest distance from Einhard's is
the latest in date, that given in Nithard's Histories, written for Charles
the Bald, Charlemagne's grandson. Despite the passing of three decades,
Nithard was scarcely a disinterested witness, for he was himself Charlemagne's illegitimate grandson and thus possibly had a stake in the fate
of the treasury.2 Nithard writes that:
at the beginning of his rule as Emperor ... [Louis] ordered the immense
treasures left by his father to be divided into three parts. The first part he spent
on the causa funeralis; the other two parts he divided between himself and
those of his sisters who were born in lawful wedlock.3
This clearly stands at odds with the will itself. As Nithard himself was
scarcely of an age to have been closely involved with the events of 814,
the sources of his knowledge become paramount. It is probable that
here, as elsewhere, Nithard relies on the Life of Louis, a work written by
an anonymous ex-courtier known as 'the Astronomer'. 4 The Astronomer (quite inaccurately)5 stresses Louis's concern with providing for
Charles's funeral, and then goes on to state that Louis divided what
remained of the treasury as laid down in his father's will.6 The distribution of treasure to the metropolitans, which is in actual fact the
centrepiece of the will, is introduced in such a way that a reader without
direct access to the will would see this as an exception to the general
tenor of the testamentary provisions.7 The Astronomer, with his own
biographical agenda, instead focuses upon the division of what
remained, presented as straightforward inheritance by Charles's heirs
and erstwhile dependents, who then distribute largesse on the deceased's
behalf to the pauperes. It is possible to see how Nithard, seeing the
patronage of the Church as a distraction from the central familial action,
could adapt this account into a division between the causa funeralis
(which included gifts to the Church) and inheritance. In doing so he
gives an insight into one informed layman's view of death. Where his
source talks of distribution between heirs, dependants and thepauperes,
1. Compare Kempsha]], 'Some Ciceronian Aspects', 24-5. SchuJtzc, 'Testament', pp. 62-81, is guilty
of similar assumptions in that he attempts to reconcile the various accounts through a legalistic
argument.
2. On Nithard, see the stimulating study by J. L. Nelson, 'Public Histories and Private History in
the Work of Nithard', in her Politics and Ritual in Early Medieval Europe (Woodbridge, 1986),
pp. 195-238.
3. Nithard, Historiae 1.2, ed. P. Lauer, Histoire des fils de Louis le Pieux (Paris, 1926), p.6; trans.
Scholz, Carolingian Chronicles, p. 130.
4. See E. Tremp, 'Thegan und Astronomus, die beiden Geschichtsschreibern Ludwigs des Frommen', in Charlemagne's Heir, ed. Godman and Collins, pp. 691-700, at p. 697, with older literature. On
the Astronomer, E. Tremp, Die Oherlieferung der Vita Hludovici des Astronomus (MGH Studien und
Texte I, Hanover, 1992).
5. For an accurate report of Charlemagne's funeral, see Vita Karoli, c. 31, p. 3 5.
6. Astronomer, Vita Hludovici, c. 22, ed. Pertz, pp. 618-19.
7. Sed quod aecclesiis distribuendum censuit... is how the Astronomer puts it.
EHR Sept. 97
840
C H A R L E M A G N E ' S WILL: PIETY, P O L I T I C S
September
and mentions gifts to the Church, Nithard feels that he can condense all
by talking of the causa funeralis and legitimate inheritance by heirs.
(Interestingly he assumes that the division would be threefold.1) Evidently gifts on behalf of the deceased's soul, and to erstwhile dependants, were only to be expected from those who inherited, to preserve
the memory of the deceased, and to demonstrate the kind of good
lordship which Einhard himself praised in Charlemagne. What mattered
was the heirs.
In this shift of focus Nithard's picture agrees with that presented by
the other accounts of the events of 814. The Astronomer, although
perhaps influenced by Einhard's account in his stress on Louis's diligence in reading and following the will, likewise passes the initiative to
the heirs in general and to Louis in particular.2 This biographer's agenda
was to present Louis as a dutiful son and rightful heir. None the less, in
doing so he gives a powerful version of how a dutiful son and rightful
heir ought to behave: Louis personally organizes the funeral, and provides for it from the estate.3 Gifts are made to the Church, the pauperes
and dependants. Gifts to the Church and charity are separate events, and
both are organized by the heirs. Louis's other biographer, Thegan,
suffragan bishop of Trier, writing in 837, places a similar stress on the
son's initiative. Louis, on his father's death, gave his sisters 'their legal
portion, and what remained, he gave for the soul of his father. The best
part of the treasury he gave to St Peter's [Rome] ... and all of what
remained he distributed among the priests, the pauperes, strangers,
widows and orphans'. 4 This is entirely consistent with the transmitted
will, but shows the difference between written document and legal
action. Compare the stress of the contemporaneous Chronicle of Moissac: 'He [Louis] made great alms for his father, and divided it between
churches, monasteries and pauperes.'5 Ermold the Black, in his Virgilian
epic on Louis, strikes a similar note.6
Filial duties to care for the souls of ancestors are underlined in a wide
range of other sources from the Carolingian period. Dhuoda, an aris1. For parallels for such threefold division see supra, p. 833, n. 1, infra p. 851, nn. 3-5. E. F. Brack,
Kirchenvater und soziales Erbrecht. Wanderungen religioser Ideen durch die Rechte der ostlichen und
westlichen Welt (Berlin, 1956), although legalistic and dated, is a useful discussion of provision for
bequests for the soul.
2. Kempshall, 'Some Ciceronian Aspects', 24, for the importance of Einhard (this would imply that
the Astronomer, a courtier writing in 840-1, had a copy of Einhard which included the last sentence
stating that Louis carried out the will, thus making it unlikely that the sentence is an interpolation. Cf.
supra p. 838, n. 3).
3. Note that at this date the royal funeral was still a relatively unimportant affair, when compared to
later Carolingian and Capetian practice; attention instead focused upon the creation of a means of
commemoration. See A. Erlande-Brandenburg, Le roiest mort: etude sur lesfunerailles, les sepultures et
les tombeaux des rois de France jusqu'k la fin du XIII siecle (Geneva, 1975), pp. 5-12.
4. Thegan, Gesta Hludovici Imperatoris, c. 8, ed. G. H. Pertz (MGH SS II), pp. 590-604, at p. 592;
trans. P. Dutton, Carolingian Civilisation. A Reader (Peterborough, Ontario, 1993), p. 143.
5. Ed. G. H. Pertz (MGH SS II), pp. 257-9, heres.a. 813, at p. 259.
6. Ermold, In honorem Hludovici, ed. E. Faral, Ermold le Noir. Po'eme sur Louis le Pieux et epitres au
roiPepin (Paris, 1964), Book II, lines 810-817^.64.
EHR Sept. 97
1997
AND THE IMPERIAL SUCCESSION
84I
tocratic mother writing in 841-3, advised her son William to make
special prayer for his father's kin, above all those from whom he had
inherited.1 Soon after Charlemagne's death a monk of Reichenau presented his vision of Charlemagne in Hell to Louis the Pious; here Louis
was expected to perform agapes to expiate his father's lot.2 At Easter 874
Louis's own son, Louis the German, was moved to write to churchmen
right across what had been his father's Empire to ask for intercession for
his father, whom he had seen in Hell in a dream.3 Legal documents
played a central part in the inheritance process, but moral arguments and
religious ideas made charity and gifts to the Church the inheritors' job.
