1 Introduction
The Carolingian period witnessed the emergence of a sophisticated theory of kingship which materialized in a series of mirrors for princes during the 9th century. For a long time, Frankish kings had already been confronted with ideas about the right conduct of rulers. Clovis, the founder of the Gallic kingdom of the Franks, received an admonitory letter from Bishop Remigius of Rheims after assuming office in 481–2.1 Remigius exhorted the king, still a pagan, to follow the rules of Christian ethics in selecting proven advisors, in taking the advice of bishops, and in supporting widows, orphans, and the oppressed. According to Remigius, the king ought to govern impartially, refuse to accept gifts, and open his palace to everyone seeking justice. Later, in the 6th century, Bishop Gregory of Tours infused his famous chronicle with a set of moral ideas on rulership and gave strident judgments on good and bad kings of his own time.2 The Italian Venantius Fortunatus, later to become bishop of Poitiers, wrote several panegyrical poems to the Merovingian kings, blending Roman ideals of imperial rule with Christian concepts of piety, charity, and humility.3 These are only the most prominent authors who contributed to the discourse on kingship during the Merovingian period.4 The ideas formulated
Thus, Merovingian kings were not at a loss for concepts of good rulership. What set the Carolingian period apart was the emergence of treatises dedicated to the theory of kingship. The ideas formulated by Remigius, Gregory, Venantius and others crystallized into a well-developed theory of kingship during the 9th century. A series of mirrors for princes began with the Via regia, written by Abbot Smaragdus and dedicated to Louis the Pious, most likely before his imperial coronation in 813. The best-known treatise on kingship from the Carolingian period is the De institutione regia of Jonas, bishop of Orleans, dedicated to Pippin of Aquitaine, the son of Louis the Pious, in 831. The next major mirror for princes was authored by the Irish scholar Sedulius Scottus, who lived at the episcopal court in Liège. Historians still debate whether his De rectoribus christianis was dedicated to Lothar II in c. 855 or to Charles the Bald in c. 870. Archbishop Hincmar of Rheims, one of the most prolific authors of the 9th century, wrote several moral treatises dedicated to rulers. His De regis persona et regio ministerio, written in 873 for Charles the Bald, stands out as his longest and most elaborate mirror for princes. Next to these four major treatises, several other writings (poems, florilegia, biographies, conciliar canons) might also qualify as mirrors for princes. Some, but not all, of them will be addressed in the following pages.
In light of this, the question of why a sophisticated theory of kingship emerged rather late in the history of the Frankish kingdom must be addressed. Historians have proposed different explanations. It seems likely that the deposition of the Merovingians by Pippin the Short in 751 played a significant role in the intensified debate on kingship. The Merovingian kings had ruled the Frankish kingdom for three centuries and were still considered to be the cornerstone of the political community by the rivals of the Carolingians in Aquitaine and Bavaria. Consequently, Pippin the Short was in dire need of legitimation and justified his rise to kingship by invoking the consent of the Franks, by referring to the authority of the papacy, and by introducing royal unction.5 What is more, the Merovingians were consistently denounced as bad
Indeed, there is ample evidence for an intensified debate on the nature of kingship immediately after 751. Ernst Kantorowicz famously demonstrated that the laudes regiae, ritual acclamations of the kings during mass, originated in the middle of the 8th century.7 At the same time, political thought entered the diplomas of Pippin the Short.8 Only a few years later, admonitory letters were directed at Charlemagne and at the Bavarian duke Tassilo, both elaborating on the ethics of Christian rulership.9 However, emphasizing the impact of 751 cannot fully account for the gap of fifty years between the deposition of the Merovingians and the first mirror for princes, authored by abbot Smaragdus. Other historians therefore explain the emergence of a sophisticated theory of kingship by pointing to the church reform initiated by Charlemagne with his famous Admonitio generalis of 789.10 This decree is based on the idea that every part of society has to correct its behavior in light of written texts. Two scholars close to Charlemagne, Alcuin and Paulinus of Aquileia, acted on this suggestion and composed treatises on the ethics of laymen. The writing of mirrors for kings would seem to be the next step in this Carolingian reform program.11
Other historians have tried to link the emergence of a theory of kingship more closely to the reign of Louis the Pious. Étienne Delaruelle put the focus on the most prominent author, Jonas of Orleans, and his citation of the Gelasian doctrine of the two powers on earth: the spiritual power of the bishops on the
All these explanations contribute in some way to our understanding of the emergence of a sophisticated theory of kingship in the 9th century. I will return to this problem at the end of this essay. First, it seems useful to give a survey of the sources which are used in the Carolingian mirrors for princes. In the second part, I introduce the four main texts and their authors. Next, I provide some comments on the contents of the mirrors. In the last part, I address the impact of these texts, their manuscript transmission, their readership, and their influence on other literary genres.
2 Sources
The Carolingian authors of mirrors for princes did not have a literary model at their disposal. The only classical text available in the 9th century, Seneca’s De clementia, was known to very few scholars and began to exert influence on
Apart from Holy Scripture, the church fathers figure prominently in the Carolingian mirrors for princes. The definition of kingship was regularly borrowed from Isidore of Seville, who explained the word rex with the (false) etymology recte agendo (acting rightly).21 More importantly, the Carolingian authors learned two apparently contradictory lessons from the church fathers. On the one hand, Augustine famously separated the virtuousness of the prince from the prosperity and success of his government in this world. Rulers should not be considered blessed because of their longevity or because of victories over their enemies, but only if they governed justly, supported the worship of God, led a Christian life, and if they did all this in view of the glory of eternal life.22 On the other hand, a different message was disseminated by an Irish text from the 7th century, which was ascribed to the church father Cyprian of Carthage (De duodecim abusivis saeculi).23 The anonymous author contrasted the effects of a government inspired by justice with the effects of iniquitous administration. A good king causes the prosperity in this world, whereas a bad king induces war, the incursions of enemies, the loss of crops, animal disease, and bad weather. Surprisingly, both texts were first used by Jonas of Orleans in his De institutione regia.24 Clearly, Jonas did not consider them to be contradictory.
The church father who left the deepest impression on the Carolingian authors was Gregory the Great.25 His Pastoral Rule (Regula pastoralis) was heavily promoted by the Carolingian reform movement and established itself as the reference work for ecclesiastical administration.26 Designed to be a handbook of episcopal governance, it was also considered to be very helpful for giving advice to secular rulers. The core idea informing the Pastoral Rule is the need for prelates to display humility towards their subjects. Considering the natural equality of mankind, any prelate has to be mindful of not arrogating personal privileges to himself on the basis of his office alone. Gregory also dedicates long passages to the problem of punishment and mercy. Evidently, Gregory was more interested in reintegrating malefactors by the means of penance and confession than on outright punishment. These ideas proved to be influential for the Carolingian authors because of their focus on retributive justice.
3 The Carolingian Mirrors for Princes
3.1 Smaragdus: Via regia
Smaragdus, probably of Visigothic origin, first made a name for himself as a scholar in the reign of Charlemagne.27 He authored commentaries on the Psalms and on the Ars grammatica of Donatus. More importantly, he also contributed to the theological debate on the procession of the Holy Spirit in 809 in order to support the viewpoint of the Franks against the position of
The date of Smaragdus’ mirror for princes (Via regia) has been subject to an intense debate among scholars. The fact that some chapters of the Via regia appear almost unaltered in his mirror for monks (Diadema monachorum) adds to the complexity of this issue. After the convincing demonstration of H.H. Anton, there has been universal consensus that the Via regia predates the Diadema monachorum, which was written around 816–817 during the height of monastic reform.29 Both the prologue and the dedicatory letter do not specify the name of the king, who is nonetheless addressed with a very personal touch.30 Smaragdus only tells us that the king to whom he is speaking was anointed and took up the title of king as an infant.31 This applies to Louis the Pious who was installed as king of Aquitaine in 781 as a child of three and was anointed by Pope Hadrian I. Therefore, the best guess is that Smaragdus dedicated his mirror for princes to Louis the Pious as king of Aquitaine. He most likely finished it when Louis was the sole heir of his father (811–813) because he anticipated him to receive a greater share of the empire.32
Given the dedication to Louis the Pious, the relation between him and Smaragdus must have been close. At least, this is what the author suggests to us in his prologue. He imagines himself to be part of the household of the king, coming to his banquet, and offering him a special treat in light of the love
The treatise itself is roughly divided into chapters on virtues (ch. 1–20), on vices (ch. 21–30), and on the relation of the king to God (ch. 31–2). It has raised suspicion that in his later monastic mirror, the Diadema monachorum, Smaragdus reused the introductory chapters on charity, on the observance of the ten commandments, on the fear of God, and on wisdom, patience, and simplicity. Does this mean that he believed the ethics of monastic life are identical to the ethics of the ruler? This conclusion would be premature.34 It seems, however, reasonable to infer that Smaragdus thought that both the ethics of monks and the ethics of kings flow from the same source of Christian responsibilities. First and foremost, the ruler is a Christian and therefore subject to the same code of conduct. He must obey the ten commandments, he must display the virtue of humility, and he must align his actions with the fear of God.
Interestingly, Smaragdus not only strings the virtues together in a simple list, he also points to the fact that some virtues seem to contradict each other. Prudence, for example, must be kept in check by simplicity lest the ruler indulge in deceitfulness or hypocrisy.35 Justice should be counterbalanced by patience lest the ruler commit acts of cruelty.36 The zeal for righteousness is legitimate if the ruler detects acts of unchristian behavior in his subjects, such as lewdness, avarice, or drunkenness. Such conduct must be punished by the king as a representative of Christ (vice Christi).37 As the next chapter clarifies, the king should however temper this zeal by observing forgiveness, because “clemency consolidates the throne of the king” (Prov. 20, 28).38 Thus, Smaragdus is well aware of the in-built tensions between some of the kingly
From the perspective of Smaragdus, the duty of the ruler is to pursue virtues and shun vices, and to counterbalance one virtue against the other. This is the challenge of gubernatio regni, the governance of the realm. Smaragdus identifies governance primarily with the exercise of retributive justice. It is true that he also castigates the avarice of kings in building palaces with resources extracted from the poor.39 But Smaragdus picks out retributive justice as a central theme, which is implicitly discussed in the chapters on patience, justice, judgment, and mercy (ch. 7–10), then in the chapters on the ruler’s zeal for righteousness and clemency (ch. 18–9), and again in the chapters on not rendering evil to evildoers and on the restraining of wrath (ch. 23–4). In all these chapters, Smaragdus makes no secret of his preference for mercy: “Mercy should always be placed before judgment”.40 The ruler must be extremely circumspect in handing out punishment because his power of vengeance has no limits. Smaragdus likens the king to a father who must act in love for his subjects. In his eyes, he is not a dominator, but a merciful moderator.
