University of Groningen
The growth of an Austrasian identity Stegeman, Hans
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date: 2014
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA): Stegeman, H. (2014). The growth of an Austrasian identity: Processes of identification and legend construction in the Northeast of the Regnum Francorum, 600-800.
Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license. More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne- amendment.
Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
Download date: 02-10-2021
The growth of an Austrasian identity
Processes of identification and legend construction in the Northeast of the Regnum Francorum, 600-800
Proefschrift
ter verkrijging van het doctoraat aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen op gezag van de rector magnificus dr. E. Sterken en volgens besluit van het College van Promoties.
De openbare verdediging zal plaatsvinden op donderdag 22 mei 2014 om 16.15 uur
Johan Lammert Stegeman geboren op 13 maart 1953 te Dordrecht
Promotor Prof. dr. D.E.H. de Boer
Copromotor Dr. K.J. Heidecker
Beoordelingscommissie Prof. dr. Y. Hen Dr. R.M.J. Meens Prof. dr. O.M. van Nijf Prof. dr. C.G. Santing
1 2 3 4 5 !e growth of an 6 7 8 Austrasian identity 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 "#$% &'(-&)-*+'-'),)-, (printed version) 0 "#$% &'(-&)-*+'-'))&-- (electronic version) 1 Cover illustration: Saint-Pierre-aux-Nonnains, Metz 2 Map design inside cover: SchelvisOntwerp, Haren 3 Book design: Hans Gordijn, Baarn 4 Printing & binding: Ten Brink O.set, Meppel 1 2 3 4 Index 5 6 7 8 Abbreviations and references / 9 0 Preface 0 1 2 I. Introduction 11 3 4 !. "e object of this study: Austrasian identity, Austrasian territory 5 and its dynamics 11 6 ,.,. An Austrasian identity? 11 7 Austrasians !rst mentioned 11 8 An Austrasian “Kulturraum” 12 9 Austrasianness, regional variation and “Teilreiche” 13 0 Lack of a contemporary Austrasian narrative 14 1 ,.5. Austrasia as a territory 16 2 Constancy of Austrasia’s Western border 16 3 Con"ict about Austrasia’s Western border 10 4 #e Eastern border of Austrasia 27 5 ,.*. Approaches to Austrasian identity: Texts and Identities; 6 ethnogenesis 26 7 #. Perspectives on kingship and on the missionary tradition in 8 Austrasia 2/ 9 5.,. Austrasian kingship 28 0 5.5. !e missionary tradition of Austrasia 20 1 $. "e sources 31 2 *.,. Narrative sources of VIIth-century and/or Merovingian origin 31 3 *.5. Frankish narrative sources of the VIIIth and earl IXth century 39 4 *.*. Other narrative sources 41 5 :.*. Other sources 43 6 7 II. !e grammar of kingship and the Austrasians, "##-$## 46 8 9 !. Ideology – general 46 0 Ministerium Dei; numinosity of kings 4/ 1 #. Ideology – narratives 40 2 #e grammar of kingship in the Vita Columbani 40 3 #e grammar of kingship in the Chronicle of Fredegar 61 4
* 1 #e grammar of kingship in the Liber Historiae Francorum 64 2 #e grammar of kingship in the Annales Mettenses Priores 69 3 Relations between the narratives 60 4 $. Ideology – applied 91 5 #e grammar of charters – suggestive but problematical 92 6 #e Epistolae Austrasicae 92 7 Legislation 93 8 Royal accessions 94 9 Liturgy 96 0 %. “Teilreiche”, kingship and identity 9/ 1 :.,. Kings in the Austrasian “Teilreich” 98 2 Austrasian kingship based on aristocratic consensus 98 3 #e lands and gentes beyond the Rhine /1 4 :.5. Devolutions of royal authority to Austrasia in the VIIth century /2 5 &. Policy and kingship // 6 Kingship, mayors and monasticism // 7 Merovingians and Pippinids 87 8 Politics re"ected in hagiography 83 9 '. Kingship assumed by the Carolingians, (&!; some conclusions 86 0 #ree accounts of the dynastic transfer 86 1 #e dynastic transfer and Austrasian identity 89 2 Conceptual evolution of kingship 88 3 4 III. !e construction of the sacred 02 5 6 !. A paradigm of the sacred. "e Christian context 02 7 Lapses and lacunae in Austrasian Christianity 03 8 Outside in"uences 06 9 #. "e construction of a missionary identity 0/ 0 VIIth-century Austrasia: No proof for missionary zeal 0/ 1 Restoring lapses of faith 00 2 Amandus 177 3 Rupert, Emmeram, Corbinian 172 4 Retrospective projection of missionary zeal into the VIIth century 174 5 A problematical missionary identity 179 6 $. Legend construction 17/ 7 *.,. Blessing, prophecy and peregrinatio – Jonas’ construction of a 8 perspective on Columbanus and its in;uence on Austrasian 9 identity 178 0 Blessing 170 1 Prophecy 117 2 Peregrinatio 111 3 *.5. Amandus as a model saint 114 4 *.*. Legends about Austrasian kings 121
: Dagobert I 124 1 Sigebert III 129 2 Dagobert II 120 3 Holy kings – concluding remarks 137 4 %. An Austrasian topography of the sacred 137 5 Ancient dioceses and new monastic foundations 137 6 Prayer, power and monasteries 136 7 &. Some conclusions on Austrasian identity and the sacred 138 8 9 IV. Aristocrats and kingship 142 0 1 !. Austrasians as a group 142 2 Fredegar’s view of the Austrasians 143 3 #e Liber Historiae Francorum and the Annales Mettenses Priores 4 about the Austrasians 146 5 #. "e Historia vel Gesta Francorum 149 6 #e sponsors of the Historia vel Gesta Francorum – and their 7 perspective 149 8 #e Austrasian perspective of the Historia vel Gesta Francorum 148 9 An aristocratic Origo Francorum 167 0 $. Austrasians as a politically active group 162 1 A history of self-consciousness 162 2 Arnulf and Romaric 163 3 Pippin of Landen 169 4 Pippin, dukes and alliances 168 5 Faction strife 197 6 #e crisis of Childeric II 192 7 Aristocratic opposition as an Austrasian characteristic 193 8 %. Austrasian aristocrats and kingship 199 9 0 V. Elements of ethnogenesis and understanding Austrasian 1 identity 1/4 2 3 !. "e Franks: a short history and a pretentious tradition 1/4 4 #. “Traditionskerne” 181 5 $. Primordial event; '!#/'!$ 186 6 %. Change of devotion 101 7 &. Primary enemy / Missionary ideology 100 8 '. Some conclusions on the genesis of “Austrasianness” 274 9 0 VI. General conclusions 278 1 2 !. Introductory 278 3 #. Kingship 217 4
- 1 #e narrative of kingship 217 2 Royal authority and aristocratic power 213 3 Prudently preparing for a new dynasty 216 4 $. "e sacred 21/ 5 Construction of a missionary identity 21/ 6 Legend construction 218 7 Saints and kingship 210 8 Topography of the sacred 210 9 %. Aristocrats 227 0 &. "e paradigm of ethnogenesis 224 1 2 Summary 22/ 3 4 Sources 233 5 6 Literature 230 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4
+ 1 2 3 4 Abbreviations and references 5 6 7 8 AASS Acta Sanctorum 9 AMP Annales Mettenses Priores 0 ARF Annales Regni Francorum 1 BBKL Biogra ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Preface 5 6 7 8 !e notions and ideas which are worked out in this thesis have been long 9 in growing. 0 As a young student at Leiden University, in the mid seventies of the 1 last century, I became fascinated by things Merovingian through a 2 course of lectures on Gregory of Tours. Other courses opened my eyes 3 to the work of Fredegar. In later years, while committing myself fully 4 to my professional life – & 1 I dedicate this study to my wife Marjan and to my mother. !ey have 2 been waiting a long time to see it completed and yet never wavered in 3 their support for this undertaking. 4 5 Hans Stegeman 6 Amersfoort, 5* February 5),: 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 ,) 1 2 3 4 I. Introduction 5 6 7 8 Section $. !e object of this study: Austrasian identity, 9 Austrasian territory and its dynamics 0 1 2 !.!. An Austrasian identity? 3 4 Austrasians !rst mentioned 5 It was Gregory of Tours who ,, 1 Austrasian case, an example of the latter is provided by the Burgundian 2 author who, c. +(), labelled some Austrasian leaders “a foolish and nearly 3 pagan people”.: But this is hardly the way to describe our concept of 4 “Austrasianness”. 5 6 An Austrasian “Kulturraum” 7 Identity as it is addressed in this study is to be considered in the neutral 8 sense as it is conveyed by the concept “Austrasianness”. It is not an 9 ethnic identity. We are studying the identity of elite groups living in 0 the North-East of the Regnum Francorum. !ey did not form a speci ,5 territorial interests.' In this study, the “cultural” approach will prevail. 1 What was meant, in the VIIth and VIIIth centuries, when people used 2 the words “Austrasians” and “Austrasia”? !e answer to this question is 3 relevant for our view of Frankish history. In this study, I will show that 4 the Austrasians and Austrasia, as they appear in historiography, either as 5 a socio-cultural reality or as an ideological construct, provide a crucial 6 element of continuity between the kingdoms of the Merovingians and 7 the empire of the Carolingians and that the Austrasians evolved to 8 become the main bearers of Carolingian imperial ideology – to which 9 they contributed much. !e development, throughout the VIIth and 0 VIIIth century, of their identity is therefore a phenomenon which is 1 fundamental to Frankish history. An e.ective understanding of this 2 development is also required for an adequate treatment of the “Teilreiche”. 3 4 Austrasianness, regional variation and “Teilreiche” 5 !e study and analysis of the emergence of an Austrasian identity, 6 “Austrasianness”, in the period between +)) and ()) will provide a 7 much-needed complementary perspective on the long dominant view 8 that the repeated divisions of the Regnum Francorum among Merovingian 9 princes were mainly inspired by dynastic expediency and should be 0 understood from that viewpoint rather than from regional di.erences 1 among the various “Teilreiche”. It is certainly true that, as Ewig has it, 2 the di.erent Frankish kingdoms shared “profound roots with common 3 concepts of justice”.( On the other hand, !acker goes too far – at least in 4 the case of Austrasia – when he characterises the Frankish kingdom as 5 “usually divided into component ‘Teilreiche’ which in the VIIth century 6 in particular had ;uctuating boundaries and unstable existences“.& Closer 7 to our new understanding of the situation are the observations by Cardot 8 on the speci ,* 1 our understanding, and although Ewig’s perspective on the expediency 2 laying behind the division processes, and on their consequences, brought 3 plausibility into what had long been a badly understood and confusing 4 process, more lies behind the phenomenon than just expediency and 5 plausibility. !ere are grounds to add new elements to the concept of 6 “Teilreiche” as it was developed by Ewig. Intrinsic di.erences between 7 the various “Teilreiche” contributed more strongly than Ewig allows for 8 to the dynamics and outcomes of the division processes. !is is re;ected, 9 for instance, in the legislative reforms of +,:,5 and +'*,,* notwithstanding 0 the fact that the regional signi ,: around Cologne, where lived the Ripuarian Franks, as distinct from 1 the lands of the Salian Franks further West; it is in the Ripuarian lands 2 that we ,- 1 was not a son of Clothild, as were his three younger brothers Chlodomer, 2 Childebert I and Chlothar I. Ewig’s view that the assignment of the East 3 to !euderic re;ected Clovis’ intention to set up this prince – the eldest 4 and therefore most experienced of the four heirs – in a strategic position, 5 which would allow him to protect and maintain the Regnum as a whole, is 6 plausible.5: Yet there may have been an additional reason to allot the East 7 to !euderic. 8 Not long before, at the height of Clovis’ rule, a certain king Sigebert at 9 Cologne had ruled (part of) the eastern Franks or Ripuarii.5- Sigebert 0 had been wounded while ,+ in Austrasia up to the ,' 1 of !euderic” (regnum #euderici), as it was signi ,( when Dagobert I and Sigebert III felt the need to explicitly con ,& 1 to have been in use only in the period between c +)) and c +-). !e 2 ducatus comprised the cities of Arras, Cambrai, !érouanne, Tournai 3 and possibly Noyon.:( !is corresponds roughly to the lands of the Salian 4 Franks at the beginning of Clovis’ rule – which may or may not have lent 5 a special connotation to the region. What, actually, did the name which 6 Fredegar uses for the region, ducatus Dentelini, mean? Was it derived 7 from a proper name, Dentelinus?:& Be that as it may, when Chlothar II 8 in +,* became sole king of the Regnum Francorum, Dentelin as a region 9 remained an apple of discord between Austrasia and Neustria until +**, 0 when Dagobert I once more con 5) deployed Saxon and !uringian warriors in the con;ict. 1 Following +,5/,*, the new régime of Chlothar II and Dagobert I strongly 2 asserted Austrasian authority in the East. !e Liber Historiae Francorum 3 reports a victorious war of Dagobert and his father against the Saxons, 4 but the account is partly legendary.