All these accounts of the actual process of inheritance and commemoration following Charlemagne's death concentrate on the role of Louis
the Pious, his only surviving legitimate son and successor as Emperor. In
the specific circumstances of 814, this has the effect of presenting Louis
as Charlemagne's sole heir, and of marginalizing the role of his sisters
and other kin in the inheritance and succession process. That is, it is clear
that to understand the will and the inheritance process which it defined,
it is necessary to place it in the context of the succession crisis of 810-17.
A brief history of Frankish royal succession practices is thus necessary.4 Since the conquest of sub-Roman Gaul by Clovis in the decades on
either side of AD 500, all a king's sons had enjoyed some 'throneworthiness'. (By the ninth century this was in theory at least limited to
legitimate sons). The inevitable result was division of the kingdom
between those with the political support to make good their claims. This
was not the product of an understanding of kingdoms as the private
property of the royal dynasty. Rather, it was the result of political
necessity in a world where individual kingdoms were not understood as
homogenous entities possessing a coherent free-standing identity or
1. Dhuoda, Liber Manualis, ed. P. Riche (Paris, 1975), 8:14 and 10:5, pp. 318-23 and 354-5 respectively ('To the same extent that they have bequeathed, pray for the possessor', '[Prayer for] those who
have left their property in legal inheritance'). Comments: P. J. Geary, 'Exchange and Interaction
between the Living and Dead in Early Medieval Society', in idem, Living with the Dead, pp. 77-94, at
pp. 79-81; J. Wollasch, 'Eine adlige Familie des friiheren Mittelalters: Ihr Selbstverstadnis und ihr
Wirklichkeit', Archiv fur Kulturgeschichte, xxxix (1957), 150-85; M. Claussen, 'Man and God in
Dhuoda', Studies in Church History, xxvii (1990), 43-52.
2. 'Visio cuiusdam pauperculae mulieris: Oberlieferung und Herkunft eines friihmittelalterlichen
Visiontextes (mit'Neuedition)', ed. H. Houben, Zeitschrift fiir die Geschichte des Oberrheins, cxxxv
(1976), 31-42, at 41-2. For an interpretation, P. Dutton, The Politics of Dreaming in the Carolingian
Empire (Lincoln/London, 1994), pp. 66-74.
3. Annales Fuldenses, ed. F. Kurze (MGH SRG, Hanover, 1891), s.a. 874, p. 82. This Mainz source
talks of Louis writing to all the monasteries of his kingdom. But the Archbishop of Rheims, beyond
Louis's kingdom, also received a request for prayer, and himself passed this on to the king of west
Francia: Flodoard, Historia Remensis Ecclesiae, ed. G. Waitz and J. Heller (MGH SS XIII), pp. 405-599,
at III: 18, p. 510, and III:2O, p. 513. Was the Reichskirche, and above all the metropolitans, the proper
place for Imperial memoria in 874 as in 814? On the episode, see Dutton, The Politics of Dreaming,
pp. 219-222.
4. The fundamental treatment, upon which most of what follows is based, is E. Ewig, 'Oberlegungen
zu den merovingischen und karolingischen Teilungen', Settimane di Studio ... xxvn (Spoleto, 1981),
pp.225-53.
EHR Sept. 97
842
C H A R L E M A G N E ' S WILL: PIETY, P O L I T I C S
September
nascent unity. Charlemagne's reign witnessed important developments.
The first surviving agreement regarding the fate of his Empire is that of
806, which gave the young Charles, Charlemagne's eldest son, the lion's
share of his political legacy, the Frankish core area.1 Such an unequal
division was a conscious break with Frankish tradition: there are hints
that such a plan was mooted as early as 781, perhaps even in 77%} Under
the 806 arrangement, Charles's two legitimate brothers, Louis and
Pippin, enjoyed positions of secondary importance. But, as Schieffer has
reminded us, succession agreements affected the claims of more than
one generation of would-be Carolingian kings.3 The crucial, and overlooked, element of the 806 agreement is the young Charles's heirlessness, apparently a matter of choice and thus an integral part of the
future shape of the Empire.4 Unlike Louis and Pippin, despatched as
boy-kings to Aquitaine and Italy, the young Charles remained very
much a part of the Aachen establishment around his father, and won his
political spurs administering a grouping of counties in the Frankish
heartland. He was thus an integral part of the court circle of his father.
The 'monstrous regiment' of his sisters did much to define and hold
together the circle of Charlemagne's closest advisers in the last decade of
the reign - not least through their sexual unions. 5 What was to be of
capital political significance was that this pro-Charles faction was lukewarm in its attitude to Louis the Pious, but close to Pippin of Italy:
following Pippin's death no fewer than five of his daughters resided at
Aachen within their grandfather'sfamilia. Einhard later made great play
of this special treatment.6 The 806 settlement had made complex provisions for the immediate circumstances following from the death of any
of Charlemagne's three legitimate sons, while allowing the possibility
that their children, if they had sufficient political support, could succeed
to their father's kingdoms ahead of their uncles. Thus Pippin of Italy's
death in November 810 altered the political balance: it left his politically
mature son, Bernhard, the only possible long-term alternative to Louis
1. MGH Cap. 1.126-30 (no. 45). Controversy rages over the fate of the Imperial title, which is
alluded to but not mentioned. On 806, Schlesinger, 'Kaisertum und Reichsteilung', remains the best
discussion, but see also most recently E. Boshof, 'Einheitsidee und Teilungsprinzip in der Regierungszeit Ludwigs des Fromen', in Charlemagne's Heir, ed. Godman and Collins, pp. 161-89, w ith bibliography, and D. Hagermann, 'Reichseinheit und Reichsteilung. Bemerkungen zur Divisio regnorum
von 806 und zur Ordinatio Imperii von 817', Historisches Jahrbuch, xcv (1975), 278-307.
2. Classen, 'Karl der Grofie und die Thronfolge', is the crucial study.
3. R. Schieffer, 'Vater und Sohne im Karolingerhaus', Beitrdge zur Geschichte der Regnum Francorum. Festschrift Eugen Ewig, Beihefte der Francia xxii (Sigmaringen, 1990), pp. 149-64.
4. On the young Charles's heirlessness and its implications, J. L. Nelson, 'La famille de Charlemagne', in Le souverain a Byzance et en Occident de VIII au X siecle, ed. A. Dierkens and J.-M.
Sansterre, Byzantion, lxi (1992), 194-212, at 202.
5. J. L. Nelson, 'Women at the Court of Charlemagne: A Case of Monstrous Regiment?', Medieval
Queenship, ed. J. C. Parsons (Stroud, 1994), pp. 43-62.
6. Classen,'Karl der Grofie und die Thronfolge'pp. 132—3, and see Vita Karoli, c. I9,p.24.
EHR Sept. 97
1997
AND THE
IMPERIAL SUCCESSION
843
and his sons. Bernhard's position was difficult as he was a bastard.1 The
death of the young Charles in December 811 - after the promulgation of
the will2 - made Bernhard's status a live issue. In 812 - long before
Louis's own Imperial succession was assured - Bernhard was despatched to Italy as king.3 His status vis-a-vis his cousins was a matter
which would determine the future shape of the Carolingian family and
of the Frankish Empire.
