Trim: 228mm × 152mm Top: 12.477mm Gutter: 18.98mm CUUK2768-09 CUUK2768/Gantner ISBN: 978 1 107 09171 9 September 18, 2014 18:38 Part III Changing Senses of the Other from the Fourth to the Eleventh Centuries 153 Trim: 228mm × 152mm Top: 12.477mm Gutter: 18.98mm CUUK2768-09 CUUK2768/Gantner ISBN: 978 1 107 09171 9 September 18, 2014 18:38 154 Trim: 228mm × 152mm Top: 12.477mm Gutter: 18.98mm CUUK2768-09 CUUK2768/Gantner ISBN: 978 1 107 09171 9 September 18, 2014 18:38 9 Pagans, rebels and Merovingians: otherness in the early Carolingian world Richard Broome During the eighth century the regnum Francorum became increasingly expansionist, a process which began under Pippin II and Charles Martel and culminated in their descendant Charlemagne’s Saxon Wars.1 Such expansionism necessarily altered the way in which the community of the kingdom was perceived by its members and those who wrote about its recent past, with historians and hagiographers naturally looking beyond the borders of the kingdom to identify those who were nomi- nally excluded from the community.2 The community itself was identified with the positive traits of orthodox Christianity, strong military rulers and loyalty to the Carolingian dynasty,3 while the excluded were those who challenged such concepts. Three excluded groups in particular dominate the early Carolingian sources: pagans, rebels and Merovingians. The presentations of these groups involved a great deal of misrepresentation, and the research of recent decades has shed light on a ‘non-Carolingian’ narrative of the eighth century: the peripheral peoples need not be seen as rebels;4 the later Merovingians were not useless kings;5 and there have been serious attempts to investigate the realities of early medieval Germanic paganism, if such a term can be used.6 Yet even for Carolingian authors there was a great deal of ambiguity in the portrayal of those identified as ‘others’. The regnum Francorum had long been based on the idea that Franks ruled non-Franks, and that the latter owed some kind of notional loyalty to their rulers made them part of the community even if they were not Franks.7 Nevertheless, Carolingian authors were very aware and made extensive use of ethnic and geographic 1 For an overview of the period see McKitterick, Charlemagne, pp. 63–136. 2 On early medieval communities see Pohl, ‘Introduction: ethnicity, religion and empire’. 3 Reimitz, ‘Omnes Franci’, pp. 53–4. 4 Geary, Aristocracy, pp. 138–48. 5 Gerberding, Rise; Wood, Merovingian Kingdoms, pp. 273–92; Fouracre, ‘Long shadow’, p. 14. For a refutation see Kolzer,¨ ‘Die letzten Merowingerkonige’,¨ pp. 33–6. 6 Wood, ‘Pagan religions’. 7 Goetz, ‘Gens, kings and kingdoms’; Nelson, ‘Frankish identity’; Wolfram, ‘How many peoples’. 155 Trim: 228mm × 152mm Top: 12.477mm Gutter: 18.98mm CUUK2768-09 CUUK2768/Gantner ISBN: 978 1 107 09171 9 September 18, 2014 18:38 156 Richard Broome labels; many of the groups and individuals we encounter in the sources are identified as – for example – Frankish, Bavarian or Saxon. But while such labels as Bavarian or Saxon implied difference from a Frank they did not necessarily imply exclusion or otherness: what was important was a sense of moral judgement. For this reason the others of the early Car- olingian period were not the peripheral peoples as such, since these could be integrated into the regnum Francorum. Rather, the others were those identified as pagans or rebels; those outside the Christian community or acting disloyally towards their rulers. Yet the purpose of the Carolingian wars and contemporary missionary efforts was to integrate these peoples, and rebels could, by definition, only rebel against those who were already thought to rule them. A further complication was added by the Carolin- gian attitude to the recent Frankish past, particularly the late seventh and early eighth centuries, which came to be seen as a time of degeneracy and weakness when the Franks were ruled by useless kings and which led in turn to a denunciation of the later Merovingians. This was an attitude which risked making other not those supposedly outside the kingdom but the very history of the community itself, an idea which would not fit with Carolingian attempts to stress continuity with the past.8 One last point to bear in mind before proceeding is that these ideas of otherness were not fixed; they were part of an ongoing discourse in which authors drew on a common pool of signs, symbols and labels but did so in ways which suited their own needs and the expectations of their contemporary audi- ence. Thus the depictions of pagans, rebels and Merovingians changed – sometimes radically – over the course of the eighth century and into the ninth. What we shall look at here, then, is how early Carolingian historians and hagiographers approached the idea of ‘otherness’ and how they cre- ated a sense of distinction that did not necessarily exist in reality but which was essential to the Frankish world view during the first