-* Fredegar writes on Dagobert’s fame 5 beyond the frontier: “... his resolution spread such alarm that everywhere 6 they (the peoples, gentes) hastened humbly to submit to him. Even the 7 people who lived on the Slav-Avar frontier earnestly desired him to 8 come to them. !ey con 5, 1 Shortly a=er Dagobert moved his seat of government from Austrasia 2 to Neustria, a vicious war broke out with Samo (+*)). !e wording 3 of Fredegar’s report suggests that hostilities followed on a period of 4 increased mercantile relations. “In this year (+*)) the Slavs ... killed and 5 robbed a great number of Frankish merchants (neguciantes Francorum) 6 in Samo’s kingdom”.-' Now that a crisis had broken out, Dagobert sent a 7 certain Sicharius as envoy to Samo to protest and to obtain compensation. 8 Although Samo’s answer was moderate if not quite satisfying, according 9 to Fredegar it was Sicharius who, although presumably otherwise 0 instructed, put things on edge by comparing the Slavs (or at least those 1 who robbed merchants) to dogs, an o.ense which caused Samo, who up 2 to then may have recognised Dagobert’s suzerainty,-( to throw Sicharius 3 out of his presence. Dagobert now “con 55 Fredegar is aware of this – and his sympathy lies with the Austrasians.+* 1 !e next year (+*,) the Wends continued the war and invaded 2 !uringia.+: !is time Dagobert marched East himself with the 3 Austrasian levy – but now also accompanied by a “corps of picked 4 warriors from Neustria and Burgundy”.+- He did not operate successfully. 5 Having arrived at Mainz, he tried to buy Saxon military assistance by 6 honouring their request to abolish, in return, the annual tribute of 7 5* 1 territorial characteristics of Austrasia. From the accounts on the 2 partitions of the Regnum Francorum, on the wars and con;icts in which 3 Austrasia got involved and their territorial aspects, as well as on the 4 uneasy relationship between the Austrasians and the territories and gentes 5 beyond the Rhine, some conclusions may be drawn on the territorial 6 awareness of the Austrasian élite. First, the constancy of the borders 7 between East and West suggests that these borders corresponded to some 8 deeply-embedded territorial divides which may have found their origin 9 in late Vth-century “Salian-Ripuarian” arrangements. !e tenaciousness 0 with which the Austrasians, with regard to their Western border, clung 1 to what they considered to be legitimate parts of their kingdom becomes 2 clear in their dealings with Chlothar II on territorial matters. Also, the 3 willingness with which they followed their kings in territorial wars 4 (!eudebert II when he invaded Alsace in +,); !euderic II when he 5 prepared to take on the Neustrians over Dentelin, +,*) suggests that the 6 perspective of territorial gains could well inspire bellicose zeal. More 7 complex was the territorial awareness of Austrasian aristocrats with 8 regard to the territories beyond the Rhine. On the one hand, they pro 5: !.$. Approaches to Austrasian identity: Texts and Identities; 1 ethnogenesis 2 3 !is study is based on the analysis of mostly narrative sources which 4 may, when properly interrogated, teach us things about Austrasian 5 identity. Some of these are sources from the period between c +)) and c 6 ()). Others are younger yet relevant because they report on the period 7 concerned and provide a retrospective view. 8 In recent years, a promising approach to the relationship between 9 texts and identities has developed. It has gained some fame under the 0 straightforward designation “Texts and Identities”. As applied in the work 1 of Mayke de Jong and others, “this approach … combines two elements: 2 on the one hand great stress has been laid on the careful analysis of 3 transmission of texts and of the manuscript evidence; on the other, (the 4 scholars involved) have concentrated on the problem of identity, or 5 rather, of processes of identi 5- 1 Yet a third module will be used in this study to help structure the 2 discourse. !is third module is also source-imposed, as are “kingship” 3 and “the sacred”, but instead of re;ecting speci 5+ c. ()), was designated by the name “Austrasians”.': !is mind-set has 1 relevance even to this day – not only because it permeated Carolingian 2 history, but also because, in recent years, the interpretation of the period 3 from :))-,))) has become crucial to political discourse across much of 4 Europe.'- 5 6 7 8 Section *. Perspectives on kingship and on the 9 missionary tradition in Austrasia 0 1 2 When studying the gradual development of Austrasianness during the 3 VIIth and VIIIth centuries, through the perspectives of kingship, the 4 sacred and the aristocracy, it is important to be aware of the fact that 5 these perspectives are dynamic. Changes occur. Two of these changes of 6 perspective have great bearing on the set-up and character of this study 7 and will therefore be brie;y presented here, prior to a further discussion 8 in subsequent chapters. !ey are: changes in our ideas on Austrasian 9 kingship, and a needed revision of our view on missionary work in 0 Austrasia . 1 Before going into them, however, it is helpful to mention two recent 2 approaches to Austrasia which may be considered generic to the whole 3 concept of the area and its inhabitants. !e 5' 1 #.!. Austrasian kingship 2 3 Analyzing the e.ectiveness of Austrasian kings in the context of the three 4 modules kingship, the sacred and the role of the aristocracy contributes 5 to determining the position of the Austrasian “Teilreich” and the 6 “Austrasianness” which emerged there. 7 Concerning the character of Austrasian kingship, it is generally assumed 8 that the Austrasian reigns of the 5( element of electivity. Similar allusions are lacking in our information on 1 Neustro-Burgundian kings. To some extent, Austrasian preoccupation 2 with an electivity principle had its in;uence on the process leading to 3 the Carolingian take-over in '-,, as well as on the relations between 4 subsequent kings and their aristocrats. 5 A second element important for the context of Austrasian kingship is 6 Wallace-Hadrill’s observation that kings in Western Europe, during the 7 course of the VIIth century, appear to be “moving into an ecclesiastical 8 atmosphere”.(- In Austrasia, this bears on the speci 5& 1 hagiography developed its own culture of legend construction which 2 was, if anything, continentally oriented. Also, the hagiographers’ ideas 3 on mission – to be distinguished from missionary reality – had not much 4 in common with the actual careers of Irish peregrini. Yet the conclusion 5 is justi *) Section -. !e sources 1 2 3 !is section presents the sources used for this study. !ese are all textual 4 and they consist – as mentioned earlier – for the main part of narrative 5 texts (both historiographical and hagiographic). !is choice has been 6 made because narrative texts, more than other texts and sources, say out 7 about identity, explicitly as well as implicitly. !is choice implies that 8 non-narrative texts (legislation, charters, liturgy), as well as observations 9 based on archeological *, 1 court and Columbanus. !e author appears to state that only God can 2 punish kings. !eir subjects cannot and should not do so. In this respect, 3 kings have an inviolate status. Jonas’ (implicit) views on kingship are 4 relevant for the study of Austrasia because of the general in;uence of his 5 work, speci *5 Fredegar set up his Chronicum in three books, whereas the more familiar 1 four book-version as edited by Krusch in the MGH re;ects, in fact is an 2 VIIIth-century re-edition (see paragraph *.5, below, on the Historia vel 3 Gesta Francorum). !e last book of the Chronicle, the so-called “fourth 4 book”, was written, around ++), from a mainly Burgundian perspective.&+ 5 Even so, it contains much explicit and implicit information on Austrasia 6 and the Austrasians, speci ** 1 suggests conclusions on the character of the “coup” as well as on kingship 2 in Austrasia.,), 3 4 Vita Sanctae Geretrudis,)5 & Additamentum Nivialense de Fuilano.,)* 5 Another source from which to gather information on Austrasian identity 6 is the Vita Geretrudis, together with its appendix, the Additamentum 7 Nivialense de Fuilano. Both are of Austrasian provenance. !e Vita was 8 probably written by a monk of Nivelles in about +'). !e Additamentum 9 was actually an “addition” to the Life of Furseus rather than to the Life 0 of Gertrud and was written already about +--, also by a monk from 1 Nivelles. !e arguments supporting this, as well as a concise overview 2 of the manuscript situation of the Vita, are provided by Fouracre and 3 Gerberding.,): !e Vita provides valuable background information 4 on Austrasian a.airs, among other things on Dagobert I’s ways with 5 Austrasian aristocrats and on the ruin of the Pippinid position a=er the 6 alleged “coup” and subsequent fall of Grimoald. !e Additamentum 7 presents, “en marge” of its hagiographic content, mayor of the palace 8 Grimoald and bishop Dido of Poitiers discussing matters of state at 9 Nivelles Monastery in +-,. Unfortunately, we are not told what the 0 two men conferred about, but some educated guesses can be made.,)- 1 In addition, some passages from the Vita Geretrudis shed light on the 2 activities of Amandus around the year +:). It is relevant to compare this 3 early information on the saint with the legend which a=erwards was 4 constructed around him. !e outcome of this comparison is a further 5 indication that a re-evaluation of Amandus’ role is in order. 6 7 Visio Baronti.,)+ A most peculiar work is the Visio Baronti, which reports 8 the vision of the monk Barontus which he experienced in the course of 9 a feverous illness. Barontus was a monk at the monastery of Saint Peter 0 at Longoretus, near Bourges. His vision was written down by a monk of 1 the monastery (Barontus himself?) brie;y a=er the experience, about the 2 year +(). In its visionary character, there is some a>nity with the Vita 3 Fursei,,)' which describes the life and, most of all, visions of the VIIth 4 century Irish Saint Furseus. On the background of the Visio Hen has done 5 6 7 ,), International Medieval Congress 5))(, Leeds, presentation by I.N. Wood; J.M. Wallace- 8 Hadrill, #e long-haired kings and other studies in Frankish history (London ,&+5) and Collins, Die Fredegar-Chroniken, 5,-55. 9 ,)5 Vita Sanctae Geretrudis, ed. B. Krusch, MGH SSRM 5 (Hanover ,((() ::'-:':. 0 ,)* Additamentum Nivialense de Fuilano, ed. B. Krusch, MGH SSRM : (Hanover ,&)5) ::&-:-,. 1 ,): Fouracre, Late Merovingian France, *),-*,&. 2 ,)- R. A. Gerberding, #e rise of the Carolingians and the Liber Historiae Francorum (Oxford ,&('), -&-+,. 3 ,)+ Visio Baronti, ed. W. Levison, MGH SSRM - (Hanover and Leipzig ,&,)) *+(-*&:. 4 ,)' Vita Fursei, ed. B. Krusch, MGH SSRM : (Hanover and Leipzig ,&)5) :5*-:-,. *: important work, which this study makes grateful use of.,)( !e relevance 1 of the Visio for this study lies in its political message, which re;ects views 2 on the “coup” of Grimoald and, more generally, on kingship. Apart from 3 this, of course, the Visio is also of great interest for what it says about the 4 notions on monastic life, liturgy and devotion. 5 6 Passio Leudegarii episcopi Augustodunensis I.,)& !is highly political 7 hagiographic text was written at Autun, c. +(),,,) shortly following 8 upon political upheavals involving, among other things, the murder 9 of Childeric II (+'-). Because of this context and of the involvement of 0 Austrasia in the events, the Passio is of value for analyzing the precarious 1 relationship between Austrasia and Neustria/Burgundy at the time. 2 Besides, Wood points out the signi *- 1 Vita Amati & Vita Romarici.,,' !e last of the VIIth-century sources 2 are the Lives of Amatus and Romaric. !ey are the youngest sources 3 mentioned so far. In fact they may date from shortly a=er ')). !ey 4 are joined to a Life of Adelphius, which is possibly much younger but 5 concerns us less.,,( It seems probable that all three Lives were written by 6 a monk or monks from Remiremont.,,& Of these Vitae Amati, Romarici, 7 Adelphii the Lives of Amatus and Romaric are of great relevance to the 8 study. Both Lives contain concrete elements which are informative of 9 the state of a.airs in Austrasia. Among these are Romaric’s meeting with 0 Grimoald, and Amatus’ introduction at Remiremont of the liturgical 1 form of laus perennis. Both topics have relevance for interpreting the 2 position of kingship in Austrasia. Intriguing is the report that Amatus 3 was sent to work as a preacher in Austrasia.,5) Wood, pointing out that the 4 word subregulus is used in both the Vita Arnul! and the Vita Romarici, 5 has drawn attention to the relationship – albeit a “problematical” one – 6 between the two texts.,5, 7 8 9 $.