Textbooks can present the premature deaths of Pippin and Charles as
a lucky turn for the Carolingians, allowing them to maintain the integrity of Charlemagne's Empire. Quite anachronistically, this makes political unity under one ruler, rather than the more collegiate style of rule
envisaged in 806, the ultimate goal. Charlemagne would have dissented:
not only were tears shed on his sons' deaths,4 but he spent over a year
deliberating the ultimate shape of the succession before crowning Louis
in 813, in an elaborate Byzantine-inspired ritual making him co-Emperor. 5 Even as Louis was crowned Emperor, Charlemagne confirmed
Bernhard's royal status and made Louis swear to respect his nephew.6
Bernhard's position is difficult precisely because Carolingian ideas of
unity did not preclude collegiate rule or the exercise of various levels of
kingship under the paterfamilias. Louis's biographer, a quarter of a
century later, wrote that Louis, on the death of his legitimate brothers,
entertained hopes of bringing his father's entire realm under his sway.
Even if this is taken as an accurate statement of Louis's aims in 813 it
need not point to a determination to eliminate Bernhard from the
political scene.7 What was at issue was the precise nature of the relation1. K.-F. Werner, 'Hludovicus Augustus: in Gouverner I'Empire chretien - Idees et realites', in
Charlemagne's Heir, ed. Godman and Collins, pp. 3-123, at pp. 34-5, establishes this beyond doubt,
using the evidence of Libri Memoriales, in the course of an important discussion of the politics of 806
to 817.
2. For discussion of the date of the will, see Abel and Simson, Jahrbiicher Karls, ii. 451-8, and J. F.
Bohmer, E. Muhlbacher, and J. F. Lechner, Regesta Imperil I. Die Regesten des Kaiserreiches unterden
Karolingern 751—918 (2nd edn., Innsbruck, 1908), no.458, pp.204-5. "The key evidence is the subscription of Heito, Bishop of Basle, who in late 811 and 812 was in Constantinople on a diplomatic
mission. I follow the literature in seeing the document as drawn up at Aachen and thus probably dating
to April. The young Charles died on 4 December 811: Bohmer et at, Regesta Imperil, no. 467a.
3. P. Depreux, 'Das Kooigtum Bernhards von Italien und sein Verhaltnis zum Kaistertum', Quellen
und Forschungen aus Italienischen Bibliotheken und Archiven, lxxii (1992), 1-24, at 6-10, for a full
discussion of the evidence. The identity of the advisers despatched as Bernhard's minders (Wala and
Adalhard) underlines the proximity between the family of Pippin of Italy and the 'Aachen establishment' around Charlemagne: see Werner, 'Hludovicus Augustus', pp. 31-2, with n. 102. Note that
Louis's biographer lays particular stress on the acknowledgement of Louis's status by Wala and
Adalhard in 814 as the key event in securing his succession.
4. Vita Karoli, c. 19, p. 24.
5. On which see W. Wendling, 'Die Erhebung Ludwigs des Frommen zum Mitkaiser in Jahre 813
und ihre Bedeutung fur die Verfassungsgeschichte des Frankenreiches', Fruhmittelalterliche Studien,
xix (1985), 201-38.
6. Annales Regni Francorum, s.a. 813, ed. Kurze, p. 138, and see also the Chronicle of Moissac, s.a.
813, ed. Pertz (MGH SS II), p.259.
7. Compare the interpretation of Astronomer c. 20, p. 618, offered by Depreux, 'Das Konigtum
Bernhards', 7-10. Boshof, 'Einheitsideeund Teilungsprinzip', p. 173, and Classen, 'Karl der GroSeund
die Thronfolge', p. 228, point out that Bernhard's (sub)-kingship of Italy was not necessarily incompatible with Louis's Imperial ambitions.
EHR Sept. 97
844
C H A R L E M A G N E ' S WILL: PIETY, POLITICS
September
ship between Bernhard and Louis, and above all the status of Bernhard's
offspring as a potential alternative to Louis's own progeny. Both Einhard and another observer presented Bernhard's royal title as something
approaching an anomaly, a favour to be explained in terms of his father's
proximity to Charlemagne.1 But it is easy to overlook the breadth of
support which Bernhard enjoyed in the highest echelons of the Frankish
aristocracy right across the Empire and well beyond the borders of his
father's kingdom of Italy.2 The point is underlined by the fact that
Bernhard's son had a royal name, Pippin; thus Bernhard's descendants
were seen as potential future kings.3 Moreover, Einhard reports that, in
his last years, Charlemagne had wished to extend the group enfranchised
in his will to include his daughters and bastards.4 While to suppose that
Einhard was referring to the creation of sub-kingdoms for this group is
to confuse succession and inheritance,5 there was a certain parallelism
between the two processes and Einhard's report must be linked to the
future hopes of Bernhard and his kin. To include them as legitimate heirs
1. Vita Karoli. c. 19, p. 24, long identified as a key passage for Einhard's political stance vis-a-vis
Louis the Pious; the interpretation suggested here and expanded infra, pp. 846-8, thus has implications
for our understanding of Einhard's career and writings. MGH SS I, p. 121, underlines the possibility of
reading Einhard thus.
2. Fundamental here is the detailed research of M. Borgolte, Geschichte der Grafschaften Alemanniens in Frankischer Zeit (Sigmaringen, 1984), supplemented by his invaluable guide Die Graf en
Alemanniens im merowingischer and karolingischer Zeit. Eine Prosopographie (Sigmaringen, 1986),
and to be read alongside the work of his mentor, K. Schmid, 'Zur historischen Bestimmung des altesten
Eintrags im St. Galler Verbruderungsbuch', Alemannica. Festschrift fiir Bruno Boesch (Buhl/Baden,
1976), pp. 500-32. Note also Bernhard's support at Fulda, where he had been educated: Epistolarum
Fuldensium fragmenta, ed. E. Diimmler (MGH Epistolae aevi Karolini et Merovingici V, Hanover,
•899)1 PP- 517—}3, at p. 517. For Bernhard's Italian support seeT. F. X. Noble,'The Revolt of King
Bernhard of Italy in 817: Its Causes and Consequences', Studi Medievali, xv (1974), 315-24.
3. The career of Pippin, Bernard's son, is intriguing. He inherited land in Italy, where he was a loyal
fideiis in 834, but by 840 he had acquired a countship near Paris, and his descendants, the house of
Vermandois, built on this Neustrian power base: see E. Hlawitschka, Franken, Alemannien, Bayem
und Burgunder in Oberitalien (774-962) (Freiburg-im-Breisgau, i960), pp. 246-7, and K.-F. Werner,
'Untersuchungen zur Friihzeit des franzosischen Fiirstentums (9.-10. Jahrhundert) V , Die Welt als
Geschichte, xx (i960), 87-119. The crucial issue for the current discussion is his birthdate. Werner, in
the genealogical table appended to his 'Die Nachkommen Karls des GroSen bis urn das Jahr 1000 (1 .-8.
Generation)', in Karl der Grofie. Lebenswerk und Nachleben, IV: Das Nachleben, ed.W. Braunfels and
P. E. Schramm (Dusseldorf, 1965), pp. 403-82, gives 'circa 815', which has won universal currency. On
close examination, Werner's argument goes back to his earlier hypothesis ('Untersuchungen ... V , 92)
that Pippin was 'around twenty' when he first appears in the sources, in 834. This is a plausible
reconstruction, given what we know about the career structure of the Carolingian aristocracy and the
evidence concerning the political activities of Pippin and his sons. But Werner does not give a reason for
his assumption that Pippin's birth - and even more significantly, his being given a royal name - took
place after Charlemagne's death, although he elsewhere ('Hludovicus Augustus', p. 32, n. 103) draws
attention to evidence that Bernhard was married after his father's death and his elevation to kingship by
Charlemagne, probably in 813. Pippin could have been a young man in 834 and yet have been born and
named before 814 (with Charlemagne's blessing?), or in the period after Charlemagne's death before
Louis the Pious had gained full control and regularized his relationship with Bernhard: precisely when
he was born within the period c. 814 to 817, and the precise circumstances of his being given a royal
name, are questions of the utmost significance which, unfortunately, cannot yet be given a definite
answer.