3.2 Jonas: De institutione regia
Jonas was born in the kingdom of Aquitaine where he joined the court of Louis the Pious.41 In 818, the emperor entrusted to him the bishopric of Orleans. In the following years, he worked his way up to figure as the unofficial head of the church of the Frankish empire. The emperor relied on his expertise in 825 when the question of the cult of images was debated among the Byzantine emperor, the Pope, and the Frankish church. Later he was selected by his peers to author the acts of the Council of Paris in 829 and the Council of Aachen in 836. He remained loyal to Louis the Pious during the two rebellions of 830 and 833 and supported him in crushing his opponents among the bishops. After the death of the emperor, he was one of the few who still admired his achievements and put him above his father Charlemagne because of his care for the divine cult.42 In short, Jonas had a deep affection for Louis the Pious.
His mirror for princes is enmeshed in the controversies between Louis the Pious and his sons. In a rather long admonition placed before the text proper,
Jonas, however, did not bother to write a treatise from scratch. Some chapters at the end of the mirror are identical with the instructions for the laity (De institutione laicali) that Jonas had finished prior to 828. The main body of the text is a word-for-word copy of the relevant passages in the acts of the council of Paris in 829.46 In 828, Louis the Pious and his son Lothar had convoked five councils in order to react to a time of crisis of the Frankish empire, triggered by incursions of pagans on several frontiers, by plagues, bad weather and famines, and by a feeling of discomfort regarding the interplay of ecclesiastical and secular functionaries. The emperors called for scrutinizing the conduct of princes, bishops, and the populus in general.47 Jonas, speaking for the Council of Paris, responded to this request by submitting to the emperor a copious analysis of society at large, emphasizing the different assignments of kings and bishops. Jonas was the first to unearth the letter of Pope Gelasius to the emperor Anastasius from 494, in which the head of the Western church insisted upon the distinction between the office of bishops and the office of the emperor.48 The Gelasian doctrine was significantly altered by Jonas to meet the needs of his own time. Later, this doctrine became a hallmark of the dispute between
Jonas begins his mirror for princes with the Gelasian doctrine and a short sketch of his ecclesiology. This has seized the attention of historians as a sign of the increasing political status of bishops in the Carolingian empire. It has often been noticed that the ecclesiological framework sets Jonas’s mirror apart from the earlier Via regia of Smaragdus. Bishops do not figure prominently in the worldview of Smaragdus. He only urges kings to care for the payment of the tithe.50 Apart from this, institutional Christianity is conspicuously absent. Jonas, in contrast, highlights the role of bishops and for this purpose structures his text by following a deductive method. Whereas Smaragdus begins with the ruler as man and advances to royal virtues, Jonas puts ecclesiology first, then moves on to the royal office and subsequently discusses the personal ethics of the ruler. Chapters 12–16 closely resemble the corresponding passages in his instruction of the laity. Only the last chapter (ch. 17) harkens back to the topic of rulership and reflects on the difference between good and bad kings, relying on the viewpoint of Augustine in his City of God.
Chapter 3, about the essence of kingship, and chapter 4, on the proper office of the king, are among the best-known texts of the Carolingian period. Jonas blends together a great variety of sources, ranging from the Old Testament to Pseudo-Cyprian’s De duodecim abusivis saeculi, Isidore of Seville, and other Church fathers. In Jonas’s view, the king is divinely appointed to implement by use of force what the bishops fail to implement by the use of words.51 His office is essentially secular.52 Wisdom, deemed a crucial and all-encompassing virtue by Smaragdus and later by Sedulius Scottus, is kept at bay. Jonas focuses first and foremost on the virtue of justice. It is the king’s justice and equity which procure the peace and concord of the realm. Jonas even calls the king the judge of judges (iudex iudicum).53 He must take care that no injustice takes place and that no injustice remains unavenged.54 Justice should be accompanied by pietas and misericordia: piety (or humility) in the sense of the promotion of institutional Christianity, and mercy (or clemency) in contrast
Thus, retributive justice is again at the core of this mirror for princes. Other cardinal virtues like prudence, temperance, and fortitude are absent. Jonas totally ignores the fact that the Carolingian ruler is primarily the leader of the armed forces of the Franks. He also omits to mention that the king bestows privileges and landed resources to his followers and therefore must observe the rules of distributive justice. What he attends to is primarily the exercise of judicial violence. Quoting Augustine, Jonas calls for leniency and pardon, but also cautions against allowing malefactors to go unpunished. The king must be mindful that he is equal by nature to all human beings and therefore must show clemency and mercy.
3.3 Sedulius: De rectoribus christianis
Unlike the other authors, Sedulius never held an ecclesiastical office, at least to our knowledge. He was primarily a scholar and probably immigrated from Ireland to the continent because of the Viking invasions.55 He found refuge at the episcopal court in Liège on the river Meuse and wrote commentaries on the Pauline epistles, and grammatical and philosophical treatises. His poems show that he was active from the 840s to the early 870s and that he made contact with leading protagonists of the Frankish empire during these years. Among the dedicatees of his poems appear members of the ruling family such as emperor Lothar I, the kings Lothar II, Charles the Bald, Louis the German and the empress Ermengarde. Moreover, Sedulius addressed many bishops, mainly the bishops of Liège Hartgar and Franco, but also the bishops of Cologne and Milan. To judge from his poetic output, he was a well-connected scholar aspiring to receive the favor of as many patrons as possible.
His De rectoribus christianis relates to one of his royal patrons. As Sedulius keeps secret the dedicatee of his mirror for princes and fails to give any explicit hint about the date of composition, scholarship is divided into two camps. The editor of the text argued that Sedulius addressed the mirror to Lothar II during the early years of his reign over what later would be called Lotharingia (855/857).56 Nikolaus Staubach, in the only book-length study of the treatise,
The De rectoribus christianis is the most elaborate Carolingian mirror for princes, with respect to both its style and content.60 Sedulius modelled his treatise stylistically on the famous Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius, using prose and verse (prosimetrum) alternately. Likewise, the treatise begins with a dedicatory verse preface and ends with an epilogue in prose. Regarding content, the treatise is more independent and original than any other of the Carolingian mirrors for princes. Sedulius does not string together one quotation after another, but follows his own train of thought, incorporating examples from biblical, classical, and late antique history. In the first part of his treatise, he presents the ethics of a Christian ruler (ch. 1–6) and discusses the reasons for lapsing into bad kingship (ch. 7–8) before summarizing again the principles of peaceful and just rulership (ch. 9–10). The second part shows the Christian
Right from the outset, Sedulius is very clear about his view that governing is a specific discipline of knowledge (ars). In a later chapter, he enhances this view by calling it the most difficult discipline in human affairs.62 This is the case because governing requires wisdom (sapientia), which Sedulius equates with insight into the will of God. This insight allows the ruler to recognize the instability of worldly affairs and the changing prosperity of kingdoms. Like the moon, kingdoms have successive phases, ranging from the ascendant formation via warfare to the plenitude of glory and finally to the decline and collapse of earthly rule.63 Christian rulers should not become desperate in view of unfavorable events and circumstances, but consider them as a challenge and an opportunity for erudition. According to Sedulius, this is the specific virtue of the Christian religion in contrast to the pagans and the Jews, that they thank God for confronting them with adversity.64
Wisdom not only requires Christian rulers to be continuously thankful to God. It also entails that kings do not rely on their superior forces in battle but on the help of the Almighty, implored by relentless prayer and worship.65 What the king spends for the stipends of his knights and followers in battle should be counterbalanced by what he donates to the support of the church and its clerics. Wisdom, therefore, demands that Christian rulers take the church under their wings. They act as the vicars of God in the government and protection of the church, making sure that the privileges of the clergy are safe against lay encroachment and that church councils meet regularly in order to monitor the conduct of clerics.66 Kings are not only supposed to support the church, they are also obliged to obey the rules of church law and to accept the admonitions of bishops.67 Like David, the king must be willing to do penance if the bishops charge him with sinful behavior.
3.4 Hincmar: De regis persona et regio ministerio
Kingship was permanently on the mind of Hincmar of Rheims.72 As a monk of Saint-Denis he was already close to the court of Louis the Pious during the last years of his reign, before he was appointed as archbishop of Rheims by Charles the Bald in 845. In the following years, he was a close advisor of the West-Frankish king, who assigned him the task of drafting some of his major capitularies (royal edicts). Hincmar also claimed to be the head of the bishops in the kingdom of Charles the Bald, organizing church councils, pressing ahead with reforming his own diocesan administration, and attempting to influence the outcomes of theological discussions. Hincmar discussed kingship on several occasions. In 858, when he was leading the opposition against the invasion of Louis the German, he denounced the violation of the Verdun treaty and held up a mirror of good rulership to the East-Frankish King.73 In 860, he intervened in the debate on the divorce of Lothar II and discussed the opinion of some bishops of the middle kingdom that the ruler is above the law.74 In both cases, he acted in line with the political ambitions of Charles the
In light of his impressive output of admonitory writings, it is not possible to discuss his view on kingship exhaustively. I will focus instead on his major mirror for princes, his De regis persona et regio ministerio, written in 873. In doing so, it must be taken into account that this treatise does not give us a complete picture of his views on kingship. Essentially, Hincmar made an effort to salve the conscience of Charles the Bald after the king took the startling decision to condemn his rebellious son Carloman to death in 873.77 Carloman was the youngest son and destined for an ecclesiastical career from an early age. After Charles the Bald received a significant part of the middle kingdom in 870, Carloman decided to quit the monastic profession and made a push for a share in the succession plans of his father. Hincmar and Charles worked in tandem to quell the rebellion. In 873, Carloman was sentenced to death, but his father commuted the punishment to blinding.