#. Frankish narrative sources of the VIIIth and 0 early IXth century 1 2 Vita Boniti episcopi Arverni.,55 Bonitus served at the court of Sigebert III 3 and later became bishop of Clermont. He died c. ',). !e Vita Boniti, 4 which was written in the (early) VIIIth century, shortly a=er Bonitus’ 5 translatio, is – in the words of Wood – “an extraordinarily valuable text”.,5* 6 Its relevance for this study lies in insights it provides into – among other 7 things – the Austrasian royal court at the time of Sigebert III, whose 8 nutritus and referendarius Bonitus was.,5: 9 0 Liber Historiae Francorum.,5- !e Liber Historiae Francorum is, together 1 with Gregory’s Histories and Fredegar’s Chronicle, the main narrative 2 source on Frankish history in the period from the VIth to the early VIIIth 3 century. !e work was written in Neustria, probably at Saint-Denis or 4 5 6 ,,' Vita Amati, ed. B. Krusch, MGH SSRM : (Hanover and Leipzig ,&)5) 5,--55,; Vita 7 Romarici, ed. B. Krusch, MGH SSRM : (Hanover and Leipzig ,&)5) 55,-55- and Vita 8 Adelphii, ed. B. Krusch, MGH SSRM : (Hanover and Leipzig ,&)5) 55--55(. ,,( Wood, ‘Forgery in Merovingian hagiography’. 9 ,,& Vita Amati, introduction Krusch, 5,,. 0 ,5) Vita Amati, c. +. 1 ,5, Wood, ‘Forgery in Merovingian hagiography’, *')-',. Vita Arnul! c. *, Vita Romarici c. +. 2 ,55 Vita Boniti, ed. B. Krusch, MGH SSRM + (Hanover and Leipzig ,&,*) ,,)-,*&. ,5* Wood, #e Merovingian Kingdoms, 5:*. 3 ,5: Vita Boniti, c. 5. 4 ,5- Liber Historiae Francorum, ed. B. Krusch, MGH SSRM 5 (Hanover ,((() 5,--*5(. *+ Soissons, c. '5'.,5+ It is the only narrative source that reports the alleged 1 “coup” of Grimoald – seventy years a=er the fact, undeniably. Despite 2 its Neustrian origin and perspective, the Liber Historiae Francorum is 3 informative on Austrasian a.airs. Without its report, we would be hard 4 put to properly position prominent Austrasians like Vulfoald, Pippin of 5 Herstal and Martin. In fact, Martin, dux of Champagne, is mentioned in 6 no other contemporary source.,5' Krusch, from his “positivist” perspective, 7 had a low opinion on the Liber Historiae Francorum’s value as a historical 8 source,,5( but the appreciation of its content has become much more 9 positive, especially since Gerberding demonstrated how e.ective use of 0 the text can generate a deeper insight in later VIIth-century and early 1 VIIIth-century Frankish history.,5& In the context of this study, the Liber 2 Historiae Francorum sheds light on – among other things – the Neustrian 3 author’s concept of kingship and his perception of the relationship between 4 Austrasian aristocrats and kingship in the second half of the VIIth century. 5 6 Vita Landiberti Vetustissima$-( & Vita Hugberti.$-$ Of less importance, 7 but still eloquent on matters of kingship and devotion, are two smaller 8 sources, both dating from the VIIIth century and both of hagiographic 9 character. !ese are the Vita Landiberti Vetustissima and the Vita 0 Hugberti. !e Life of Lambert was written a=er '5' (or a=er '-,), 1 by an author who had not known Lambert personally.,*5 !e Life of 2 Hubert dates from (shortly) a=er ':* and is the work of an author 3 who had belonged to Hubert’s companions.,** !e texts are relevant 4 because of their general atmosphere and tone relating to kingship, 5 devotion and aristocracy in the period between c. +-) – c. '-). !eir 6 “historic” narrative is of secondary importance, although not negligible. 7 !e Life of Lambert, moreover, sheds some light on the episcopal 8 position in a complex secular environment.,*: Also, the Life of Hubert, 9 although dependent of the Vita Arnul!,,*- is informative on devotional 0 characteristics of the later VIIIth century. 1 2 3 ,5+ Wood, #e Merovingian Kingdoms, 5,-; Gerberding, #e rise of the Carolingians and 4 Fouracre, Late Merovingian France, '&-('. ,5' Ebling, Prosopographie, CCXXXVII. 5 ,5( See Krusch in his introduction to the LHF, 5,', concluding: “Illa ... Historia Francorum 6 auctoritatem !demque minimam habet”. 7 ,5& Gerberding, #e rise of the Carolingians. 8 ,*) Vita Landiberti episcopi Traiectensis vetustissima, ed. B. Krusch, MGH SSRM + (Hanover and Leipzig ,&,*) *-*-*(:. 9 ,*, Vita Hugberti, ed. B. Krusch, MGH SSRM + (Hanover and Leipzig ,&,*) :',-:&+. 0 ,*5 Vita Landiberti, introduction Krusch, *)(. 1 ,** Vita Hugberti, introduction Krusch, :':. 2 ,*: Cf the banishment of Lambert to Stavelot-Malmédy a=er the murder of Childeric II, Vita Landiberti, c. -. 3 ,*- Vita Hugberti, introduction Krusch, :':. 4 *' 1 Gesta Sancti Hrodberti Confessoris.,*+ !e Gesta as we know them were 2 written probably in '&*, but these in their turn appear to have been 3 based on a lost “Life of Rupert” from c. '-).,*' !e Austrasian aristocrat 4 Rupert (c. ++) – ',)),,*( who may have been bishop of Worms and 5 probably belonged to a group of Austrasian aristocrats who waged 6 opposition against Pippin,,*& has gained a place in hagiography as the 7 founder of the Bavarian bishopric of Salzburg. !e fact that Rupert, 8 despite his alleged oppositional role in Austrasia, was later honourably 9 welcomed in Bavaria may indicate the distance which had grown in the 0 later VIIth century between Frankish kingship and the German areas. It 1 is possible that Rupert, at the end of his life, returned from Salzburg to 2 become an associate of the Merovingian king Chilperic II, who was set 3 up by the Neustrians in opposition to Charles Martel.,:) In the context 4 of this study, Rupert’s career *( praise of the new Carolingian dynasty.,:: In Collins’ view the Historia 1 vel Gesta Francorum is not an Austrasian work and provides a mainly 2 West-Burgundian or Aquitanian perspective.,:- However, the work’s 3 Austrasia-related content and contextual information justify a cautious 4 reassessment of that judgment. !e HGF provides us with relevant insight 5 in mid- and late VIIIth-century aristocratic notions, e.g. on the grammar 6 of kingship. 7 8 Vita Amandi I,$'& Vita Amandi II auctore Milone$') & Vita Amandi 9 antiqua.$'. Recently, much study has been made of the various Vitae 0 Amandi that have come down to us.,:& !e outcomes of this research, 1 in combination with *& 1 '+( and the Vita Prima from a=er '(5.,-* !e Vita written by Milo dates 2 from c. (-).,-: 3 4 Annales Mettenses Priores.,-- For this study, the Annales Mettenses 5 Priores form, together with the Chronicle of Fredegar, the Liber 6 Historiae Francorum and the Historia vel Gesta Francorum the corpus 7 of historiographical narrative texts. !e study concentrates on the :) (Dagobert being, of course, a Merovingian). In addition, the Gesta re;ect 1 an early IXth-century notion on the development of royally sponsored 2 liturgy in the days of Dagobert I.,+) 3 4 Vita Remacli.,+, !e Vita Remacli was written by a monk of Stavelot- 5 Malmédy, in the IXth century, some two hundred years a=er the life of its 6 protagonist.,+5 !e relevance of the work for this study lies in its notions 7 and views on the signi :, 1 Edwin, Oswald and Oswin,+( is informative on how Anglo-Saxon kings 2 might achieve sainthood – “a distinction denied to the Merovingians”, 3 as Wallace-Hadrill comments.,+& !is study will look into the question 4 whether or not the accounts on these kings in;uenced (later) Austrasian 5 or Carolingian concepts on kingship and the sacred. A=er all, the 6 Northumbrian kings involved were full contemporaries of Dagobert I 7 and Sigebert III and operated in a sphere of culture which had close links 8 with Francia and, in a very speci :5 $.%. Other sources 1 2 Epistolae Austrasicae.,'' A remarkable source are the Epistolae Austrasicae, 3 a collection of letters put together shortly a=er -&) at the Austrasian court 4 of Childebert II or his successor. !e collection was probably meant as a 5 collection of model letters.,'( !e character of the compilation suggests a 6 trainee practice for notarii at the Austrasian court. Many of the letters are 7 taken from royal or diplomatic correspondence and are informative on 8 the grammar of kingship. Also, the letters inform us on how Austrasian 9 kings saw themselves and their territory, which is of speci :* 1 intended to play a role – in the “reconstruction” of the kingdom in the 2 period following Chlothar’s take-over.,(- 3 4 Episcopus quidam iuvenem regem ... proponens.,(+ At some time in the late 5 +:)’s, an unknown Frankish bishop wrote a letter to a youthful king who 6 stood at the beginning of his reign.,(' Contextual information within the 7 letter indicates that the bishop wrote to either Clovis II of Neustria or 8 Sigebert III of Austrasia, with the latter the more likely recipient.,(( !e 9 letter is informative of what a mid VIIth-century bishop thought :: 1 2 3 4 II. !e grammar of kingship and the 5 6 Austrasians, +))-()) 7 8 9 Section $. Ideology – general 0 1 2 In the VIth and VIIth century ideological concepts on kingship came 3 into full expression in Western Europe. !ere was a rich context for 4 this development. !e Ostrogoth king !euderic the Great (:&* – -5+) 5 became the :- 1 century kingship entered into an ecclesiastical atmosphere.+ Schneider, 2 looking at kingship from a more Germanic perspective, in ,&'5 saw 3 Merovingian kingship in the VIth and VIIth centuries as increasingly 4 de :+ identity – through analyzing Austrasian identity while focusing on 1 kingship – as well as provide some new perspectives on their links with 2 the sacred and with the aristocracy. 3 In this chapter the development of the grammar of kingship will be 4 discussed. 5 6 Ministerium Dei; numinosity of kings 7 At some time in the late +:)’s, an unknown Frankish bishop wrote a 8 letter to a youthful king who stood at the beginning of his reign.,* !e 9 bishop admonished the young king to adopt David and Solomon as his 0 models – but also to follow the example of his grandfather Chlothar II, 1 who according to the bishop acted “almost as a priest”, because he not 2 only ruled the Franks but also built churches. As long as you act in this 3 spirit, the bishop wrote, your people will pray for you with the words of 4 the Psalmist: “O Lord, save our King”.,: !ere is a liturgical sound to this. 5 !e bishop was rather precise on the young king’s duties. As David and 6 Solomon had respected the prophets, so the young king should respect 7 the priests (sacerdotes, bishops) and his senior counselors.,- Special 8 respect was in order for the mayor of the palace.,+ !e bishop reminds the 9 king of a well-known common saying: “He who consults with others sins 0 not alone”.,' 1 According to Dümmler, who edited the letter, the bishop addressed 2 either young Clovis II, king of Neustria (...) or young Sigebert III, king 3 of Austrasia (...).,( Judging from the letter’s allusion to gentes adversantes, 4 which – gentes o=en alluding to heathen peoples,& – probably refers to 5 peoples beyond the Rhine, Sigebert III is the most probable addressee.5) If 6 he was, the letter informs us of what a mid-VIIth-century bishop thought 7 :' 1 Isidore, working within the context of Visigothic Spain, quite concisely 2 de :( Section *. Ideology – narratives 1 2 3 !is section deals with the way in which narratives central to this 4 study deal with the ideology of kingship. !e narratives are: a) the Vita 5 Columbani; b) Fredegar’s Chronicle; c) the Liber Historiae Francorum; d) 6 the Annales Mettenses Priores. !ey are discussed in the order given here, 7 that is: chronologically according to the time of their composition. 8 9 #e grammar of kingship in the Vita Columbani*) 0 !e VIIth-century paradigm of Christian kingship – a compound 1 of elements like Isidore’s ministerium Dei and the Frankish bishop’s 2 admonition to his young king to “rule like a priest” – is only indirectly 3 re;ected in one of the major narrative sources for (early) VIIth-century 4 Francia, Jonas of Bobbio’s Vita Columbani. Although Jonas, writing c. 5 +:)-+:*, has many things to say about kings, he does so in rather a casual 6 way, without explicitly referring to ideology. Implicitly, however, his 7 account of the life of Columbanus contains strong opinions on kingship. 8 In Jonas’ view, there are two kinds of kings. !e :& 1 Columbanus’ attitude during the war of +,5/,*. While the saint’s opponent 2 !euderic II of Burgundy was locked in battle with !eudebert II of 3 Austrasia, Columbanus is quoted as saying that it would be improper for 4 him to pray for !euderic’s defeat, even though he – Columbanus – had 5 su.ered greatly through that king. Instead, it was God who should judge 6 between the two rivals.*' 7 Jonas’ narrative tone suggests that there is something about a king which 8 places him above man’s judgment – even if he is a bad king. When, in the 9 end, !euderic is punished it it is God, not man, who does the punishing: 0 “divinitus percussus ... mortuus est”.*( Kings may commit adultery, refuse 1 to marry decently or break promises, as !euderic II did.*& Yet they 2 remain kings: the monks whom Columbanus le= behind a=er being 3 expulsed from Luxeuil remain within the “preceptis regis”.:) For Jonas 4 even bad kings retain their “kingliness”. Like Old Testament prophets, 5 Columbanus did not mince his words with the king, but he never 6 expressed doubt on the legitimate kingship of his royal adversary. Jonas’ 7 account on the early VIIth-century Merovingian kings suggests that the 8 grammar of kingship at the time came to include notions of the inviolate 9 nature of kings and, conversely, of the king’s need to come to terms with 0 the sacred. !ese notions remained valid. When, in the -) #e grammar of kingship in the Chronicle of Fredegar:* 1 !e way in which our second major source for the period, Fredegar,:: 2 deals with kings and kingship di.ers substantially from Jonas’ approach 3 – despite the fact that he quotes Jonas extensively on the con;ict between 4 Columbanus and !euderic II. Fredegar is much more explicit on royal 5 virtues and vices. Kings are, with mayors of the palace and queens, 6 Fredegar’s protagonists. One king in particular occupies him: Dagobert 7 I. In Fredegar’s view, Dagobert started out as a model king in Austrasia 8 – only to forget himself badly when he also became king of Neustria 9 and Burgundy. Fredegar, as opposed to Jonas, is lavish in his use of 0 quali -, 1 respective mothers,:& as if rejecting the king’s loose morals.