genera- tions of Carolingian rule. We shall begin by considering how the Car- olingians defined paganism through the identification of beliefs that were considered unacceptable in a Christian society. We shall then look at how authors presented the wars of the Carolingians as wars against rebels and addressed the issue of exclusion and integration inherent in such presen- tations. Next we shall analyse how authors dealt with the later Merovin- gians – the so-called rois faineants´ – and the usurpation which brought the Carolingians to the throne. Within the analysis of each group we shall also consider the portrayals of three individuals: Radbod of Frisia, Grifo and Childeric III respectively. Between them, these three highlight 8 McKitterick, Charlemagne, pp. 63–5. Trim: 228mm × 152mm Top: 12.477mm Gutter: 18.98mm CUUK2768-09 CUUK2768/Gantner ISBN: 978 1 107 09171 9 September 18, 2014 18:38 Pagans, rebels and Merovingians 157 the variety present in the early Carolingian discourse of otherness and how depictions of others could change over time while still maintaining a sense of exclusion. Finally, we shall examine presentations of groups further removed from the early Carolingian world – either geographically or temporally – which we might expect to have been ‘others’. We shall see that Muslims, Slavs and earlier members of the Merovingian dynasty were not subjected to the same kinds of hostile presentations as those groups already considered, despite the fact that they could have been. Therefore we can consolidate the idea that for Carolingian authors it was actually those closest to the community who were seen as others, further highlighting the sense of ambiguity in such a discourse. What will become apparent from this overview of a variety of presentations of different groups is just how important a particular presentation of the recent past was to these authors, and how central the control of Frankish cultural memory was to the legitimation of Carolingian power. Pagans and paganism In many ways pagans were the most definite other for Carolingian authors.9 Paganism had been the antithesis of Christianity since Late Antiquity, with the modern word ‘pagan’ deriving from the Christian label for any non-Christian practice, even if collectively these prac- tices had little in common.10 In a world where Christianisation and the enforcement of orthodoxy were matters of political policy as much as of spiritual belief, we should not be surprised that pagans and paganism were causes of concern for churchmen and hagiographers. It should also not come as a surprise that the eighth century saw the start of determined efforts to define paganism, although this often meant generally unaccept- able beliefs rather than pagan practices in the modern understanding of the concept. Such efforts can be seen particularly clearly in the texts composed and influenced by the circle surrounding the Anglo-Saxon missionary Boniface, particularly the Concilium Germanicum (742) and the related document Indiculus superstitionum.11 A letter from Daniel of Winchester to Boniface likewise highlights the interest in pagan beliefs.12 Also within this tradition are the documents of Charlemagne related to the governance of Saxony, Admonitio generalis (789) and Capitulatio de 9 Palmer, ‘Defining paganism’. 10 Wood, Missionary Life, pp. 5–6. 11 Boniface, Epistolae, 56; Indiculus superstitionum, pp. 19–20. See Palmer, Anglo-Saxons, pp. 122–4. 12 Boniface, Epistolae, 23. Trim: 228mm × 152mm Top: 12.477mm Gutter: 18.98mm CUUK2768-09 CUUK2768/Gantner ISBN: 978 1 107 09171 9 September 18, 2014 18:38 158 Richard Broome partibus Saxoniae (c. 792).13 These texts contain examples of the prac- tices late eighth-century churchmen expected pagans to perform, but historians have debated both the reality of such beliefs and the extent and nature of interpretatio Romana – the interpretation of ‘Germanic’ gods as their classical equivalents: was this an attempt by Christians to place contemporary pagan beliefs in a classical framework, or a reflection of the reality of syncretic beliefs which had been influenced by exposure to the Roman world? Such a question is not easy to answer.14 The Car- olingians were not attempting to understand paganism on its own terms, though, and generally had little interest in the realities of pagan belief and practice. Thus, it is interesting to note that these definitions do not always distinguish between what we would think of as heresy, supersti- tion and paganism.15 This may be a reflection of the fact that Boniface in particular worked as much – if not more – in areas that were already Christian but not necessarily ‘orthodox’ as he did in pagan areas.16 Just as in Late Antiquity, when ‘pagan’ and ‘paganism’ were catch-all terms for non-Christian practices, these eighth-century attempts to define ‘pagan- ism’ should be seen more accurately as attempts to define the beliefs and practices that would result in exclusion from the Frankish community.