Given the criticism levelled against this extraordinary punitive rigor78, Hincmar entered the debate to justify the actions of his king. The second part of the De regis persona et regio ministerio (ch. 19–28) is dedicated to the problem of discretion in showing mercy and discusses the need to mete out capital punishment to those who commit grave crimes. In the third part (ch. 29–33), Hincmar asserts that it is contrary to the office of the king to pardon his kinsmen if they have committed crimes against the holy church and against the commonwealth. Both parts clearly refer to the case of Carloman. The first part (ch. 1–18),
Contrary to what the title suggests, Hincmar does not contrast the person and the office of the king. Persona (role) and ministerium (office) are two sides of the same coin. God has instituted the office of kingship and he supports good and allows bad impersonations of kingship. Quoting Pseudo-Cyprian and Gregory the Great, Hincmar agrees with the view that good kings in general procure the prosperity of the realm, whereas bad kings bring about its ruin.80 As in his other writings, Hincmar places special emphasis on the selection of suitable and experienced advisors, self-consciously reflecting on his own position in the West Frankish kingdom.81 The dedicatee Charles the Bald was probably delighted to read that Augustine had apparently considered it salutary to have kings ruling “long and widely”. Hincmar arrived at this conclusion by manipulating what Augustine actually said.82 The section on warfare embraces the view that wars authorized by God are legitimate and that killing in warfare does not imply sinful behavior. It is even allowed to make offerings to those who have died in just warfare. This argument relies on quotations from Augustine compiled in the florilegium of Jonas of Orleans.
4 Contents
Subsuming the four treatises by Smaragdus, Jonas, Sedulius and Hincmar under a literary genre is a delicate issue. As I have said before, the authors had no model before them to emulate. What is more, they apparently did not even know of each other’s treatises. There is no evidence for a growing body of thought or internal debate among these authors. This observation can be confirmed by the fact that each of them uses different source material. The only significant overlap is between Jonas and Hincmar, because Hincmar demonstrably made use of a florilegium compiled by Jonas of Orleans. Speaking of a conscious literary genre is therefore doubtful.85 However, we can conclude that the writing of mirrors for princes was somehow “in the air”. Why was this the case? It will not do to refer to the rising status of the bishops in the 9th century and to the recognition of their role as admonishers of the rulers.86 Since late antiquity, bishops had taken up this role and acted as heirs to the classical
The Carolingian mirrors for princes do not work from the assumption of a common good, as did the Aristotelian mirrors from the later Middle Ages.88 Even though the idea of a common good was available in the language of diplomas and capitularies,89 the authors of the mirrors do not derive the moral and political obligations of the king from this principle. Rather they center their arguments on the relation of the king to God. The king fulfills a divinely instituted office and is accountable to God himself. Divine grace is the main source of his authority. As a just king he may be rewarded with success in this world and he will join the saintly kings in heaven. We must be aware that this view does not fully represent Carolingian political thought. As I have said, the idea of a common good was frequently referred to in other sources. Moreover, political actions were regularly justified by appealing to the idea of consent or public approval.90 The idea of hereditary succession also looms large in the sources.91 The Carolingian authors of mirrors for princes did not deny the validity of these arguments, but they thought that the relation of the king to God created the strongest foundation for moral and political obligations.
However, this emphasis on divine grace does not exclude the fact that the mirrors for princes address the relation of the king to his subjects. They do this
The significance of justice is well in line with the main authorities used in the Carolingian mirrors for princes. Augustine, Gregory and Pseudo-Cyprian had already placed justice at the center of their discussion of government and administration. The Merovingian sources also emphasized the virtues of justice and legality.94 The same can be said about the idea of biblical kingship, which has strong antecedents in the sixth and seventh centuries.95 Is it therefore true that the Carolingian mirrors for princes differ only “in temper and temperature” and that they “made explicit what was already implicit through looking harder at the Old Testament”?96 There is something to be said for this opinion. The Carolingian mirrors do not overflow with creative thinking. What historians have singled out as the most important contribution of the Carolingians to the history of political thought is the idea of episcopal supervision of kings. This idea grew steadily stronger and more coherent from Jonas to
In my opinion, it makes hardly any sense to judge the Carolingian mirrors by focusing on their contribution to the history of political thought: They had no immediate antecedents, they do not constitute a literary genre, and they had no immediate impact on the development of medieval political thought, as I will show in the next chapter. The emergence of a sophisticated theory of kingship is itself a remarkable achievement. Primarily, Carolingian mirrors are instructive because they reflect the preoccupations and immediate concerns of the clerical elite in their relationship to the kings of the Franks. By directly addressing the kings, they argue from a theological viewpoint and highlight divine grace as the origin of normative obligations. Apart from this clerical agenda, they demonstrate that moderation in dealing out punishments was a crucial issue in the 9th century.
5 Impact
The Carolingian mirrors for princes were directly addressed and presented to specific kings. Beyond that, they do not seem to have had a wide audience. Manuscripts from the 9th century are extremely rare.98 The Via regia of Smaragdus is transmitted by two Spanish manuscripts from the 10th century and two West German or French manuscripts from the 11th century. The complete mirror of Jonas of Orleans is extant only in late manuscripts from the 15th and 17th centuries. A fragmentary copy from the 9th century, also containing the florilegium used by Hincmar of Rheims, has been preserved in Orleans. The same applies to the De rectoribus christianis, which also survives in a partial copy of the 9th century and a couple of later manuscripts. The admonitory treatises of Hincmar of Rheims are known only from printed editions of the 17th century that relied on now lost manuscripts from the library of Rheims. The contrast with legal manuscripts is striking: both secular and ecclesiastical law are transmitted in hundreds of copies dating from the 9th and early
Hence, it is true that the revival of the genre in the 12th century began without any kind of boost from the Carolingian period.101 It seems that the Carolingian mirrors for princes had no lasting impact at all. But this assessment holds true only for the four mirrors for princes themselves, and not if we consider them as the tip of the iceberg of a much larger discussion on the nature of kingship that intensified markedly after the deposition of the Merovingians in 751. The letter of the Anglo-Saxon priest Cathwulf to Charlemagne, dated 775, is a celebrated example.102 It is beyond doubt that this emerging debate on the nature of kingship is characteristic of Carolingian elite culture from the late 8th century onwards.
The theories of kingship had their most direct influence in the Carolingian church councils. As I have said earlier, Jonas of Orleans first presented his thoughts on the nature of kingship during the Parisian council of 829 before he made use of the same material in his De institutione regia. Later, he once again recycled his ideas on the office of the king when he was writing the canons of the council of Aachen in 836.103 Hincmar of Rheims, as well, regularly elaborated on the conduct of kings on the occasion of clerical synods, most famously at the council at Quierzy in 858. Even after Hincmar’s death, the bishops of Rheims kept up this tradition.104 The bishops of the East Frankish kingdom did not fall short in confronting kings with ethical instructions.105
The intense debate on the nature of kingship also exerted a significant influence on the biographers of Carolingian rulers. The first to write a biography of a secular ruler, Ermoldus Nigellus, was well versed in the ethics of kingship. He directed two panegyrical poems to Pippin of Aquitaine, one of them usually classified as a mirror for princes.109 His biography of Louis the Pious is replete with comments praising the virtues of the emperor. Whereas Charlemagne is criticized openly for allowing injustice and corruption to take root in the empire, Louis is praised as the exemplary ruler, characterized by his unfailing piety. Ermoldus alludes to the concept of pietas on 130 occasions.110 A few years later, Einhard wrote his famous biography of Charlemagne. He distanced himself from the prevalent ethics of Christian rulership by placing the secular virtue of magnanimity at the center of his praise of the deceased emperor.111 The contrast could hardly be greater. The topic of retributive justice, a central issue in the mirrors for princes, surfaces for the first time in the anonymous biography of Louis the Pious, written shortly after his death (by the so-called “Astronomer”). The biographer reacts to the criticism directed at Louis the Pious because of his indulgent attitude towards rebellion and uses this topic
The debate on kingship, however, was not confined to clerical assemblies or to the scriptorium.114 Bishops justified the degradation of Louis the Pious in 833 by mentioning his misconduct, mismanagement, and specific crimes he committed contrary to the office of kingship.115 After the decisive battle of Fontenoy, Louis the German and Charles the Bald harried their elder brother Lothar I from Aachen and divided the empire between themselves, claiming that the bishops had decided to declare Lothar unfit for government.116 From then on, kings had to prove their fitness for office. Lothar II failed this test dramatically when he tried to divorce his wife and forced the bishops to support his actions. Pope Nicholas I was his staunchest opponent. It was during his pontificate that popes began to confront Carolingian rulers by measuring their fitness for office. This took on a whole new dimension when the emperor Louis II lacked a successor and the pope claimed the authority to transfer the empire to the candidate who could prove to be most capable of protecting the Apostolic See.117 The ethics of kingship heavily influenced the controversy over the succession of the empire. Finally, the first non-Carolingian king, Boso of Vienne, availed himself of this discourse when he induced the bishops to elect him king of the Franks in 879. He pledged to act with humility, to be open
6 Summary
The significance of the Carolingian mirrors for princes should not be overstated. They provide only partial insight into the debate on kingship during the Carolingian era, much less did they cover the wealth of concepts implicit in the political practice of the Frankish empire. Kingship was more complex than contemporary theoretical reflection suggests. This is the case because the mirrors are characterized by a very specific predicament: a cleric is addressing a king. Not designing their work to circulate more widely, clerical authors deemed it best to persuade kings by pointing to their direct relationship to God and their responsibility for the salvation of the souls. This had already been done by bishops since late antiquity and resurfaced more forcefully after the Carolingian seizure of power in 751 and the church reform of Charlemagne. Still, the difference between sending admonitory poems or letters and writing long treatises on kingship is significant. In both, clerics exercise their care for the salvation of souls, but only the treatises on kingship claim to offer expertise in the working of government. Smaragdus speaks of the gubernatio regni and Jonas coins the concept of ministerium regis. Sedulius and Hincmar emphasize this expertise by using the concept of ars and scientia to describe their inquiry into the principles of government. It is probably not a coincidence that this change happened during the reign of Louis the Pious. Obviously, he was more open to accepting instruction and criticism from clerics than his father
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Admonitio generalis, eds. M. Glatthaar, H. Mordek and K. Zechiel-Eckes, MGH Fontes iuris 16 (Hannover, 2012).
Annales Fuldenses, ed. F. Kurze, MGHSS rer. German. 7 (Hannover, 1891).
Augustine, De civitate dei, eds. B. Dombart and A. Kalb, CCSL 47 (Turnhout, 1955).
Capitularia regum Francorum, eds. A. Boretius and V. Krause, MGH Capit. 2 (Hannover, 1897).
Collectio Hibernensis, ed. R. Flechner, Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Canon Law 17 (Washington, D.C., 2019).
Concilium Parisiense, ed. A. Werminghoff, MGH Conc. 2/2 (Hannover and Leipzig, 1908).
Continuationes chronicarum Fredegarii, ed. B. Krusch, MGHSS rer. Merov. 3 (Hannover, 1888).