-) In choosing 2 these words, Fredegar disquali -5 forgetful of what was just nor did he leave the paths of righteousness 1 but in Dagobert’s presence behaved in every way reasonably and always 2 showed how prudent he was”.-- Fredegar presents an ideal here – and it 3 has an Austrasian ;avor to it. When reporting the birth of Dagobert’s 4 eldest son Sigebert, he speci -* 1 within the narrative once more suggest that, in Fredegar’s perspective 2 (and narrative), the Austrasian context is conducive to decent kingship. 3 A decent king is a king who can take advice, who respects religious and 4 ecclesiastical interest and who is chaste. 5 Fredegar’s episodes on kings in Neustria (or in Lombardy or Spain, 6 for that matter) are – at best – much more neutral in this respect. 7 Concerning kings in his “own” Burgundy, he depicts Guntram as rather 8 an exemplary king, for the rest con -: when characterizing kings. Adjectives like utilis, strenuus, e0cax and 1 fortissimus abound. Also Balthild is called strenua and there is no allusion 2 whatsoever to her eventual sainthood.+& !ese adjectives are also used 3 to characterize non-royal leaders like Waratto and Charles Martel.') Yet 4 there is a development in the narrative in this respect. !ree kings attract 5 the author’s positive attention. Chlothar II is described as a rex magnus,', 6 a king who, accordingly, le= behind a magni -- 1 relics, or pestilence may result.'( He should not oppress the Franks, or his 2 murder may result.'& And kings should avoid bellum civile – or face divine 3 intervention.() 4 !e Liber Historiae Francorum was written at a time in which the Franks 5 came increasingly under dominance of an Austrasian elite. !e author 6 seems to accept this – without, however, showing any enthusiasm. Pippin 7 is a princeps, but no further appreciation, positive or negative, is o.ered. 8 Charles Martel is a vir elegans, egregius atque utilis,(, words which re;ect 9 respect rather than a.ection. A.ection the author saves for his patron, the 0 late Childebert III. !e Liber does not provide Charles Martel or Pippin 1 the Short with the justi -+ and Christian duties of the Carolingian leaders both before and a=er 1 they obtain the kingship.(+ And there is the importance attached to 2 the Carolingians’ role as defenders of their people’s (religious) welfare, 3 as“correctors” of their people.(' 4 Of interest in this context is the Annales’ dealing with Arnulf of Metz. 5 !e bishop is introduced as a close relative on Pippin of Herstal’s father’s 6 side, “a certain man full of powers” who was “the founding basis of his 7 (=Pippin’s) rule”.(( In the later tradition, notably through Paul the Deacon, 8 Arnulf was depicted as the father of Ansegisel, which would have made 9 him the grandfather of Pippin and the most illustrious and holy ancestor 0 of the Carolingians.(& In fact, there is no proof for this assertion and it is 1 signi -' 1 correct grammar of kingship. Annexing Arnulf adds Christian legitimacy 2 to Carolingian kingship. Erasing Grimoald from the picture prevents 3 kingship from being stained by illegitimate action and shameful failure. 4 !e Annales have yet other things to say on kingship. While repeatedly 5 emphasizing the Carolingian mayors’ respect for Merovingian kingship, 6 the author time and again criticizes actual motifs and deeds of the later 7 Merovingians. When !euderic III appears -( which appears based primarily on consensus between the ruler and his 1 magnates, i.e. his Austrasians, the Osterliudi. Such consensus is, of course, 2 identity-driven as well as identity-shaping. Judging from the perspective 3 of the Annales Mettenses Priores, Osterliudi develop a large part of their 4 identity through the discourse with their king. Within this discourse, 5 correctness becomes a key notion,,)* which is exemplarily expressed in 6 relation to the sacred. Arnulf of Metz is an iconic -& 1 What we see, then, in these texts is that the conceptualization starts with 2 a notion of kingship – and king – being inviolate. Only God may call a 3 king to account. !is remains true even if a king disregards or abuses a 4 saint. !ere lies a seeming paradox here, because there is also a signi +) in existence for some <=een years. !is re;ects in the Annales’ emphasis 1 on devoutness and the king’s role as a corrector and makes them a 2 quintessential work to “get the feel of” Carolingian kingship and Empire. 3 !e position of kings and the concepts concerning kingship are related 4 to a polity’s identity. !is is the case in Austrasia. !e above analysis 5 of narrative texts makes clear that in the VIth and VIIth centuries an 6 increasing conceptualization on kings and kingship met with increasing 7 interest of an Austrasian audience. 8 9 0 1 Section -. Ideology – applied 2 3 4 !e four narratives dealt with in the previous section re;ect the 5 development of a grammar on kingship. !e use of this grammar was not 6 restricted to historiography. It was also applied in concrete royal action or 7 in action related to kingship. 8 !e late VIIth-century Formulary of Marculf – a Neustrian work – sets 9 a format for such action, a format in which the ideology of kingship is 0 re;ected.,)- !e model charters which the Formulary present contain 1 terms like clementia principale,)+ and depict kings as acting in Dei nomen 2 (sic).,)' !e king is he to whom “Dominus regendi curam committit”, 3 whom “the Lord entrusted with the care of governing”.,)( From the 4 Formulary we may deduce a certain distinction between a king’s 5 ministrare – that is: ful +, 1 #e grammar of charters – suggestive but problematical 2 !e grammar of – legitimate – kingship becomes quite speci +5 Constantinople – either to the emperor Maurice or to in;uential persons 1 around him. On the one hand, they display a sense of veneration and even 2 awe for Maurice, which may also have been conditioned by the subject 3 matter: in most letters, Childebert is the requesting party, pleading for the 4 release of his nephew Athanagild.,,- On the other hand, the language of 5 some of the letters clearly aims at conveying a sense of equality between the 6 two commonwealths, through expressions such as “... in order that peace 7 be consolidated between both peoples (gentes) ... and pro +* 1 Wood points out that the legal output of the period (VIth and VIIth 2 century) “suggest(s) that the Merovingian kings legislated o=en”.,,( 3 Indeed the kings did, but one may wonder how much of it was truly 4 royal legislation? Both the Pactus Legis Salica (probably Clovis I) and the 5 Lex Ribuaria (Chlothar II and/or Dagobert I), although they do include 6 (some) royal law, are mainly a rendering of customary law.,,& !ey are not 7 royal codi +: Gregory who reports that, seven years later, when many Austrasians 1 had become dissatis +- 1 that these continue a “late Merovingian tradition of prayers and other 2 liturgical actions on behalf of a ruler ...”.,*) Starting with the VIIth century 3 mass texts referring to ruling Merovingian kings are composed and 4 handed down. Judging from one of the earliest surviving texts of a royal 5 mass, the Missa pro Principe which is included in the Bobbio Missal 6 that dates from the VIIth and VIIIth century,,*, impending war may well 7 have been one reason to celebrate a royal mass. !e Missa prays God to 8 award victory to the king. It also explicitly commends the army to divine 9 protection. Its imagery is taken from the Old Testament, mainly from the 0 Book of Judges, and the Missa conveys a markedly warlike atmosphere. 1 !e king is presented as a warrior who ++ Section '. “Teilreiche”, kingship and identity 1 2 3 !e current view on the successive divisions of the Regnum Francorum 4 among the descendants of Clovis was set by Ewig in the ,&-)’s.,*: !is 5 view, which seems to deny the signi +' 1 di.erentiation as it is provided by our written sources, appears to hint 2 at a real and perceived regional variety of social and geographical 3 characteristics. In the case of Austrasia, such regional di.erences will 4 have been greatly intensi +( during a royal tour through Austrasia.,:+ Fredegar makes quite clear that 1 Dagobert’s Austrasian chief counselor Pippin, a man much admired 2 by Fredegar, cannot neglect his fellow magnates without impunity.,:' 3 And a=er Dagobert had moved the seat of his power to Neustria, the 4 Austrasian magnates, considering “themselves hated and regularly 5 despoiled by Dagobert”,,:( did not rest until they had received Dagobert’s 6 young son Sigebert III as a king of their own,:& and they thought +& 1 con;ict is re;ected in the king’s furious reaction to Arnulf’s intended 2 withdrawal from court. At this occasion, Dagobert allegedly had to be 3 restrained from killing Arnulf’s sons and when in the end Arnulf did 4 leave the court, Metz appears to have been in uproar and his friend 5 Romaric may have had to intervene to get Arnulf safe out of the city.,-- 6 !is is rather too much to consider it just as a topos. !e Life of Romaric, 7 too, is informative on political reality at the Austrasian court. Romaric is 8 said to have gained high status at the new court of Chlothar II,,-+ yet he 9 soon gave up this position to enter the monastery at Remiremont. Shortly 0 before his death, however, abbot Romaric travelled to the “prince’s palace” 1 (principis palacium,-') to “warn the king and his magnates on their danger 2 and how to guard against things that might befall”.,-( According to the 3 Life, Romaric actually met Grimoald at this time: the subregulus,,-& having 4 heard that Romaric was on his way to Metz, went to meet him halfway 5 at night and the two men spoke together – at which occasion Grimoald 6 is said to have promised that “he would do as they had discussed 7 together”,,+) the Vita, tantalizingly, not o.ering anything more speci ') within a context of discourse with and conditional consent by the great. 1 2 #e lands and gentes beyond the Rhine 3 !ere is also a geographical element which distinguishes Austrasia 4 from the other “Teilreiche”. !e kingdom of Austrasia included, at the 5 beginning of the VIIth century, vast territories beyond the Rhine. !e 6 peoples living there – both Franks and other peoples, gentes – were 7 linked to Merovingian authority through various ties, ranging from 8 outright submission to arrangements concerning (periodical) tributes.,+5 9 !e permanent engagement, peaceful or warlike, of Austrasian kings 0 with Frisians, Saxons, !uringians and Bavarians (to say nothing for 1 now about Wends or Avars) led to some remarkable episodes in the 2 development of Austrasian kingship. In the VIth and the beginning of 3 the VIIth century, an Austrasian king could mobilize the “people from 4 beyond the Rhine”,+* against his enemies – as did Sigebert II in -': against 5 his brother Chilperic. He won the war, but immediately a=erwards 6 lost control of his plundering allies,+: and was murdered by agents of 7 Fredegund. His son’s succession was made possible by support by the 8 peoples from beyond the Rhine.,+- Here, the gentes are assigned a role in 9 the designation of the new king, if only by lending their military potential 0 to the intended successor. From these and other instances it appears 1 that the Eastern gentes were an in;uential factor in shaping Austrasian 2 kingship. Also, Austrasian kings were judged by their magnates on how 3 they dealt with these gentes. !is becomes clear from Fredegar’s account 4 of Dagobert I. As long as Dagobert, ruling Austrasia, followed the 5 counsels of Arnulf and Pippin, gentes from as far away as the Slav and 6 Avar frontier paid homage to him. Fredegar implies that it was for that 7 reason that it could rightly be said of him that no previous Frankish king 8 had surpassed him in honour.,++ A=erwards, however, when Dagobert – 9 now ruling from Neustria – had failed the Austrasians in the war against 0 the !uringians, they completely lost their faith in him.,+' 1 It was a major development, with long-term e.ects on the kingdom and 2 kingship, when in the course of the VIIth century Merovingian authority 3 beyond the Rhine began to decline. It began when Dagobert I stopped 4 5 ,+5 See, for instance, Mordek, ‘Die Hedenen als politische Kra=’, *:--*++. 6 ,+* DLH, IV, c. :&; ... gentes ... ultra Rhenum ... 7 ,+: Ibidem, Furorem gentium. 