4. Vita Karoli, c. 33, p. 37.
5. Pace the discussion in Boshof, 'Einheitsidee', p. 173, n.68. The context of Einhard's statement
makes it clear that he is thinking about Charlemagne's moveable wealth, treated in his earlier will.
EHR Sept. 97
1997
AND THE
IMPERIAL SUCCESSION
845
of even Charlemagne's moveable wealth would be to upgrade Bernhard's kingship from a special personal boon into a regular position
defined by a legitimate process of succession as laid down in 806.! It
would have thus encouraged royal dreams on the part of Bernhard's
son.
When Charlemagne died in 814 Louis thus faced a difficult situation;
his biographer betrays worries about the allegiance of his father's closest
advisers, and about the possibility of cadet lines threatening the succession. The threat of Louis's mere arrival at Aachen had led to drawn
weapons and aristocratic casualties.2 The new Emperor's first action on
reaching his father's favoured residence in 814 was to ensure his control
of the palace complex and of Carolingian family charisma by banishing
his sisters. Louis, whose early career in Aquitaine had been marked by a
strong connection with the monastic reform movement centred on
Aniane, grabbed the moral high ground, not least as the sexual unions of
his (unmarried) sisters and nieces had helped define the courtly elite
before 814. At one and the same time as the princesses left Aachen,
prostitutes found in the palace complex were publicly whipped.3 (The
vital importance of controlling Aachen demonstrates just how sedentary royal government had become in the latter period of Charlemagne's
reign.) This was a conscious 'back to basics' campaign: it is no accident
that it was in the early years of Louis's reign that criticisms of Charlemagne's sexual mores were publicly made and sent to court.4 Despite
this palace revolution, Charlemagne's daughters received their share of
the treasure, as laid down by the will. Contemporaries, rather than
making the Carolingian women heirs pure and simple, stress that they
were reliant on the goodwill of their brother Louis after he had seized
Aachen and the treasury. This is an important reminder that the property rights of even royal women, while acknowledged, were likely to be
exercised by, and used to the advantage of, their menfolk.5 More than
this, the political power of these women was based on their proximity to
the centre: once banished, they ceased to be a threat to Louis. The
inheritance process allowed Louis to remove them from political influence without appearing to wrong them.6
Louis's sisters were not the only hostile group with whom he had to
deal in 814. What about the bastards whom Einhard claimed Charlemagne had wished to enfranchise? These groups were not included in
1. The divisio of 806 allowed the succession of a king's sons if they had political support (MGH Cap.
1.128, no. 45, c. 5); Bernhard's illegitimacy complicated the application of this rule.
2. Astronomer, c. 21, p. 618 (written a quarter of a century later but with insight into Louis's
entourage's hopes and fears).
3. Astronomer, c. 23, p. 619, on the expulsion of the femineum palatio; MGH Cap. 1.298 for the
whipping. On the princesses and their fate, see Simson, Jahrbiicher Ludwig der Frommen, i. 15-19.
4. See Dutton, The Politics of Dreaming, pp. 58-67.
j . In addition to Nelson, 'The Wary Widow', compare P. Stafford, 'Women and the Norman
Conquest', Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, iv (1994), 221-49.
6. Compare Dutton, The Politics of Dreaming, p. 59.
EHR Sept. 97
846
C H A R L E M A G N E ' S WILL: PIETY, P O L I T I C S
September
the written will, but Einhard's claim implies that they had a moral case
for inheritance. Both Thegan and Nithard, writing decades later, appear
to exclude them. However, the Astronomer lists as the recipients Charlemagne's daughters, sons and grandsons.1 The plural 'sons' implies that
Louis's illegitimate half-brothers were included, for Louis was the only
legitimate son who outlived Charlemagne. The Astronomer's testimony
is not wholly independent in that the author was aware of Einhard's
work, but whereas he generally follows the transmitted will very closely,
here he contradicts the letter of the document.2 In that the Astronomer's
immediate audience included the now mature and politically influential
Drogo and Hugh, whom he claimed were enfranchised, his testimony
must be taken seriously. Louis's handling of his father's bastards suggests that his control of the inheritance process again was politically
invaluable. Louis's three illegitimate half-brothers, Hugh, Drogo and
Theodoric, had been a part of the 'Aachen establishment' before 814,
and, indeed, Louis had sworn to respect their positions in 813.3 As
potential vessels of Carolingian charisma, they were an undoubted
threat to Louis - but of a different kind to his sisters. Hence Louis's
initial action was to bind them closely to himself as his table-companions.4 As such, they could hardly become the centre of any independent political faction, whereas banished to the provinces they could have
become a focus for aristocratic malcontents. They thus became the
defining factors in a new, Louis-centred, reconstruction of Carolingian
family charisma.
What was Bernhard's position in the new order of things? He swiftly
visited Louis on the accession, commending himself to the new Emperor in 814 and again travelling to court in 815 and 816. The commendation looks like a ritual designed to underline Bernhard's support for
Louis and to confirm his royal status.5 Charlemagne's treasure may have
added to the symbolic dimensions of the ritual encounter between Louis
and Bernhard in 814. Not only did the new Emperor receive his nephew
cum magnis donis ac honorificis; Bernhard appeared here alongside two
1. Astronomer, c. 22, pp.618-9.
2. Simson, Jahrbucher Ludwig der Frommen, i. 16, n. 1, and ii. 305 n. 3, shows that the Astronomer
follows Einhard on the will.
3. Werner,'Hludovicus Augustus', pp. 32-3.
4. Nithard 1:2, ed. Lauer, p. 8.
5. Bohmer-Muhlbacher, Regesta Imperil, no. 515c I call Bernhard's commendation 'a ritual of
subjection' as it seems to me unclear that the gesture as yet carried any fixed, 'feudal', meaning.
Depreux, 'Das Konigtum Bernhards', 10-13, s e e s il ^ evidence of Bernhard's humiliation by Louis,
arguing that he is treated as just another magnate. But such rituals are only humiliating if we assume
that they constitute entry into vassalage, which they do not at this date. Indeed, there is rich
ninth-century evidence for both 'foreign' rulers (Breton dukes, Danish rulers, Slav kinglets) and
Frankish princes performing such rituals to express their position vis-a-vis an Emperor or other
political superior. The evidence of Formulae Imperiales, no. 8, ed. K. Zeumer (MGH Formulae
Merovingi et Karolini aevi, Legum sectio v, Hanover, 1886), p. 293, shows that Louis renewed
Bernhard's kingship in Italy, as noted by Werner, 'Hludovicus Augustus', p. 37, n. 120; note the
arguments against seeing anything sinister in Bernhard's visit to Louis at pp. 37-8, n. 121. See also infra
p. 847, n. 1.
