Places of Power
- Mobility and Political Stability during the reign of Louis the Pious 814-840 -
Susanna van Laatum
3167380
Masterthesis
Master Middeleeuwse Studies
08-06-2012
Contents
Introduction
3 - 13
0
The sources
5 - 12
0.1
Annales Regni Francorum
6-8
0.2
Astronomer - Vita Hludowici imperatoris
8-9
0.3
Thegan - Gesta Hludowici
10 - 11
0.4
Ermold the Black - Carmen In Honorem Hludowici Pii
11 - 12
0.5
Geographical framework
13
1
Mobility
14 - 23
2
Places of power
24 - 41
2.1
Aachen
28 - 34
2.2
Frankfurt
34 - 35
2.3
Worms
35
2.4
Ingelheim
36 - 37
2.5
Nijmegen
37 - 38
2.6
Compiègne
38 - 39
2.7
Metz
39
2.8
Paderborn
40
2.9
Vosges, Ardennes, surroundings of Compiègne, Quierzy, Remiremont,
3
Nijmegen and Frankfurt
40 - 41
Communication
42 - 52
Conclusion
53 - 54
Bibliography
55 - 58
2
Introduction
After the death of Charlemagne only one of his sons remained alive, Louis. Better known as
Louis the Pious. He was born on 16 April 778 in Poitou1 and became the king of Aquitaine
from 781 onwards. This son of Charlemagne and Hildegard survived the death of his
brothers, Lothar, Carloman (after being baptized named Pippin) and Charles, and became
thereby the sole successor of the great empire that his father had established. He was king
of the Carolingian empire from 814 until his death in 840. Louis the Pious is often portrayed
as the weak precedent of the great Charlemagne. He is mostly known as the pious king of
crises. Louis was deposed from his duties as emperor in 833-834. He is called the Pious
because he was seen as a true Christian ruler, a shepherd of his flock. The Astronomer, Louis
biographer, tells us that Louis was educated both as king and priest. 2 According to Thegan, a
courtier who wrote in the ninth century a work in favor of Louis, Louis was already in his
younger days devoted to the Lord.
That one who was born the youngest always learned from his infancy to fear and love
God and whatever he had of his own he used to distribute to the poor in the name
of the Lord. For he was the best of his sons, just as from the beginning of the world
the younger brother so often precedes the older brother in merit.3
Besides being a Pious king and emperor Louis is linked to the period in which the
decline of Charlemagne’s magnificent empire started. Louis the Pious is often placed in the
shadow of his great father Charlemagne. Recent written books and articles, for instance the
book by Mayke de Jong about Louis the Pious and his penance4, has shed a new light on the
rule of Louis. We, however, have to stay honest and without prejudices when approaching
the reign of Louis the Pious. We cannot ignore the crises during his lifetime, crises that we
do not, at least not with such an impact and on such a personal level, encounter when
1
Noble, T. F. X., Charlemagne and Louis the Pious Lifes by Einhard, Notker, Ermoldus, Thegan and the
Astronomer (2009) Astronomer, trans Noble, c 3 en c 64, 229, 301.
2
Astronomer, trans. Noble, c. 19, 242-243.
3
Thegan, trans Noble, c. 3, 196.
4
De Jong, M. B., The Penitential State, Authority and Atonement in the Age of Louis the Pious, 814-840
(Cambridge 2009).
3
looking at Charlemagne’s reign. With crises I am aiming at for example the rebellion against
him, and especially his wife Judith and Bernard of Septimania in 830. This ultimately resulted
in Louis the Pious confessing his sins in front of his elite and doing public penance in 833. He
was said to be handling unworthily in the ministry that had been entrusted to him as
emperor of his realm. This ministry, for Louis the leadership over the Frankish realm, was a
God given thing. He therefore, with this behaviour, had offended God in many ways and put
the church in public scandal.5
The revolts against him by his clerics, leading elite and last but not least his sons have
had a great impact on his kingship and must be taking in consideration when studying his
reign. These events must have had their influence on the emperor and his way of ruling. Can
this penitential king still provide in a political stable empire? Scholars tend to see these
revolts as a humiliation for Louis the Pious and as a sign of his weak government. They
wonder how the emperor’s authority could recover after such public disgrace. As Mayke de
Jong argues, in the preface of her book on the penance of Louis the Pious, the answer to this
question remains predominantly negative. The final years from Louis’s restoration in 834
until his death in 840 are usually presented as an unimportant epilogue to his reign. Some
scholars even present it more somber; they say that the disintegration of the Carolingian
empire began at Soissons where Lothar, his eldest son, and his elites stood up against Louis
in 833 at the Field of Lies, which led to Louis doing public penance in the church of St.
Medard in Soissons. This elite-group, combined with the sons of Louis the Pious, first drove
Empress Judith and her allies, among them Bernard, from the palace in Aachen, and then, in
833, radical churchmen turned Louis into a public penitent. Louis had to take of his belt of
office and had to place it on the altar of the church of Soissons, he had to take off his royal
robes and had to dress as a penitent. Dramatically put: it was the combination of ambitious
churchmen, elite and a weak emperor that succeeded in wrecking Charlemagne’s
inheritance.6 But was this inheritance of Charlemagne really wrecked? Was Louis unable to
provide in a political stable realm? Roger Collins shows in his book that the general
perspective on Carolingian kingship is about ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ kingship. And that we can
see a downward spiral form the eight century ending in the tenth century were the Frankish
5
6
De Jong, Penitential State, 1-4.
Ibidem, 3.
4
kings in practice only controlled no more than a small part of their kingdoms. Efficient
working of the Carolingian government was depended above all on the personal capacity of
the ruler. Charlemagne was/is seen as a ‘strong’ ruler who could impose his unchallenged
authority on his kingdom whereas Louis the Pious as weak king, was ineffectual, appointing
the wrong men to regional office and failing to prevent them from diverting local patronage
and resources to themselves and their cronies, with the result that, over time, central
authority became weak.7 It is hard to make a clear judgement about whether we can see
Louis the Pious as a successful ruler. Details about Louis his life and his way of ruling are
found in the sources we nowadays have from that specific period. The conclusions about
whether Louis was successful or whether he failed to hold his empire together are made
after examining these ninth century sources. As de Jong argues they, the sources, together
form the grand narrative of Louis’s reign.
This thesis will focus on the mobility of Louis the Pious. I will try to examine how the
mobility of the king was connected to the political stability of his empire. Did the travels of
the king effect the political stability of his empire? Was it a necessity for Louis the Pious to
travel? I will try to investigate whether and to what extent the mobility of the king was
connected to the political stability of his empire in the eyes of his contemporaries or people
writing shortly after his death. Therefore I will focus on four narrative sources, the Annales
Regni Francorum, the Astronomer, Thegan and a poem written by Ermold the Black. The
main goal of this thesis is to show how these various authors portrayed Louis the Pious and
his mobility. These views will be connected and/or supplemented by views of scholars who
have nowadays written and done research on topics related to the subject of this thesis.
Therefore I will no introduce the sources which will form the base of this thesis. At the end
of this chapter I will provide in a geographical framework for my thesis as well.
The sources
Carolingian history written by the Carolingians themselves is used by scholars for various
reasons. The sources have been used for the exploration of ideology, political thought, social
ideal, educational attainments, and their emulation of the classical models. Scholars have
not only looked at what these Carolingian written sources say but also what they do not say
7
Collins, R., Early Medieval Europe 300-1000 (1991), 300.
5
as a way of investigating what the intensions of the authors might be. Also the reception of
these texts in the course of history have interested scholars. In other words this Carolingian
history writing can not only be seen as just the ‘factual’ description of what happened but
can be used in different manners to investigate the Carolingian period and especially the
intensions and, as Thomas F. X. Noble argues, the artistry of the authors 8, this not only in
their time but also in the years after their publication. For instance, according to Rosamond
McKitterick, it was during the reign of Louis the Pious that the courtly history, above all,
played a crucial role in the conscious enhancing of the public and political image of the
ruler.9 In 2008 McKitterick published a new study on Charlemagne in which she re-examines
Charlemagne the ruler and his reputation. She analysis the narrative representations of
Charlemagne in this book and tries, by using the narrative sources, to free Charlemagne’s
reign from the clutter of arguments, assumptions and hypotheses that have somehow
become facts. The narratives reflect something of the perceptions and conditions during his
reign and they have played a major role in shaping the knowledge we nowadays have about
the Carolingian kings.10
Annales Regni Francorum
The ninth century has left us a fairly detailed account of itself through several large-scale
chronicles and annals. The largest one of these texts is The Annals of St. Bertin. These were a
continuation of a substantial set of annals called the Annales Regni Francorum or The Annals
of the Kingdom of the Franks. The title of the compilations of these text is a modern
construct, it spans the years between 741 and 840. It consists of different ‘sets’ of texts with
different tittles. First we have the so-called Revised Version of the annals that started in 741
and continued until 801. It is considered to be produced at Louis’s court.11 After this we have
the sections of the ARF from 814 until 829 which can, according to de Jong, be seen as a
unified view of Frankish history that was also reflected in its manuscript tradition. 12 This part
of the ARF represents Louis as the good Christian emperor. He is portrayed as a leader who
8
Noble, T. F. X., Charlemagne and Louis the Pious, 3.
De Jong, Penitential State, 59. Innes, M., McKitterick, R. ´Writing of history´, in: McKitterick, R., Carolingian
Culture(1994), 209.
10
McKitterick, R., Charlemagne (2008), 7.
11
De Jong, Penitential State, 64.
12
Ibidem, 64.
9
6
takes care of not only secular business but was also highly concerned with spiritual wellbeing of his empire. The annals provide us in the description of the campaigns of Louis and
how he travels through his empire. Besides this, especially after 820, it also contemplates
about natural disasters, epidemics and other ‘signs from heaven’ with most of the times an
explanation whether or not these unfortunate events were caused by God’s displeasure.13
Scholars think that some of the earlier sections of these annals were probably drawn
up annually by anonymous scribes, possibly working in the royal court and under the
supervision of the archchaplain, head of the royal chapel and writing office.14 For instance
Paul Edward Dutton says in his reader on Carolingian Civilization that the first penance of
Louis the Pious was written down in probably February or March of 823 by individuals as
Hilduin of St. Denis, a archchaplain. He ought to be present at this particular event and
would have collected oral and written report. Besides this he would have consulted people
at the palace for their view on what had happened in Attigny when Louis confessed his sins
at the assembly of 822.15
The ARF was most likely produced at court and because it represented the message
of the court had therefore a special authority.16 Later on, after 835, the annals were
produced by probably only two identifiable authors. This paper focuses on the reign of Louis
the Pious I therefore will be dealing with these authors only for the last five years of his live
because Louis the Pious died in 840. According to Roger Collins the first author was the
Spaniard Galindo, who was also known as Prudientius, and who became bishop of Troyes.
After his death in 845 his work was carried on by Hincmar of Reims. 17 De Jong argues that
after the death of Hilduin, the above mentioned archchaplain who reported on the penance
in Attigny, Fulco became archchaplain and from 835 onwards Drogo of Metz stood at the
head of the court scribes.18 In 840 the annals were used by the Astronomer to construct his
history of Louis the Pious. Therefore we can, according to de Jong, also qualify the ARF, in
13
De Jong, Penitential State, 64.
Collins, R, Early Medieval Europe 300-1000, 315.
15
Dutton, P. E., Carolingian Civization: a Reader (2004), 205.
16
De Jong, Penitential State, 64.
17
Collins, R., Early Medieval Europe, 315.
18
De Jong, Penitential State, 65.
14
7
the period of 814-829, as a authoritative text, it was used as a building block by the
Astronomer for his compilation of the Deeds of Louis the Pious.19
Astronomer - Vita Hludowici imperatoris
Annals however were not the only form of history writing during the ninth century. One of
the most famous works of that time is the Vita Karoli written by Einhard. This text is most of
the time seen as the royal biography of Charlemagne. It is the life of Charlemagne, a Vita.
Einhard’s Life of Charlemagne was followed at the end of the ninth century by that of Notker
of St. Gallen and in between, two authors, Thegan and the so-called Astronomer, wrote
biographies of Louis the Pious.20 The Astronomer wrote the Vita Hludowici imperatoris. The
courtier or nobleman, whose nickname is the Astronomer owes this name to the passages in
his text where he contemplates about the meaning of Halley’s Comet which appears in the
middle of the Easter celebration of 837 in Aachen, Louis was curious about what this comet
meant and summoned the Astronomer. “When the emperor (…) saw that the comet stopped
before he went to bed, he was anxious to interrogate a certain person, who had been
summoned, namely me who is writing this and who is believed to have knowledge of these
matters (…)”21 The author remains anonymous, scholars have suggested several
courtiers/nobles from Louis’s time but it is still not clear who exactly this Astronomer was.
They suggest that the Astronomer was a noble or aristocratic person because he is negative
about ‘common’ people, he thinks they are ignorant and tools easily manipulated by the
mighty.22
The Astronomer’s narrative starts, as is normal in a Vita, with the birth of the
kingdom, Charlemagne’s conquest of Aquitaine and its future king: Louis.23 It ends with the
death of the emperor and its burial in the basilica of St. Arnulf in Metz.24 The work is most
likely written in a short period of one or two years, the work is dated in 840/841 and the
19
De Jong, Penitential State, 65.
McKitterick R., Wood I., in: The Early Middle Ages Europe: 400-1000 (2001), 192.
21
Astronomer, trans. Noble, c 58, 132.
22
Noble, Charlemagne and Louis the Pious, 219.
23
Astronomer, trans. Noble, c 1, 228.
24
Astronomer, trans. Noble, c. 64, 301.