8 ,+- DLH, V, c. ,. ,++ Fredegarius, IV, c. -(. ...tantae prosperitatis et iustitiae amore conplexus universas sibi 9 subditas gentes ... ut nullus de Francorum regibus precedentibus suae laudis fuisset 0 precellentior. 1 ,+' Fredergarius IV, c. +(. Estaque victuria, qua Winidi contra Francos meruereunt, non tantum 2 Sclavinorum fortitudo optenuit, quantum dementacio Austrasiorum, dum se cernebant cum Dagoberto odium incurrisse et adsiduae expoliarintur; see also ':, describing how Dagobert 3 negotiated away the Saxon tribute and got nothing in return for it. 4 ', 1 enforcing the Saxon tribute.,+( It became irreversible with the defeat of 2 Sigebert III against Radulf of !uringia in +:5.,+& !e decline of royal 3 authority among the gentes, as well as the fact that the kings lost the 4 opportunity to provide their followers with war booty and plunder, made 5 the kings in Austrasia more dependent on their Frankish magnates – and 6 contributed greatly to the ultimate disappearance of a separate kingship 7 in Austrasia. A=er the murder of Dagobert II in +'& there was no longer a 8 separate Austrasian king. 9 !e connection between the loss of in;uence beyond the Rhine and the 0 change in the status and eventual dissolution of Austrasian kingship is 1 twofold. First, as a consequence to the disappearance of royal authority 2 in the East, the king lost a considerable amount of his power over his 3 Austrasian followers, to whom he could no longer o.er opportunities 4 and guarantees beyond the Rhine and whom he could no longer coerce 5 with military support from Germany. Second, the Austrasian leadership 6 became less interested in having an Austrasian king of their own, as such 7 a separate king wielded less authority now that he no longer was master 8 of the gentes beyond the Rhine. 9 0 1 %.#. Devolutions of royal authority to Austrasia in the 2 VIIth century 3 4 !e speci '5 who, a=er entering Austrasia in +,* on the invitation of Arnulf, Pippin 1 and other Austrasian magnates, soon found out that Austrasians had their 2 own ideas on how a king should rule them. We do not know whether the 3 gathering of Austrasian Franks to sanction the king’s take-over, which 4 Chlothar piously referred to,,') actually was held, but we learn from the 5 episodes discussed above from the Lives of Arnulf and Romaric that 6 there was dissent in Austrasia during his rule. Obviously the king had his 7 share of di>culties with his new subjects. In response to this, in +55/+5* 8 Chlothar made his son Dagobert consors regni and installed him as king 9 over the Austrasians.,', Again, we do not know in what way the consent of 0 the Austrasian magnates was obtained – but we may be certain that they 1 did consent, or Fredegar’s upbeat account of Dagobert’s Austrasian years 2 would have had a markedly di.erent tone. In all probability a gathering 3 of Austrasian magnates accepted Dagobert as their king. Dagobert 4 was advised by Austrasians and he ruled Austrasia strongly – until he 5 succeeded his father and le= for Neustria. 6 7 &--; Sigebert III installed. 8 !e Austrasian magnates, having lost their direct access to the king with 9 Dagobert I’s departure to Neustria, became very dissatis '* 1 was Dagobert who raised his son to the kingship – but it is clear that 2 he was forced to do it, by the very same magnates who now assented 3 to the act. Dux Adalgisel and bishop Chunibert of Cologne became 4 regents for the infant-king. In all, the account of the devolution of +** 5 shows a strong and self-conscious group of magnates, both secular 6 and ecclesiastical, men who enforce – largely on their own terms – the 7 devolution of power from Paris to Metz. 8 Signi ': understanding of the development of kingship in Austrasia.,'- 1 Unfortunately, despite the e.orts of many historians, it is impossible 2 to reconstruct events with any degree of accuracy.,'+ Not even the year 3 in which Sigebert III died is certain anymore. Long it was thought the 4 king died in early +-+. Gerberding has proposed early +-, instead – for 5 plausible reasons which will not be repeated here.,'' I follow this view, 6 if only because I agree with Gerberding that this date perfectly matches 7 the meeting at Nivelles, in late +-), of Grimoald with bishop Dido of 8 Poitiers,,'( who would then have come together at the monastery to 9 discuss the course of action following the king’s impending decease. To 0 this, I add the possibility that Grimoald’s meeting with abbot Romaric, 1 possibly also in +-), also concerned the king’s expected death – and how 2 to act when it occurred.,'& 3 Be that as it may, in +-, Sigebert was succeeded not by his son and 4 heir apparent Dagobert (II), but – on the instigation of Grimoald – by 5 Childebert (who only later, in Carolingian times, acquired the surname 6 Adoptivus). I leave aside the intense discussion on whether Childebert 7 was or was not a son of Grimoald, or of Sigebert, and refer to the 8 helpful contribution Matthias Becher made to it in ,&&:.,() What is more 9 important is, that this succession provided the '- 1 must have counted as a legitimate king. He was allowed to rule till he died 2 in ++5.,(, 3 Grimoald, however, fell into the hands of the Neustrians long before 4 and was executed by them as a traitor.,(5 !e Neustrians, other than 5 the Austrasians, did not acknowledge the legitimacy of the Austrasian 6 succession. 7 Why is Fredegar silent on all this? !e main reason must be that the 8 matter was very sensitive to his audience. Many of his audience were 9 Austrasian, many other, however, were Neustrian and, of course, 0 Burgundian. With the Neustrians opposing the succession of +-,, yet 1 with Childebert Adoptivus still on the Austrasian throne, there was no 2 way Fredegar could have composed a version satisfactory to all those 3 who read his text, or heard it being read. Personal danger may have been 4 involved. !e matter might even explain why Fredegar stopped writing 5 his Fourth Book at the point he did. On the other hand, the idea brought 6 forward by Ian Wood at the IMC 5))(, that part of the tension which 7 Fredegar may have felt was sublimated in the “ buddy stories” with which 8 his chronicle abounds, has a good ring to it.,(* 9 0 &&*; Chimnechild, arranges the Austrasian succession. 1 Following the death of Childebert Adoptivus, bringing to an end a rule 2 of eleven years, the Austrasian queen-mother Chimnechild, having 3 arranged for the marriage of her young daughter Bilichild with the 4 equally young Neustrian prince Childeric, secured the latter’s succession 5 to the Austrasian throne as Childeric II.,(: By assenting to this succession, 6 Childeric II’s slightly older brother, already king in Neustria under the 7 tutelage of his mother Balthild, e.ectively renounced his claims on 8 Austrasia. To put it otherwise: the agreement of +** was still valid. !e 9 Austrasian magnates, as whose leader now Vulfoald emerged, a dux 0 who had his powerbase in the region of Verdun and Bar and in the Saar 1 region,,(- kept their own king and court. 2 3 &)%; Austrasian aristocrats arranging the succession by Dagobert II. 4 !e next devolution followed the murder of Childeric II and the 5 pregnant Bilichild in the autumn of +'-. Childeric by then had for the 6 7 8 ,(, Gerberding, #e rise of the Carolingians; I.N. Wood, ‘Fredegar’s fables’ in: G. Scheibelreiter and A. Scharer ed., Historiographie im frühen Mittelalter (Vienna ,&&:) *-&-*++ (A) and 9 Becher, ‘Der sogenannte Staatsstreich Grimoalds’, ,,&-,:'. 0 ,(5 LHF, c. :*. 1 ,(* I.N. Wood, ‘Enemies of Clovis’, IMC paper presentation (,,5-c) 5))( and Wood, ‘Fredegar’s 2 fables’. ,(: See Wood, #e Merovingian Kingdoms, 555-55:: “In a sense the throne of Austrasia had 3 passed through the female line”. 4 ,(- Ebling, Prosopographie, CCCXIII. '+ last two years been king of the whole of the Regnum Francorum and it 1 was Neustrians who murdered him for reasons which are not relevant 2 here. In the confusion which followed the assassination, the Austrasians 3 ensured themselves once more – as it turned out: for the last time – of 4 a king of their own. !ey fetched themselves Dagobert II from his Irish 5 exile. Dagobert, son of the late Sigebert III, succeeded as king of the 6 Austrasians. !ere is no way of knowing what role Dagobert II’s mother 7 Chimnechild may have played in in her son’s accession. What is clear, 8 however, is that the Austrasian magnates by now made out among 9 themselves who was to be their king, without concerning themselves 0 about the Neustrians (See also the next section). 1 In +'& Dagobert II was murdered. It is not possible to name motifs 2 or culprits with certainty,,(+ but in all probability Neustrians led by 3 Ebroin were behind it.,(' !e king le= no successor. At this juncture, the 4 Austrasians did not install a successor for their late king. !e primary 5 motive may have been the lack of an obvious successor.,(( A secondary 6 motive may have been the lack of an adequate powerbase for an 7 Austrasian king now that Austrasian authority beyond the Rhine had 8 declined. !e Austrasians started or intensi '' 1 politics at work.,&) Place and context chosen for the meeting are revealing. 2 Grimoald and Dido meet in a monastery that was founded by Grimoald’s 3 mother Itta and where his sister Gertrude was abbess. Also, monastic 4 practice at Nivelles was strongly in;uenced by Irish monasticism.,&, 5 In the same period Grimoald also met with Romaric, abbot of 6 Remiremont. !e meeting was not at the monastery, but Romaric had 7 come to the mayor in his quality of abbot. Romaric’s monastery, having 8 been founded from Luxeuil, had undergone Irish in;uence too.,&5 Both 9 Nivelles and Remiremont functioned as “powerhouses of prayer”,,&* where 0 uninterrupted prayer and psalm singing were supposed to contribute 1 to the stability of the realm. At Nivelles, in the +:)’s, laus perennis was 2 practiced.,&: At Remiremont the '( by Pippin the Short a=er he became king.,&' Dierkens captions the 1 development as follows: “Le contexte particulier de l’Austrasie en général 2 ... conditionnera la nomination d’abbés favorables aux Pippinides ...”.,&( 3 !at royal involvement with monasteries in VIIth century-Austrasia 4 existed apart from the Pippinids is clear from the fact that during periods 5 of Pippinid adversity – notably a=er the execution of Grimoald – kings 6 and the court kept sponsoring foundations. From the rule of Childeric 7 II the text of seven charters survives which bestow privileges or gi=s 8 on monasteries or con '& 1 “Klosterpolitik” helped lay the basis of Pippinid power in the West.5)( 2 Seen from this perspective, Wood’s observation that Pippin’s involvement 3 in the church “does not amount to a monastic or an ecclesiastical policy 4 comparable to that of Balthild <=y years earlier”5)& deserves modi () Martin5,- – aimed at having “their” king recognised to be the lawful king 1 of all the Franks, replacing Ebroin’s reinstated !euderic III. !is would 2 help explain why Ebroin’s Neustrian supporters hated Dagobert so much 3 and named him an “execrable tyrant”,5,+ and why the Austrasian leaders 4 Martin and Pippin “turned in hatred against Ebroin”.5,' I think it plausible 5 that the war against Ebroin started before Dagobert II was murdered.5,( 6 As stated in the previous section, their war against the Neustrians may 7 also be understood in the context of a westward reorientation of the 8 Austrasian leadership now that their in;uence beyond the Rhine had 9 waned. !e account of the Liber suggests that Pippin and Martin, not 0 Ebroin, started the armed con;ict,5,& which however led to their defeat at 1 Lucofao (+'&) and to Martin’s death by treason. !is would (, 1 under his tutelage, working (5 Carolingian hindsight. Young Pippin is depicted as a David, implying that 1 !euderic III is a Saul.5*, Also, !euderic is depicted as a non-Austrasian 2 and almost foreign king, he is “king of the Western Franks, who name 3 themselves Neustrians”.5*5 His pride and his obstinacy (like Saul’s) justify 4 Pippin waging war on him.5** At the same time Pippin is shown to hold up 5 his formal respect (pietas) for the king and to recognize royal successions,5*: 6 although the mayor does so “while having all royal privileges”.5*- Also 7 Charles Martel is shown by the Annales Mettenses Priores to respect the 8 legitimate king. Having got hold of Chilperic II he “deals with him full of 9 clemency”5*+ – the author withholding the fact that the king died almost 0 immediately a=er having been delivered to Charles. 