EHR Sept. 97
1997
AND THE IMPERIAL SUCCESSION
847
of Louis's sons, like him rulers of sub-kingdoms and thus equal in
status.1 Presumably these gifts with which Louis welcomed his nephew
were made from the Aachen treasury, Charlemagne's legacy. Thus the
Astronomer's insistence on the inclusion of Charlemagne's grandchildren in the inheritance process is more than a biographer's attempt to
whitewash his subject, and has an historical basis, with Bernhard, like
Louis's own sons, receiving a part of Charlemagne's treasure. Yet
Bernhard's status as an heir, and indeed as a king, could be presented in
Louis's circle as a personal favour rather than inherited right. Such an
understanding of Bernhard's kingship is reflected in Einhard's extraordinary delicacy in his treatment of the question:
Charlemagne gave clear proof of his pietas, for after the death of his son
[Pippin] he had his grandson [Bernhard] succeed his father and his granddaughters educated alongside his own daughters.2
This stops just short of a statement of Bernhard's right to succeed under
the terms of the 806 divisio. When Louis came to draw up an agreement
for the succession on his death, in the Ordinatio Imperii of 817, Bernhard and his offspring were conspicuous by their absence, and Bernhard's kingdom of Italy was left unmentioned. 3 This was the logical
implication of the Hludovician interpretation of Bernhard's position.
That (from the viewpoint of Louis's court) this is not so much a move
against Bernhard per se as a clear statement of the fragile basis of his
regality and a pointed denial of his son's right to succeed is underlined
by Bernhard's own reaction: to call a bloodless revolt, march to Chalons
and there lay down arms to sue for terms. Louis, however, used the
revolt to eliminate Bernhard, mobilizing the forces of aristocratic con1. Thegan c. 12, p. 593. For the presence of Lothar, newly made king of Bavaria, and Pippin, Louis's
successor in Aquitaine, alongside Bernhard, see Chronicon Laurissense Breve, ed. H. Schnorr von
Carolsfeld, Neues Archiv der Gesettschaftfur alteren deutschen Geschichtskunde, 36 (1911), 13-39, V:2,
at 38: this informed author at least evidently saw the occasion as demonstrating a rough equality
between Charlemagne's grandchildren. J. Jarnut, 'Kaiser Ludwig der Fromme und Konig Bernhard
von Italien. Der Versuch einer Rehabilitierung', Studi Medievali, xxx (1989), 637-48, at 639, uses the
Italian charter evidence to argue for familiaritas between Louis and Bernhard at this date: certainly the
terminology would match that of the kind of family reunion and rapprochement which took place.
2. Vita Karoli, c. 19, p. 24: In quibus rex pietatis suae praecipium documentum ostendit, cum fdio
defuncto nepotem patri succedere et neptes inter filias suas educari fecisset. Thorpe's translation is
particularly unhelpful here, but it is more or less impossible to translate the economy of meaning of
Einhard's Latin here into modern English. Charlemagne, and above all the pietas which animated his
role as paterfamilias, is the motive force in Bernhard's succession. Remember that Etnhard was
probably writing, and certainly read, after Bernhard's had become a cause celebre and an embarrassment to Louis; and yet Einhard was a member of Louis's court circle and the Vita Karoli circulated
within this group.
3. There is a vast bibliography on the Ordinatio and on Bernhard's revolt, most interpreting events
in terms of ideological conflict about 'Imperial unity*. In addition to the works cited already,
particularly important are J. Semmler, 'Reichsidee und kirchliche Gesetzgebung', Zeitscbrift fiir
Kirchengeschichte, Ixxi (i960), 37-65; F. L. Ganshof, 'Some Observations on the Ordinatio Imperii of
817', in his The Carolingians and the Frankish Monarchy (London, 1971)1 PP- 273-288; and W. Mohr,
'Die kirchliche Einheitspartei und die Durchfuhrung der Reichsordnung von 817', Zeitschrift fur
Kirchengeschichte, lxxii (1971), 1-45. The suggestions of Depreux, 'Das Konigtum Bernhards', that the
conflict may have centred around the issue of Franco-Papal relations and have been sparked by the
Pope's visit to Francia in 816 are important and compatible with the interpretation offered here.
EHR Sept. 97
848
C H A R L E M A G N E ' S WILL: PIETY, P O L I T I C S
September
sent to have him condemned and then attempting to eliminate him
politically whilst respecting the ties of kin and the charisma of the
Carolingian blood by sentencing him to blinding rather than death.
Unfortunately for Louis, the blinding killed Bernhard and left the
Emperor facing a torrent of criticism.1 In the context of 814 what the
cases of Bernhard and of Louis's illegitimate half-brothers underline is
the lack of a clear line between inheritance and gift in a Louis-centred
process. Obviously the passing on of objects from the Aachen treasury
looked very much like inheritance, but it also created a personal bond
between Louis, who had de facto control, and the recipient. The parallel
with the repeated presentation of Bernhard's kingship as a manifestation
of personal favour is clear.
The 'great and honourable gifts' which Bernhard had received in 814
serve as a reminder that memorable objects - especially memorable
obj ects which had been acquired by Charlemagne - were transmitters of
symbolic meaning. They provided Louis with a vocabulary of familial
and political resettlement. It is, indeed, possible to follow the fate of
some individual items to underline this point. Although the division
apparently included the ornati regi, the regalia, little is known of their
fate, other than the fact that Louis was crowned co-emperor by his
father in 813 ? Louis the Pious on his own death-bed in 840 was to order
the ministri of his camera to make a written inventory of his res
familiares, 'his ornaments and regalia, that is crowns and arma, vases,
books and liturgical vestments', and to record a divisio which left
Lothar, the co-Emperor, a crown, as a recognition of his pre-eminence
over his brothers. 3 If we know nothing of the fate of Charlemagne's
regalia, it is clear that some treasures were invested with political messages in 814. One of the tables mentioned in the will, decorated with a
map of Rome, and possibly originally a gift from the Pope to Charlemagne, provides a graphic example. Charlemagne's express decision to
leave the table to the church of Ravenna (which we know from a
Ravenna source was promptly carried out) was scarcely a simple demonstration of piety. Charlemagne owed a cultural debt to Ravenna, where
1. Louis's blinding of his nephew (let alone his subsequent death) was a breach of the terms of the
806 divisio (MGH Cap 1.129-30, no.45, c. 18, on which clause, Classen, 'Karl der Grofie und die
Thronfolge', pp. 224-5) anc^> a t least implicitly, the promise which Louis had made to Charlemagne in
81 j : hence the criticism of Louis for his harshness towards Bernhard (for which see, for example,' Visio
cuimdam pauperculae mulieris', ed. Houben, 41-2, which blames Louis's queen, Ermingard, and his
favourite, Count Bego). Note that it was at this point that the three illegitimate half-brothers, Hugh,
Drogo and Theodoric, were banished: Louis's treatment of them up to this point had likewise been
regulated by the 806 agreement and the promises of 813. Hugh and Drogo re-emerge later as clerics.
The clear link between the case of Bernhard and that of the illegitimate offspring makes it clear that in
dealing with these two groups Louis was essentially dealing with the same issues as regarding the
process of inheritance from his father and the promises of 806 and 813. It is no accident that those
eliminated from the political centre between 814 and 827 are rehabilitated en masse after the death of
Louis's closest adviser, Benedict of Aniane, in 822, and that the reconstruction of the regime then is
symbolized by Louis's voluntary performance of penance for the death of Bernhard.