Das Konzil von Aachen 809, ed. H. Willjung, MGH Conc. Suppl. 2 (Hannover, 1998).
Die Urkunden Ludwigs des Frommen, ed. T. Kölzer, MGHDD Kar. 2/3 (Wiesbaden, 2016).
Dümmler, Ernst, “Ermahnungsschreiben an einen Karolinger”, in Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 13 (1888), pp. 191–6.
Epistolae aevi Merowingici collectae, ed. W. Gundlach, MGH Epp. 3 (Berlin, 1892).
Epistolae variorum, ed. E. Dümmler, MGH Epp. 4 (Berlin, 1895).
Ermold le Noir, Poème sur Louis le Pieux et épitres au roi Pépin, ed. E. Faral (Paris, 1932).
Epistolae Austrasicae, ed. W. Gundlach, MGH Epp. 3 (Berlin, 1892).
Hincmar, De divortio Lotharii regis et Theutbergae reginae, ed. L. Böhringer, MGH Conc. 4, Suppl. 1 (Hannover, 1992).
Hincmar, Ad Ludovicum balbum regem, PL 125:983–90.
Hincmar, Ad Carolum imperatorem, PL 125:989–94.
Hincmar, Ad episcopos regni admonitio, PL 125:1007–18.
Hincmar, De cavendis vitiis, ed. D. Nachtmann, MGH Quellen zur Geistesgeschichte 16 (Munich, 1998).
Hincmar, De ordine palatii, eds. T. Gross and R. Schieffer, MGH Fontes iuris 3 (Hannover, 1980).
Hincmar, De regis persona et regio ministerio, PL 125:833–856.
Isidore of Seville, Sententiae, ed. P. Cazier, CCSL 111 (Turnhout, 1998).
Jonas of Orleans, De institutione regia, ed. A. Dubreucq, Sources Chrétiennes 407 (Paris, 1995).
Jonas of Orleans, De cultu imaginum, ed. E. Dümmler, MGH Epp. 5 (Berlin, 1899).
Nithard, Historiae, ed. S. Glansdorf (Paris, 2012).
Ordines coronationis Franciae. Texts and Ordines for the Coronation of Frankish and French Kings and Queens in the Middle Ages, vol. 1, ed. R.A. Jackson (Philadelphia, 1995).
Ps.-Cyprianus, De xii abusiuis saeculi, ed. S. Hellmann, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 34 (Leipzig, 1909).
Rudolf Schieffer, “Zwei karolingische Texte über das Königtum”, in Deutsches Archiv 46 (1990), pp. 1–17.
Sedulius Scottus, Liber de rectoribus christianis, in Quellen und Untersuchungen zur lateinischen Philologie des Mittelalters 1, 1, ed. S. Hellmann (Munich, 1906).
Smaragdus of Saint-Mihiel, Via regia, PL 102: 933–970.
Synod of Aachen (836), ed. A. Werminghoff, MGH Conc. 2/2 (Hannover and Leipzig, 1908).
Synod of Mainz (888), ed. W. Hartmann, MGH Conc. 5 (Hannover, 2012).
Synod of Mantaille (871), ed. W. Hartmann, MGH Conc. 5 (Hannover, 2012).
Synod of Quierzy, ed. W. Hartmann, MGH Conc. 3 (Hannover, 1984).
Synod of Tribur (895), ed. W. Hartmann, MGH Conc. 5 (Hannover, 2012).
Synod of Trosly (909), ed. G. Schmitz, MGH Conc. 5 (Hannover, 2012).
Secondary Sources
Anton, Hans Hubert, Fürstenspiegel und Herrscherethos in der Karolingerzeit, Bonner historische Forschungen 32 (Bonn, 1968).
Anton, Hans Hubert, “Pseudo-Cyprian. De duodecim abusivis saeculi und sein Einfluß auf den Kontinent, insbesondere auf die karolingischen Fürstenspiegel”, in Die Iren und Europa im früheren Mittelalter, vol. 2, ed. H. Löwe, Veröffentlichungen des Europa Zentrums Tübingen, Kulturwissenschaftliche Reihe (Stuttgart, 1982), pp. 568–617.
Anton, Hans Hubert, “Verfassungspolitik und Liturgie. Studien zu Westfranken und Lotharingien im 9. und 10. Jahrhundert”, in Geschichtliche Landeskunde der Rheinlande. Regionale Befunde und raumübergreifende Perspektiven. Georg Droege zum Gedenken, eds. Marlene Nikolay-Panter, W. Janssen and W. Herborn (Cologne, 1994), pp. 65–103.
Becher, Matthias and Jörg Jarnut (eds.), Der Dynastiewechsel von 751: Vorgeschichte, Legitimationsstrategien und Erinnerung (Münster, 2004).
Berges, Wilhelm, Die Fürstenspiegel des hohen und späten Mittelalters, Schriften des Reichsinstituts für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 2 (Stuttgart, 1938).
Blattmann, Marita, “‘Ein Unglück für sein Volk’. Der Zusammenhang zwischen Fehlverhalten des Königs und Volkswohl in Quellen des 7.–12. Jahrhunderts”, in Frühmittelalterliche Studien 30 (1996), pp. 80–102.
Booker, Courtney, “The Public Penance of Louis the Pious: A New Edition of the ‘Episcoporum de poenitentia, quam Hludowicus imperator professus est, relatio Compendiensis’ (833)”, in Viator 39/2 (2008), pp. 1–20.
Bovendeert, Jasmijn, “Royal or Monastic Identity? Smaragdus’ Via regia and Diadema monachorum reconsidered”, in Texts and Identities in the Early Middle Ages, eds. R. Corradini, R. Meens, C. Pössel and P. Shaw, Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 13 (Vienna, 2006), pp. 239–52.
Collins, Roger, “Pippin I and the Kingdom of Aquitaine”, in Charlemagne’s Heir: New Perspectives on the Reign of Louis the Pious (814–840), eds. R. Collins and P. Godman (Oxford, 1990), pp. 363–89.
David, Marcel, Le serment du sacre du IXe au XVe siècle: Contribution à l’étude des limites juridiques de la souveraineté (Strasbourg, 1951).
De Jong, Mayke, “The empire as ecclesia: Hranbanus Maurus and biblical historia for rulers”, in The Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages, eds. Y. Hen and M.J. Innes (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 191–226.
De Jong, Mayke, The Penitential State: Authority and Atonement in the Age of Louis the Pious, 814–840 (Cambridge, 2009).
Delaruelle, Étienne, “En relisant le De institutione regia de Jonas d’Orléans: L’entrée en scène de l’épiscopat carolingien”, in Mélanges d’histoire du Moyen Âge dédiés à la mémoire de Louis Halphen (Paris, 1951), pp. 185–92.
Depreux, Philippe, “La pietas comme principe de gouvernement d’après le Poème sur Louis le Pieux d’Ermold le Noir”, in The Community, the Family and the Saint: Patterns of Power in Early Medieval Europe, eds. J. Hill and M. Swan (Turnhout, 1998), pp. 201–24.
Depreux, Philippe, Prosopographie de l’entourage de Louis le Pieux (781–840), Instrumenta 1 (Sigmaringen, 1997).
Dohmen, Linda, Die Ursache allen Übels. Untersuchungen zu den Unzuchtsvorwürfen gegen die Gemahlinnen der Karolinger, Mittelalter-Forschungen 53 (Ostfildern, 2017).
Dumézil, Bruno, “La lettre de conseil au prince du Vat. reg. lat. 407: un miroir mérovingien et son reflet carolingien”, in La lettre-miroir dans l’Occident latin et vernaculaire du Ve au XVe siècle, eds. D. Demartini, S. Shimahara and C. Veyrard-Cosme (Paris, 2018), pp. 53–66.
Eberhardt, Otto, Via regia. Der Fürstenspiegel Smaragds von St. Mihiel und seine literarische Gattung, Münstersche Mittelalter-Schriften 28 (Munich, 1977).
Esders, Stefan, Römische Rechtstradition und merowingisches Königtum: Zum Rechtscharakter politischer Herrschaft in Burgund im 6. und 7. Jahrhundert, Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geschichte 134 (Göttingen, 1997).
Floryszczak, Silke, Die Regula pastoralis Gregors des Großen: Studien zu Text, kirchenpolitischer Bedeutung und Rezeption in der Karolingerzeit, Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 26 (Tübingen, 2005).
Garipzanov, Ildar, The Symbolic Language of Authority in the Carolingian World (c. 751–877) (Leiden and Boston, 2008).
Garrison, Mary, “Divine Election for Nations: A Difficult Rhetoric for Medieval Scholars?”, in The Making of Christian Myths in the Periphery of Latin Christendom (c. 1000–1300), ed. L.B. Mortensen (Copenhagen, 2006), pp. 275–314.
Garrison, Mary, “Letters to a king and biblical exempla: the examples of Cathuulf and Clemens Peregrinus”, in Early Medieval Europe 7 (1998), pp. 305–28.
Garrison, Mary, “The Franks as the New Israel? Education for an identity from Pippin to Charlemagne”, in The Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages, eds. Y. Hen and M.J. Innes (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 114–61.
Godman, Peter, Poets and Emperors: Frankish Politics and Carolingian Poetry (Oxford, 1987).
Goldberg, Eric J. and MacLean, Simon, “Royal Marriage, Frankish History and Dynastic Crisis in Regino of Prüm’s Chronicle”, in Medieval Worlds 10 (2019), pp. 107–129.
Groth, Simon, “Papsttum, italisches Königtum und Kaisertum. Zur Entwicklung eines Dreiecksverhältnisses von Ludwig II. bis Berengar I.”, in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 124 (2013), pp. 151–184.
Guillot, Olivier, “La justice dans le royaume franc à l’époque mérovingienne”, in La giustizia nell’alto medioevo (secoli V–VIII), Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo 42 (Spoleto, 1995), pp. 653–736.
Hannig, Jürgen, Consensus fidelium: Frühfeudale Interpretationen des Verhältnisses von Königtum und Adel am Beispiel des Frankenreiches, Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 27 (Stuttgart, 1982).
Heinzelmann, Martin, Gregory of Tours: History and Society in the Sixth Century (Cambridge, 2001).
Hen, Yitzhak, “The Uses of the Bible and the Perception of Kingship in Merovingian Gaul”, in Early Medieval Europe 7 (1998), pp. 277–89.
Hen, Yitzhak, “The Christianisation of Kingship”, in Der Dynastiewechsel von 751: Vorgeschichte, Legitimationsstrategien und Erinnerung, eds. M. Becher and J. Jarnut (Münster, 2004), pp. 163–77.