1 2 Politics re"ected in hagiography 3 !e e.ect of politics on the grammar of kingship is also re;ected in 4 hagiography. !e Visio Baronti, written about +() and reporting the 5 heavenly vision of a Neustrian nobleman who had shortly before entered 6 monastic life, presents the late bishop Dido of Poitiers as one who is being 7 punished in hell.5*' !is may re;ect an animosity of the author against the 8 deceased bishop, but it may also follow from the author’s condemnation 9 of Dido’s role in the abduction of young Dagobert II.5*( It is quite possible 0 that the author, from a Neustrian perspective, took a dim view of the 1 events following Sigebert III’s death. As said above, the Austrasians 2 had a di.erent perspective and accepted Childebert Adoptivus as king 3 until his death (++5). Later, following the murder of Childeric II (+'-), 4 they felt fully justi (* 1 mid-VIIth century onward. He represents Sigebert III as a king acting 2 of his own power,5:, whereas !euderic III is described as ruling under 3 the “primacy” of Pippin.5:5 Similarly, the VIIIth-century Vita Landiberti 4 Vetustissima, probably written by a monk from Liège,5:* depicts Childeric 5 II as a gloriosus dominus and rex, whose personal protection is crucial 6 to bishop Lambertus’ position,5:: and condemns the king’s murderers as 7 godless men.5:- At the same time the author attributes supraterritorial 8 signi (: Merovingians became subject in Carolingian times. Hagiography did its 1 part here, too. 2 3 4 5 Section &. Kingship assumed by the Carolingians, '-,; 6 some conclusions 7 8 9 In '-,, king Childeric III was deposed and stripped of his royal powers. 0 Pippin III became king in his stead. !is is all we know for certain. Much 1 has been said and written about this event.5-) Yet all details that go beyond 2 the bare facts mentioned above remain, to a degree, conjectural. It is said 3 that Childeric, a=er being deposed, was tonsured and sent o. to live out 4 his days in a monastery.5-, !is is not certain, either. It is just the o>cial 5 presentation of events in the Annales Regni Francorum. 6 !e reason for the uncertainty is the ambiguity of our sources – as well 7 as interest they all have in the event they report. !e three main versions 8 follow here. 9 0 #ree accounts of the dynastic transfer 1 !e text closest to the event, both in time (almost contemporaneous) 2 as well as in personal interest (because sponsored by Pippin’s uncle 3 Childebrand), is the Historia vel Gesta Francorum,*%* in the partition 4 which is best known as the Continuationes to Fredegar’s Fourth Book. 5 !e author writes: “It now happened that with the consent and advice of 6 all the Franks the most excellent Pippin submitted a proposition to the 7 Apostolic See, and having (- 1 !e report given in the Annales Regni Francorum, of which the relevant 2 content dates from around '&),5-: is the most detailed. In time it is almost 3 as close as the Historia vel Gesta Francorum. It provides, under the years 4 ':& and '-), the version which has become most widely known but which 5 represents also, most blatantly, a legitimistic Carolingian purpose. “Bishop 6 Burchard of Würzburg and the priest and chaplain Folrad were sent to Pope 7 Zacharias in Rome, to consult the pontifex on matters concerning kings 8 as they were at that time in Francia, who did have as much as the name of 9 king, but no royal power at all. !rough whom the pontifex aforementioned 0 let it be known that it would be better to call him king with who was vested 1 the fullness of power. And using his authority, he commanded Pippin to 2 be made king. In the following year, according to the authorization by the 3 Roman pontifex, Pippin was acclaimed as king of the Franks and, according 4 to the dignity of that honor, anointed with sacred oil by the holy hand of 5 archbishop Boniface, of blessed memory, and raised by the Franks to the 6 kingship in the city of Soissons. Now Childeric, who was falsely called king, 7 was tonsured and sent toward a monastery”.5-- 8 !e Annales Mettenses Priores (c. ()-) have most distance to the event, 9 in time and in in tone. !ey say: “In this year ('-)) a=er consultation of 0 the Roman pope Zacharias, the prince Pippin was installed as king of 1 the Franks, having been anointed by archbishop Boniface. From which 2 event the fame of his strength and the fear of his power went all over the 3 world”.5-+ 4 5 #e dynastic transfer and Austrasian identity 6 !is is not the place to decide on or even discuss the relative merit of each 7 8 9 0 1 5-: cf. Collins, ‘Law and ethnic identity’; R. McKitterick, History and memory in the 2 Carolingian world (Cambridge 5))-). On rituals of royalty in a wider context, see C. 3 Cannadine and S. Price ed., Rituals of royalty. Power and ceremonial in traditional societies 4 (Cambridge ,&&*). 5-- Annales Regni Francorum, s.a. ':& and '-). DCCXLVIIII. Burchardus Wirziburgensis 5 episcopus et Folradus presbyter capellanus missi sunt Romam ad Zachariam papam, ut 6 consulerent ponti!cem de causa regum, qui illo tempore fuerunt in Francia, qui nomen 7 tantum regis, sed nullam potestatem regiam habuerunt.; per quos praedictus pontifex 8 mandavit, melius esse illum vocari regem, apud quem summa potestatis consisteret; dataque auctoritate sua iussit Pippinum regem constitutui. DCCL. Hoc anno secundum Romani 9 ponti!cis sanctionem Pippinus rex Francorum appelatus est et ad huius dignitatem honoris 0 unctus sacra unctione manu sanctae memoriae Bonifacii archiepiscopi et elevatus a Francis 1 in regno in Suesssionis civitate. Hildericus vero, qui false rex vocabatur, tonsoratus est et in 2 monasterium missus. 5-+ AMP, s.a. '-). Anno dominicae incarnationis DCCL. Hoc anno ex consulto Zachariae papae 3 urbis Romae Pippinus princeps a Bonefacio archiepiscopo unctus rex Francorum constituitur. 4 Unde rumor potentiae eius et timor virtutis transiit in universis terras. (+ of the three versions.5-' What matters here, in the context of this study, is 1 the degree to which the transfer of royal power as it was perceived in each 2 of our texts re;ects elements relevant to Austrasian identity. Kingship in 3 Austrasia is addressed as a means to help de (' 1 ordo would provide for such an expediency?5+) 2 To summarize: the Historia vel Gesta Francorum is clearest on the events. 3 It emphasizes that things were set in motion with the consent and advice 4 of all, that the pope was consulted, that the consecration, which included 5 Bertrada, was performed (in whatever form) by bishops and that the great 6 submitted themselves. !e account of the Annales Regni Francorum has 7 much more the feel to it of being composed to justify events a=er the fact, 8 providing a line of reasoning as well as reporting that Boniface anointed 9 Pippin – a report that cannot really be corroborated.5+, !e Annales 0 Mettenses Priores have nothing to add to this. On the whole, one would 1 incline to prefer the account of the Historia vel Gesta Francorum. On 2 authority, then, of these Historia vel Gesta Francorum we would conclude 3 that for the change of dynasty in '-, the agreement of all the great was 4 needed, that ecclesiastical authorization was deemed indispensable and 5 that actual proceedings took place in accordance with ritual rooted in 6 tradition. Although Pippins accession concerned the Regnum Francorum 7 as a whole, one may observe in the ceremony of '-, two elements which 8 in the previous period had strongly developed in Austrasia: (( (Vita Columbani, the Fourth Book of Fredegar’s Chronicle, the Liber 1 Historiae Francorum and the (& 1 and his successors took bolder steps. Parallel to this policy, legitimacy 2 in Austrasia, which had been exclusively reserved for kings, passed to 3 mayors – to a degree. 4 For the Annales Mettenses Priores, written towards ()-, betray uneasiness 5 on the dismissal of the Merovingians and, conversely, an obsession 6 with legitimacy. !e text abounds with Old Testament models and 7 with references to Christian duties and royal correctness. And there is 8 the alliance with the aristocracy. !e Osterliudi (who by the time the 9 Annales were written probably did no longer use the terms “Austrasian” 0 and “ Austrasia”) saw re;ected in the Annales a consensus between the 1 ruler and his magnates. Such a consensus, which formed the basis of 2 legitimacy and authority in Austrasia, is both identity-driven as well as 3 identity-shaping. At the same time, it does not solve or exclude tensions. 4 !e Annales’ approach to kingship combines conceptual ripeness with 5 existential unease and lends a forced feeling to the text which, perhaps, 6 re;ects an ambiguity. 7 Such ambiguity is proper to kingship. In early-medieval kingship, 8 it &) (Carloman). !e last stage, ridiculing the previous powers, was reached in 1 Einhard’s &, 1 2 3 4 5 III. !e construction of the sacred 6 7 8 9 Section $. A paradigm of the sacred. 0 !e Christian context 1 2 3 !roughout the VIIth and VIIIth centuries the sacred became an 4 increasingly important dimension for both the Austrasians’ self-conception 5 and Austrasian royal authority. In fact, Austrasian self-conception for 6 a large part arose as a collateral to the conscious construction of what 7 may be styled a paradigm of sacredness. In a similar way, Austrasian 8 royal authority – whether wielded by a king or by a mayor – evolved in 9 a continuous discourse with this construction process and increasingly 0 began to express itself in terms and actions derived from the sacred sphere. 1 !e grammar of kingship became more and more intertwined with the 2 terms of the sacred. !is development is most clearly visible – and reaches 3 its completion – under the Carolingians. As an illustration may serve the 4 following passage from the letter of Louis the Pious to abbot Hilduin of 5 Saint-Denis (c. (*-), in which the emperor refers to his fall and subsequent 6 restoration ((**/(*:) in the following words: “We also have experienced 7 the favors of Saint Denis, through many and regular gi=s, speci &5 !e construction of a paradigm of sacredness in Austrasia developed 1 along several strands. A &* 1 in the very heartland of the Pippinids there is the striking discontinuity in 2 the history of the bishopric of Tongres-Maastricht-Liège. !is is not the 3 place to expand on the problems associated with trying to identify Vth- 4 and VIth-century bishops succeeding Servatius, who himself remains 5 a very shadowy &: came o. worse in this Frisian region and the building fell into ruin.,- 1 Like most Frisians, the Saxons were and remained for a long time pagan. 2 Other gentes beyond the Rhine, however, had been Christianized – to 3 di.erent degrees. Wood constructs a plausible case for the !uringians 4 having been (partly) Christianized as early as the VIth century,+ and 5 it is besides likely “that Bavaria was substantially Christianized by the 6 eighth century” and that Bavarian Christianity in many parts had Roman 7 roots.,' In addition Wood points out the possibility that the “Church east 8 of the upper and middle Rhine was established not by Anglo-Saxons, 9 or indeed by Irishmen, but rather by the Franks themselves,”,( which 0 would mean that this process had been going on (at least) from the VIIth 1 century onwards. Notwithstanding this, pagan in;uences remained 2 present in Germany, even if an episode like Boniface’s felling of the oak 3 at Geismar, or a text like the Indiculus superstitionum et paganiarum,,& do 4 not imply a persistently heathen society but rather show us, to use an apt 5 phrase of Wood, “the normal, as opposed to ideal, state of Christianity, 6 intermixed with some pockets of paganism”.5) It is clear that there existed 7 a Christian substrate beyond the middle and upper Rhine, which in time 8 might – and would – attract royal and ecclesiastical commitment from 9 Austrasia proper. It is understandable that such involvement was to go 0 hand in hand with reformist e.orts to achieve more conformity in the 1 varied spiritual and ecclesiastical sampling in the East, if only to screen 2 the Church in the West against improper in;uences. And then, of course, 3 there was the Austrasian desire to establish or reestablish authority 4 beyond the Rhine. 5 6 Outside in"uences 7 All in all, the essential context within which Austrasian Christian 8 identity developed was a less solid and/or stable one than the Gallican 9 0 ,- Bonifatius, Epistolae, ed. M. Tangl, MGH Epistolae Epp.Sel. I (Berlin ,&,+) ,)& and W.S. 1 van Egmond, ‘Utrechts oudste kerk en Dagobert. Vraagtekens bij een brief van Bonifatius’, 2 Millennium. Tijdschri+ voor middeleeuwse studies 5: (5),)) &--,,5; see also Wood, #e 3 Merovingian Kingdoms, *,(, and for a broader context J. Bazelmans, ‘!e early-medieval 4 use of ethnic names from classical Antiquity. !e case of the Frisians’ in: T. Derks and N. Roymans ed., Ethnic constructs in Antiquity. #e role of power and tradition (Amsterdam 5 5))&) *5,-**(. 6 ,+ Wood, #e missionary life, &. 7 ,' Wood, #e missionary life, ,,. 