20
8
Astronomer completed his work in the first years after the death of the emperor. 25 So the
Astronomer looked back on Louis his reign and used de ARF to reconstruct what had
happened during Louis’s lifetime. He was inspired by Einhard’s Vita Karoli, one can
encounter similarities in their work for example in their opening.26 Besides this the
Astronomer mentions Einhard in his work as one of the “wisest man of his time”.27 In his
narrative the Astronomer described the deeds of Louis the Pious concerning the well-being
of his realm. He is first and foremost portrayed as a Christian King, as the shepherd of his
flock.28 The role of the emperor was first and foremost concerned with “looking out that the
state might shine forth more brilliantly in holy teaching and practice, that he might rise
higher in eminence who adorns himself with sublime humility by imitating Christ in
humility.”29 Louis was the caretaker of the cultus divines and the protector of the santa
ecclesia.30 Santa ecclesia meant in this context not only the church as an institution but can
also be seen as a function, as a person who mediates between God and mankind. Providing
Louis with the role of the santa ecclesia meant that he was seen as the person who stood
closest to God.31 Besides this personal aspect of Louis, the Astronomer also provides in an
insight in the hustle and bustle of the court live of Louis the Pious. He reports on the travels
of the king and his campaigns, he contemplates on the celebration of the feast days, the
rebellions against Louis, the hunt, and the envoys of the king, wars, the changing of season,
assemblies, miracles, omens, disasters and more. Another big theme of this narrative is the
relation of Louis with his sons, as de Jong argues, family unity and fraternal solidarity were
central themes of this Vita.32 Overall the Astronomer is extremely positive about Louis and
about the way that he ruled his empire. The only flaw of his great Christian king lies,
according to the Astronomer, in the fact that Louis was sometimes to merciful and that his
people abused this merci and turned it into cruelty. 33
25
De Jong, Penitential State, 81.
Noble, Charlemagne and Louis the Pious, 220.
27
Astronomer, trans. Noble, c. 41, 272.
28
Astronomer, trans. Noble, c 62, 298.
29
Astronomer trans Noble, c. 28, 255.
30
De Jong, Penitential State, 83.
31
Ibidem, 83.
32
Ibidem, 85.
33
Astronomer, trans Noble, c 42, 272.
26
9
Thegan - Gesta Hludowici
Around 836-734 Thegan wrote his Deeds of Louis the Pious, the Gesta Hludowici. He also
must have been inspired by Einhards Vita about Charlemagne. In comparison with the
Astronomer, Thegan wrote in a very annalistic style and without further adornment. In the
Astronomer more stress is laid on the meaning and symbolic meaning of things and on
personal things whereas Thegan writes more analytical and maybe practical about travel and
places without further conclusions derived from it. Thegan’s style however seems to be
biblical. 35 This can be due to the fact that he was a member of the ecclesiastical elite; he was
occupied with preaching and pastoral work.36 In his Gesta he cites twenty-eight biblical
passages, and his whole work is, according to Noble, constructed by means of biblical terms
and concepts.37
Thegan's Gesta is also valued in his ‘own’38 time. Walahfrid Strabo wrote a preface,
composed probably between 840 and 84939, to Thegan’s Gesta Hludowici. According to him
Thegan’s work was based on information from the annals, it was short and was more about
telling the truth than that it was an elegantly written piece. Walahfrid continues by saying
that “his remarks may seem too effusive and passionate in expression, because as a noble
and perceptive man he could not be silent when grief drove him to speak of the calumny of
vile persons. At the same time, the love of justice and of its promoter, the most Christian
emperor, was rather exaggerated by the ardor of natural zeal. Thus this work is pleasing on
account of his goodwill, and we should not worry too much about a certain amount of
clumsiness.”40 After ‘politely’ judging the author Walahfrid explains why he added certain
chapter divisions and headings.
Thegan provides in a chronologically written narrative concerning the reign of Louis
Pious up to the year 835. He briefly reports on the events happening in a certain year: where
34
De Jong, Penitential State, 72.
Noble, Charlemagne and Louis the Pious, 4.
36
Thegan, trans. Noble, prologue by Walahfrid Strabo, c1, 194.
37
Noble, Charlemagne and Louis the Pious, 191.
38
Thegan died sometime between 849 and 853 – Noble, 187.
39
De Jong, Penitential State, 73.
40
Thegan, proloque of Walahfrid Strabo, c. 1, 194.
35
10
Louis was at certain moments, where he held his assemblies, when he issued his missi, when
he traveled to certain places and palaces, when he went on campaign and so on. These
reports are complemented by some more extensive chapters. For instance when he talks
about the ceremonies of the imperial coronations and the death of Charlemagne. He is very
detailed when he writes about what happened during these ceremonies.41 His chapter 44 is
also extensive; this is the chapter where he elaborates on the rebellion of 833. He
particularly points at Ebo as the source of all evil. This chapter reads as a personal rant
against Ebo. It seems as if Thegan lets lose of all his suppressed emotions, above all Thegan
raged about Ebo’s lack of fidelity and gratitude towards the emperor.42 According to Thegan
one can not go without mentioning this Ebo as creator of all evils: “Even if I had an iron
tongue and bronze lips, I could neither explain nor count your iniquities in all respects.” 43
After this chapter, Thegan comes back to his ‘normal self’ and report about Louis sending
Lothar to Aachen and going to Metz to meets his brother.44
Ermold the Black - Carmen In Honorem Hludowici Pii
The fourth and last source which I will use in this thesis comes from a person who is called
Ermold the Black. Between the autumn of 826 and February 828 Ermolddus Nigellus, Ermold
the Black, wrote a panegyric work to win his way back into the good graces of Pepin of
Aquitaine and Louis the Pious.45 Little is known about his life and background besides what
he tells us himself. Ermold was exiled from the court and send to Strassbourg were he wrote
his poem that consist of four books. The first book expatiates on Louis kingship and his
victory during the battle of Barcelona in 804. His accession to the throne, his coronation and
his first actions as an emperor are the subjects of book two. In the third book Ermold is
dealing with the campaign against the Bretons in 824. The fourth book is about Christian
kingship and the pious emperor baptizing the Danish king Harald, which is exactly in line with
the royal virtues of a christianissimus imperator. After the baptizing of king Harald Ermold
describes two miracles which occurred during his exile in Strassbourg. Ermold ends his work
41
De Jong, Penitential State, 76. See Thegan c. 6-7, c. 16-17.
De Jong, Penitential State, 78.
43
Thegan, trans. Noble, c. 44, 211-214.
44
Ibidem, c 46, 214.
45
Dating of the source see f.i. Noble, Charlemagne and Louis the Pious, 120.
42
11
with a request to bring him back from exile. “(…)But I plead that the immense piety that
relaxes debts be mindful of my exile.”46 It remains uncertain if Ermold’s plan of writing
himself back in the favor of Louis did actually work.
Ermold’s Carmen In Honorem Hludowici Pii is obviously a panegyric work. The
purpose of Ermold’s poem was trying to get back in the favor of Pepin and Louis by writing a
poetic praise. A praise meant to discuss “the great deeds of the warrior Caesar” 47. He
describes Louis two folded, on the one hand he is the warrior king and on the other he is
presented as the shepherd of the Christian flock, a religious leader, as a Christian king. By
using metaphorical language Ermold puts Louis on a pedestal. He describes the great deeds
of Louis in war but also his deeds as emperor and religious leader. Ermold not only praises
Louis but a recurrent theme in his work are the Franks, their origins, customs, bravery and
their Regnum Francorum.48 Besides Louis and the royal family Ermold also mentions other
important people at the court, the proceres. He mentions there names in flattering context
and talks about them as if they were present. “(…) Where you, Hilduin, strong abbot,
prepared gifts for him (…) where you, Matfrid, prepared a beautiful lodging (…) You, most
holy archbishop Jonas (…)”49 Maybe this shows us that the work was meant for public
recitation at court. In his work Ermold seems to be inspired by early Carolingian court
poetry50 and classical verse. In the introductory of Book One Ermold wrote that he admires
Roman poets as Homer, Ovid, Vergil, Plato, Cicero but that he never could be on the same
standard as these antique writers.51 In his poem one could find parallels with the work of
these great poets of the Ancient world.52 Ermold shows that he was also familiar with biblical
text; he cites the bible multiple times throughout his poem.53 According to Dutton Ermold
was also inspired by contemporary writers like Theodulf.54
46
Ermold the Black, Carmen In Honorem Hludowici Pii, trans. Noble, book IV, 186.
Ermold the Black, trans. Noble, 128.
48
De Jong, Penitential State, 93, esp. Ermold the Black, trans. Noble, book I, 129-130.
49
Ermold the Black, trans. Noble, 66.
50
Especially by Karolus Magnus et Leo Papa or Paderborn Epic written on the occasion of the meeting of Pope
Leo III and Charlemagne in Paderbron in 799.
51
Ermold the Black, trans. Noble, 128.
52
See especially Ermold the Black, trans Noble, book I 135 and Ermold, book III, 159 and book IV, 175.
53
See especially Ermold the Black, trans. Noble, 128, and pages 147, 148, 150, 161.
54
Dutton, P., The Politics of Dreaming in the Carolingian Empire (1994), 86.
47
12
After this more general introduction of these four sources and some background
information on their authors and its content I will now try to provide in a geographical
framework for my thesis. The main subject of this piece is the mobility of Louis the Pious
therefore it is important that we have a clear view of what exactly entails the empire at the
time Louis stood at the head of it. I will try to give a short quick overview. The Frankish
empire at his height stretched from Brittany to Carinthia, from the Pyrenees and northern
Italy to the North Sea and the Baltic. Karl Ferdinand Werner states in his article on the
government of Louis the Pious, that the Carolingian Empire was almost one million square
kilometers.55 According to, among others, Werner and Christina Pössel, we can divide the
realm of Louis in three residential zones.56 The first we can discover is the zone of
Compiègne, Quierzy and Attigny also known as the Aisne-Oise region to the Northeast of
Paris. In this region Louis had among others the palaces Ver, the three residences of
Compiègne, Quierzy, and Servais on the Oise, Smoussy between Oise and Aisne, and Attigny
on the Aisne. In this region we can count a total of thirty residential stays and ten assemblies
during the reign of Louis the Pious, 814-840. The second zone is the easternmost region; the
Rhine-Main region with important places as Frankfurt, Ingelheim and Worms. Here we can
count forty-three residential stays and nine assemblies. The last and third is by far the
largest of the three. It ranged from Nijmegen in the North to Remiremont in the Vosges
Mountains in the South. It entailed important places such as Aachen, Hertstal, Nijmegen,
Metz and Thionville. In total we can count ninety residential stays and approximately fifteen
assemblies in this region.
55
Werner, K. F., ‘Hludovicus Augustus Gouverner l’empire chrétien --- Idées et réalités’ in: Godman, Collins,
Charlemagne’s Heir (Oxford 1990), 3.
56
I have used the division made by Werner and Pössel. For the devision made by Werner see ‘Gouverner
l’empire chrétien’, 8, and the devision of Pössel* in Pössel, C., The itinerant kingship of Louis the Pious (1998)
6-8. *unplubished MPhil thesis.
13
Chapter 1
Mobility
A journey in the current sense of the word can be explained as the movement of a person
who travels to a fairly distant place. Current sense, because a distant place in the Middle
Ages is something totally different from what we nowadays call a distant place and so is the
meaning of journey. In this chapter I would like to concentrate on the movement of Emperor
Louis the Pious and his court, on his travels, on his itinerant kingship. Further on I will discuss
his stays and their effect on palaces and places and thirdly I will come to elaborate on
communication. Mobility, places of power and communication during the reign of Louis the
Pious and the different opinions of scholars combined with four ninth century sources will
form the core of this thesis. For I think the combination of the sources and their opinion on
these three facets of medieval kingship will provide in an answer to the central question
whether we can see Louis the Pious his mobility connected to the political stability of his
empire.
It has often been argued that the kingdoms or empire ruled by the Carolingian was an
unwieldy structure, too large to be effectively governed.57 How could a king effectively
govern such an unwieldy structure and remain political stability in every part of his kingdom?
The Frankish empire at his height stretched from Brittany to Carinthia, from the Pyrenees
and northern Italy to the North Sea and the Baltic. That the mobility of the king was of great
importance for political stability is noticeable in the Astronomers Life of Emperor Louis, he
writes: “Meanwhile he (Charlemagne) wanted to prevent the people of Aquitaine from
growing insolent on account of his long absence (…) so he sent and summoned his son
(…)”58. Some years later the Astronomer reports about a rebellion of the Basques in 812
against Charlemagne’s and Louis the Pious’ rule. He states that “The public good demanded
that he go to repress their defiance.”59 Louis went with his army to the villa of Dax and when
the rebels refused to listen “(…) he went down to their area and permitted a military
squadron to ravage everything of theirs.” After this Louis crossed the Pyrenean Alps and
descended to Pamplona. “He stayed in that area as long as it seemed there were things to
57
McKitterick, R., The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751-987 (London, 1983), 102.
Astronomer, trans. Noble, c. 4, 231.
59
Ibidem, c 18, 242.
