1 The Enigma of Sources: Charlemagne’s Imperial Coronation in 800 and Reading Between the Lines Harry Meek, University of York Abstract: How by thoroughly reading and inferring from the variety of Carolingian and non‐ Carolingian sources surrounding the imperial coronation of Charlemagne in 800; it is possible to see not only was this event planned, but moreover meticulously practical to Charlemagne’s ambition. Key Words: Charlemagne, Imperial Coronation of 800, Empress Irene of Byzantium, Carolingian Imperialism, Holy Roman Empire, Medieval Coinage, Alcuin of York, Einhard’s Vita Karoli, Pope Leo III, Lorsch Annals, RFA. “I found Rome built of bricks, I leave her cloaked in Marble!”‐ Suetonius, Twelve Ceasars.1 “God is not bound by events, he is in control‐ he is the master.”‐ St. Augustine, City of God.2 Suetonius’ Lives of the Caesars and St. Augustine’s City of God represent the combination in Carolingian ideology of Antiquity and Christianity‐ epitomised by Charlemagne’s Coronation as Holy Roman Emperor in 800. Charles, like his namesake Augustus (quoted above by Suetonius) also found Rome built of bricks in episcopal turmoil, yet left it as a marble Emperor controlling the greatest Christian Empire the globe had witnessed: The remarkable events beginning with the attempted deposition of Pope Leo in 799 and ending in Charles’ coronation as emperor was a combination both of Suetonian manoeuvring and a fortuitous series of events which could only have resembled divine intervention, given Charlemagne’s Davidian belief that “the servant is not greater than his lord”.3 However the degree to which the Imperial Coronation was borne out of fortune or careful‐planning continues to spark debate among historians well‐over a millennia after the event, and a debate which looks set to continue given the fragmentation and disparity within the primary sources. However despite vast discrepancies in primary accounts of the events which facilitated the coronation, termed by David Ganz as‐ “sources full of historical error”, the events which preceded, unfolded and then immediately followed the coronation can be traced with remarkable (if basic) clarity.4 As Roger Collins argues; “a synoptic version of events using elements culled from all sources 1 “Augustus” in Suetonius, Twelve Caesars, trans. R. Graves, (London: Penguin, 2007) Chapter. 28. St. Augustine, City of God, trans. H. Bettenson, (London: Penguin, 2003), Book IV, Chapter 34, 176. 3 Gospel of St. John, The Holy Bible: King James Edition, 13:16. 4 David Ganz, “Einhard’s Charlemagne: The Characterisation of Greatness”, Charlemagne: Empire and Society, ed. J. Story, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007) 39. 2 2 can be created” even if it remains impossible to determine their motivations. 5 This essay will thus seek to demonstrate how Charlemagne’s Imperial desires were created and realised through four distinctive phases‐ from the attempted deposition of Leo, Charles’ response, the coronation itself and finally Imperial consolidation. By illustrating this hypothesis with contemporary sources, it will be possible to show how contrasting perspectives given by various sources do not necessarily make the coronation an enigma. As aforementioned, whilst there is a variety of material relating to the coronation, Collins argues “none are substantial” whilst the highly controversial nature of the coronation itself means there are very few sources which exist without overt bias.6 Einhard’s Vita Karola for example is prejudiced by a desire to portray Charlemagne as a man of Christian virtue; hence there is no mention of the complex negotiations which occurred between courtiers following Leo’s flight from Rome (as this would seem underhand), whilst the description of Charles’ alleged refusal of power is a frequent medieval demonstration of modesty. Furthermore the contemporary annals which shall also feature heavily in this essay, suffer from similar issues of being written in some cases years after events unfolded but more importantly from a bias towards the sitting ruler. Finally historians are fortunate that so many Carolingian letters survive from the Carolingian period as private correspondence provides an insight into personal thought‐ however in her article on Medieval Emotion, Mary Garrison notes how this personal thought is frequently expressed through religious metaphor (in this case through Augustinian Theology). Nonetheless, most historical sources carry admissions or bias which makes them by nature