8 ,( Ibidem. ,& Indiculus superstitionum et paganiarum, ed. A. Dierkens, ‘Superstitions, Christianisme 9 et paganisme à la &- 1 Christian context as depicted by Hen for Neustria and Burgundy. At 2 the same time, this led to Austrasia being more susceptible to Christian 3 in;uences from outside, notably from Ireland and from Anglo-Saxon 4 Christianity – and more attractive to zealous churchmen from these 5 regions. In any case such in;uences permeated the region from the late 6 VIth century onward, starting with Columbanus and continuing into the 7 time of Alcuin in the days of Charlemagne. Some of the characteristics 8 of the Irish tradition – a dynamic monastic tradition, the concept of 9 peregrinatio, perceptions of penance – were to in;uence ecclesiastical 0 developments in Austrasia profoundly. !e Anglo-Saxon connection 1 brought Austrasian Christianity, among many other things, a stronger 2 link with Rome. Also, the sancti &+ Byzantine in;uence on the papacy had hampered the connection 1 between Rome and the Franks.5: 2 3 4 5 Section *. !e construction of a missionary identity 6 7 8 King Dagobert I donated Utrecht to bishop Chunibert of Cologne.5- !e 9 act has o=en been seen as a &' 1 which was in any case taken up enthusiastically by the VIIIth-century 2 constructors of his legend. Yet was Amandus a missionary? True, the Vita 3 Amandi I mentions his alleged missionary activities among the Slavs5& 4 and the Basques,*) but both episodes appear rather out of character and 5 unconnected with the rest of Amandus’ biography as presented in the 6 Vita, and we lack corroborative evidence. Also, the commission given 7 Amandus by Saint Peter concerns “preaching in Gaul”,*, which is not the 8 same as converting the gentes. His work in the pagus of Ghent appears 9 to have been not so much among downright pagans as with people 0 who have neglected the true faith, possibly relapsed Christians.*5 In this 1 context a testimony of Jonas of Bobbio on Amandus’ work in the Scheldt 2 region also speaks of “combating ancient errors” rather than of converting 3 pagans – and Jonas’ mention of a metaphorical “sword of the gospel” 4 (euangelico mucrone)** is not a reference to armed support for missionary 5 work but rather to the sword-like power of the Divine teachings. In 6 line with this we should also weigh the report, in the Vita Amandi I, on 7 Amandus’ supposed request for royal support for his work near Ghent.*: 8 Rather than the king sending troops to assist on a missionary frontier we 9 have here a case of government support for ecclesiastical reconstruction 0 and reform. !ere had been priests there once, but they had departed.*- 1 !us, though missionary signi &( Restoring lapses of faith 1 Frankish evangelizing in the VIIth century appears to have been aimed 2 at restoring internal lapses of faith rather than converting external gentes 3 to Christianity. !us, we see Arnulf of Metz relinquishing life at court 4 to devote himself to pious works in the Vosges,*' Romaric undertaking 5 a journey to inspect monasteries*( and Amatus being delegated from 6 Luxeuil to certain urbes Austrasiorum to preach.*& 7 In fact, we have good reason to put into question the truthfulness of the 8 VIIth- and VIIIth-century sources, mainly hagiographic, which ascribe a 9 missionary ambition or programme to men like Amandus, Eustasius and 0 others who, because of these narratives, have ever since been considered 1 missionaries striving to convert the pagan gentes. An alleged missionary 2 e.ort undertaken from Luxeuil by Eustasius and Agrestius in the +*)’s 3 appears rather to have been concerned with opposing heresy.:) During 4 the VIIth century Austrasians nor Franks nor Burgundians appear to 5 have really cared about mission. 6 A series of VIIIth-century hagiographic texts from Austrasia and Bavaria 7 retrospectively ascribe missionary ambitions and undertakings to men 8 with Austrasian or Frankish backgrounds who probably hardly worked at 9 converting heathens. !ese texts belong to the hagiography on Amandus, 0 Emmeram, Corbinian and Rupert and they seem to obey a programme 1 of legend construction which partly responds to actual Anglo-Saxon 2 missionary work undertaken shortly before or at the time of their writing. 3 In Austrasian or Frankish historiography or legislation, other than in 4 hagiography, missionary references do not occur until well into the 5 IXth century. In short, there is something like a mysti && 1 and Bonosus,:* and about Bavarians who must be corrected through 2 the characteristics of faith – with inevitably some topos-like words on 3 conversion.:: And although Jonas states of Agrestius that he went to the 4 Bavarians with the ambition to become a gentium praedicator,:- actual 5 preaching is not reported and we rather hear about his stay at Aquileia, 6 the centre of the Tricapitoline heresy.:+ 7 8 Amandus 9 As said before, we cannot prove Amandus to have been a missionary. 0 He was a peregrinus and a sapiens, linked to the Irish tradition. In that 1 same tradition, he was also a bishop (which Columbanus was not). In the 2 Vita Sanctae Geretrudis Amandus is presented in a pastoral and in some 3 respects scholarly capacity. He is active in a Christian environment. He 4 assists with the founding of Nivelles monastery, essentially providing, 5 through his counsel and his network, the blueprint for a monastic 6 foundation – a blueprint providing for overseas contacts and for a 7 Roman connection. !rough Amandus’ intercession Itta could send 8 messengers who acquired holy books from Rome, as well as from 9 overseas men learned in the formulas of divine law.:' It ,)) of the four VIIIth-century Vitae we have of Amandus, claim missionary 1 achievements for their protagonist: the Vita Antiqua:& and the Vita 2 Prima.-) !e other two – the Vita Brevis-, and the Vita Secunda-5 – do not, 3 for quite di.erent reasons.-* 4 !e Vita Amandi Antiqua, which probably dates from between '-- 5 and '+(-: and of which an early – or the earliest – manuscript may 6 have belonged to bishop Arno of Salzburg, reports alleged missionary 7 undertakings of Amandus, including his intention to travel to England.-- 8 It was a template for the Vita Amandi Prima (written a=er '(5), which 9 latter Life included a ,), 1 in his legend are VIIIth-century additions. However, Wood’s conjecture 2 that the Vita Antiqua in;uenced Arbeo of Freising’s Passio Haimhrammi 3 and Vita Corbiniani, as well as the Passio Kiliani, is plausible.-& In fact, the 4 two Vitae Amandi which emphasize missionary elements can very well 5 be interpreted in a common context with (semi-) contemporary Bavarian 6 Lives which, as it turns out, also embellish their protagonists’ biographies 7 with missionary ,)5 got into trouble. Not long a=er ')) he was cruelly murdered for reasons 1 which have become buried under myth. !ere may have been many 2 reasons for a clerical gentleman from VIIth-century Aquitaine to travel to 3 Regensburg – but missionary ambition is certainly not the most probable 4 of these and, in fact, in Arbeo’s account Emmeram never got to the Avars. 5 We may suspect that Arbeo ascribed missionary intentions to Emmeram 6 which the saint never harboured. Whatever his reason was for doing this, 7 Arbeo may have been in;uenced by the missionary content in the Vita 8 Amandi (or an earlier and possibly lost version of it). At any rate, here too 9 missionary ambitions are imputed on a saint who may never have nursed 0 them.+& 1 Also, there is Arbeo’s Vita Corbiniani.') Corbinian (c. +')-'*)) is 2 considered the ,)* 1 accounts of the journeys are hardly convincing.'( !e passages, however, 2 do enhance the Life of Corbinian with the kind of ex post missionary 3 colouring which we also ,): seems hardly compatible with the missionary fame linked to his memory. 1 True, there is a reference to destroying pagan shrines(- and one sentence 2 explicitly referring to Amandus and Bavo undertaking a missionary 3 journey together,(+ but these are echo’s from the Vita Amandi Prima and 4 very much in contradiction with the very local, almost smug, tone of 5 Bavo’s Life as a whole. Interestingly, the Life is silent on baptisms allegedly 6 forced by royal pressure as they are mentioned in the Vita Amandi. All 7 in all, these texts di.er greatly from the representation of Amandus, 8 discussed above, as given in the Vita Antiqua and the Vita Prima. 9 Austrasians, then, appear not to have cared about mission – at least 0 not until it was brought home to them (literally, by men like Wilfrid 1 and Willibrord) what the potential of missionary work was. As Wood 2 has pointed out, Alcuin, in his Vita Willibrordi (before '&') and in his 3 revision of the Vita Richarii, explicitly wrote about the importance of 4 preaching the gospel and put its signi ,)- 1 legend construction throughout the (later) VIIIth century, which for 2 this purpose focussed on Amandus and other saints working in areas of 3 lapsed Christianity and retrospectively made them into missionaries. At 4 the same time, the legend became part of the way Austrasians related to 5 the sacred. 6 7 A problematical missionary identity 8 In the previous chapter the speci ,)+ as a template for later hagiography in providing the topos of travelling to 1 Rome, o=en at least two times, and acquiring a papal mandate. We ,)' 1 social mentalities.&- Nowadays, of course, his work is outdated in several 2 respects. !is is especially true for his appreciation of the relation between 3 hagiography on the one hand and the actual cult, popular or otherwise, 4 of saints on the other. In emphasizing that only a genuinely palpable cult 5 is decisive for the question whether or not there is a case of sainthood, 6 Graus underestimates the potential as well as the fact that, frequently, 7 hagiographic works are composed with the purpose to induce a cult.&+ 8 In the current section I will address two cases of legend construction. 9 First I will discuss the Lives of Columbanus and of Amandus, and make 0 plausible that the process and character of these constructions yield 1 insights into Austrasian identity. Next, by discussing the doubtful titles to 2 sainthood of some Austrasian kings, I intend to scrutinize the signi ,)( and in VIIIth century Carolingian circles,,)) Jonas introduces views which 1 were to in;uence the grammar of kingship in the later VIIth and VIIIth 2 centuries and re;ect in hagiography, speci ,)& 1 of both sons of !euderic II as well as of king !eudebert II occurred 2 a=er the saint had refused to bless them or pray for them. !e message 3 conveyed is clear: kings should beware lest benevolent intercession by 4 holy men be withheld from them. Kings and dynasties were thought to 5 pro ,,) his successors.,,, At the same time, at least the ,,, 1 become active in hitherto remote territories of the Regnum Francorum.,55 2 Columbanus’ example and Jonas’ narrative set the context for a practice 3 in which the pilgrimage conveys honor and prestige to the pilgrim, 4 granting him a lordly right to hospitality at the royal court and in great 5 houses, allowing him to associate on equal footing with kings and lords. 6 Regardless of the extent to which Jonas’ construction re;ects the realities 7 of Columbanus’ relations with the great, the image it purveys is clear 8 enough. A holy man, a sapiens, rubs shoulders with the great of this world 9 – in the way in which Irish bishops are hardly second to kings.,5* !is 0 notion, in its turn, set the tone for much the relationship between kings 1 and clerics in Francia throughout later Merovingian and Carolingian 2 times.,5: 3 A similar notion on parity between the lordly or worldly and the sacred 4 or spiritual is bound up with Columbanus’ monastic foundations. 5 In a sense, monastic foundations can be seen as milestones marking 6 out Columbanus’ peregrinatio. Jonas mentions Annegray,,5- Luxeuil,,5+ 7 Bregenz,5' (where, it appears, a monastic foundation was attempted but 8 failed) and Bobbio.,5( !ey were all situated on royal land, yet the kings 9 involved appear not to have attached any speci ,,5 heed such prophesies. !ird, the (wandering) holy man should be treated 1 with respect by kings and their magnates. So should his foundations. 2 !ese lessons contribute to the formation of a distinct grammar of 3 kingship in the later VIIth and VIIIth centuries, of which we traced the 4 basic characteristics in the previous chapter, a grammar which tends to 5 absorb elements of the sacred and prepares the ground for Carolingian 6 kingship with its strong ecclesiastical overtones. 7 A strong case for considerable dissemination of the Vita Columbani to 8 aristocratic and royal audiences in Merovingian Gaul has recently been 9 presented by O’Hara.,*, 0 1 !ere is an Austrasian focus to this development. !e paradigm of 2 blessing, prophecy and peregrinatio as used by Jonas in his narrative 3 carries over into narratives which became formative for Austrasian 4 identity.,*5 !ere is Fredegar, who adopts Jonas’ report on Columbanus’ 5 con;ict with !euderic II and Brunhild almost verbatim in the fourth 6 book of his chronicle,** – whence it ,,* 1 for the founding of which Amandus was instrumental,,*( had a strong 2 Irish connection, as appears from the fact that he monastery maintained 3 overseas contacts.,*& Also, a point is made of its ,,: waves.,:' In his preaching he is said to have paid special attention to “men 1 from overseas”, pueros transmarinos,$'. possibly oblates from Britain or 2 Ireland in continental monasteries.,:& Also he allegedly, a=er his con;ict 3 with king Dagobert I on capitalia crimina,$%( pondered the possibility 4 to depart overseas to preach to the Anglo-Saxons.,-, !ese and similar 5 maritime allusions are also found in the later Lives of Amandus.,-5 It all 6 suggests that (the memory of) Amandus was associated with overseas 7 in;uences. When combined with the Vita Antiqua’s explicit mention on 8 Amandus’ inclination to the peregrine way of life,,-* the overall impression 9 which results is one of a holy man, a sapiens, dedicated to a vagrant life 0 similar to that of Columbanus. 