2. See Schultze, 'Testament', pp. 50-1.
3. Astronomer, c. 63, p. 647.
EHR Sept. 97
1997
AND THE
IMPERIAL SUCCESSION
849
he had acquired much in the way of classical spolia, notably a statue of
Theodoric the Great which was removed to grace the Aachen palace
complex; the gift of a Roman table could mark an acknowledgement of
this. It is also possible, given the constant bickering between Rome and
Ravenna, to see the bequest as 'an ironic reflection of Charles's exasperation at being called upon to decide between the claims of squabbling
ecclesiastics'.1 More compelling still is the case of another table, adorned
with a depiction of Constantinople, and given to the Papacy. A third
table mentioned in the will was decorated with a Ptolemaic map of the
universe and thus an obvious symbol of Imperial universalism. Charlemagne had decreed that it was to be sold and the proceeds divided
between churches, heirs, servants and charity. Yet it was still at Aachen
in 842, when it was broken up and distributed amongst the aristocracy
along with other treasures by Lothar in a bid to win political support. 2
Thegan, Louis the Pious's biographer, had previously explained why the
table remained at Aachen: Louis had kept none of Charles's treasures for
himself 'except for one silver table ... out of love for his father; and yet
he redeemed it with another precious object which he gave for his
father'.3 Note again the sense of personal bond between donor and
inheritor.4 Given its history as a sign of dynastic continuity, Imperial
status and filial devotion, no wonder Prudentius of Troyes wrote with
horror about Lothar's breaking up of the table to provide bullion to
fund a crude attempt to buy aristocratic support; it symbolized the
destruction of a political and familial order.
The other subject that can be followed in detail is the fate of Charles's
library. Thanks to the work of Bischoff, it is clear that the court library
did not disappear with the death of Charles, whatever the will may have
said.5 Some manuscripts known to have been at Charlemagne's court
remained there during reign of Louis the Pious.6 How they came to
remain there, given the will's injunction on the sale of books, must
remain a mystery. A division between Charlemagne's personal books
and the court library, which has been suggested, seems unlikely in that
1. T. S. Brown, 'Louis the Pious and the Papacy. A Ravenna Perspective', in Charlemagners Heir, ed.
Godman and Collins, pp. 297-307, at pp. 301-2; and see Agnellus of Ravenna, Liber Pontificalis
Ecclesiae Ravennatis (MGH Scriptores rerum Langobardorum, c. 170), p. 388.
2. Annales Bertiniani, ed. F. Grat, J. Vielliard, S. Clemencet (Paris, 1964), s.a. 842, p.41. For this
episode, see L. Falkenstein, Karl der Grojie und die Entstehung des Aachener Marienstiftes (Paderborn,
1981), pp. 51 -2. For a reconstruction of the table see F. N. Estey, 'Charlemagne's Silver Celestial Table',
Speculum, xviii (1954), pp. 112-17, an<l G. Henderson, 'Emulation and Invention in Carolingian Art',
Carolingian Culture: Emulation and Innovation, ed. R. McKitterick (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 248-73,31
pp. 261-2.
3. Thegan c. 8, p. 592 (Dutton's translation).
4. Indeed other inheritance agreements turn on the payments to be made, as a condition of
inheritance, by heirs for the soul of the testator: compare (for example) Urkunden- und Quellenbuch
zur Geschichte der altluxembourgischen Territorien I, ed. C. Wampach (Luxembourg, 193 j), no. 87.
5. B. Bischoff, 'Die Hofbibliothek unter Ludwig dem Frommen', in his Mittelalterliche Studien (3
vols., Stuttgart, 1966-81), iii. 170-186.
6. F. Mutherich, 'Book Illumination at the Court of Louis the Pious', in Charlemagne's Heir, ed.
Godman and Collins, pp. 593-604, at pp. J93-4.
EHR Sept. 97
850
C H A R L E M A G N E ' S WILL: PIETY, P O L I T I C S
September
Carolingian kings resolutely refused to make such division in every
other area of royal life,1 although it is possible that some books in the
chapel were differentiated from those dealt within the will.2 It is also
likely, especially given the fate of the silver table, that Louis in some
sense purchased all or some of his father's books. 3 Certainly the fate of
the Lorsch Codex Aureus is suggestive; while it originated at the palace,
by c. 820 it had been brought to the monastery of Lorsch by Abbot
Adalung, one of the will's signatories.4 'Sale' might, in this testamentary
context, mean the making of a gift of appropriate value for Charlemagne's soul by those, like Louis or Adalung, who wished to 'inherit'
books.
The will was thus of vital importance to Louis the Pious in allowing a
very public demonstration of his succession. But it was above all a
personal statement of Charlemagne's familial and political outlook,
granting insight into the Emperor's Herrscherethos.5 The fundamental
point about the will is its essentially artificial nature: although it purports to divide into thirds and quarters, the text itself makes clear that
these divisions are simply an explanatory gloss on an actual division of
objects already effected, and sealed, before Charlemagne's death. The
document is unique amongst the transmitted Frankish material couching itself in such terms of general rules, and thus it invites speculation as
to the force and meaning of the quite precise mode of division adopted.
The division contains strong echoes of canonical regulations as to the
use of tithe - canonical regulations which were very much a current
issue in the early ninth century.6 In particular, the model followed by
Charlemagne was based on the 'Gelasian' system of dividing tithe. This
parallel is apparent in the fourfold division of the final section of
Charlemagne's treasury. In Imperial will as in Gelasian norm, one
quarter goes to the pauperes; the Gelasian portion for the diocesan
priests has obvious affinities with Charlemagne's gift to his servants and
companions; and the canonical regulations stipulating that a quarter go
to the upkeep of the Church looks very much like Charlemagne's legacy
to the Imperial Church. This explains Charlemagne's reservation of a
quarter for his heirs in terms of a transference of the Gelasian ruling that
a quarter of episcopal income could be laid aside for the bishop himself.
1. The suggestion is made by Bischoff, 'Die Hofbibliothek unter Ludwig dem Frommen', p. 180,
following von Simson.
2. As suggested by one of the final clauses in the will itself, exempting treasure granted to the chapel
from the division. It is noteworthy that the manuscripts which seem to have been at court on both sides
of 814 are Gospel Books.
3. As suggested by Innes and McKitterick, 'The Writing of History', p. 205, n. 42.
4. See Mutherich, 'Book Illumination', p. 594, with references.
5. I borrow the term from H. H. Anton, Fiirstenspiegel und Herrscherethos in der Karolingerzeit
(Bonn, 1968).
6. See R. McKitterick, The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, 789-89 j (London, 1977),
pp. 27-9.
EHR Sept.
97
1997
AND THE IMPERIAL SUCCESSION
85 I
The force of this canonical model is underlined by the fact that a
testamentary application of these rules was not unprecedented. Of
especial interest is the vivid description, a century earlier in date, of St
Wilfrid's division of his moveable wealth given in Stephen's Life of
Wilfrid. Wilfrid divided his wealth between pauperes (compare pauperes), servants (compare diocesan priests), his favourite churches in
Rome (compare upkeep of the Church) and his own foundations (his
heirs). Wilfrid's testamentary practice foreshadows Charlemagne's
(even in the stress on Rome shared by both). Wilfrid's close links to Gaul
and his essentially Gallic conception of the episcopal dignity make a
connection between the two wills all the more possible.1 The corpus of
surviving Merovingian episcopal wills supplies a further significant
parallel, in the will made by Bertram, Bishop of Le Mans, in 616.2 On
Bertram's death, the archdeacon of the church of Le Mans is to make a
threefold division of the Bishop's moveable wealth, and distribute the
portions to the pauperes, to Bertram's successor as bishop, and to the
basilica of SS Peter and Paul in Le Mans. The will as a whole centres on
Bertram's making the latter basilica, his foundation and burial place, his
heir, explaining the fate of the final third. Bertram's gift to his successor
is best seen as patronage of the church of Le Mans as a whole.3 So we
have a division working along very similar lines to Charlemagne's and to
Wilfrid's, with gifts to the pauperes, to heirs and to the Church as a
whole. Charles the Bald made a similar arrangement for a threefold
division of his library, possibly inspired by his grandfather's will, before
he left for his final Italian expedition in 876: thirds go to Charles's
foundation, St Mary's at Compielgne, to his heir Carloman, and to St
Denis, his favourite church and home of the patron saint of his kingdom.4 A final parallel is supplied by the bequests made by Guntland,
abbot of Lorsch, who had, with Charlemagne's permission, granted a
third of the abbey's moveable wealth to the pauperes on his death.5
1. Vita Wilfridi, c. 63, ed. and trans. B. Colgrave, The Life of Bishop Wilfrid (Cambridge, 1927),
pp. 136-8. On Wilfrid and Gaul, see the important comments of J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, 'Rome and the
Early English Church: Some Questions of Transmission', in his Early Medieval History (Oxford,
'977).PP-"$-'3S."PP-1*8-92. The other episcopal wills from the Merovingian and Carolingian periods include no general
statement as to the principles underlying the division of movables.