58
14
arrange that would lead to the public or private good.”60 In these examples political stability
was achieved by the presence and mobility of the king or his son. For the king it was
important to stay in touch with every part of his empire. He needed to be aware of the
business that was dealt with in the different areas of his realm. We can see this in the
division of the realm that was made by the emperor in 839 at the assembly of Worms. There
Louis granted Lothar, his oldest son, a truce of three days for the purpose of dividing his
empire. Lothar however "committed the division of the realm to the discretion of the lord
emperor, claiming that they themselves (Lothar and his men) could never make this division,
because of ignorance of the places involved."61
When studying the early medieval period the mobility of the king is a recurring
theme. Itinerant kingship is generally defined as: ‘the form of government in which a king
carries out all the administrative functions and symbolic representations of governing by
periodically or constantly travelling throughout the areas of his dominion’. 62 Especially the
Ottonian era gets a lot of attention from scholars interested in the itinerancy of the early
medieval king.63 Much of the discussion of itinerant courts has centered on, and derives its
defining characteristics from, the itinerant kingship of the Ottonian and Salian rulers of the
tenth and eleventh centuries in Germany.64 But for the Carolingian period there is a little less
interest in the ‘Itinerarforshung’. Especially Louis the Pious’ itinerary has received little
attention up to now; here he is placed in the shadow of his father as well. That is, not that
much research is done on the itinerary of Carolingian kings anyhow and Charlemagne seems
to have the preference when done at all. However interesting it might be to study the routes
and stays, the evidence or sources available for this research can cause problems. Christina
Pössel argues that there is indeed enough information to enable us to be fairly certain that
we know at least the geographical area in which emperor Louis the Pious stayed, though we
do by no means know all the residences he visited. Besides this she states that we are of
course ignorant of the start and end dates of his stay, let alone about the routes by which
60
Astronomer, trans. Noble, c. 18, 242.
Ibidem, c. 60, 295.
62
Bernhardt, J., Itinerant Kingship and royal monasteries in early medieval Germany, c. 936-1075 (Cambridge,
1993) 45.
63
Pössel, The Itinerant kingship of Louis the Pious, 3.
64
McKitterick, Charlemagne, 171.
61
15
Louis travelled.65 The information available nowadays is comes from nineteenth-and
twentieth-century work which was based on royal charters and court-connected narrative
sources narrative available at that time. The Regesta Imperii that I used for this thesis was
founded by Johann Friedrich Böhmer in 1831 and is a inventory of royal diploma and
historiographical sources of especially German kings from the early medieval period starting
in 813 up to the later medieval period and ending in 1303. Although its importance may not
be underestimated this work shows some differences with the work of for instance C. Brühl66
and is not, and of course cannot be, certain in some cases. Brühl published his work in 1968
in which he focused on the stays of the Carolingians during their travels. Some events and
dates in the Regesta Imperii are listed very precise, for instance: 821 first of May assembly in
Nijmegen, 835 second of February assembly in Metz, but for other occasion we can only
guess for how long Louis stayed at some place and in what exact location. In 816 somewhere
in November Louis left Compiègne and the first new mentioning of his stays, in the Regesta
Imperii, is 817 somewhere in April in Aachen, would this mean that Louis spent Christmas at
Aachen as he used to be? These questions remain troublesome because we can not say with
certainty that Louis indeed went to Aachen and if he did what route he took. Besides, the
duration of his travels is also hard to determine. Suppose it taken him, for instance, two
weeks to travel from Compiegne to Aachen then we could state that he was present at the
palace in Aachen with Christmas. We however can not be sure about this. Another problem
we face when dealing with these accounts by Brühl and Böhmer is: how reliable were these
court-connected narrative sources on which they based their information on. Where they
precise when they wrote down place names and the duration of stays? Was this narrative
writer, writer of the Lives, or scribe who compiled charters or capitularies always in the same
place as Emperor Louis was? And how objective were the compilers of these documents?
Did they record their data at the same day as the events took place or did they compile their
text afterwards?
Another problem when approaching the mobility of a king is sketched by Christina
Pössel in her as yet unpublished Mphil-thesis. Researchers tend to see the ‘traveling king’ as
a forerunner of the peripatetic rulers of the High Middle Ages; with their focus on one
65
66
Pössel., The itinerant kingship, 4.
Brühl C., Fodrum Gistum Servitum Regis (1968).
16
capital. The focus of research has therefore concentrated on exploring what kept rulers from
establishing a capital. Scholars propose that the itinerant kingship of the early medieval
period, without one solid capital, was the result of economic, administrative, political or
social weakness of the rulers.67 J. T. Rosenthal is one of these researchers who deduce the
‘weakness’ of Louis the Pious’ his reign from his mobility or lack of mobility. He states that in
the early years of his reign Louis held almost annually an assembly at Aachen but later when,
according to Rosenthal, Louis’ reign grew more troublesome Louis held more assemblies
while on a royal progress. He suggests that when the prestige of his father had still been
strong Louis could simply order all men to come to him. Later this was not the case. He had
to go where friends, and friendly lands, were to be found. 68
Innes on the other hand argues that the itinerant court became less important from
the last decades of the eight century onwards. He observes the construction of a series of
new, purpose-built palaces complexes in a novel monumental idiom at Aachen, Ingelheim
and Frankfurt. With the range and pace of the royal itinerary decreased considerable from
the 790s, the new palaces were not intended to function as sedentary capitals. Situated in
the Carolingians’ political heartlands, these were to be the central places in the new system,
where elites could came to meet their ruler.69 According to Airlie the king did not play such a
dependent role in the interplay between subjects and king. He states that what matters was
not the fact that the itinerary of the king failed to cover the whole of the Reich with equal
intensity so much as the fact that magnates of the Reich attended (or did not attend) the
assemblies held, and that the king remained in touch with the ‘political nation’.70
There is ‘evidence’ for Louis’ presence at circa 85 places, but most of these were,
according to the Regesta Imperii, and thereby indirectly, the narrative sources, only visited
once. Although he was not that mobile as his father I think we can say with certainty that
the reign of Louis the Pious would not have been successful if the king did not travel. He did
not travel as far and wide on military campaigns as Charlemagne did. After 814 Louis
67
Pössel, The Itinerant Kingship.
Rosenthal, J. T., 'The public assembly in the time of Louis the Pious' in: Traditio Vol. 20 (1964), 31.
69
Innes, M., ‘Charlemagne’s government’ in: Story, J. (ed.), Charlemagne Empire and society (2005), 75.
70
Airlie, 'Talking Heads: Assemblies in Early Medieval Germany' in; Barnwell, P. S., Mostert, M., Political
Assemblies in the Earlier Middle Ages (2003), 43.
68
17
traveled no further south than Chalon-sur-Saône, no further east than Paderborn,
Remiremont and Salz, no further north than Nijmegen, and no further west than the Paris
region, except for two campaigns against the Bretons. After his coronation in childhood, he
never visited Rome, and neither did he return to Aquitaine after 814.71
Mayke De Jong argues that Louis’ impact as a ruler did not depend on his regular
presence throughout his realm. She states that there was no need for him to be present at
certain places because of the importance of his missi dominici, his network of administrators
and the written word.72 Louis the Pious had a network of regional administrators who
received Louis’s commands in the form of capitularies and mandates; imperial letters with
binding instructions. By this he was able to be less mobile but still exercise his power to the
farthest corners of his empire. I however tend to think that the mobility of Louis the Pious,
besides his administrative machinery, still was of importance for the stability of his kingdom.
For the effective government of the Carolingian realm several institutions and administrative
centers appeared in the ninth century. A distinctive feature of Carolingian rule was the
plurality of political and administrative centres and the maintenance of communication
between these centres and their surrounding regions. These administrative centres had to
carry out the king’s will and were established to secure order and justice at a local level.73
However we must keep in mind that these administrative centres are not the same as we
nowadays notice in our political landscape. As Matthew Innes says, some scholars are rightly
impressed by the organizational capacity of early medieval kings and assume that it must
have been achieved through the types of administration with which we are familiar, when in
fact it rested on an entirely different style of consensus-based politics which worked through
extant social mechanisms.74 He also states that historians all too easily suppose that the
creation of bureaucratic institutions defined by the king and manned by dedicated, full-time,
salaried state servants, is the commonsensical form of political organization, at which
medieval rulers were aiming all along.75 He argues that early medieval politics was an
activity which was defined by inter-personal relationships within the ruling class, rather than
71
De Jong, Penitential state, 34.
Ibidem, 34.
73
McKitterick, R., 'Politics' in: McKitterick, R. (ed.), The Early Middle Age: Europe 400-1000 (2001), 40.
74
Innes, M., State and Society in the Early Medieval West, The Middle Rhine Valley 400-100 (2004), 253.
75
Innes, State and Society, 255.
72
18
one defined in terms of ‘governmentality’. We cannot, that is, take the goals of early
medieval politics as the type of institution building we see as a norm, precisely because early
medieval political systems were configured differently from those of the modern world.76 He
sees the Carolingian government as a consensus-based political system which worked by the
interplay between elite and centre.
According to one point of view it is therefore not surprising that Louis had residences
at prominent places all over his realm and that he needed to travel between these
residences. Louis therefore can be seen as an itinerant king.
Innes states that political topography is not just a matter of places: space and the
links between places are also central in the functioning of a landscape. 77 Not only was the
actual presence of the king important but also his mobility, his movement. According to
Innes on a micro-level, motion took the form of ceremonies and processions within
individual complexes, which could transmit powerful messages. The progress of the king and
his court could help him in his way of ruling. We can see this for instance in the poem of
Ermold the Black in which he elaborates on a procession that Louis made with Pope Stephen
IV. In 816 just after Louis was made king of the Frankish realm he ordered the new pope
Stephen to come to him in the city of Reims. After Louis arranged the people according to his
will; on his right side the clergy and on the other side the chosen nobles and the first among
magnates, the two men met. According to Ermold Louis placed himself in the middle of this
group of clergy and nobles and was shining with gems and gold. “His clothing glittered but
his piety sparkled even more.”78 After this meeting the two and their entourage made a
procession through the city. They visited the church and after that they sat down to a great
banquet together, hereafter they went to bed. The following day the Pope, after giving many
gifts, crowned, with says Ermold the crown of Caesar Constantine, Louis and his wife
Irmingard.79 All this happened in the presence of the noble men and clergy at that time
present at court. Thegan also reports elaborately on this event. He states that after Stephen
76
Innes, State and Society, 255.
Innes, ‘People, Places and Power in Carolingian society’ in: De Jong, M. B., Theuws, F. and Van Rhijn C.,
Topographies of Power in the Early Middle Ages(2001), 423.
78
Ermold the Black, trans. Noble, Book II, p 147.
79
Ermold the Black, trans. Noble, Book II, p 152.
77
19
and Louis met in a great field near Reims they went to church and that “afterwards the
pontiff honored him with many great gifts, and also queen Irmingard and all his magnates
and officers. On the next Sunday, in the church, before solemn mass and in the presence of
the clergy and the whole people, he consecrated and anointed him emperor and placed
upon his head a gold crown which he had brought with him.”80
Another example of a procession in which the power and greatness of the king was
displayed is the one that took place when the Danish king Harald, his queen and their sons
were baptized in Mainz. After they were baptized there was a lavish celebration in the in
royal palace of Ingelheim. Louis the Pious entered the church in Mainz, gleamed with gold
and gems, with on this right hand Hilduin, on his left Helisachar, his archchancellor at that
time, and Gerung in front of him. His wife Judith and his newest son Charles followed him,
Judith was accompanied by two nobles, Matfrid and Hugh.
Movement also took place between a series of royal places within a given region, as
well as around the kingdom between different complexes of royal interest. As Innes argues:
“Strategically-placed monasteries and royal villae were the stepping stones on which the
royal household paused and caught its breath before moving on.”81 The kings’ progress from
one site to another was marked by rituals of arrival which underlined the importance people
gave to the king and his royal progress.
The Astronomer most of the time does not or only mentions briefly the travel scheme
of Louis the Pious. For instance in chapter 44 of his Life of Louis the Pious where he states:
“(…) around the time of Lent, while the emperor was making a circuit though the places lying
close to the sea (…)”82 He does not name the places or tell us why the emperor made this
journey. The Astronomer mentions in most cases only brief were the emperor went: “until
the month of August when he would return to Aachen (…)” 83 “(…) he himself with his son
went to Nijmegen (…)”84 or “(…) he himself came to Compiegne.”85 Thegan is also brief in his
80
Thegan, trans Noble, c. 17, p. 202.
Innes, 'People, Places and Power', 424.
82
Astronomer, trans Noble, c. 44, 275.
83
Ibidem, c. 39, 267.
84
Ibidem, c. 39, 267.
81
20
reports on the travels of Louis the Pious. For example in chapter 34 and 35 of his book he
describes two year of the reign of Louis in two short sentences: “In the next year [828] he
departed from Ingelheim after his general assembly and went to Commercy. In the next year
[829] he went to Worms (…)”86
In book III of his poem in honor of Louis the Pious, Ermold the Black does elaborate
more extensively on the movement of the emperor. He connects the places through which
Louis travels with important people present at these places. “Caesar made a safe progress
through his realms right up to Paris, where, rejoicing, he approached and visited your
residence, lofty martyr Denis, where you, mighty abbot Hilduin, prepared gifts for him. From
there he went on to your eminent home, Germanus, and that of the martyr Stephen, and
yours too, Genevieve. He visited the region of Orleans at a leisurely pace, the pious one first
entering Vitry-aux-Loges, where you, Matfrid, readied the most beautiful accommodation
for him; you gave him gifts both great and pleasing. (…) Then he visited again your citadel,
Aignan, asking you to lend him help. Then, Durandus, you went rushing back and forth and
offered to give him the gifts that he had given to you. Then he went to Tours to see the
shrines of heavenly Martin and of the pious martyr Maurice.”87 And so on. Louis then went
to Anger were he paid respect to Saint Aubin and met with Helisachar. After this he traveled
further to Nantes and ended his travels in Vannes where he prepared for battle against the
Bretons. In comparison and to show how the sources differ, the Astronomer mentions
nothing of this all, he only states: “The emperor (…) assembled a military force from all sides
and set out to approach the Breton frontier. He held a general assembly at Vannes (…)”88
Thegan also only mentions Louis going to Brittany with his army; he states nothing about the
journey Ermold describes, the place Vannes or an assembly that took place at this estate. 89
After his victory over the Bretons the Astronomer provides us with some slightly more
detailed information on the travel scheme of Louis the Pious. “This accomplished the
emperor withdrew from the Breton frontier and went back to Angers (…) After attending his
wife’s (Irmingard) burial the emperor went back to Aachen to spend the winter by a route
85
Ibidem, c. 44, 275.