Heydemann, Gerda, “The People of God and the Law: Biblical Models in Carolingian Legislation”, in Speculum 85 (2020), pp. 89–131.
Jónsson, Einar Már, “Les « miroirs aux princes » sont-ils un genre littéraire ?”, in Médiévales 51 (2006), pp. 153–166.
Joye, Sylvie, “Family order and kingship according to Hincmar”, in Hincmar of Rheims. Life and Work, eds. R. Stone and C. West (Manchester, 2015), pp. 190–210.
Judic, Bruno, “La tradition de Grégoire le Grand dans l’idéologie politique carolingienne”, in La royauté et les élites dans l’Europe carolingienne, ed. R. Le Jan (Lille, 1998), pp. 17–57.
Kantorowicz, Ernst H., Laudes regiae: A Study in Liturgical Acclamations and Mediaeval Ruler Worship, 2nd ed. (Berkeley, 1958).
Kasten, Brigitte, Königssöhne und Königsherrschaft: Untersuchungen zur Teilhabe am Reich in der Merowinger- und Karolingerzeit, MGH Schriften 44 (Hannover, 1997).
Kempshall, Matthew, The Common Good in Late Medieval Political Thought (Oxford, 1999).
Kershaw, Paul, Peaceful Kings: Peace, Power and the Early Medieval Political Imagination (Oxford, 2011).
Kéry, Lotte, Canonical Collections of the Early Middle Ages, ca. 400–1140: A Bibliographical Guide to the Manuscripts and Literature (Washington, DC, 1999).
Körntgen, Ludger, “Pippins Königserhebung von 751 und der Papst. Die Narrative der Reichsannalen und der Fredegar-Fortsetzung”, in Pippin der Jüngere und die Erneuerung des Frankenreichs, eds. P. Breternitz and K. Ubl (Ostfildern, 2020), pp. 39–86.
Koziol, Geoffrey, “Making Boso the Clown: Performance and Performativity in a Pseudo-Diploma of the Renegade King (8 December 879)”, in Rituals, Performatives, and Political Order in Northern Europe, c. 650–1350, ed. W. Jezierski (Turnhout, 2016), pp. 43–62.
Koziol, Geoffrey, “Why We Have Mirrors for Princes but None for Presidents”, in Why the Middle Ages Matter: Medieval Light on Modern Injustice, eds. C.M. Chazelle, S.R. Doubleday, F. Lifshitz and A. Goodrich Remensnyder (New York, 2012), pp. 183–98.
Kramer, Rutger, Rethinking Authority in the Carolingian Empire. Ideals and Expectations during the reign of Louis the Pious (813–828) (Amsterdam, 2019).
Laehr, Gerhard and Carl Erdmann, “Ein karolingischer Konzilsbrief und der Fürstenspiegel Hincmars von Reims”, in Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 50 (1935), pp. 106–134.
Leyser, Conrad, “The memory of Gregory the Great and the making of Latin Europe, 600–1000”, in Making Early Medieval Societies: Conflict and Belonging in the Latin West, 300–1200, eds. K. Cooper and C. Leyser (Cambridge, 2016), pp. 181–201.
Meens, Rob, “Politics, mirrors of princes and the Bible: sins, kings and the well-being of the realm”, in Early Medieval Europe 7 (1998), pp. 345–357.
Merta, Brigitte, “Politische Theorie in den Königsurkunden Pippins I.”, in Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 100 (1992), pp. 117–131.
Mösch, Sophia, Augustine and the Art of Ruling in the Carolingian Imperial Period: Political Discourse in Alcuin of York and Hincmar of Rheims (London, 2019).
Nees, Lawrence, A Tainted Mantle: Hercules and the Classical Tradition at the Carolingian Court (Philadelphia, 1991).
Nelson, Janet, “Bad Kingship in the Earlier Middle Ages”, in Transactions of the Haskins Society 8 (1996), pp. 1–26.
Nelson, Janet, “Kingship, law and liturgy in the political thought of Hincmar of Rheims”, in English Historical Review 92 (1977), pp. 241–79.
Nelson, Janet, “Legislation and consensus in the reign of Charles the Bald”, in Ideal and Reality in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Society: Studies Presented to J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, ed. P. Wormald (Oxford, 1983), pp. 202–27.
Nelson, Janet, “The Lord’s anointed and the people’s choice: Carolingian royal ritual”, in Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies, eds. O. Cannadine and S. Price (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 137–180.
Patt, Sarah, Studien zu den Formulae imperiales. Urkundenkonzeption und Formulargebrauch in der Kanzlei Kaiser Ludwigs des Frommen (814–840), MGH Studien und Texte 59 (Wiesbaden, 2016).
Patzold, Steffen, “Einhards erste Leser. Zu Kontext und Darstellungsabsicht der Vita Karoli”, in Viator Multilingual 42 (2011), pp. 33–55.
Patzold, Steffen, Episcopus: Wissen über Bischöfe im Frankreich des späten 8. bis frühen 10. Jahrhunderts, Mittelalter-Forschungen 25 (Ostfildern, 2008).
Patzold, Steffen, “Konsens und Konkurrenz. Überlegungen zu einem aktuellen Forschungskonzept der Mediävistik”, in Frühmittelalterliche Studien 41 (2007), pp. 75–103.
Pezé, Warren, “Knowledge on Kingship at the Dawn of Feudalism (c. 900)”, in Wissen und Bildung in einer Zeit bedrohter Ordnung. Der Zerfall des Karolingerreiches um 900, ed. W. Pezé (Stuttgart, 2020), pp. 147–199.
Rädle, Fidel, Studien zu Smaragd von Saint-Mihiel, Medium Aevum 29 (Munich, 1974).
Renswoude, Irene van, The Rhetoric of Free Speech in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (Cambridge, 2019).
Reydellet, Marc, La royauté dans la littérature latine de Sidoine Apollinaire à Isidore de Séville (Paris, 1981).
Reynolds, Leighton Durham (ed.), Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics (Oxford, 1983).
Romig, Andrew J., Be a Perfect Man: Christian Masculinity and the Carolingian Aristocracy (Philadelphia, 2017).
Romig, Andrew J., “In Praise of the Too-Clement Emperor: The Problem of Forgiveness in the Astronomer’s Vita Hludowici imperatoris”, in Speculum 89 (2014), pp. 382–409.
Sassier, Yves, “Aux origines de la parainesis médiévale: La lettre d’un prélat inconnu au jeune roi Clotaire II (v. 597–600)”, in The Making of Western Christendom, 4th–8th Centuries, ed. W. Falkowski, Quaestiones medii aevi novae 17 (Warsaw, 2012), pp. 145–162.
Sassier, Yves, “L’utilisation d’un concept romain aux temps carolingiens: la res publica aux IXe et Xe siècles”, in Médiévales 15 (1988), pp. 17–29.
Sassier, Yves, Royauté et idéologie au Moyen Âge: Bas-Empire, monde franc, France (IVe–XIIe siècle) (Paris, 2002).
Savigni, Raffaele, Giona di Orleans: una ecclesiologia carolingia, Cristianesimo antico e medievale 2 (Bologna, 1989).
Scharff, Thomas, Die Kämpfe der Herrscher und der Heiligen: Krieg und historische Erinnerung in der Karolingerzeit (Darmstadt, 2002).
Schieffer, Rudolf, “Die Ausbreitung der Königssalbung im hochmittelalterlichen Europa”, in Die mittelalterliche Thronfolge im europäischen Vergleich, ed. M. Becher Vorträge und Forschungen 84 (Ostfildern, 2017), pp. 43–78.
Schmitz, Gerhard, “De disciplina principum in ecclesia. Ein karolingischer Traktat über das Königsamt”, in Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 75 (2019), pp. 19–39.
Schmoeckel, Mathias, “Rex erit qui recte faciet. Die Entstehung der Idee von der Gerechtigkeit des Königs als Grundlage der Gesellschaft”, in Wilhelm Levison (1876–1947): Ein jüdisches Forscherleben zwischen wissenschaftlicher Anerkennung und politischem Exil, eds. M. Becher and Y. Hen, Bonner historische Forschungen 63 (Siegburg, 2010), pp. 55–92.
Semmler, Josef, “Der Dynastiewechsel von 751 und die fränkische Königssalbung”, in Studia humaniora6 (Düsseldorf, 2003).
Stacey, Peter, Roman Monarchy and the Renaissance Prince (Cambridge, 2007).
Staubach, Nikolaus, Rex christianus: Hofkultur und Herrschaftspropaganda im Reich Karls des Kahlen (Cologne, 1993).
Stoclet, Alain, Du Champ de Mars mérovingien au Champ de Mai carolingien. Éclairages sur un objet fugace et une réforme de Pépin, dit “Le Bref” (Turnhout, 2020).
Stone, Rachel, “Kings are different: Carolingian mirrors for princes and lay morality”, in Le prince au miroir de la littérature politique de l’Antiquité aux Lumières, eds. F. Lachaud and L. Scordia (Mont-Saint-Aignan, 2007), pp. 69–86.
Stone, Rachel, Morality and Masculinity in the Carolingian Empire, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought 4, 81 (Cambridge, 2012).
Story, Joanna, “Cathwulf, Kingship, and the Royal Abbey of Saint-Denis”, in Speculum 74 (1999), pp. 1–21.
Suchan, Monika, “Gerechtigkeit in christlicher Verantwortung. Neue Blicke in die Fürstenspiegel des Frühmittelalters”, in Francia 41 (2014), pp. 1–23.
Suchan, Monika, Mahnen und Regieren. Die Metapher des Hirten im früheren Mittelalter, Millennium-Studien 56 (Berlin, 2015).
Tischler, Matthias, Einharts “Vita Karoli”: Studien zur Entstehung, Überlieferung und Rezeption, MGH Schriften 48 (Hannover, 2001).
Ubl, Karl, “Die Figur des Tyrannen. Herrscherkritik im Zeitalter Philipps des Schönen (1285–1314), in Gewalt und Widerstand in der politischen Kultur des späten Mittelalters, eds. M. Kintzinger, F. Rexroth and J. Rogge (Ostfildern, 2015), pp. 211–246.
Ullmann, Walter, The Carolingian Renaissance and the Idea of Kingship (London, 1969).
Veyrard-Cosme, Christiane, “Ermold le Noir (IXe s.) et l’Ad Pippinum Regem”, in La lyre et la pourpre: Poésie latine et politique de l’Antiquité tardive à la Renaissance, eds. N. Catellani-Dufrêne and M.J-L. Perrin (Rennes, 2012), pp. 73–85.