enigmatic, however by contrasting a wide‐range of such sources together, and even incorporating circumstantial evidence (such as the 800 Christmas Day Mass being held in St. Peter’s rather than the St. Maria Maggiore to accommodate more guests) as well as supporting primary material with the dearth of secondary research, a clear sequence of events can nonetheless be found. ∗ Initially the attempted mutilation of Pope Leo III in April 799 set events in motion, as Leo was forced to take refuge with “Wirundus of Stavelot, one of Charlemagne’s Missi”.7 Despite Collins disputing the Liber Pontificalis’ (official Papal history) description of Leo being left “nearly‐dead and drenched in blood by the altar” as “a half‐hearted attack” spun out of proportion: 8 Leo’s need for Carolingian protection would fortuitously allow what Hywel Williams describes as “the idea that Charles ought to be emperor‐ which had been circulating for some time before 800” to come to fruition, as the attack forced Carolingian intervention.9 Not only was Charlemagne the sworn protector of the 5 Roger Collins, “Charlemagne’s Imperial Coronation and the Annals of Lorsch”, Charlemagne: Empire and Society, ed. Story, 53. Not only given the fact that the Pope had signed over authority to an Empire based on pagan tradition, but that there was already a sitting ‘Roman Emperor’ in Byzantine Constantinople: Hence why the move is labelled by Byzantine historian Lars Brownworth as “breath‐taking in its presumption” (Brownworth, Lost to the West, 153.) 6 Collins, “Charlemagne’s Imperial Coronation”, Charlemagne: Empire and Society, ed. Story, 53. 7 Hywel Williams, Emperor of the West: Charlemagne and the Carolingian Empire, (London: Quercus, 2011),141. 8 “Leo III”, Liber Pontificalis, ed. & trans. L. Duchesne, (Paris: Thorin, 1886‐92), 5. & Roger Collins, Charlemagne, (Basingstoke: MacMillan, 1998), 142. 9 Williams, Emperor of the West, 145. ∗ 3 Papacy from his inherited‐title of “Patrician of the Romans, vested upon Pippin in 754”, but as church historian Eamon Duffy argues‐ “Leo had none of Hadrian’s strength, and from the outset Charlemagne took a hard‐line with him”.10 Indeed, a letter addressed to Leo on his coronation in 795 from Charles recalls “my task assisted by divine piety is to defend the church”‐ demonstrating a keenness to assert Frankish authority over a pontificate which had been independently minded under Hadrian.11 Couple this dominance over ecclesiastical affairs with the new “Imperial ideas” Janet Nelson illustrates arising at Aachen through the poetry of either Moduin’s Egloga‐ “Golden Rome is reborn to the World” or the anonymous Paderborn Epic which describes “Aachen as Rome to be” and Carolingian ambitions towards Roman power become apparent even before the attack.12 Whilst Garrison argues “these (poems) don’t articulate a unified pronouncement” on Imperialism, when examining court poetry’s “transformation of Aachen into a new Rome”, coupled with Charlemagne’s dominance over Leo; the birth of the idea of empire in the Carolingian mind can be seen with surprising clarity, despite the contrasting perspectives of the sources.13 ∗ Furthermore Charlemagne’s reaction to events in Rome may seem enigmatic when illustrated through Einhard’s Vita Karola or the Lorsch Annals; however the flurry of royal correspondence between April 799 (Leo’s flight) and December 800 (the return to Rome) illuminates Charles’ cautious deliberations on how to proceed. Whilst Einhard’s “total absence of discussion” is merely an “attempt to preserve correct behaviour”, in the Royal Annals’ description of Charles receiving “Leo at Paderborn with greatest honour”, there is “definite Frankish spin to be detected”.14 Whereas these sources lack of information is a hindrance to historians, examination of the earlier Lorsch Annals of 799 actually shows that “the same year the King entered Saxony”.15 Though seemingly innocuous, this move gave Charles “more time to seek advice on the situation”, especially given that by this stage Leo’s opponents “were also in contact”.16 Evidence for this period of deliberation can also be found in the letters from both Alcuin and Theodulf, which according to Lawrence Nees “offer a precious and overlooked insight into the ideological struggle concerning the coronation”‐ with Alcuin urging Charles to “lead and save your people” whilst Theodulf “expresses serious 10 Williams, Emperor of the West, 143. & Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, (London: Yale University Press, 2006), 93. 