Thegan, trans. Noble, c. 34 and 35, 208.
87
Ermold the Black, trans. Noble, Book III, 162-163.
88
Astonomer, trans. Noble, c. 30, 258.
89
Thegan, trans. Noble, c. 25, 206.
86
21
through Rouen and Amiens. On his way back he entered the palace at Herstal (…)” 90 Both
Thegan and Ermold do not mention this journey through Rouen, Amien and Herstal nor Louis
spending the winter in Aachen.
The movement of the king also had a temporal element. It determined and defined
the political calendar.91 How the king planned his travels and thereby his year had influence
on the political calendar. We can observe interaction between the king his travel scheme
and for instance the seasons, feast days, the royal hunt, campaigns and assemblies. The
elites of particular regions interacted with kings at particular complexes of royal power,
movements between court and locality was determined by an annual political rhythm. We
can see this for instance in the Astronomer who writes about the itinerary of the court of
Charlemagne. “For he ordained that he would spend the winter in four places so that after
three years had passed each one of those places would only support him for one winter.
They were the places of Doué, Chasseneuil, Angeac and Ebrueil and each of these places,
when the fourth year had come around, would provide adequate resources for the royal
service.”92 With this example we can see how Charlemagne planned his travels, but also
Louis the Pious must have done this. A palace or monastery needed to be ready for the court
and his needs. It required intensive preparation, not only for the people that came and their
needs; food, a place to sleep etcetera but it also needed to be ready for the events and
people the court attracted, the anticipatory activities. For example the assemblies held at
court.
We can see some sort of annual rhythm as described by Innes also in the time of
Louis the Pious. The most important factors that determined the royal itinerary or mobility
of Louis the Pious are in my opinion rebellion or military campaigns, the seasons, Christmas
and the hunt. According to the Astronomer Louis spent his winters and thereby Christmas in
Aachen from 816 up to 820 and then again in 825, 826, 828, 829, 830, 831, 833 and then
from 834 up till his last Christmas in Aachen in 838.93 Followed by this wintertime spent in
90
Astronomer, trans Noble, c. 31, 258.
Innes, 'People, Places and Power', 424.
92
Astronomer, trans. Noble, c. 7, 233-234.
93
Astronomer, 816 c. 26, 817 c. 29, 818 c. 30, 819 c. 32, 820 c. 34, 825 c. 39, 826 c. 40, 828 c. 42, 829 c. 43,
830 c. 46, 831 c. 46, 833 with Lothar c. 49, 834 c. 54 before Christmas Thionville celebrate in Metz with Drogo,
835 c. 54, 836 c. 55, 837 c. 57, 838 c. 59 – Astronomer wrong campaign against his son Louis.
91
22
Aachen is most of the time a general assembly which is held at the beginning of a new year.
More than half of the assemblies Louis held in his lifetime took place in Aachen and its
surroundings.
23
Chapter 2
Places of power
In research done throughout the years on the composition of the reign of Louis the Pious,
the German term Königslandschaften, in English we could speak of residential zones, played
an important role, in the preface of this thesis I have sketched three residential zones on
which I will base this chapter. With such a large kingdom a king had to have a stable system
for the exercise of his power. He needed, among others, institutions, documents, rituals,
oaths, seals, people and places, who could, on his behave, show off his authority.
McKitterick calls this “cultures of power”94, in which intimacy; familiarity with the ruler,
otherwise known as königsnähe (closeness to the king) as well as responsibility and office
played an important role.95 Association with the court, with the person of the king, gave
importance to members of the elite and, as Airlie states, crucially, an identity. This identity
was almost exclusively gained through royal services, and through what one might call the
bond of association with the king. This meant that such figures essential characteristics, with
the more exalted members of the king’s following.96
It was important for the king and his subject to stay in close contact with each other;
they have to create Königsnähe, whether by the presence of the king or by his ‘presence’ in
written documents or places. These places can be called places of power and are important
when investigating the mobility and political stability of the reign of Louis the Pious. As said
before, Louis the Pious needed a stable system for the exercise of his power. Places of
power, which might be episcopal, cities and palaces as well as monasteries, were crucial in
the early medieval period, in which a king did not establish his power by means of one
specific and central place such as a capital, but by means of what I would like to call a chain
or network of palaces. From these places the king could communicate with his subjects. This
was done by his presence during, for instance assemblies, but also by the written word, as in
royal charters and capitularies. By creating places of power and issuing charters and
capitularies the king also created a chain of communication. The king secured his position
94
McKitterick, The Early Middle Ages, 35.
Ibidem, 35.
96
Airlie, ‘Bonds of Power and Bonds of Association’ in: Godman, Collins (ed.) Charlemagne’s Heir (Oxford 1990)
191-204.
95
24
and his effective exercise of power by creating this topography, a structure that was build of
places, presence and communication. We can speak of topographies of power, for in a
manner of speaking, this was a web of power laid upon the Carolingian realm, a structure of
threads which all ended in the centre with the king. By creating this network of important
places the king secured his position throughout his realm. As Innes expressed it, these
political centres were not geographically fixed but sociologically constructed.97 In his work he
stresses the importance of the mediating role of the aristocracy as the interface between the
political centre and the localities.98
As discussed earlier, it is important to keep in mind that the topography of power we
nowadays experience is one totally different from the one in the early medieval period. A
capital for one specific region or realm is an invention from the later medieval period.
According to Innes we can see in the last decades of the eight century a construction of new,
purpose-built palace complexes.99 At the end of the Merovingian dynasty and with the start
of the Carolingians we see the construction of new palaces at places such as Aachen,
Ingelheim and Frankfurt. Innes argues that with the start of the ninth century and with the
Carolingian coming to power a new way of ruling started. The contact between the king and
the provinces changed due to the intensified use of the written word and the new palace
complexes.100 We can discover during the reign of Louis the Pious some sites that were and
became important places, once he had succeeded his father in 814.
To understand the importance of these places one should, first and foremost look at
the royal court. A crucial feature of Carolingian government was the court; it was the closest
one could get to the king. The king’s communal activity within his court, such as feasting and
hunting were essential aspects of early medieval kingship. Hincmar of Rheims elaborates in
his De Ordini Palatii on the nature of royal government as a family matter, with the royal
household at its core. His work is typical for the Carolingian period in which the royal
household played an important role, regardless whether the realm was at peace and
governing was going smoothly or not. At that time, the driving force behind the crises in
97
Innes, State and Society, 252.
Ibidem, 259.
99
Innes, M., ‘Charlemagne’s government’, 75.
100
Ibidem, 75, 77-87.
98
25
Louis the Pious his reign was sometimes thought to be that the peace within the royal
household had been disturbed. Hincmar stresses the importance of the household as an
image of order en purity which has to have therefore a strict hierarchy where everyone had
and know his or her place.101 This has to be reached through discipline, which, as Innes
states, was meant to encourage correctio.102 The court's composition was constantly
changing; in the Carolingian period, especially during Charlemagne’s reign, it was an
itinerant one. Hence Carolingian courts were flexible human communities, not fixed
geographical places. Its numbers ebbed and flowed to a seasonal rhythm, and the king’s own
physical location changed in similar time.103 One can say that the presence of the king in
various parts of his realm created regional centres of power. The itinerant court created a
political landscape of power; a chain of palaces was used as temporary residences for the
king and his court. Louis the Pious travelled for instance in the beginning of 815 from Aachen
to Paderborn, where in July he held an assembly after that he travelled to Frankfurt, in
August he headed in the direction of Nijmegen and then returned to Aachen to celebrate
Christmas.104 Places where the king was present gained in authority and importance. The
court brought an air of authority to these places, not only by there presence but also by for
instance the hunt and other court related activities. From these places capitularies were
issued and through these documents power was exercised. Assemblies were held at which
Louis the Pious could display his authority and seek consensus for his decisions. The display
of authority from the participants in these assemblies is also not to be underestimated. Sites
of royal power played a crucial role in political strategies. The role of particular complexes
and royal centers as focal point for regional elites made them crucial stages for rulers
negotiating with those elites for political support.
With this in mind, I would like to stress the importance of the assembly in the time of
Louis the Pious. Assembly meeting places are an essential feature of the topography of
power. These are the occasions on which a large group of ‘important’ men gathered at one
given place, called together by the emperor. In secondary literature assemblies are often
101
Hincmar of Rheims, 'On the governance of the palace', in: Dutton, P. E. (ed.), Carolingian Civilization: a
reader (2004), 516-523.
102
Innes, M., 'A place of discipline: Carolingian courts and aristocratic youths' in: Cubitt, C. (ed.) Court Culture in
the Early Middle Ages (2003), 60.
103
Innes, ‘A places of discipline’, 61.
104
Regesta imperii 815.
26
referred to as places of public authority and power. Airlie rightly claims that “we should not
make the assumption that assemblies for kings were simply vehicles for the exercise of royal
power and theatres for their display”105; the participants of these assemblies also used the
assemblies for the display of their identity and authority. Assemblies can be seen as public
government, as public displays of power, authority and identity. A king chose to do business
through the public assembly, he was the one who could determine place and time, rather
than that he had to do business through assemblies. Assemblies were a manner to deal with
power, identity and authority. A point that underlines this way of thinking is made by
Timothy Reuter when he shows that assemblies were staged occasions. An assembly had a
certain sequence of rituals to follow, with an important role for the liturgical moments.
Reuter explains that participants in assembly would add more value to the staging and the
rituals of the assembly than to the more practical side of assemblies. 106 Assemblies can be
seen as places were ethnic groups and persons could define and position their selves. In this
way one can see the great importance of assemblies for the government of the realm of
Louis the Pious; assemblies were not only a practical tool to govern his realm but were also
important for the display and continuation of his power. Already in his own time people at
court saw the importance of these assemblies. Hincmar of Rheims who writes in the ninth
century on the Carolingian government stresses also the importance of the assembly. He
suggest that the assembly held the realm together in two ways. First in a sociological sense;
by coming to the assembly the elite could stay in touch with the emperor and the emperor
could hear their voice. He states that this was the basic to the whole process of government.
On the other hand the assembly were important in a geographical sense. It was seen by
Hincmar as a tool to stay in touch with every region of the emperor's realm. 107 We must
keep in mind however that Hincmar may have idealized ninth century politics, however this
picture had a basis in reality.108 It would be logical to argue that Louis chose places with
great significance for these assemblies, where he himself and the participants present could
display his authority to all the more effect. Therefore I think that we can consider the place
were an assembly was held as a place of power.
105
Airlie, ‘Talking Heads’, 29.
Reuter, ‘Assembly politics in western Europe from the eight century to the twelfth’ in: Linehan, P., Nelson J.
L. (ed.) The Medieval World (2001), 438.
107
Hincmar of Rheims, trans. Dutton, c. 29-30, 35, 528-531.
108
Nelson, J, Charles the Bald (1992), 47.
106
27
It is interesting to see how the sources describe Louis his people coming to him. He
seems to be in control of the place an time, where he convened his great people for an
assembly or other meeting. The Astronomer reports that Louis his people came to him in the
palace of Ingelheim.109 In August 822 “the lord emperor ordered an assembly to come
together in a place called Attigny. He called the bishops to council there, and the abbots and
clergy, and also the nobles of his realm (…)110
But what were the places chosen by the court to stay? And what do these choices say
about the importance of these particular places or palaces?
In this thesis I would like to stress the importance of three residential sites. There
were three areas with royal residences – palaces and villae – that Louis tended to favor, also
as locations for assemblies: Frankfurt, Ingelheim and Worms (nine assemblies), Compiègne,
Quierzy and Attigny (ten assemblies), and Aachen and its surroundings with the most
assemblies at least fifteen in total.111
Aachen
When studying the reign of Charlemagne and Louis the Pious, Aachen always shows up as
the most central of all the palaces in the Carolingian realm. This assumption is supported by
the description in the well known and often cited Vita Karoli written by Einhard in the ninth
century and is especially based on his passage concerning Charlemagne and his choice of
Aachen as his more or less fixed residence. Even nowadays Aachen is known for its medieval
past and is especially focused on Charlemagne because he was the man who gave orders to
build the famous chapel. Aachen’s position was geographically central on the east-west
boarder of Francia itself, and it was located on crossroads of important (old) routes; the road
between Cologne and Maastricht. According to Pössel we can count a total of 35 residential
stays in Aachen during Louis’ lifetime, and under residential stays she does not count Louis
the Pious more briefly visits to Aachen. We also can count a total of twelve assemblies held
109
Astronomer, trans. Noble, c. 32, 259.
Astronomer, trans. Noble, c. 35, 262.
111
Regesta Imperii, Pössel, Itinerant kingship and Werner, 'Hludovicus Augustus'.
110
28
there. Under Louis the Pious, Aachen was the main place where assemblies were held and
the place where he spent Christmas and Easter. Here the Emperor spent nineteen of the 26
winters of his reign. Many assemblies took place at Aachen in those winter months, but
Aachen was visited by the emperor throughout the year; it was also the site of four
assemblies during the summer months.112
McKitterick argues that Aachen may well represent an attempt to establish a centre
for the Carolingian empire and was certainly a statement of royal wealth and status. 113 In her
view it was not Charlemagne but Louis the Pious who focused his government in Aachen.