Vocino, Giorgia, “A Peregrinus’s Vade Mecum: MS Bern 363 and the ‘Circle of Sedulius Scottus’”, in The Annotated Book in the Early Middle Ages: Practices of Reading and Writing, eds. I. van Renswoude and M. Teeuwen, Utrecht studies in medieval literacy 38 (Turnhout, 2017), pp. 87–123.
Wagner, Wolfgang Eric, Die liturgische Gegenwart des abwesenden Königs. Gebetsverbrüderung und Herrscherbild im frühen Mittelalter, Brill’s series on the early Middle Ages 19 (Leiden, 2010).
Wallace-Hadrill, John Michael, “The via regia of the Carolingian age”, in Trends in Medieval Political Thought, ed. B. Smalley (Oxford, 1965), pp. 22–41.
Wehlen, Wolfgang, Geschichtsschreibung und Staatsauffassung im Zeitalter Ludwigs des Frommen, Historische Studien 418 (Lübeck and Hamburg, 1970).
Wilmart, André, “L’admonition de Jonas au roi Pépin et le florilège canonique d’Orleans”, in Revue bénédictine 45 (1933), pp. 214–33.
Wynn, Phillip, Augustine on War and Military Service (Minneapolis, 2013).
Zwierlein, Susanne, Studien zu den Arengen Kaiser Ludwigs des Frommen (814–840), MGH Studien und Texte 60 (Wiesbaden, 2017).
Epistolae Austrasicae 2, ed. W. Gundlach, MGH Epp. 3 (Berlin, 1892), p. 113.
Martin Heinzelmann, Gregory of Tours: History and Society in the Sixth Century (Cambridge, 2001).
Marc Reydellet, La royauté dans la littérature latine de Sidoine Apollinaire à Isidore de Séville (Paris, 1981), pp. 297–344.
E.g. the anonymous letter to Chlothar II: Epistolae aevi Merowingici collectae 15, ed. W. Gundlach, MGH Epp. 3 (Berlin, 1892), pp. 457–60. The context was established by Yves Sassier, “Aux origines de la parainesis médiévale: La lettre d’un prélat inconnu au jeune roi Clotaire II (v. 597–600)”, in The Making of Western Christendom, 4th–8th Centuries, ed. W. Falkowski, Quaestiones medii aevi novae 17 (Warsaw, 2012), pp. 145–162. For a general overview cf. Yitzhak Hen, “The Uses of the Bible and the Perception of Kingship in Merovingian Gaul”, in Early Medieval Europe 7 (1998), pp. 277–89; id., “The Christianisation of Kingship”, in Der Dynastiewechsel von 751: Vorgeschichte, Legitimationsstrategien und Erinnerung, ed. M. Becher and J. Jarnut (Münster, 2004), pp. 163–77.
Continuationes chronicarum Fredegarii 33, ed. B. Krusch, MGH SS rer. Merov. 3 (1888), p. 182. The interpretation is highly controversial, cf. Josef Semmler, Der Dynastiewechsel von 751 und die fränkische Königssalbung, Studia humaniora 6 (Düsseldorf, 2003); Der Dynastiewechsel von 751: Vorgeschichte, Legitimationsstrategien und Erinnerung, eds. M. Becher and J. Jarnut (Münster, 2004); Ludger Körntgen, “Pippins Königserhebung von 751 und der Papst. Die Narrative der Reichsannalen und der Fredegar-Fortsetzung”, in Pippin der Jüngere und die Erneuerung des Frankenreichs, eds. P. Breternitz and K. Ubl (Ostfildern, 2020), pp. 39–86.
Janet Nelson, “Bad Kingship in the Earlier Middle Ages”, Transactions of the Haskins Society 8 (1996), pp. 1–26; Alain Stoclet, Du Champ de Mars mérovingien au Champ de Mai carolingien. Éclairages sur un objet fugace et une réforme de Pépin, dit “Le Bref” (Turnhout, 2020), pp. 161–187.
Ernst H. Kantorowicz, Laudes regiae: A Study in Liturgical Acclamations and Mediaeval Ruler Worship, University of California publications of history 33, 2nd ed. (Berkeley, 1958).
Brigitte Merta, “Politische Theorie in den Königsurkunden Pippins I.”, in Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 100 (1992), pp. 117–31.
Mary Garrison, “Letters to a king and biblical exempla: the examples of Cathuulf and Clemens Peregrinus”, in Early Medieval Europe 7 (1998), pp. 305–28; Joanna Story, “Cathwulf, Kingship, and the Royal Abbey of Saint-Denis”, in Speculum 74 (1999), pp. 1–21.
Admonitio generalis, eds. M. Glatthaar, H. Mordek and K. Zechiel-Eckes, MGH Fontes iuris 16 (Hannover, 2012).
Rachel Stone, “Kings are different: Carolingian mirrors for princes and lay morality”, in Le prince au miroir de la littérature politique de l’Antiquité aux Lumières, eds. F. Lachaud and L. Scordia (Mont-Saint-Aignan, 2007), pp. 69–86; Rachel Stone, Morality and Masculinity in the Carolingian Empire, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought 4, 81 (Cambridge, 2012).
Étienne Delaruelle, “En relisant le De institutione regia de Jonas d’Orléans: L’entrée en scène de l’épiscopat carolingien”, in Mélanges d’histoire du Moyen Âge dédiés à la mémoire de Louis Halphen (Paris, 1951), pp. 185–92.
Hans Hubert Anton, Fürstenspiegel und Herrscherethos in der Karolingerzeit, Bonner historische Forschungen 32 (Bonn, 1968).
Critical: Nikolaus Staubach, Rex christianus: Hofkultur und Herrschaftspropaganda im Reich Karls des Kahlen, Pictura et poesis 2 (Cologne, 1993), p. 137. The concept of ministerium has deeper roots, cf. Yves Sassier, Royauté et idéologie au Moyen Âge : Bas-Empire, monde franc, France (IVe–XIIe siècle) (Paris, 2002), pp. 136–40.
Leighton Durham Reynolds (ed.), Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics (Oxford, 1983), p. 363; Peter Stacey, Roman Monarchy and the Renaissance Prince (Cambridge, 2007).
The letter to Chlothar II. (cf. note 4) was reused in a text edited by Ernst Dümmler, “Ermahnungsschreiben an einen Karolinger”, in Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 13 (1888), pp. 192–96. Authorship is discussed by Fidel Rädle, Studien zu Smaragd von Saint-Mihiel, Medium Aevum 29 (Munich, 1974), pp. 28–32; Bruno Dumézil, “La lettre de conseil au prince du Vat. reg. lat. 407: un miroir mérovingien et son reflet carolingien”, in La lettre-miroir dans l’Occident latin et vernaculaire du Ve au XVe siècle, eds. D. Demartini, S. Shimahara and C. Veyrard-Cosme (Paris, 2018), pp. 53–66.
Mayke de Jong, “The empire as ecclesia: Hranbanus Maurus and biblical historia for rulers”, in The Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages, eds. Y. Hen and M.J. Innes (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 191–226.
Mary Garrison, “The Franks as the New Israel? Education for an identity from Pippin to Charlemagne”, in The Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages, eds. Y. Hen and M.J. Innes (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 114–61; Mary Garrison, “Divine Election for Nations: A Difficult Rhetoric for Medieval Scholars?” in The Making of Christian Myths in the Periphery of Latin Christendom (c. 1000–1300), ed. L.B. Mortensen (Copenhagen, 2006), pp. 275–314.
Smaragdus of Saint-Mihiel, Via regia ep., ed. J.P. Migne, PL 102 (Paris, 1851), col. 934; Jonas of Orleans, De institutione regia, ed. A. Dubreucq, Sources Chrétiennes 407 (Paris, 1995), p. 168; Sedulius Scottus, Liber de rectoribus christianis 9, ed. S. Hellmann, Quellen und Untersuchungen zur lateinischen Philologie des Mittelalters 1, 1 (Munich, 1906), p. 47.
Sedulius Scottus, De rectoribus christianis 15, p. 71. Cf. Gerda Heydemann, “The People of God and the Law: Biblical Models in Carolingian Legislation”, in Speculum 85 (2020), pp. 89–131.
Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae 1.29.3; Sententiae 3.48.7, ed. P. Cazier, CCSL 111 (Turnhout, 1998), p. 298.
Augustine, De civitate dei 5.24, eds. B. Dombart and A. Kalb, CCSL 47 (Turnhout, 1955), p. 160. On the influence of Augustine cf. Sophia Mösch, Augustine and the Art of Ruling in the Carolingian Imperial Period: Political Discourse in Alcuin of York and Hincmar of Rheims (London, 2019).
Ps.-Cyprianus, De xii abusiuis saeculi, ed. S. Hellmann, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 34 (Leipzig, 1909), pp. 32–60. Cf. Hans Hubert Anton, “Pseudo-Cyprian. De duodecim abusivis saeculi und sein Einfluß auf den Kontinent, insbesondere auf die karolingischen Fürstenspiegel”, in Die Iren und Europa im früheren Mittelalter, vol. 2, ed. H. Löwe, Veröffentlichungen des Europa Zentrums Tübingen, Kulturwissenschaftliche Reihe (Stuttgart, 1982), pp. 568–617; Marita Blattmann, “‘Ein Unglück für sein Volk’. Der Zusammenhang zwischen Fehlverhalten des Königs und Volkswohl in Quellen des 7.–12. Jahrhunderts”, in Frühmittelalterliche Studien 30 (1996), pp. 80–102; Rob Meens, “Politics, mirrors of princes and the Bible: sins, kings and the well-being of the realm”, in Early Medieval Europe 7 (1998), pp. 345–57.
Jonas, De institutione regia 3, pp. 188–92; 17, pp. 282–84. Ps.-Cyprian’ chapter on kingship was also disseminated as part of the Collectio Hibernensis, ed. R. Flechner, Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Canon Law 17 (Washington, D.C., 2019).
Bruno Judic, “La tradition de Grégoire le Grand dans l’idéologie politique carolingienne”, in La royauté et les élites dans l’Europe carolingienne, ed. R. Le Jan (Lille, 1998), pp. 17–57; Conrad Leyser, “The memory of Gregory the Great and the making of Latin Europe, 600–1000”, in Making Early Medieval Societies: Conflict and Belonging in the Latin West, 300–1200, eds. K. Cooper and C. Leyser (Cambridge, 2016), pp. 181–201.