11 J. M. Wallace‐Hadrill, The Frankish Church, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), 186. Known as the Karolus Magnus et Leo Papa which is sometimes attributed to Einhard. Although the dates of both collected volumes of the Karolus Magnus and the Egloga were published after 800‐ these particular poems were written to describe the construction of Aachen several years before the Coronation took place (Garrison in McKitterick ed., Carolingian Culture). 12 Janet Nelson, “Kingship and Empire in the Carolingian World”, Carolingian Culture: Emulation and innovation, ed. R. McKitterick, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 69. & Peter Godman, Poets and Emperors: Frankish Politics and Carolingian Poetry, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 85. 13 Mary Garrison, “Carolingian Latin Literature” in Carolingian Culture: Emulation and innovation, ed. R. McKitterick, 130. 14 Roger Collins, “Charlemagne’s Imperial Coronation”, Charlemagne: Empire and Society, ed. J. Story, 53‐65. & “Royal Frankish Annals” in Robert Folz, The Coronation of Charlemagne, trans. J. Anderson, (London: Routledge, 1974), 234. 15 “Lorsch Chronicle 799”, in P.D. King, Charlemagne: Translated Sources, (Kendal: P.D. King, 1987), 160. 16 Collins, Charlemagne, 143. & Duffy, Saints and Sinners, 94. ∗ 4 reservations”.17 Indeed, typically of Charlemagne’s court this debate occurs within the theology of St. Augustine‐ which Garrison argues was not only a “court favourite”, hence more likely to influence Charles, but also “provided the medieval framework for articulating opinions”‐ with Alcuin reminding ‘David’ of “Augustine’s praise for Roman virtues”, whilst Theodulf warns about “the sharp line drawn by Augustine between Pagan and Christian Rome” .18 Therefore once again, despite contrasting source perspectives in the forms of Einhard or Frankish annals, as well as crucially the correspondence between Charlemagne and his courtiers, it is possible to see to formation of Imperial desire with remarkable clarity by using the various perspectives to fill different gaps in the same story. ∗ Α Einhard’s argument that Charles “disliked the title so much that he would not have entered the church that day had he known Leo’s intentions” is yet again proved false by both events of the coronation itself, as well as the previous year’s correspondence in which there is open debate about taking the title of Emperor.19 Whilst as the “AL (Lorsch Annals) is the only source which contradicts Einhard” directly, with its almost apologetic line “Leo himself thought it fitting to bestow the name on Charles”, upon further analysis it is possible to prove Charlemagne’s obvious knowledge of the outcome of the Christmas ceremony of 800 in nearly every other account.20 Firstly the refusal of power which Einhard attributes to Charlemagne is “customary of the middle‐ages” as a demonstration of humility (commonplace from Kings to Popes), but more importantly, whilst the later account of Notker the Stammerer follows this narrative‐ it describes how “all the counts of unconquered Charles” were in attendance‐ making the possibility of “Charlemagne stumbling unawares into a carefully choreographed ceremony” seem even more ludicrous.21 Furthermore, according to Duffy, Christmas Masses “always took place in the St. Maria Maggiore”, thus its departure to the larger St. Peter’s Basilica is consistent with a carefully planned coronation ceremony (as to accommodate all the ‘surprise’ guests).22 Finally, the coronation was also vitally important for Leo‐ in order for “Charles to pass‐judgement on Roman soil” and destroy Papal enemies, he needed the authority of Emperor; hence Leo’s gain from the coronation is yet further 17 Lawrence Nees, A Tainted Mantle: Hercules and the Classical Tradition at the Carolingian Court, (Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991), 112. & Alcuin of York, Alcuin: His Life and Letters, trans. Stephen Allott, (York: Sessions Book Trust, 1974), 86. And also typical of Theodulf and Alcuin’s intense rivalry! Typically Alcuin won the debate, however his argument for a continuation between pagan and Christian tradition is actually, according to Nees and R. A. Markus, misguided when compared to Theodulf’s‐ whose assertion of the danger of Pagan works is frequently mentioned by Augustine: See R. A. Markus, Saeculum: History and Society in the Theology of Augustine, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970). 