During the reign of Charlemagne, often thought to have been an itinerant one, Aachen can
be seen more as a temporary residence, whereas under his predecessor, Louis the Pious,
Aachen became more and more a capital of the Carolingian realm.114 The importance of
Aachen as royal residence and as place of power has also been discussed by Janet Nelson.
According to her Aachen was the place where collective power was mobilized by a ruler
exceptionally aware of his responsibility.115 Nelson shows, in comparison to McKitterick, that
during the lifetime of Charlemagne, Aachen was a place of power in more than one sense;
there was a clear interaction between the need for a new place of power and Charlemagne's
political achievements by Charlemagne. For Nelson the precondition for the political
achievements by Charlemagne was the construction and creation of a new place of power:
Aachen.116 Although these arguments suggest that Aachen was indeed a prominent place of
power under Charlemagne, McKitterick thinks that the central role of Aachen in the
Carolingian political ideology is primarily due to Louis the Pious. She argues that under
Charlemagne Aachen was an extension of existing palace complexes as Nijmegen and
Herstal.117 Nevertheless the palace complex created at Aachen in the later years of the eight
and ninth century was ultimately of lasting importance and symbolic resonance. But,
according to McKitterick, this famous palace does not appear to have been more than the de
112
Regesta Imperii en Pössel, Itinerant kingship, 11.
McKitterick, Charlemagne, 157.
114
Ibidem, 158.
115
Nelson, J., ‘Aachen as a place of power’ in: De Jong, M. B., Theuws, F. (ed.), Topographies of power in the
early middle ages (Leiden, 2001), 233.
116
Nelson, 'Aachen as a place of power', 237.
117
McKitterick, Charlemagne, 166.
113
29
facto principal residence, and only in the last few years of the emperor’s (Charlemagne)
life.118
The symbolic resonance of Aachen is something we encounter in for instance the
choice of Aachen, with its natural warm springs, by Charlemagne, the building of the chapel,
by Charlemagne, the death of Charlemagne, the coronation of his son Louis the Pious, the
ritual purification of the palace at Aachen by Emperor Louis, justice done by Louis from
Aachen, assemblies held at Aachen, winter’s spent at Aachen, the removal of Judith from
Aachen and her reinstatement at Aachen. During the rebellion of 830 which was led by
Louis's son Pippin, Judith was accused of conspire against the emperor together with
Bernard of Septimania, counsellor and chamberlain of Louis. When the rebellion broke out,
Louis was on campaign to Brittany, Judith fled from the palace in Aachen to the Ardennes to
a nunnery in Laon. Later she was veiled and sent to St Radegunds convent in Poitiers. Louis
went to Compiègne, where at an assembly Lothar took charge over Pippin and Louis became
'an emperor in name only'119. After things were settled in Compiègne, Louis called for an
assembly in Nijmegen for he rightly thought he would get more support from the Germani
than form the Franci120. At the assembly in Nijmegen Louis took control over his empire
again. He pardonned his sons for their acts and at first all the other rebels were sentenced to
death by the assembly but immediately pardoned by Louis and committed to monastic
custody.121 When everything was settled again, Louis returned to, his safe house, Aachen. He
sent Lothar to Potiers for Judith. During an assembly in Aachen in 831 Judith purged herself
by oath.122 Bernard was latter that year also allowed to clear himself by oath.
The death of Charlemagne and the coronation of Louis and his entrance in Aachen
are the first events I want to address with regard to Aachen's symbolic position as a central
place. Thegan reports on this event: “Immediately after this “in a good old age and full of
days” he (Charlemagne) departed in peace. On that same day his body was buried in the
church which he himself had built in the palace at Aachen, in the seventy-second year of his
118
McKitterick, Charlemagne, 171.
Astronomer, trans. Noble, c. 45, 276.
120
Ibidem, c. 45, 276
121
De Jong, Penitential State, 43.
122
Astronomer, trans. Noble, c. 46, 277.
119
30
life, the seventh indiction. After the death of the most glorious emperor Charles, his son
Louis set out from the region of Aquitaine, arrived at the palace at Aachen, and received all
the kingdoms which God had handed to his father without any opposition. This was in the
year of the Lord’s incarnation 814 and the first year of his reign after his father. He took up
residence in this palace and right away with the greatest haste demanded that he be shown
all his father’s treasures in gold, silver and precious gems, and all the furnishings. He gave his
sisters their legal share and whatever was left he gave away for the soul of his father.”123
As is common for the data of Thegan, he clearly, without any further comments,
reports the events during and after the death of Charlemagne in Aachen. Aachen is defined
as the burial place for Charlemagne and the palace is becoming the new residential seat for
Louis. Different and more elaborate is the report by the Astronomer. “(…) Finally with his
(Charlemagne’s) painful defects fighting against each other and sapping his strength, the
weakness of his condition took its toll. He took his bed and in the days and hours as his
death drew nearer he distributed his possessions in writing just as he wished. He finished his
last days and almost unshakable sorrow was left to the kingdom of the Franks. (…) The most
pious emperor Charles died on the twenty-eight of January in the year of the incarnation of
our Lord Jesus Christ 814. At that time, as if by some presentiment, Emperor Louis had
announced to the people a general assembly for the feast of the Purification of Holy Mary
the Mother of God in a place called Doué.” After mentioning this general assembly in Doué
and his elaborate report on the death of Charlemagne, the Astronomer continues his work
by writing about the journey Louis undertook to come from Aquitaine to Aachen. A
messenger was sent to him to inform him about the death of his father. They met near the
city of Orleans, after this Wala, who held the highest place, count of the palace, at the court
of Charlemagne, came to Louis and pledged his allegiant to him. After he had come to the
emperor, according to the Astronomer, all the Frankish nobles swiftly imitated him and
came to Louis to meet him. Still Louis the Pious was not in Aachen yet. “Finally he arrived at
Herstal after a favorable march, and on the thirtieth day since he departed from Aquitaine
he set foot happily in the palace at Aachen.”124 Before coming to Aachen Louis thought,
according to the Astronomer, it was necessary to ‘purify’ the palace at Aachen. “Although he
123
124
Thegan, trans. Noble, c.7-8, p. 198-199.
Astronomer, trans. Noble, c. 21, 246-247
31
was most mild by nature, he had nevertheless long since made up his mind about the
behavior of his sisters in his father’s household, by which stain alone his father’s house was
branded. He wanted to remedy the offense, but also to prevent that a new scandal would
arise (…)”125 So, before he even arrived there, Louis the Pious sent some of his nobles to
Aachen and they took care of business; some ‘criminals’ were handed over to royal
judgment, killed or were punished with the loss of their eyes. Then the emperor came to the
palace in Aachen and was “was received with great favor”126. Still Louis wasn’t satisfied with
the way things were organized in Aachen under Charlemagne. The Astronomer states that:
“After he had done these things the emperor ordered the whole crowd of women – it was
extremely large - to be excluded from the palace, except for a very few whom he deemed
suitable for royal service.”127 Louis’ sisters thereupon withdrew to the properties they had
inherited form their father, “they got what they deserved from the emperor” 128 and left
Aachen.
Aachen as a specific place is mentioned 38 times in the Astronomer. Nineteen times
Aachen pops up as the place where Louis spent his winter.129 In 833 however Louis went in
the winter months not on his own behave to Aachen but was supervised by his son Lothar.
After the ‘Field of Lies’ in June 833 Louis was imprisoned by his son Lothar, his wife and
youngest son Charles were taken away from him. Judith was taken to Italy and young
Charles was sent to Prüm. After this, at an assembly in Compiègne in October 833, the
empire was divided among the three other sons of Louis. Lothar ordered that his father was
to be kept in the monastery of St. Médard in Soissons, he himself went hunting. In the
assembly at Compiègne the people decided that it was necessary for Louis to do public
penance. “So he was condemned, although absent, unheard, unconfessed, and untried and
they compelled him to remove his arms before the body of St. Medard the confessor and St.
Sebastian the martyr and to place them before the altar. They dressed him in penitential
125
Astronomer, trans. Noble, c. 21, 246-247.
Ibidem, c. 22, 248.
127
Ibidem., c. 23, 248-249.
128
Ibidem., c 23, 248-249.
129
Noble argues that the Astronomer is not correct in chapter 59 were the Astronomer states that Louis spent
his winter in 838 in Aachen whereas Noble argues that he was during that winter on campaign against his son
Louis in Mainz and Frankfurt.
126
32
garb, and took him away under heavy guard to a certain house.”130 After Lothar came back
from hunting he took his father in November to Aachen to spent the winter there and
celebrate Christmas. It is striking to see that now Lothar is in charge of his father and a large
part of the empire of the Franks he chooses to go to Aachen to spend the winter. Lothar
apparently did not diverge from the annual itinerant rhythm of Louis the Pious. He
recognized Aachen as a place of power in this time of crisis. This brings us back to Nelson's
view who argues that Aachen was not just to be represented as, but also actually was, a
place of cleansing for a people assured that they were God’s, a place of power was
harnessed for multiple human applications in the service of God.131 First Lothar went hunting
to pretend or to show that everything was at peace again and then went to Aachen. After
Louis got back to power in 834 at the church of St. Denis and his sons and nobles where
subordinate to him again, he went back to Aachen. Here, he was reunited with his wife. At
that moment, Louis, Judith and his son Charles, where back to normal. Louis power was
restored and he was back once more as the pious emperor of his empire. The Astronomer
claims that the emperor celebrated the solemnity of Easter with his usual devotion. To
complete this restoration of power Louis went hunting and fishing in the Ardennes and
around the Remiremont.132
The Astronomer is known for his comments on astronomical matters, besides this he
pays attention to the changing seasons and omens sometimes resulting from this. Aachen is
connected to this twice. First the Astronomer mentions an earthquake at the palace in
Aachen in 829 (c. 37). He argues that Louis urged that frequent prayers and offers needed to
be done in order to prevent future catastrophes. These catastrophes however seems to be
non-existing because the Astronomer continues his story with the birth of Charles in 823. 133
He then reports about another earthquake in Aachen (c. 43). “When winter was over and
the holy days of Lent were being observed and indeed the venerable solemnity of Easter was
approaching, on one terrible night the earth moved with such strength that it threatened to
ruin all the buildings. And then a violent wind followed that not only shook the smaller
buildings but its force so disturbed even the palace at Aachen that the lead plates with which
130
Astronomer, trans. Noble, c. 49, 282.
Nelson, ‘Aachen as a palace of power’, 236.
132
Astronomer, trans Noble, c. 52, 285.
133
Ibidem, c. 37, 266.
131
33
the basilica of the Holy Mother of God was roofed were largely pulled off. He (Louis) stayed
in that palace on account of many urgent necessities and public benefits, and then he
decreed that he would depart (…)”134
Frankfurt
Frankfurt saw a total of ten residential stays during Louis's reign among which two
assemblies. Its importance must not be underestimated. Starting under Charlemagne this
palace complex, or Furt der Franken (fortress of the Franks), gained its prominent position in
the Carolingian realm. Charlemagne’s choice for Frankfurt may well have influenced by the
kin of Fastrada, his wife at the time the centre was developed, whose interests were focused
in the lower Main region.135 Also for Louis the German, son of Louis the Pious, Frankfurt was
a place of great importance. On the first of September in 856, Raban, the archbishop of
Mainz at that time, dedicated the new royal chapel that Louis had built at Frankfurt. Eric
Goldberg stresses the importance of this church in Frankfurt as a monument to Louis's
Christian kingship and Frankfurt as the most important royal palace in Franconia. Louis the
German dedicated this church to Saint Mary, the patron saint of Aachen, thereby
transforming Frankfurt in the Aachen of the west.136 Stuart Airlie also stresses the
importance of Frankfurt as place of power under Charlemagne and Louis the Pious. This
palace there provided a site and focus for assemblies and in doing so acted as a concrete
symbol, an objective embodiment of royal authority. Louis the Pious invested in Frankfurt
when he had new building erected in the 820s. Also after Louis it stayed an important
assembly meeting place and an important symbol of royal authority.137 The two assemblies
held at Frankfurt took place during one long stay by the emperor for the winter of 822/3,
and of the eight other attested visits to the residence only two are explained in the sources,
as during autumn hunts.138
134
Astronomer, trans. Noble, c. 43, 274.
Innes, M., State and Society, 186-187.
136
Goldberg, E. J., Struggle for empire: kingship and conflict under Louis the German, 817-876 (2006), 163, 191.
137
Airlie, ‘Talking Heads', 39.
138
Pössel, Itinerant kingship, 11.
135
34
Although it remains hard to say why Charlemagne and later Louis choose residential
sites, Innes states that certainly by the reign of Louis the Pious we can begin to trace specific
elite groupings enjoying particular ties to individual royal centres.139 Most of the places used
by Louis the Pious were more or less already places of power under Charlemagne but there
are also places that gained in importance with Louis coming to power. I think we can count
Worms among these residential sites.
Worms
We can count a total of at least seven residential stays in Worms. The marriage of Lothar,
Louis the Pious’ eldest son, to the daughter of Hugh, count of Tours but also the most
powerful aristocrat along the upper Rhine and Alsac and Alemannia140, took place at Worms.