Silke Floryszczak, Die Regula pastoralis Gregors des Großen: Studien zu Text, kirchenpolitischer Bedeutung und Rezeption in der Karolingerzeit, Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 26 (Tübingen, 2005); Monika Suchan, Mahnen und Regieren. Die Metapher des Hirten im früheren Mittelalter, Millennium-Studien 56 (Berlin, 2015).
Rädle, Studien zu Smaragd; Otto Eberhardt, Via regia. Der Fürstenspiegel Smaragds von St. Mihiel und seine literarische Gattung, Münstersche Mittelalter-Schriften 28 (Munich, 1977); Philippe Depreux, Prosopographie de l’entourage de Louis le Pieux (781–840), Instrumenta 1 (Sigmaringen, 1997), pp. 376–78.
Das Konzil von Aachen 809, ed. H. Willjung, MGH Conc. Suppl. 2 (Hannover, 1998).
Anton, Fürstenspiegel, pp. 136–61.
The prologue is edited by Ernst Dümmler, MGH Epp. 3:533. Later this text was augmented in Spain: Rädle, Studien zu Smaragd, pp. 62–67.
Smaragdus, Via regia ep., col. 933.
Cf. Anton, Fürstenspiegel, pp. 161–68. Eberhardt, Via regia, argued for Charlemagne as dedicatee. Rutger Kramer, Rethinking Authority in the Carolingian Empire. Ideals and Expectations during the reign of Louis the Pious (813–828) (Amsterdam, 2019), pp. 131–140 emphasizes the generic nature of the dedication, but sees Louis as the most likely candidate.
Smaragdus, Via regia prol., MGH Epp. 3:533.
Cf. Jasmijn Bovendeert, “Royal or Monastic Identity? Smaragdus’ Via regia and Diadema monachorum reconsidered”, in Texts and Identities in the Early Middle Ages, eds. R. Corradini, R. Meens, C. Pössel and P. Shaw, Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 13 (Vienna, 2006), pp. 239–52; Paul Kershaw, Peaceful Kings: Peace, Power and the Early Medieval Political Imagination (Oxford, 2011), pp. 177–83.
Smaragdus, Via regia 6, col. 946.
Smaragdus, Via regia 7–8, cols. 946–49.
Smaragdus, Via regia 18, col. 958.
Smaragdus, Via regia 19, col. 958.
Smaragdus, Via regia 27, cols. 965–66.
Smaragdus, Via regia 30, col. 968: In perquirendo iustitiam esto sollicitus indagator, in diiudicando cautissimus exsecutor, ita tamen ut misericordia semper iudicio praeponatur.
Depreux, Prosopographie, pp. 276–77.
Jonas of Orleans, De cultu imaginum, ep., ed. E. Dümmler, MGH Epp. 5 (Berlin, 1899), p. 354.
Jonas, De institutione regia, adm., p. 162.
Roger Collins, “Pippin I and the Kingdom of Aquitaine”, in Charlemagne’s Heir: New Perspectives on the Reign of Louis the Pious (814–840), eds. R. Collins and P. Godman (Oxford, 1990), pp. 363–89.
I am following Dubreucq’s introduction to De institutione regia.
Concilium Parisiense 2.1–13, ed. A. Werminghoff, MGH Conc. 2/2 (Hannover and Leipzig, 1908), pp. 649–67; Anton, Fürstenspiegel, pp. 198–218.
Steffen Patzold, Episcopus: Wissen über Bischöfe im Frankreich des späten 8. bis frühen 10. Jahrhunderts, Mittelalter-Forschungen 25 (Ostfildern, 2008), pp. 149–68.
The only earlier quotation is in one of Pope Hadrian’s letters: Epistolae 2, ed. K. Hampe, MGH Epp. 5 (Berlin, 1899), p. 51.
Cf. Mayke de Jong, The Penitential State: Authority and Atonement in the Age of Louis the Pious, 814–840 (Cambridge, 2009), pp. 176–184.
Smaragdus, Via regia 12, col. 953.
Jonas, De institutione regia 4, p. 202 (quoting Isidore).
Raffaele Savigni, Giona di Orleans: una ecclesiologia carolingia, Cristianesimo antico e medievale 2 (Bologna, 1989), pp. 128–39.
Jonas, De institutione regia 4, p. 198.
Jonas, De institutione regia 4, p. 198.
Cf. Giorgia Vocino, “A Peregrinus’s Vade Mecum: MS Bern 363 and the ‘Circle of Sedulius Scottus’”, in The Annotated Book in the Early Middle Ages: Practices of Reading and Writing, eds. I. van Renswoude and M. Teeuwen, Utrecht studies in medieval literacy 38 (Turnhout, 2017), pp. 87–124.
Hellmann, Sedulius, p. 5. Followed by Anton, Fürstenspiegel, p. 262.
Staubach, Rex christianus, pp. 188–97.
Kershaw, Peaceful Kings, pp. 223–25; Stone, Morality and Masculinity, p. 42; Andrew J. Romig, Be a Perfect Man: Christian Masculinity and the Carolingian Aristocracy (Philadelphia, 2017), p. 94; Linda Dohmen, Die Ursache allen Übels. Untersuchungen zu den Unzuchtsvorwürfen gegen die Gemahlinnen der Karolinger, Mittelalter-Forschungen 53 (Ostfildern, 2017), pp. 94–97.
Sedulius, De rectoribus christianis 2, p. 25: Instar luciferi niteat res publica vestri exortuque novo splendida vota gerat. I am following Hans Hubert Anton, “Verfassungspolitik und Liturgie. Studien zu Westfranken und Lotharingien im 9. und 10. Jahrhundert”, in Geschichtliche Landeskunde der Rheinlande. Regionale Befunde und raumübergreifende Perspektiven. Georg Droege zum Gedenken, eds. M. Nikolay-Panter, W. Janssen and Wolfgang Herborn (Cologne, 1994), pp. 65–103, 277–83.
Cf. the detailed analysis of Staubach, Rex christianus, pp. 105–97.
Cf. Thomas Scharff, Die Kämpfe der Herrscher und der Heiligen: Krieg und historische Erinnerung in der Karolingerzeit (Darmstadt, 2002), pp. 24–26.
Sedulius, De rectoribus christianis, praef., p. 19; 6, p. 37: In humanis rebus nulla quidem ars, ut dicunt, difficilior est, quam inter turbulentissimas tempestatum huius saeculi procellas bene imperare et provide rem publicam gubernare.
Sedulius, De rectoribus christianis 16, p. 73; cf. 3, p. 27–9.
Sedulius, De rectoribus christianis 16, p. 74.
Warfare is discussed in Sedulius, De rectoribus christianis 14–15, pp. 62–71.
Sedulius, De rectoribus christianis 19, pp. 84–7.
Sedulius, De rectoribus christianis 12, pp. 54–6.
Staubach, Rex christianus, p. 147.
Sedulius, De rectoribus christianis 7, p. 41.
Sedulius, De rectoribus christianis 2, pp. 25–7.
Sedulius, De rectoribus christianis 12, pp. 54–7.
Cf. Janet Nelson, “Kingship, law and liturgy in the political thought of Hincmar of Rheims”, in English Historical Review 92 (1977), pp. 241–79; Sassier, Royauté et idéologie, pp. 160–73. A new edition of his mirrors for princes has been prepared by Clémentine Bernard-Valette for the series Sources chrétiennes.
Synod of Quierzy, ed. W. Hartmann, MGH Conc. 3 (Hannover, 1984), pp. 408–27.
Hincmar, De divortio Lotharii regis et Theutbergae reginae, ed. L. Böhringer, MGH Conc. 4, Suppl. 1 (Hannover, 1992), pp. 247–50.
Cf. Steffen Patzold, “Konsens und Konkurrenz. Überlegungen zu einem aktuellen Forschungskonzept der Mediävistik”, in Frühmittelalterliche Studien 41 (2007), pp. 75–103.
Hincmar, Ad Ludovicum balbum regem, PL 125:983–90; Hincmar, Ad Carolum imperatorem, PL 125:989–94; Hincmar, Ad episcopos regni admonitio, PL 125:1007–18; Hincmar, De ordine palatii, eds. T. Gross and R. Schieffer, MGH Fontes iuris 3 (Hannover, 1980); Hincmar, De cavendis vitiis, ed. D. Nachtmann, MGH Quellen zur Geistesgeschichte 16 (Munich, 1998). Cf. Sylvie Joye, “Family order and kingship according to Hincmar”, in Hincmar of Rheims. Life and Work, eds. R. Stone and C. West (Manchester, 2015), pp. 190–210.
Cf. Brigitte Kasten, Königssöhne und Königsherrschaft: Untersuchungen zur Teilhabe am Reich in der Merowinger- und Karolingerzeit, MGH Schriften 44 (Hannover, 1997), pp. 446–75.
Charles the Bald was accused of unmerciful tyranny: Annales Fuldenses, ed. F. Kurze, MGH SS rer. German. 7 (Hannover, 1891), p. 78.
André Wilmart, “L’admonition de Jonas au roi Pépin et le florilège canonique d’Orleans”, in Revue bénédictine 45 (1933), pp. 214–33; Gerhard Laehr and Carl Erdmann, “Ein karolingischer Konzilsbrief und der Fürstenspiegel Hincmars von Reims”, in Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 50 (1935), pp. 106–34. The date of this florilegium is open to debate: Anton, Fürstenspiegel, pp. 221–31 (ca. 836); Dubreucq, De institutione regia, p. 122 (833); Patzold, Episcopus, pp. 202–4 (830s); Phillip Wynn, Augustine on War and Military Service (Minneapolis, 2013), pp. 298–314 (after Fontenoy).
Hincmar, De regis persona et regio ministerio 2–3, PL 125:833–37.
Hincmar, De regis persona et regio ministerio 4, PL 125:837–39. Cf. Patzold, “Konsens und Konkurrenz”, pp. 77–88.
Augustine, De civitate dei 5.24, p. 160; cf. Hincmar, De regis persona et regio ministerio 5–6, PL 125:839–40.
Most clearly expressed in Hincmar, Ad episcopos regni admonitio 17, PL 125:1017. Cf. Hincmar, De regis persona et regio ministerio 16–17, PL 125:844–45.
Hincmar, De regis persona et regio ministerio 23, PL 125:849–50.
On this question cf. Eberhardt, Via regia, pp. 267–391 (broad definition); Einar Már Jónsson, “Les « miroirs aux princes » sont-ils un genre littéraire ?”, in Médiévales 51 (2006), pp. 153–166 (narrow definition).