3. For an edition and commentary on Bertram's will see Weidemann, Die Testament. The relevant
section is edited at pp. 30-1. See also M. Borgolte, 'Felix est homo ille, qui amicos bonos relinquit. Zur
sozialen Gestaltungskraft letztwilliger Verfiigungen am Beispiel bischof Bertrams von Le Mans',
Festschrift fur Berent Schwinekoper, ed. H. Maurer and H. Patze (Sigmaringen, 1982), pp. 5-18. The
surviving wills are primarily concerned with estates in land, and where movables are discussed they
tend to be dealt with as specific items, so these two clear parallels from the Merovingian period are
important.
4. MGH Cap.II.3 58-9 (no. 281, c. 12) and note that Einhard's Life was known at Charles the Bald's
court. For St Denis as the patron of Charles and his kingdom, see G. P. A. Brown, 'Politics and
Patronage at the Abbey of St Denis (814-898): The Making of a Royal Patron Saint' (Univ. of Oxford,
D.Phil, thesis, 1989).
5. See Codex Laureshamensis c. 9, ed. K. Glockner (3 vols., Darmstadt, 1929-35), i. 285.
EHR Sept. 97
852
C H A R L E M A G N E ' S WILL: PIETY, POLITICS
September
It is, of course, easy to get carried away with numerological games.
None the less, the similarities to Charlemagne's divisio are recurrent,
and those to Gelasian regulations about tithe particularly strong and
convincing. This sheds a new light on the recurrent stress laid in the will
on Charlemagne's following of 'Christian mores' in his almsgiving and
patronage of the Church. Where bishops customarily installed their see
as principal heir, Charlemagne gave the bulk of his wealth to his
Imperial Church. 1 This patronage was directed, in harmony with canonical norms, via the metropolitans. In a way, Charlemagne was continuing in death as he had acted in life: the recreation of a regular
metropolitan structure of church government was arguably his greatest
achievement. Moreover, in that liturgical intercession for king and
kingdom was institutionalized throughout the bishoprics of the
Empire, they were the natural places for a dying ruler to expect liturgical
intercession in return for bequests.2 But Charlemagne's playing on the
relationship between ruler and bishops was more than a reflection of his
reliance on the Imperial church; it may have played an important role in
the legitimation and crystallization of newly institutionalized bonds.
The creation of a Reichskirche in a strict sense - the formulation of
standardized legal ties binding episcopal churches and royal monasteries
to the king - took place in the earliest years of Louis the Pious's reign,
when royal privileges were recalled, reworked and renewed. A huge run
of royal diplomata from Louis's first months testifies to the success of
the venture.3 That at precisely this date these very churches were receiving bequests from Charlemagne's legacy can only underline the political
significance of the will, and Louis's use of it to bolster his position.
Charlemagne no doubt enjoyed being reminded by an adviser that, in
full Constantinian tradition, 'you a r e t n e vicegerent of God, the bishops
stand in second place'.4 The language of ministerium, divinely-granted
responsibility, was used with increasing frequency about kings from the
seventh century on; originating in the Church, it implicitly made an
1. A good example, from Charlemagne's reign, is the will of Remigius, Bishop of Strasbourg (778):
Solothurner Urkundenbuch, ed. B. Koch (Strasbourg, 1952), no. 2, pp. 3-7.
2. Three articles by E. Ewig provide an overview of the practice of prayer for king and kingdom
from late antiquity to the end of the ninth century: 'La priere pour le roi et le royaume dans les
privileges de l'epoque merovingienne', Melanges J. Davillier (Toulouse, 1979), pp. 25 5—67; 'Remarques
sur la stipulation de la priere dans les chartes de Charles leChauve', Melanges J. Stiennon (Liege, 1982),
pp. 221-33; 'Der Gebetsdienst der Kirchen in den Urkunden der spareren Karohnger', Festschrift...
Schwinekoper, ed. Maurer and Patze, pp.45-86. Also useful is K. Schmid, 'Zeugnise der Memorialuberlieferung aus der Zeit Ludwigs des Frommen', in Charlemagne's Heir, ed. Godman and
Collins, pp. 509-22, esp. pp. 519—22, on the relationship with reform and institutionalization. The
implications for our understanding of church-state relations, and statehood itself, remain to be pursued,
but by the 810s such prayers stood at the very centre of the Church's rationale: see Notitia de servitio
monasteriorumy ed. P. Becker, Corpus Consuetudinum Monasticarum I, ed. K. Hallinger (Siegburg,
1963), pp. 493—99, and the cases from Fulda and Chur discussed by Schmid, p. 516.
3. J. Semmler, 'Iussit... princeps renovare... praecepta: Zur verfassungsrechtlichen Einordnung der
Hochstifte und Abteien in die karolingische Reichskirche', Consuetudines Monasticae: Eine Festgabe
fiir Kassius Hallinger (Rome, 1982), pp. 97-124, is the crucial synthesis.
4. Cathwulf's letter to Charlemagne, MGH EPistolae aevi Karolini et Merovingici IV, no. 7,
pp. 501-5 at p. 503. On Cathwulf, see Anton, Herrscherethos, pp. 75-9.
EHR Sept. 97
1997
AND THE IMPERIAL SUCCESSION
853
1
episcopal comparison. The episcopal ideal was an attractive template
for kings in that it supplied a model for rule which was both fully
Christianized and institutionalized. It allowed the denial of family
claims on inherited patrimony, canalizing resources to create a kingship
endowed with the necessary muscle. In the restructuring of the Carolingian family around the kingship which took place in the generation
of Charlemagne's father, there had been losers as well as winners. Rather
than readopting a late antique tradition of dividing personal and royal
lands, Pippin invested the totality of familial resources in the royal
office.2 Kingship defined the Carolingian dynasty. Henceforth, nonroyal Carolingians only held land as endowments from their royal
kinsmen.3 Family property became an indivisible, institutional patrimony comparable to that of a great church.
This process did not go unnoticed; it was legitimated by at least one
family tradition passed on by word of mouth. The version of Carolingian family history recorded, around 783, in Paul the Deacon's
Deeds of the Bishops of Metz includes a story told by Charlemagne
himself, giving priceless insight into the King's own family consciousness.4 It centred on the Carolingians' family saint, Arnulf of Metz.