This marriage can according to Innes be seen as a crucial political alliance between Lothar
and Hugh’s friends and clients. Also a lot of the problems between Louis and his son Lothar
centre on and around the palace at Worms. The temporary disposition of Louis in 833 came
after he celebrated Eastern at Worms (Worth nothing is that Louis spent a total of three
months in Worms before his capture at the Field of Lies) and was heading south into the
lands of Hugh to confront his son Lothar. This example shows us the importance of
persoonlijke verbandenstaat which is often stressed for its great importance by Innes.141
In his narrative Thegan reports about the year 829, Louis was at that time in Worms
where he gave the land of Alemannia and Rhaetia and a certain part of Burgundy to his
youngest son Charles. According to Thegan he did this in the presence of his sons Lothar and
Louis. “They were extremely angry, along with their brother Pippin.”142 In the Astronomer
Worms if mostly mentioned in connection with the general assemblies held at this site. He
reports about assemblies in Worms in 829143, 833144, 836145 and 839146.
139
Innes, 'People, Places and Power', 427.
Innes, 'People, Places and Power', 427.
141
In for instance Innes, State and Society.
142
Thegan, trans. Noble, c. 35, 208.
143
Astronomer, trans. Noble, c. 43, 274.
144
Ibidem, c. 53, 286.
145
Ibidem, c. 54, 288.
146
Ibidem, c. 60, 295.
140
35
Ingelheim
Ingelheim had a total of ten residential stays and we know of five assemblies held there.
Eight of these visits where made between June and August; we could therefore determine
Ingelheim as a ‘summer palace’.147 In the sources, Ingelheim is mentioned just briefly as the
place where, not unimportantly; assemblies were held and where the Emperor stayed while
he was on a royal progress. Thegan mentions Ingelheim three times. First in chapter twentysix of his book were he writes about Louis marrying Judith. “In the following year [819] he
married the daughter of his duke Welf who came from the noblest family of the Bavarians.
The virgin’s name was Judith and her mother, whose name was Heilwig, came from the
noblest family of the Saxons. He made her queen. She was very pretty. In the same year he
held his general assembly at a royal estate at Ingelheim.”148 The second time Thegan
mentions Ingelheim is in chapter 33 where Louis was in the royal palace in Ingelheim and he
baptised the king and queen of the Danes. The last time Thegan writes about Ingelheim is
when Louis departed from the palace after his general assembly of 828 and went to
Commercy.149 The Astronomer in his Life of Emperor Louis mentions Ingelheim five times.
The first time Ingelheim pops up in his work is when Charlemagne was still alive and the
young Louis went to Ingelheim to meet him.150 The second time Ingelheim is mentioned is,
just as in Thegan, during the summer of 819 after Louis married Judith. “In the following
summer, his people came to him in the palace of Ingelheim.”151 Then in chapter forty the
Astronomer recalls another summer assembly in Ingelheim in 826. “On the first of June the
emperor came to Ingelheim and an assembly of his people met him there, just as he had
instructed.”152 In chapter forty-two the Astronomer report another assembly held at
Ingelheim in 828.153 The last time the Astronomer mentions Ingelheims is when Louis went
there in 831 after he had celebrated Easter in Aachen.154 The Regesta Imperii tells us that
there was a Reichsversammlung, assembly, in that year in Ingelheim. Neither Thegan nor the
Astronomer however report about this assembly.
147
Pössel, Itinerant kingship, 11.
Thegan, trans. Noble, c. 26, 207.
149
Thegan, trans. Noble, c. 33-34, 208.
150
Astronomer, trans. Noble, c. 6, 232.
151
Ibidem, c. 32, 259.
152
Ibidem, c. 40, 268.
153
Ibidem, c. 42, 272.
154
Ibidem, c. 46, 278.
148
36
One source however is more explicit about Ingelheim and his outlook. Ermold the
Black or Ermoldus Nigellus wrote a panegyric work to win his way back into the good graces
of Pepin of Aquitaine and Louis the Pious. When writing about Ingelheim he starts with the
outlook of the palace which was according to Ermold “a large palace, with hundred columns,
with many different entrances, a multitude of quarters, thousands of gates and entrances,
innumerable chambers built by the skills of masters and craftsmen.”155 After this he
elaborates detailed on the frescoes in the church and royal hall. This work is written to get
back in the favor of the Emperor, so Ermold’s representation of Ingelheim may be slightly
colored. Nevertheless Ermold thinks it is important to report the greatness and importance
of Ingelheim in his panegyric poem, this shows us how important the palace complex at
Ingelheim must have been for Louis the Pious.
Nijmegen
In time of Louis the Pious Nijmegen was a fortress which was situated on the river the Waal.
Nijmegen has a total of nine residential stays and four assemblies. Already in the first years
of Louis his reign Nijmegen became an important place in the consolidation of his power. In
May 821 there was a general assembly held at Nijmegen were “the partition of the realm
which he had already made among his sons was adjusted and confirmed in the presence of
all his nobles who where there”156 the partition was read aloud and confirmed by the oath of
the leadingmen during the assembly.
At the end of 830 another assembly with special meaning for Louis was held in
Nijmegen. This assembly was held in the aftermath of the rebellion against Judith and
Bernard that started earlier that year. Louis departed that Lent 830 to Brittany leaving Judith
behind in Aachen. As soon as the rebellion broke out Judith fled from Aachen to the nunnery
of St Mary in Laon. Louis proceeded to Compiègne. During his travels, Pippin his son was
convinced by the rebellious faction that his father “was slighted, that Bernard was arrogant,
that many were disgusted and even asserting that Bernard – it is evil to say it – had invaded
his father’s bed. They also said that Louis was deluded by certain tricks so that he could
155
156
Ermold the Black, trans. Noble, Book IV, 174-175.
Astronomer, trans. Noble, c. 34, 261.
37
neither avenge nor escape all these things. They said that it was only fitting for a good son to
bear his father’s disgrace with indignation, to remove such ills from his presence, to restore
his father’s mind and dignity.”157 So Pippin gathered his troops and traveled to Verberie near
Compiègne. Meanwhile Louis aware of the rebellion allowed Bernard to flee from the palace
complex but wished his wife to stay in the nunnery of St Mary. Judith was veiled and sent to
St Radegund’s convent in Poitiers. During all this, Pippin was still in charge; only in May did
Lothar come upon the scene, ready to take over, as he did.158 In May Louis held an assembly
in Compiègne where Lothar took control over the situation. With all of this going on, the
emperor, now in name only, passed the summer in company and in custody with Lothar.159
In the following autumn there was a call for a general assembly somewhere in Francia. Louis
arranged it in a way that the place where the assembly was called together was in his favor.
He expected to have more support form his leadingmen in Germania, especially from his son
Louis the German, than from those coming from Francia. Besides this he, according to the
Astronomer, also ordered that every men attending could only bring one single retainer.
Louis the German backed his father at Nijmegen as where the men of Germania and
eventually those from Francia. Parental mercy prevailed over the sharp rebuke that Lothar
deserved; all the rebels were sentenced to death by the assembly, but then immediately
pardoned by Louis, and committed to monastic custody.160 In Nijmegen Louis had regained
imperial rule once more. He also restored the dignity of his wife Judith in Nijmegen. After
these events he went to Aachen to spend the winter.
Compiègne
Compiègne is situated in the nothern part of France. Its importance as a palace complex for
the early medieval kings started under Merovingians. It was usurped by the Carolingian king
Pippin the Short, father of Charlemagne. The Carolingians built new structures on the base of
the Merovingian palace complex.
157
Ibidem, c .44, 275.
De Jong, Penitential State, 43.
159
Astronomer, trans. Noble, c. 45, 276.
160
De Jong, Penitential State, 43.
158
38
During Louis Pious' reign we can count a total of eight residential stays and six
assemblies. (One of these not issued by Louis but by Lothar in 833) Compiègne is a place that
is of utmost importance when focussing on the ‘effectiveness’ of the reign of Louis the Pious
because this was the place were “they took Louis his sword from his side and, on the
judgment of slaves (bishops ed.), they garbed him as a penitent” 161 A place that later was
named: the Field of Lies. Compiègne was the place where the massive desertion of Louis’
elites became reality. It started as a general assembly issued by Louis in 833 but Lothar took
control over the men gathered. After the desertion of his fideles, Lothar took over leadership
over the Frankish realm and the assembly confirmed that he now was the legitimate
Emperor. Besides this the verdict of the bishops present at the assembly was that Louis
should do public penance to save his soul.
Metz
Another prominent place under Louis the Pious was Metz. Metz had a total five residential
stays and one ecclesiastical assembly meeting. The importance of Metz must be seen in the
light of the before mentioned personal ties from Louis to his elite and family. Metz was
important because it was the hometown of bishop and half-brother of Louis, Drogo of Metz.
Who, after he stood by Louis after his public penance and rectification at Compiègne, was
made arch chaplain in 834. Noticeable is the fact that Louis, when everything was settled
after the crisis of 833, sought Metz as a place of rest to celebrate Christmas with his halfbrother, where in the proceeding years he had preferred Aachen to celebrate this holiday.
After this the church of St. Stephen in Metz became the scene of Louis’s restorement
mastered by his half-brother Drogo. The importance of Metz and Drogo, especially in the last
years of Louis his reign, is also stressed by De Jong she states that once the rebellion was
over, Louis tended to rely on his ecclesiastical half-brothers for support, rather than on his
elder sons. Drogo was also the one who officiated at Louis’s deathbed in the summer of 840,
controlling the access to the dying emperor and hearing his daily confession.162
161
162
Thegan, trans. Noble, c. 44, 211.
De Jong, Penitential State, 52.
39
Paderborn
Although not that present in Louis his time I think we should also name Paderborn a place of
power. Charlemagne held an assembly there in 777 after the conquest of Saxony, one
attended by Franks, Saxons, and envoys from distant Spain. All this with the baptism of many
Saxons, made Paderborn a show-place for the new royal power that was from now on to
dominate. This assembly at Paderborn was according to Stuart Ailrie not a demonstration
that a new order actually existed in Saxony, but was rather another way of trying to establish
that order. Charlemagne meeting the pope in Paderborn also did Paderborn gain in
importance. Nevertheless Louis the Pious was there, according to the sources we nowadays
have, only once at the beginning of his reign. It was the place where he held his second
assembly as new emperor of the Carolingians on the first of July in 815. Can this be seen as a
way of trying to establish his new order in the tradition of his father which was at that time
still present? Besides this, according to McKitterick, Paderborn not only had a symbolic
meaning but was also a practical aspect that mattered. Paderborn had an excellent water
supply, ample supplies of game and pasturage, and a large flat area in which men could
gather for an assembly.163
Vosges, Ardennes, surroundings of Compiegne, Quierzy, Remiremont, Nijmegen and
Frankfurt
Under places of power during the reign of Louis the Pious I would definitely count the places
where the emperor went hunting. After times of crisis Louis seems to withdraw himself by
going hunting in the Ardennes (819, 834, 837, 839), Vosges (817, 820, 825, 831), near
Frankfurt (822, 829, 836), the forests around Compiegne and Quierzy (827), Remiremont
(834) and Nijmegen (817). Ermold the Black gives us his thoughts on Aachen and the hunting
grounds that surrounds the palace:
There is a noted place near the royal hall, which is called Aachen and whose fame is
immense, girded by a stone wall and surrounded by an earthen rampart, situated in
the woods, where the recent growth is flowering. A bubbling stream slowly meanders
163
McKitterick, Charlemagne, 187.
40
through it. Different birds and beasts live there. When it pleased the king, he would
very often go out there with a few companions intent on hunting. He would skewer
the fat bodies of bucks with his sword or strike down does and she-goats or, when
ice-stiffened the ground in wintertime, set his clawed falcons against birds.164
Hunting seems to be an event to show his realm that everything again is at peace.
The hunt seems to be a metaphor for political stability. For example after the rebellion of the
Basques in 819 Louis thought it an “appropriate time for hunting in the Ardennes.”165 In 836
after “having done what the present opportunity dictated (…) he gave himself up to hunting
(…)”166 In 834 after the rebellion of 833 Louis went back to Aachen to be reunited with his
wife Judith after celebrating Easter there he “applied himself to hunting in the Ardennes and
after the feast of Pentecost he gave himself over to hunting and fishing around
Remiremont.”167 In 828 Louis spent his winter in Aachen and stayed until July, so busy with
affairs of state that there was no time for hunting, which could be seen as a sign of crisis. 168
Louis the Pious’ travel scheme is most of the time focused on and around Aachen and
thereby on places where he could hunt in the autumn and spring. His mobility is restricted or
derived from the places were he needed to be to provide in political stability for his realm.
164
Ermold the Black, trans. Noble, Book III, 169.
Astronomer, trans. Noble, c. 32, 259.
166
Astronomer, trans. Noble, c. 43, 274.
167
Ibidem, c. 52, 285.
168
ARF, 828 and De Jong, Penitential State, 158.
165
41
Chapter 3
Communication
For the effective government of the Carolingian realm several institutions and administrative
centers appeared in the ninth century. A distinctive feature of Carolingian rule was the
plurality of political and administrative centres and the maintenance of communication
between these centres and their surrounding regions. These administrative centres had to
carry out the king’s will and were established to secure order and justice at a local level.169
With administrative centres I am aiming at palaces and other royal residences, for instance a
civitas, monastery or villa, from which the will of the king was carried out. Louis the Pious
needed to be informed on affairs in and beyond his territories, on the other hand his
subjects also needed to know the kings will. Therefore the written word was of utmost
importance in the Carolingian realm. In this Louis relied heavily on his officials and their
ability to communicate with him. Louis was head of the administration both within his
household and throughout his kingdom. He was the guardian of justice and peace, thereby
he also was the final judge in judicial matters. Therefore their was a constant need of
information. Louis and his elite could communicated with each other by for instance the
assembly meetings. The written word was another tool for Louis to carry out his will and to
communicate with his subjects. He did this for instance by using capitularia. Capitularia were
decrees, on a wide range of legal, administrative or pastoral topics, which were to be sent
out from the centre into the regions of the Carolingian empire and could be issued from
assemblies. Charters were most of the time law texts.