Along these lines: Monika Suchan, “Gerechtigkeit in christlicher Verantwortung. Neue Blicke in die Fürstenspiegel des Frühmittelalters”, in Francia 41 (2014), pp. 1–23.
Cf. Irene van Renswoude, The Rhetoric of Free Speech in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (Cambridge, 2019).
Matthew Kempshall, The Common Good in Late Medieval Political Thought (Oxford, 1999).
E.g. Die Urkunden Ludwigs des Frommen, ed. T. Kölzer, MGH DD Kar. 2/3 (Wiesbaden, 2016), p. 1470; Capitularia regum Francorum, ed. A. Boretius and V. Krause, MGH Capit. 2 (Hannover, 1897), p. 688. Cf. Wolfgang Wehlen, Geschichtsschreibung und Staatsauffassung im Zeitalter Ludwigs des Frommen, Historische Studien 418 (Lübeck and Hamburg, 1970); Yves Sassier, “L’utilisation d’un concept romain aux temps carolingiens: la res publica aux IXe et Xe siècles”, in Médiévales 15 (1988), pp. 17–29.
Janet Nelson, “Legislation and consensus in the reign of Charles the Bald”, in Ideal and Reality in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Society: Studies Presented to J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, ed. P. Wormald (Oxford, 1983), pp. 202–27; Jürgen Hannig, Consensus fidelium. Frühfeudale Interpretationen des Verhältnisses von Königtum und Adel am Beispiel des Frankenreiches, Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 27 (Stuttgart, 1982).
Kasten, Königssöhne, pp. 559–567.
John Michael Wallace-Hadrill, “The via regia of the Carolingian age”, in Trends in Medieval Political Thought, ed. B. Smalley (Oxford, 1965), pp. 22–41, p. 34.
Cf. Karl Ubl, “Die Figur des Tyrannen. Herrscherkritik im Zeitalter Philipps des Schönen (1285–1314), in Gewalt und Widerstand in der politischen Kultur des späten Mittelalters, eds. M. Kintzinger, Frank Rexroth and Jörg Rogge (Ostfildern, 2015), pp. 211–246.
Cf. Olivier Guillot, “La justice dans le royaume franc à l’époque mérovingienne”, in La giustizia nell’alto medioevo (secoli V–VIII), Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo 42 (Spoleto, 1995), pp. 653–736; Stefan Esders, Römische Rechtstradition und merowingisches Königtum: Zum Rechtscharakter politischer Herrschaft in Burgund im 6. und 7. Jahrhundert, Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geschichte 134 (Göttingen, 1997); Sassier, “Aux origines.” This is disputed by Mathias Schmoeckel, “Rex erit qui recte faciet. Die Entstehung der Idee von der Gerechtigkeit des Königs als Grundlage der Gesellschaft”, in Wilhelm Levison (1876–1947): Ein jüdisches Forscherleben zwischen wissenschaftlicher Anerkennung und politischem Exil, eds. M. Becher and Y. Hen, Bonner historische Forschungen 63 (Siegburg, 2010), pp. 55–92.
Hen, “Christianisation of Kingship”.
Wallace-Hadrill, “The via regia”, p. 23 and p. 32.
Cf. Walter Ullmann, The Carolingian Renaissance and the Idea of Kingship (London, 1969). Ullmann, though, definitely overstates his case when he coins the concept of “stunted sovereignty of the king” (p. 111). For a modern survey of Carolingian political thought cf. Sassier, Royauté et idéologie, pp. 116–80.
This paragraph is based on the editions cited above. Cf. Warren Pezé, “Knowledge on Kingship at the Dawn of Feudalism (c. 900)”, in Wissen und Bildung in einer Zeit bedrohter Ordnung. Der Zerfall des Karolingerreiches um 900, ed. W. Pezé (Stuttgart, 2020), pp. 147–199.
Cf. Lotte Kéry, Canonical Collections of the Early Middle Ages, ca. 400–1140: A Bibliographical Guide to the Manuscripts and Literature, History of Medieval Canon Law (Washington, DC, 1999); for secular law cf. www.leges.uni-koeln.de and capitularia.un-koeln.de.
Geoffrey Koziol, “Why We Have Mirrors for Princes but None for Presidents”, in Why the Middle Ages Matter: Medieval Light on Modern Injustice, eds. C. Martin Chazelle, Simon Richard Doubleday, Felice Lifshitz and Amy Goodrich Remensnyder (London, 2012), pp. 183–98, 185.
Wilhelm Berges, Die Fürstenspiegel des hohen und späten Mittelalters, Schriften des Reichsinstituts für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 2 (Stuttgart, 1938), p. 1.
Epistolae variorum 7, ed. E. Dümmler, MGH Epp. 4 (Berlin, 1895), pp. 501–4. Another text of the 9th century was edited by Rudolf Schieffer, “Zwei karolingische Texte über das Königtum”, in Deutsches Archiv 46 (1990) pp. 1–17; for additional manuscripts cf. Gerhard Schmitz, “De disciplina principum in ecclesia. Ein karolingischer Traktat über das Königsamt”, in Deutsches Archiv 75 (2019), pp. 19–39.
Synod of Aachen (836) 41–47, ed. A. Werminghoff, MGH Conc. 2/2 (Hannover and Leipzig, 1908), pp. 714–18.
Synod of Trosly (909) 2, ed. G. Schmitz, MGH Conc. 5 (Hannover, 2012), pp. 507–11.
Cf. the letter of archbishop Liutbert of Mainz directed to Louis the German: Epistolae variorum 18, ed. E. Dümmler, MGH Epp. 6 (Berlin, 1925), pp. 165–66.
Synod of Mainz (888) 2, ed. W. Hartmann, MGH Conc. 5 (Hannover, 2012), pp. 255–57.
Synod of Tribur (895), ed. W. Hartmann, MGH Conc. 5 (Hannover, 2012), pp. 342–45.
On this performative aspect cf. Pezé, “Knowledge on Kingship”.
Ermold le Noir. Poème sur Louis le Pieux et épitres au roi Pépin, ed. E. Faral (Paris, 1932); Anton, Fürstenspiegel, pp. 190–98; Peter Godman, Poets and Emperors: Frankish Politics and Carolingian Poetry (Oxford, 1987), pp. 125–29; Christiane Veyrard-Cosme, “Ermold le Noir (IXe s.) et l’Ad Pippinum Regem”, in La lyre et la pourpre: Poésie latine et politique de l’Antiquité tardive à la Renaissance, eds. N. Catellani-Dufrêne and M.J.-L. Perrin (Rennes, 2012), pp. 73–86.
Philippe Depreux, “La pietas comme principe de gouvernement d’après le Poème sur Louis le Pieux d’Ermold le Noir”, in The Community, the Family and the Saint: Patterns of Power in Early Medieval Europe, eds. J. Hill and M. Swan (Turnhout, 1998), pp. 201–24, p. 204.
I am following Matthias Tischler, Einharts “Vita Karoli”: Studien zur Entstehung, Überlieferung und Rezeption, MGH Schriften 48 (Hannover, 2001); for a different view: Steffen Patzold, “Einhards erste Leser. Zu Kontext und Darstellungsabsicht der Vita Karoli”, in Viator Multilingual 42 (2011), pp. 33–55.
Andrew J. Romig, “In Praise of the Too-Clement Emperor: The Problem of Forgiveness in the Astronomer’s Vita Hludowici imperatoris”, in Speculum 89 (2014), pp. 382–409.
Cf. Pezé, “Knowledge on Kingship”; Eric J. Goldberg and Simon MacLean, “Royal Marriage, Frankish History and Dynastic Crisis in Regino of Prüm’s Chronicle”, in Medieval worlds 10 (2019), pp. 107–129.
I will not discuss the influence on liturgy and the works of art. Cf. Staubach, Rex Christianus; Lawrence Nees, A Tainted Mantle: Hercules and the Classical Tradition at the Carolingian Court (Philadelphia, 1991); Ildar Garipzanov, The Symbolic Language of Authority in the Carolingian World (c. 751–877) (Leiden, 2008); Wolfgang Eric Wagner, Die liturgische Gegenwart des abwesenden Königs. Gebetsverbrüderung und Herrscherbild im frühen Mittelalter, Brill’s series on the early Middle Ages 19 (Leiden, 2010).
Courtney Booker, “The Public Penance of Louis the Pious: A New Edition of the ‘Episcoporum de poenitentia, quam Hludowicus imperator professus est, relatio Compendiensis’ (833)”, in Viator, 39/2 (2008), pp. 1–20.
Nithard, Historiae 4.1, ed. S. Glansdorf (Paris, 2012), p. 128.
Staubach, Rex christianus, pp. 336–38; Simon Groth, “Papsttum, italisches Königtum und Kaisertum. Zur Entwicklung eines Dreiecksverhältnisses von Ludwig II. bis Berengar I.”, in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 124 (2013), pp. 151–84.
Synod of Mantaille (879), ed. W. Hartmann, MGH Conc. 5 (Hannover, 2012), pp. 158–61. Cf. Geoffrey Koziol, “Making Boso the Clown: Performance and Performativity in a Pseudo-Diploma of the Renegade King (8 December 879)”, in Rituals, Performatives, and Political Order in Northern Europe, c. 650–1350, ed. W. Jezierski (Turnhout, 2016), pp. 43–62.
Ordines coronationis Franciae. Texts and Ordines for the Coronation of Frankish and French Kings and Queens in the Middle Ages, vol. 1, ed. R.A. Jackson (Philadelphia, 1995). Cf. Marcel David, Le serment du sacre du IXe au XVe siècle: Contribution a l’étude des limites juridiques de la souveraineté (Strasbourg, 1951); Janet Nelson, “The Lord’s anointed and the people’s choice: Carolingian royal ritual”, in Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies, ed. O. Cannadine and S. Price (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 137–80; Rudolf Schieffer, “Die Ausbreitung der Königssalbung im hochmittelalterlichen Europa”, in Die mittelalterliche Thronfolge im europäischen Vergleich, ed. M. Becher, Vorträge und Forschungen 84 (Ostfildern, 2017), pp. 43–78.
Cf. Susanne Zwierlein, Studien zu den Arengen Kaiser Ludwigs des Frommen (814–840), MGH Studien und Texte 60 (Wiesbaden, 2017); Sarah Patt, Studien zu den Formulae imperiales. Urkundenkonzeption und Formulargebrauch in der Kanzlei Kaiser Ludwigs des Frommen (814–840), MGH Studien und Texte 59 (Wiesbaden, 2016).