Arnulf had wished to give his facilitates to the pauperes; whilst Ansegisus, his younger son, consented, the elder son did not. Ansegisus was
blessed by the saint, and Arnulf's blessing became linked to a prophecy
that Ansegisus's heirs would became kings thanks to the divine goodwill
won by their ancestors' charity; a prophecy fulfilled by the accession of
Pippin.5 The story supplied a powerful justification for the canalization
and (in Goffart's words) the 'ecclesiastification' of resources within the
family. The story was already current at the court of Charlemagne's
father, Pippin.6 It was likewise important to Louis the Pious, whose
1. On ministerium, see Anton, Herrscherethos, pp. 404-19 and the important analysis of Louis the
Pious's Admonitio of 823 x 82 5 by O. Guillot, 'Uneordinatio meconnue. Le capitulairede 823-825', in
Charlemagne's Heir, ed. Godman and Collins, pp. 455-86.
2. Nelson, 'La famillede Charlemagne', 195-6.
3. More research is needed on the resources of non-royal Carolingians, but the careers of Louis's
sisters and half-brothers, probably that of Nithard (whose inherited land seems to have come via his
non-Carolingian father not his Carolingian mother) and most graphically that of Bernhard of Italy's
son, Pippin (see supra p. 844, n. 3) neatly illustrate the point made here.
4. See M. Sot, 'Histonographie episcopale et modele familial en Occident au IX siecle', Annales
xxxiii (1978), 433-449. ^ 439-411. Paul the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Mettensium, ed. G. H. Pertz, (MGH SS II), pp. 261-8, esp.
paragraph 29, p. 264. And see W. Goffart, 'Paul the Deacon's Gesta episcoporum Mettensium and the
Early Design for Charlemagne's Succession', Traditio, xlii (1986), 53—87.
2. E. Boshof, 'Untersuchungen zur Armenfursorge im frankischen Reich im. 9. Jahrhundert',
Archiv fur Kulturgeschichte, lviii (1976), 265-339, at 266, on the Carolingian family tradition of charity
in Charlemagne's and Louis the Pious's reigns. Pippin's diploma for Priim of 762, which begins with a
long and important ideological statement, also links to this tradition, in that divine backing for
Carolingian kingship is linked to royal care for thepauperes: see Die Urkunden Pippins, Karlmanns und
Karls des Grojien, ed. E. Miihlbacher (MGH Diplomata Karolinorum I, Berlin, 1906), no. 16, p. 22, and
Anton, Herrscherethos, p. 80, on its significance.
EHR Sept. 97
854
CHARLEMAGNE'S WILL: PIETY, POLITICS
September
succession as a pious younger brother was presented by one biographer
as implicitly comparable to the success of Ansegisus's heirs and similarly indicative of divine approval for good deeds.3 From the time of
Pippin's acquisition of the Frankish Crown, then, the Carolingian
inheritance was seen as a quasi-episcopal patrimony to be used for the
Church and particularly the pauperes. Continued offerings to God
would ensure continued divine favour and thus dynastic survival. This
understanding informed Charlemagne's will.
In a challenging study, Johannes Fried has argued that the Carolingians were never really at home with the idea of the state, preferring
to think in terms of the Church on one hand and the royal familia on the
other.4 On the first reading, Charlemagne's will might appear to support
Fried's view, with Imperial bequests passing to the Church on one hand,
and to kin and personal followers on the other. But a closer look at the
amici and ministri who make up the witness list demonstrates the need
for caution. Fifteen ecclesiastics and fifteen laymen subscribe the will.
The fifteen counts who subscribe (the ministri}) made up the backbone
of a Frankish state which overlapped with, but was not contained
within, the royal household.5 The fifteen ecclesiastics (the amid}) are led
by the archchaplain Hildebold, Archbishop of Cologne, followed by
seven metropolitans from the Frankish heartlands, plus four non-metropolitan bishops and four abbots, all influential on personal grounds.
The stress on the metropolitan line under the leadership of the archchaplain is of a piece with the understanding of ecclesiastical order
demonstrated by the will's contents. Here is a graphic demonstration of
the sense of a corporate Frankish Church as a defining political force - a
force which not only outlived, but also predated, the Ordinatio Imperil
of 817, where it famously provided the basis for plans for Imperial
unity.4
1. See Thegan c. 3, p. 5 9 5 for a stress on Louis's succession as the righteous younger son; the primary
reverberations are Biblical, but the Metz story was a powerful family tradition and an important model
whose influence can be detected here. For Thegan's use of Paul for Carolingian family history, see E.
Tremp, Studien zu den Gesta Hludovici Imperatoris des Trierer cborbischofs Thegan (Schriften der
MGH xxx, Hanover, 1988), pp. 26-44. Thegan was not isolated; Werner,'Hludovicus Augustus', esp.
pp. 28-9, is full of important insights on Louis's circle and the importance of their view that Louis's
succession was divinely ordained as a reward for his youthful piety; hence the premature death of his
two legitimate brothers and the heavenly portents accompanying these deaths.
2. J. Fried, 'Der karohngische Herrschaftsverband im 9. Jahrhundert zwischen 'Kirche' und 'K6nighaus", Historische Zeitschrift, ccxxxv (1982), 1-43. For some criticisms see H.-W. Goetz, 'Regnum.
Zum politische Denken der Karolingerzeit', Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fiir Rechtsgeschichte,
Germanische Abteilung, civ (1987), 110-90, and J. L. Nelson, 'Kingship and Empire in the Carolingian
World', in Carolingian Culture: Emulation and Innovation, ed. R. McKitterick (Cambridge, 1994),
pp. 52-87.
3. See Brunner, Oppositionelle Gruppen, pp. 69-95.
4. Compare H. Beumann, 'Unitas ecclesiae - unitas imperii - unitas regni. Von der imperialen
Reichseinheittidee zur Einheit der regna', Settimane diStudio ... xxvii (Spoleto, 1981), pp. 531-71.
EHR Sept. oy
1997
AND THE IMPERIAL SUCCESSION
855
It was the Frankish Church which received the great bulk of royal
benevolence, as the Ansegisus tradition suggested it should. Fichtenau,
calculating that well over two-thirds of Charlemagne's moveable wealth
ended up with the Church, argued that the elderly Emperor's attempt to
save his soul by testamentary gifts was motivated by purely personal
concerns to the detriment of the resources of future generations of
Carolingian rulers.1 Concerned with his personal salvation as it undoubtedly was, Charlemagne's will was far more than a personal document. In a Christianized and personalized atmosphere, the whole drama
of inheritance and remembrance was vital in the projection of the royal
'public persona'. 2 In Charlemagne's world, individual salvation was
inextricably linked to the just exercise of the ministry entrusted in the
person by God: no cleavage between the personal and the public is
possible. Such an identification of the personal with the royal underpins
the entire will. It must be read as an unrivalled expression of Charlemagne's understanding of kingship as a bishop-like ministry concerned with the salvation of Christian society.
Peterhouse, Cambridge
1. H . Fichtenau, The Carolingian
MATTHEW INNES
Empire, trans. P. M u n z ( N e w York, 1964), p. 185.
2. Compare A. Borst, 'The Invention and Fissure of the Public Persona', in his Medieval
Worlds.
Barbarians, Heretics and Artists in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 37-60. K. F. Werner,
'Missus-marchio-comes', in Histoire comparee de I 'administration, ed. idem and W. Paravicini
(Munich, 1980), pp. 191-239, notes the will's importance at p. 202.
EHR Sept. 97