Important to keep in mind is that these administrative centres are not the same as
the ones we encounter nowadays, in a centralised political landscape. As Innes argues, some
scholars are rightly impressed by the organizational capacity of early medieval kings and,
take it for granted, that it must have been achieved through the types of administration with
which we are familiar, when in fact it rested on an entirely different style of consensusbased politics which worked through extant social mechanisms.170 Historians all too easily
assume that the creation of bureaucratic institutions defined by the king and manned by
dedicated, full-time, salaried state servants, is the commonsensical form of political
169
170
McKitterick, Early Middle Ages, 40
Innes, State and Society, 253.
42
organization, at which medieval rulers were aiming all along.171 Innes argues that early
medieval politics was an activity which was defined by inter-personal relationships within
the ruling class, rather than one defined in terms of ‘governmentality’. We cannot, that is,
take the goals of early medieval politics as the type of institution building we see as a norm,
precisely because early medieval political systems were configured differently from those of
the modern world.172 We can see the Carolingian government as a consensus-based political
system which worked through the interplay between elite and centre.
In the decentralized empire of Louis the Pious, communication was of utmost
importance. The chain of palaces Louis created needed to be linked with each other and
their surroundings. In the early medieval period communication between the centre, the
court, and the hinterlands was in the early medieval period took place by means of oral
exchange and the written word. In the ninth century there seems to have been a relative
explosion in the volume of written documentation in Carolingian government. Already under
Charlemagne the use of writing had become indispensable for the rulers communication
with his subjects. De Jong argues that under Louis the written missives from the court
became even more frequent and compelling.173 According to Innes the Carolingian
government rested on the interaction between two tiers of public power, that of local elites
and that of kings.174 Through the written word the patria and the palace were connected.
Oral communication however also had an important role in the functioning of the reign of
Louis. At assembly meetings oral communication was the norm to do business. My point of
departure for this examination is the idea that we can speak of places of power and tools of
power. With places of power I mean royal residences and with tools of power I mean royal
documents. Capitularies, mandates and charters are the most common way of
communication in the Carolingian era. Often these types of sources are being seen as
evidence and as practical tools in governing. I would like to argue that we can see these as
tools of power. These royal data reflect royal power. It would however not be self-evident
that the data was drawn up in the presence of the king. They record, most of the time, royal
business, for instance decisions made at assemblies or decisions about property, but they
171
Innes, State and Society, 255.
Ibidem, 255.
173
De Jong, Penitential State, 34.
174
Innes, ‘Charlemagne’s government’, 85.
172
43
could be written some place else. A charter could be drawn up elsewhere and brought to a
palace for confirmation. Charters therefore, as McKitterick argues, can not be trusted for the
naming of places and time.175 Charters reflect a network of palace notaries, possibly
distributed among the various royal palaces, or who at least journeyed out from a base to
serve a particular region. So for the rule of his empire Louis did not only rely on his travels
and his exercise of power in the places he visited but also to a great extent on the
communication with his officials. It was for the stability of the realm important to stay in
touch with all regions. There was a need for information from for instance the border
regions or from places where military intervention was necessary. With such a large empire
not only the itinerancy of the king mattered but also his literacy and that of his men.
Nelson argues that literacy can be examined as a form of ideology through which
power was constructed. We can consider what was written, not only as the outcome of a
ruler´s aim but as the product of collaboration on part of some (at least) of the ruled; and
not only as an object or means of action in a pragmatic sense, but as a determination of
action in a sociological sense.176 The written word can in this sense be viewed as if it was/is a
way to exercise power or ideology. The assembly might have been one place where such
texts, for instance capitularia, were received and subsequently taken home by the
participants. In these capitularia the duties and goals for the recipients, as envisaged by the
king, were recorded. In this line Innes argues that the Carolingian capitularies need to be
read as they were neither mere royal wish-lists nor administrative records pure and simple,
but instruments of power which worked through an exhortatory rhetoric, enabling political
leaders to meet royal demands in the localities.
Of course the content of a charter or capitularies is important but what was the
impact of such a document and how was it received? Have they on itself authority or power?
Can we identify changes in power and culture in charters and capitularies? For example
Anglo-Saxon royal charters could, project royal charisma and presence. Insley sees the
political debate between a king and his follower projected in charters.177 Another way of
175
McKitterick, Charlemagne, 211.
Nelson, ‘Literacy in Carolingian government’ in: McKitterick, R. (ed.), The Uses of Literacy (1990), 258.
177
Insley, ‘Assemblies and Charters in Late Anglo-Saxon England’ in: Barnwell, P. S., Mostert, M. (ed.), Politcal
assemblies in the Early Middle Ages (2003), 58.
176
44
looking at charters is presented by Brigitte Merta who especially looks at their political and
personal context. She perceives a change in the composition of charters by Louis the
German before and after the crisis of 833. Some significant changes took place in the
charters of Louis the German: from then on he called himself simply and solely rex where
before he called himself rex Baioariorum. Before 833 the dating clauses of the charters also
named the years of the emperor’s reign but after 833 the charters omitted the years of the
emperor’s reign and only counted the years of the king’s reign.178 We can see this as an
example of how powerful the written word was. It was in 833 that the sons of Louis the
Pious forced their father to withdraw from his royal office and made their own partition of
the realm. This most likely made Louis the German changes his title in the charters to solely
rex because he no longer needed to take in account his fathers ruler ship and authority. In
chapter ten of his book Thegan writes about the authority of the charters and how Louis
made them ‘his own’. “In that same year he ordered the renewal of all the charters that had
been issued in the times of his ancestors to God’s churches. He confirmed them with his
own hand by a signature.”179
The written word can be viewed as an instrument of power in the Carolingian world.
It not only displayed the power of those who issued it, it also defined membership of the
realm. It defined the free in the widest sense: those capable of receiving and using written
documents in public courts.180 Being able to read and write, or let someone read and write
for you, meant to be able to participate in the Carolingian governmental machine.
For this thesis the focus lays on the narrative sources. I therefore will focus on these
sources and how they write about communication; the use of royal data and the interaction
between the court and the hinterlands and more importantly how these sources reflect on
the communication in relation to the political stability during Louis the Pious´ reign. It would
be interesting to investigate the specific data, if available at all, issued from and sent to the
178
Merta, B., ‘Why royal charters? A look at their use in Carolingian Bavaria’ in: Pohl, W., Herald, P. A. (ed.),
Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters Vol 5 Vom Nutzen des Schreibens, Soziales gedächtnis, Herrschaft
und Besitz im Mittelalter (2002), 183.
179
Thegan, trans. Noble, c. 10, 199.
180
Nelson, ‘Literacy in Carolingian government’, 272.
45
court of Louis the Pious. I however will stick to the narrative sources and their reflection on
communication and political stability.
As said before Louis relied heavily on his officials. The officials responsible for the
communication with the realm are most of the time referred to as missi dominici. The missi
dominici were carriers of royal authority. They consist most of time out of two men, one
clerical missus usually an archbishop and one lay missus. Each couple of missi was
responsible for a certain missatica; a district allocated to them. This system of missatica was
vital for the communication within the empire. In Charlemagne McKitterick shows us that
we can see the capitulary texts as some sort of handbooks for the missi themselves. These
texts relate to the duties of the missi or have directly to do with representing the king’s
authority.181 These capitulary and mandates where the guide of the missi but also provided
them with their goal. They entailed messages and assignments about for instance the
administration of justice, changes in law, new oaths and what they entailed, procedures
about bringing the perpetrators of certain crimes to the king for judgment, the need for
bishops, abbots and abbesses, the summons to the army, the moral behavior required of all
clerics and laymen, things concerning the promotion of Louis’ ideal for a Christian realm and
so on. The missi could act as judges in court; they were an extra stratum of the political
system.182 The missi formed the crucial link between the ruler and his men throughout the
realm. The missi dominici clearly played a crucial role in promoting greater coherence and
administrative links across the empire. These missi also participated in the assemblies at
which the decisions, written down in the capitularies and mandates, were reached. They
were sent with copies of these capitularies and make known its content in the areas for
which they were appointed.183
After the assembly of 817 in Aachen the Astronomer writes about these missi and
their task. In this assembly or maybe better synod, the ecclesiastical leadership of the realm
gathered. To, as De Jong argues, regulate the lives of monks, cannon and canonesses,
formulating the precise distinction between these different ‘orders’. Louis the Pious
181
McKitterick, Charlemagne, 256-257.
Ibidem, 260.
183
Nelson, ´Literacy in Carolingian government´, 280.
182
46
composed, according to the Astronomer, a book containing the rule of canonical life in which
the totality of that whole order was contained. He sent this book, with mostly law texts, to
all the cities and monasteries of the canonical order in his empire through the hands of the
missi. They were summoned to copy it down in the places they visited and make sure the
appropriate and written payments were made.184 These missi were not only sent out to be
the messengers of Louis decisions and regulations but they were responsible as well for
bringing back the messages of Louis’ ecclesiastical and noble men. So after the assembly of
817 in Aachen the missi came back at the winter assembly in Aachen in 819. The Astronomer
reports: “In that same winter the emperor held a general assembly of his people and he
heard reports about his whole realm from the missi whom he had sent out to restore what
had fallen and to strengthen what was upright in the condition of the church. With holy
devotion leading him on, he added whatever he thought was useful and he left nothing
untouched that might possibly contribute to the honor of the holy church of God.
Meanwhile certain chapters were added to the laws in those cases where judicial affairs
seemed weak and right up to today they are retained as most indispensable.” 185
Another example of the missi and their importance for the communication and
stability in the realm is found in the cases were Louis was dealing with military campaigns.
The emperor did not travel as far and wide as his father on military campaigns. He most of
the time sent his armies to places were they needed to be and keep in touch with them by
sending messages or messengers. Even when Charlemagne was still alive Louis did so. The
Astronomer reports: “After the end of the present year (811) Louis drew up his army and
decided to send it against Huesca with his father’s missus Heribert. When those who had
been sent arrived there, they laid siege to the city and they either captured or put to flight
whoever assembled to meet them.”186
It was important that Louis could trust his missi. When sending these men to battle or
sending them out for another important matter concerning the wellbeing of his empire,
Louis needed to be sure they represented him well. He therefore most of time appointed
184
Astronmer, trans. Noble, c. 28, 255.
Ibidem, c. 32, 259.
186
Astronomer, trans. Noble, c. 17, 241.
185
47
men to these functions who stood close to him and his court; men who where most of the
time connected with the royal family. Matfrid and Hugh were two of these men who served
as missi. Hugh was count of Tours and father-in-law of Lothar, Lothar was married to his
daughter Irmingard in 821. Matfrid was count of Orléans. In the panegyric work of Ermold
the Black these are the men who flanked Judith when entering the church in Ingelheim for
the baptizing of the Danish king Harald in 826. Ermolds speaks of thems as great men; he
however finished his poem before these two men fell in great disfavor of the king during the
political struggles from 828 to 834. The Astronomer and Thegan are portraying Matfrid and
Hugh as the instigators of all subsequent trouble between Louis and his sons. In 827 Louis’
empire was under attack by the rebel Aizo, who was supported by Moors and Saracens and
was attacking the Spanish lands. Louis organized a campaign, the Spanish March. He
however did not go in person; he sent some of his most important men at that time to lead
the troops. He first sent an army and he sent with them on in advance Abbot Helisachar,
Count Hildebrand, and also Donatus. The emperor furthermore sent his son Pippin of
Aquitane and at the same time sent missi of his own: counts Hugh and Matfrid.187 When
they returned from Spain they were disposed as counts and deprived from all honores,
offices and land. The reason for this was that “they reacted on the matters in Spain more
slowly than the urgency of the matter required.”188 The Moors benefited from this delay and
devastated the regions of Barcelona and Gerona and returned unarmed to Saragossa. After
this an investigation in Matfrid supposed corruption was started. When in 830 in Compiegne
Louis, his sons and their chief magnates, among them Hugh and Matfrid, met “they wished
to deprive the lord emperor of his rule, but his beloved, like named son stopped them.” 189 In
834, after the crisis’s and Louis doing penance they, Matfrid and Hugh, again swore fidelity
to the king. “When Lothar arrived, he fell at his fathers feet, and after him his father-in-law,
Hugh the Timid, and then Matfrid and all the other who were foremost in that villainy.”190
Louis the Pious never visited Rome but in this case he also heavily depended on his
missi dominici. Thegan for example describes how the new Pope Stephen wanted to meet
Louis. He reports: “On hearing this Louis was filled with great excitement and began to
187
Astronomer, trans. Noble, c. 41, 271.
ARF, 827.
189
Thegan, trans. Noble, c. 36, 209.
190
Ibidem, c. 55, 217.
188
48
rejoice. Right away he ordered his missi to meet the holy pontiff with the greatest festivity
and to provide for all his needs. The lord Louis set out to meet the pontiff after his missi.”191
Interesting to note is that Thegan up to this point most of the time refers to the officials of
Louis as legati, translated as envoys. Here he specifically for the first time calls them missi.