18 Mary Garrison, “The Franks as a New Israel: The Education of Identity from Pippin to Charlemagne”, Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages, ed. Y. Hen & M. Innes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 121. & Mary Garrison, “The Study of Emotions in Early Medieval History: Some Starting Points”, Early Medieval Europe, vol. 10, issue 26: (2001), 245., Alcuin, Life and Letters, trans. S. Allott, 86. & Theodulf of Orleans, “Letters”, Nees, Tainted Mantle, 118. 19 Einhard, “Vita Karola”, Einhard and Notker the Stammerer, Two Lives of Charlemagne, trans. D. Ganz, (London: Penguin, 2008), 38. 20 Collins, “Charlemagne’s Imperial Coronation”, Charlemagne: Empire and Society, ed. J. Story, 55 & Lorsch Chronicle 799”, P.D. King, Charlemagne: Translated Sources, 160. 21 Collins, Charlemagne, 114., Notker the Stammerer, “The Deeds of Charlemagne”, Einhard and Notker the Stammerer, Two Lives of Charlemagne, trans. D. Ganz, 77. & Duffy, Saints and Sinners, 95. 22 Duffy, Saints and Sinners, 95. ∗ Α 5 circumstantial evidence of a contrived plan between Pope and King.23 Ergo, not only does Leo’s need for a coronation, as well as the practical implications of a supposedly ‘spontaneous’ affair make the concept of Charlemagne being unaware of his Imperial title doubtful, but through deeper contextual analysis of the tradition of the refusal of power (expressed in Einhard and the Royal Frankish Annals) it is once again possible to see, that despite contradictory accounts, historians can regard Charles’ acceptance of the title of Emperor as a thorough and calculated decision. Finally Charlemagne’s actions in the aftermath of his coronation also illustrate the view that he was well aware of his coronation months in advance. Notker observes “Charles’ worry about the envious Greeks (Byzantines)” who regarded themselves as the true heirs of Rome.24 However the Byzantine Chronicler Theophanes records how “within weeks Frankish and Papal ambassadors arrived and begged Irene to marry Charles, uniting east and west”, whilst even before the coronation Charlemagne “setting about menacing the Byzantine enclave of Venice”.25 Both of these actions demonstrate a skilfully planned strategy to combat Byzantine hostility‐ Charles would have been well aware of the precarious situation of Irene’s rule, knowing that the military humiliation of losing Venice would certainly topple her weak regime, whilst the potential of a union “like Justinian and Theodora” would only strengthen his own position (coupled with her notorious beauty which was a bonus), a plan which could not have been devised without months of prior‐planning. 26 Lastly, the swift minting of new coinage completely refutes Einhard’s view of a reluctant emperor‐ not only did “the grand portrait carry the message of Imperial greatness across the land”, but the inscription of ‘Karolvs Imp Aug’ (Charles Imperator Augustus), according to Simon Coupland “clearly identifies Charles with the Roman past”.27 Carolingian coinage following the coronation was an overt demonstration of Karolus as the heir of Rome and its wide dissemination throughout the Empire represents the desire of Charlemagne for viewed by his subjects not as king, but emperor: Pointing to a sustained and lasting ambition for Imperial Glory, a motive which continues to evoke fierce debate even to the present day scholar. Ψ 23 Williams, Emperor of the West, 145. Notker the Stammerer, “Deeds of Charlemagne”, Einhard & Notker, Two Lives, trans. D. Ganz, 78. 25 Theophanes, “Chronography”, R. Folz, The Coronation of Charlemagne, trans. J. Anderson, 240. & Chris Wickham, Inheritance of Rome: A History of Europe 400‐1000, (London: Penguin, 2010), 382. Irene was struggling to dominate an all‐male court in an age of marked Byzantine decline, though this was in no way helped by her own bloody tendencies (she had murdered her own husband and relatives en route to the top), the former Athenian orphan‐slave was set to be toppled when the marriage proposal reached her‐ furthermore, despite being nearly 30 she was widely regarded at the time as the “World’s most beautiful woman‐ having been chosen by Constantinus V in an Empire‐wide beauty contest” (Brownworth: 147). All clear evidence that Charlemagne had done his homework! 26 Lars Brownworth, Lost to the West: The Forgotten Byzantine Empire that Rescued Western Civilisation, (New York: Random House, 2009), 154. 27 Williams, Emperor of the West, 271. & Simon Coupland, “Charlemagne’s Coinage: Ideology and Economy”, Charlemagne: Empire and Society, ed. J. Story, 227. 24 Ψ