Besides this the missi played an important role in the communication with his sons,
especially in the latter years of his reign. After the crisis’ Louis struggled to keep control over
his sons, especially Lothar, and therefore good communication and maintaining a strong
relation became of utmost importance. In the years 836-837 when Louis most of the time
hold residence in Aachen he summoned his son Lothar to come to him to discuss matters
concerning the protections of Louis’ wife Judith and their son Charles. Judith wanted to get
on good terms with Lothar in case Louis died and they needed his protection and patronage
for the safekeeping of the royal ambitions of his half-brother and her son Charles. Lothar
however did not obey to his father’s will when he asked him to come to Aachen. In Italy,
where Lothar resided, an epidemic broke out, which killed Wala, Lothars adviser at that
time, and affected him. In 837 Louis got word that Lothar had broken his oaths, “and that his
men (Lothars men) were disturbing with the cruelest attacks the great church of St Peter
which his grandfather Pippin, and his father Charles, and he himself had taken under their
protections.”192 That is, Lothar allowed his fideles to take ecclesiastical lands in order to
compensate the lands they lost north of the Alps.193 Now Louis needed to deal with the
disobedience of his eldest son and therefore wanted to travel to Rome or so reports the
Astronomer. He however, according to the Astronomer, wanted to meet Pope Gregory to
assure the bonds with Rome but he was unable to come because of a Northmen invasion in
Frisia. So he sent missi to Lothar; Abbot Fulco, and Count Richard, and also Abbot Adrebald.
Fulco and Richard were supposed to bring him Lothar’s answer and Adrebald was to go on to
Rome to consult with Pope Gregory about “the state of affairs and to let him know the
emperor’s will and other things he had been enjoined to report. When Lothar was brought
up to date on these matters, as well as on the lands snatched from certain churches that are
in Italy, he acknowledged certain things but also answered that he could not prevent others.
191
Ibidem, c. 16, 201.
Astronomer, trans. Noble, c. 55, 289-290.
193
De Jong, Penitential State, 54.
192
49
Fulco and Richard announced all this to the emperor who was returning after flight of the
Northmen in the palace at Frankfurt.”194
Further on an example of communication between the emperor and his missus
shows us how difficult it must have been to keep in touch with his fideles. Particulary in a
time when power relations were shifting and diplomacy with both parties was required.
When the missus Adrebald arrived at Rome, as he had been ordered, he found the
lord pope Gregory ill especially with a mild but continuous flow of blood from his
nose. (…) While the missus was with him he looked after him in a most lavish manner
and when he was leaving he gave him gifts most generously and sent with him two
bishops, Peter of Civitavecchia and George, a regionary of the city of Rome and also a
bishop. Then Lothar, when he heard that the two above mentioned bishops were
heading for the lord emperor, sent Leo, who was held in very high regard by him, to
Bologna where he stirred up a great terror to keep the bishops from going any
further. But Adrebald secretly received from them the letter intended for the
emperor and gave it to a certain one of his men who pretended to be a beggar to
take across the Alps. Later it got to the emperor.195
As said before remaining in contact with all regions of his empire was of utmost
importance for the stability of Louis reign. The above mentioned examples about the missi
dominici and their role in the Carolingian way of ruling are mostly about Louis sending men
to places or people where his advice or ‘presence’ was required. Striking to see however, is
how often, according to the narrative sources, Louis ordered people to come to him. This
already becomes evident right after his father died. At that time Louis was traveling from
Aquitaine in the direction of the Frankish heartlands. The Astronomer reports: “When Louis
was approaching the city of Orléans Theodulf, the bishop of the city and a man most learned
in every subject, perceived the reason for his coming and anxiously sent a messenger as
quickly as possible to the emperor to learn just what he would command him to do, whether
to wait for his arrival in the city or to meet him at some point along the way as he was
194
195
Astronomer, trans. Noble, c. 55, 290.
Astronomer, c 56, 290-291.
50
coming to the city. On brief reflection Louis understood the reason and ordered Theodulf to
come to him.”196 People ordering to await his arrival is something Louis does more frequent.
Another great example of Louis ordering people to meet him, are the assemblies.
Louis called out the date and place of these assembly meetings and ordered all the
important men throughout the realm to come. In chapter thirhty-five the Astronomer
contemplates about the preparations for the assembly in Attigny in August 822: “In the next
year the lord emperor ordered an assembly to come together at a place called Attigny. He
called the bishops to council there, and the abbots and clergy, and also the nobles of his
realm (…)”197 After the crisis of 833 and 834 Louis men came to meet him. At Querzy he
stopped his journey and his men came to him. “He stopped there and waited for his son
Pippin and for those who lived beyond the Marne even for those who had taken flight to his
son Louis beyond the Rhine, and indeed for that son Louis himself who was coming to him.
While he was waiting there, in the middle of Lent, even the joy of the day smiled on him and
the singing of the church’s office encouraged him, saying: “Rejoice, Jerusalem, and make
joyful the day, all you who love her.” A great multitude of his faithful men met him there,
sharing happily in the common joy. The emperor received them warmly and, giving thanks
for the integrity of their loyalty, he gladly dismissed his son Pippin to go back to Aquitaine,
and he permitted the rest to go back happily to the places that were appropriate to
them.”198 In 840 he called most likely his last assembly in Chalon-sur-Saône. “He ordered
some of them (his faitful men) to meet him in the autumn in Chalon-sur-Saône, and he called
for a general assembly there. (…) And so the emperor, as he had indicated, sought out the
city of Chaon-sur-Saône in the autumn and handled both ecclesiastical and public business
after his manner.”199
We can see the travels of the king, him sending missi, him organizing assemblies and
ordering people to meet him as interplay between different institutions and traditions to
provide in political stability. Royal control was preserved in a combination of itinerancy and
196
Ibidem, c. 21, 246.
Astronomer, trans. Noble, c. 35, 262.
198
Ibidem, c. 52, 285.
199
Ibidem, c. 61, 297-298.
197
51
stability with a complex network of administrative centers, communication and officials
empowered to conduct business on his behalf.
52
Conclusion
Louis the Pious was an itinerant king. For the emperor it was important to stay in touch with
every part of his empire, especially because his empire, around 814, stretched far and wide.
In the 9th century narrative sources, the ARF, the Astronomer, Thegan and Ermold the Black,
we have found examples that political stability was achieved by the presence and mobility of
the king. For Louis it was important to stay in touch with every part of his empire. He needed
to be aware of the business that was dealt with in the different areas of his realm.
In comparison with Charlemagne, Louis did not travel as much and as far as his father
did. But the most important part of the mobility of the king had to do with him keeping close
contact with his elite men. This contact was not so much depended on the frequency and
the fact that the king did not cover his whole empire but was about his people coming to
meet him or let people or places speak on his behalf. Not only the mobility of the emperor
mattered but also the willingness of his elite to travel for him was important for the
continuation of the political stability of his reign. The importance of his elite as a link
between the king and his subjects is stressed in this thesis. Louis' impact as a ruler did not
totally depend on his regular presence throughout his realm. He also did have his missi
domici, his network of administrative centres and thereby he depended heavily on good
communication; the written word. By this he was able to be less mobile but still exercise his
power to the farthest corners of his empire. We can conclude that early medieval politics
was an activity which was defined by inter-personal relationships within the ruling class. The
Carolingian government can in my opinion be seen as a consensus-based political system
which worked by the interplay between elite and centre, in this the court and Louis the
Pious.
This however does not downgrade the necessity of the mobility of Louis the Pious. I
think his mobility was of utmost important and the choices he made for certain places and
palaces are typical for his rule. His movement was not only important on a large scale, say
from one part of his empire to another, but also on a micro-level; ceremonies and
processions could transmit powerful messages. The kings’ progress from one site to another
53
was marked by rituals of arrival which underlined the importance people gave to the king
and his royal progress. How the king planned his travels and thereby his year had influence
on the political calendar. We have observed interaction between the king his travel scheme
and for instance the seasons, feast days, the royal hunt, campaigns and assemblies.
The mobility of Louis the Pious mattered. The places the emperor visited gained in
importance when Louis was present and were chosen carefully. We can see this for instance
in the choice for Aachen, but also in his choice for Drogo and Metz after the crisis of 833 and
in the times he went hunting after he settled important matters at assemblies. The places
Louis chose were all chosen to benefit his rule. This is what I have tried to show in chapter
two of this thesis. The places were Louis did business, celebrated Christmas, went hunting,
held assemblies and so on, were not carelessly chosen. Especially during his reign, with the
crisis's he had to face, it was important that Louis did surround himself with the right people
at the right place. The assembly held at Nijmegen in 830 is a good example of Louis going to
a place were he knew his loyal elite would be. Besides this, Aachen can be seen as a safe
place from where Louis bestirred his empire. The places in the most important residential
zones of his empire did have a symbolic meaning as well. Sites of royal power played a
crucial role in political strategies. The role of particular complexes and royal centers as focal
point for regional elites made them crucial stages for rulers negotiating with those elites for
political support.
In chapter three I have stressed the importance of communication for the
maintenance of political stability. I think we can speak of places of power as shown in
chapter one and two and of tools of power as shown in chapter three. We can see the royal
data through which the emperor did communicate with his subjects as tools of power; these
royal data reflect royal power. Communications was crucial for political stability. The
combination of mobility and communication made the political stability of Louis the Pious'
reign.
54
Bibliography
Primary sources
For the primary sources I have mainly used the translation by T. F. X. Noble and P. E. Dutton.
In the text I refer to the author of the source and the translator, followed by the chapter of
the original source and the page number in the translation.
The Astronomer, Vita Hludowici imperatoris - The Life of Emperor Louis
In: Noble, F. X., Charlemagne and Louis the Pious Lifes by Einhard, Notker, Ermoldus, Thegan
and the Astronomer (2009), 226-302.
Thegan, Gesta Hludowici imperatoris - The Deeds of Emperor Louis
In: Noble, F. X., Charlemagne and Louis the Pious Lifes by Einhard, Notker, Ermoldus, Thegan
and the Astronomer (2009), 194-218.
Ermold the Black, In Honorem Hludwici Pii - In Honor of Louis the Pious
In: Noble, F. X., Charlemagne and Louis the Pious Lifes by Einhard, Notker, Ermoldus, Thegan
and the Astronomer (2009), 127-186.
Hincmar of Rheims, De ordini palatii - On the governance of the palace
In: Dutton, P. E. (ed.), Carolingian Civilization: a reader (2004), 516-532.
Böhmer, J. F., Regesta imperii (1877).
Brühl C., Fodrum Gistum Servitum Regis (1968).
55
Secondary literature
Airlie, ‘Bonds of Power and Bonds of Association’ in: Godman, Collins (ed.) Charlemagne’s
Heir (Oxford 1990).
Airlie, 'Talking Heads: Assemblies in Early Medieval Germany' in; Barnwell, P. S., Mostert, M.,
Political Assemblies in the Earlier Middle Ages (2003).
Bernhardt, J., Itinerant Kingship and royal monasteries in early medieval Germany, c. 9361075 (Cambridge, 1993).
Merta, B., ‘Why royal charters? A look at their use in Carolingian Bavaria’ in: Pohl, W.,
Herald, P. A. (ed.), Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters Vol 5 Vom Nutzen des
Schreibens, Soziales gedächtnis, Herrschaft und Besitz im Mittelalter (2002).
Collins, R., Early Medieval Europe 300-1000 (1991).
Dutton, P., The Politics of Dreaming in the Carolingian Empire (1994).
Dutton, P. E., Carolingian Civilization: a Reader (2004).
Goldberg, E. J., Struggle for empire: kingship and conflict under Louis the German, 817-876
(2006).
Innes, M., McKitterick, R. ´Writing of history´, in: McKitterick, R., Carolingian Culture(1994).
Innes, ‘People, Places and Power in Carolingian society’ in: De Jong, M. B., Theuws, F. and
Van Rhijn C., Topographies of Power in the Early Middle Ages(2001).
Innes, M., 'A place of discipline: Carolingian courts and aristocratic youths' in: Cubitt, C. (ed.)
Court Culture in the Early Middle Ages (2003).
56
Innes, M., State and Society in the Early Medieval West, The Middle Rhine Valley 400-100
(2004).
Innes, M., ‘Charlemagne’s government’ in Story, J. (ed.), Charlemagne: empire and society
(2005).
Insley, ‘Assemblies and Charters in Late Anglo-Saxon England’ in: Barnwell, P. S., Mostert, M.
(ed.), Politcal assemblies in the Early Middle Ages (2003).
De Jong, M. B., The Penitential State, Authority and Atonement in the Age of Louis the Pious,
814-840 (Cambridge 2009).
McKitterick, R., The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751-987 (London, 1983).
McKitterick, R, The Early Middle Ages Europe: 400-1000 (2001).
McKitterick, R., 'Politics' in: McKitterick, R. (ed.), The Early Middle Age: Europe 400-1000
(2001).
McKitterick, R., Charlemagne The formation of a European Identity (2008).
Nelson, J. L., ‘Literacy in Carolingian government’ in: McKitterick, R. (ed.), The Uses of
Literacy (1990).
Nelson, J. L., Charles the Bald (1992).
Nelson, J. L., ‘Aachen as a place of power’ in: De Jong, M. B., Theuws, F. (ed.), Topographies
of power in the early middle ages (2001).
Noble, T. F. X., Charlemagne and Louis the Pious Lifes by Einhard, Notker, Ermoldus, Thegan
and the Astronomer (2009).
57
Pössel, C., The Itinerant Kingship of Louis the Pious, unpublished MPhil (1998/9).
Reuter, T., ‘Assembly politics in western Europe from the eight century to the twelfth’ in:
Linehan, P., Nelson J. L. (ed.) The Medieval World (2001).
Rosenthal, J. T., 'The public assembly in the time of Louis the Pious' in: Traditio Vol. 20
(1964).
Werner, K. F., ‘Hludovicus Augustus Gouverner l’empire chrétien --- Idées et réalités’ in:
Godman, Collins, Charlemagne’s Heir (Oxford 1990).
58