1 It is not easy to isolate the “real” Amandus from the legend which has 2 been constructed around him in the course of (mainly) the VIIIth 3 century.,-: Yet apart from his Vitae we have some information on him of a 4 seemingly more spontaneous and less constructed character which seems 5 to corroborate the impression that Amandus was, ,,- 1 reference to Amandus, he is presented as a vigorous preacher, a bishop who 2 occupies no formal see, and who leads men like Jonas in activities aimed 3 at combating errors by brandishing – like one brandishes a sword, mucro 4 – arguments from the Gospel. Jonas’ use of the name “Sicambrian” echoes 5 the narrative of Clovis’ baptism in Gregory of Tours Histories.,-+ It may be 6 programmatic: the authentic Sicambrians of Clovis’ days were held to have 7 been converted with their king. Naming the mid-VIIth-century Scheldt 8 people thus would imply that they had reneged. 9 A slightly younger testimony on Amandus is found in the Vita 0 Geretrudis (about +')). Its author in all probability was an Irish monk 1 of Gertrude’s own double-monastery of Nivelles, who wrote the Vita in 2 c. +') in commission of Agnes, third abbess of Nivelles.,-' !e narrator 3 reports that, following the death of Pippin I in +*&, “while (his widow) 4 the materfamilias, Itta, daily wondered what to do about herself and 5 about her orphaned daughter, the man of God came to her house, 6 bishop Amandus, preaching the word of God. Ordered by the Lord, he 7 counselled her to found a monastery for her and for her daughter, Gods 8 handmaiden Gertrude, as well as for Christ’s servants (the nuns)”.,-( Itta 9 followed Amandus’ counsel. !e account refers to the time about +:), 0 some years a=er the period at Elno to which Jonas refers. Like Jonas, the 1 narrator of the Life of Gertrude calls Amandus a bishop – and the Vita 2 Geretrudis says exactly what his work as a bishop was: he goes around 3 verbum Dei praedicans, “preaching the word of God”.,-& 4 !us, in both accounts Amandus appears as a bishop of the Irish type and 5 a peregrinus. According to Jonas, in c. +*- Amandus was staying, [erat] 6 constitutus, in the Scheldt region. It is not clear how he had got there. 7 It may have been his own initiative, a would ,,+ !us, the authentic Amandus appears to have been an itinerant bishop 1 without a proper see, who had no strong link with either the court or with 2 the pope. At the same time, he was held in esteem by Pippin’s widow Itta 3 and by their children Grimoald, Gertrude and Begga. Amandus clearly 4 possessed spiritual authority. He was a sapiens. His sphere of action 5 appears to have been mainly the North of Francia and the frontier areas 6 of Scheldt and Meuse. 7 His position changed when he was formally installed as bishop of 8 Maastricht in c. +:' – by king Sigebert III and his mayor Grimoald. 9 According to the Vita Antiqua, Amandus was “forced by the king” 0 (coactus a rege) to become bishop.,+5 Amandus failed at Maastricht and 1 there are some indications of the reasons for this failure. !e Vita Antiqua 2 says that, as bishop, “he went round towns, settlements and manors 3 (castra, vicos, villas) where he preached, argued and entreated and during 4 three years demonstrated the ways of God to the populace; and many 5 were converted to the ways of penance”.,+* It sounds as if Amandus, while 6 having become a diocesan bishop, continued the ambulatory, peregrine 7 life he may have led at the Scheldt during the previous years, rather than 8 taking up regular administrative tasks. It is also clear that Amandus’ 9 approach did not work with the clergy. In the Antiqua as well as in the 0 Prima and in the Secunda, it emphatically is the local clergy at Maastricht 1 who is said to have rejected him. Also a letter of pope Martin to Amandus 2 refers to problems with the clergy.,+: !ese problems need not have been 3 the only or even the conclusive reason for his resigning as a bishop – 4 which, as such, was a rather exceptional deed. Occurring in +-) or early 5 +-,, the resignation may also have been linked to the succession crisis 6 which erupted in Austrasia following the decease of king Sigebert III on – 7 presumably – , February +-,.,+- 8 !e décon!ture which Amandus experienced as bishop of Maastricht 9 must have meant a considerable impediment to the constructors of his 0 legend. Yet various VIIIth-century biographers spent much work on 1 providing Amandus with a rich legend. !is triggers several questions. 2 Who were these biographers? Why did they select Amandus to 3 mythologize? And – above all – what was the resulting legend intended to 4 express? 5 On the biographers some conclusions may be proposed. Each of the three 6 VIIIth-century Lives has its own author. !e Antiqua and the Prima stand 7 in the same textual tradition, the Secunda stands apart. !e Vita Antiqua 8 appears to have been written between '-- and '+( by an author who was 9 0 1 ,+5 Vita Amandi Antiqua, c. ,). 2 ,+* Ibidem. ,+: Vita Amandi II, II. 3 ,+- Gerberding, #e rise of the Carolingians, :'-++. 4 ,,' 1 connected to circles around Pippin III.,++ !e Vita Prima may originate 2 from Salzburg, from '(5 or slightly later.,+' !e Vita Secunda is from the 3 hand of Milo, monk at Elno, who wrote about (-). 4 We may ponder the possible reasons why the authors elaborated on 5 Amandus’ life the way they did. 6 !e answer to this question must lie in speci ,,( invent a miracle involving both Amandus and Dagobert and focussing 1 on the latter’s son Sigebert III. In doing so, they completed the model 2 role which they wished to attribute to Amandus. He was depicted as a 3 saint active in Austrasia and who, besides being recognised by Rome and 4 pioneering as a missionary, helped de ,,& 1 king, who was staying in his villa of Clichy. When the king saw Amandus 2 he was ,5) read or seen that I could vouch for”.,() Fredegar’s contemporary history 1 is more credible than hagiography of a hundred years a=er the facts. Yet 2 the message intended by the VIIIth-century hagiographers is a forceful 3 one. It establishes the autonomous responsibility of the saint vis à vis the 4 king in censuring capitalia crimina, safely using a Merovingian and not 5 a Pippinid as case in point. Moreover, the baptism establishes between 6 saint and prince the mutuality proper to godparent and godchild. !e 7 mutuality is, in this case, far-reaching. Amandus baptises Sigebert and is 8 honoured by a miracle occurring. Sigebert is bene ,5, 1 became venerated as a saint. We learn this from Bede,,(- and his account 2 – which he wrote in c. '*), a century a=er Edwin’s death – “betrays the 3 existence of already well-developed miracle-stories centred on Edwin’s 4 early career”.,(+ Actual evidence of miracles and a cult are found in the 5 anonymous Whitby Life of Gregory the Great, a work contemporaneous 6 with Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica.,(' Edwin was married to Aethelburg, 7 who was a kinswoman to Dagobert I of Francia, to whom she sent her 8 children a=er Edwin’s death.,(( 9 A=er some struggle Oswald, nephew to the slain Edwin, took over as 0 king in Northumbria (+*:-+:5). He, too, became venerated as a saint. 1 In brie;y presenting him, I follow the analysis which Wallace-Hadrill,(& 2 o.ers on his case and, more speci ,55 missionaries would have imbibed something of Irish teaching on the 1 moral duties of kings ...”.,&+ Northumbria lay within the sphere of Irish 2 peregrini. !e second concerns the fact that their violent deaths made it 3 possible to see the three kings as martyrs.,&' Here lay the origin of their 4 legend which was to persist throughout the generations, regardless of 5 the question whether or not a (popular) cult focussing on their graves 6 started immediately following their deaths or only later. !e ,5* 1 VIIth- and VIIIth-century Austrasia – or in the Merovingian Regnum 2 Francorum. In later years, however, legends were constructed around 3 the memory of three Austrasian kings from this period: Dagobert I, 4 Sigebert III and Dagobert II. Austrasia had receded into the past by the 5 time these legends were constructed. Yet it is relevant to consider the 6 question whether these belated narratives on royal sanctity may teach 7 us something about the relation between kingship and the sacred in 8 Austrasian times, about the way this relation was appreciated in the 9 (post)Carolingian period and about what the answers to both questions 0 may mean for an identity, originally Austrasian, which continued from 1 Merovingian into Carolingian times. 2 A brief look at the three legends constructed for the Austrasian kings will 3 contribute to answering these questions. 4 5 Dagobert I 6 Dagobert I was an unlikely candidate for sainthood. Fredegar and 7 the Vita Amandi I are both critical on the king’s state of grace. 8 Notwithstanding this, according to some “Dagobert may have been the 9 subject of a cult fairly soon a=er his death”,5), but proof is extremely thin. 0 !e Gesta Dagoberti I Regis Francorum do not provide this proof either. 1 !e work, composed by a monk of Saint-Denis between ()) and (*-, 2 constructs the legend of a rather saintly Dagobert I.5)5 Dagobert had 3 been, of course, the main sponsor (almost the founder) of Saint-Denis.5)* 4 !e author wrote in the very heart of Neustria, at a time when we can 5 no longer speak of Austrasia and when Austrasian identity had evolved 6 into an empire-wide Carolingian identity.5): Now what properties did the 7 author in the second quarter of the &th century project on the memory 8 of king Dagobert I? A look at some of the topoi he presents brings the 9 answer. 0 According to the Gesta’s author the king, having taken up the rule of his 1 father’s kingdom (caput 5*), showed himself “mild to who is faithful to 2 him”, but “ terrible” and “fervent like a lion” to rebels and faithless. He 3 is “most benevolent” to the pious but forceful against the “ferocity of 4 foreign (heathen) people” (exterarum gentium feritatem). He is extremely 5 generous to the church and her priests as well as to the poor and to 6 7 8 5), Wallace-Hadrill, Early Germanic kingship, -5, referring to ‘Folz, Tradition hagiographique’. 5)5 Gesta Dagoberti I, MGH, observations in Krusch’ introduction on authorship and time 9 of writing. See also M. Buchner, ‘Zur Entstehung und zur Tendenz der Gesta Dagoberti. 0 Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Eigenkirchswesen im Frankenreich’, Historisches Jahrbuch :' 1 (,&5') 5-5-5':. 2 5)* L. Levillain, ‘Étude sur l’abbaye Saint Denis à l’époque Mérovingienne’, Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes (5 (,&5-) --,,+ and !acker, ‘Peculiaris patronus noster’. 3 5): On the transition from Merovingian to Carolingian rule see M. Becher, Merowinger und 4 Karolinger (Darmstadt 5))&) chapter *. ,5: pilgrims. He is a forceful soldier (strenuus) and an excellent hunter. 1 “And although, especially when he was a naive youth, he did some 2 reprehensible things – also against religion – and acted less cautious than 3 he should have – for nobody can be perfect in everything -, there is no 4 doubt that all his alms-giving, all his praying to the saints and the fact 5 that he did more than any king before him to honour their memory will 6 in the end easily bring him God’s mercy”.5)- A more reticent appraisal of 7 the king’s character is given in caput :5, where his decease is reported. 8 !e king is described as – among other things – provident in council, 9 careful in judging, forceful (strenuus) in military matters, generous in 0 alms-giving, assiduous in maintaining peace within the church and, 1 above all, as a king who keeps his promises to the saints and consolidates 2 their possessions.5)+ Among the echoes of Isidore and Fulgentius we ,5- 1 holiness of your temple!”5)( By using these words, the IXth-century author 2 at least suggests that Dagobert is one of the “blessed”, that he is beatus – 3 but he stops short of outright applying the word to the king. He refers to 4 him as divae memoriae Dagobertus rex.5)& In itself, the Gesta do not quite 5 “make” Dagobert I a saint. But it presents a convincing image of how a 6 saintly king was to behave and act – and from understandable motives 7 the monk of Saint-Denis projected this image on the founder of his home 8 abbey. Yet this founder had started out as a king in Austrasia and his 9 memory remained present there. It became associated with the memories 0 of the Austrasian holy women Irmina of Oeren and Adela of Pfälzel, 1 whom popular tradition made into daughters or at least descendants 2 of the king.5,) !e Gesta Dagoberti I were read at the Carolingian court. 3 Louis the Pious refers to the work in a letter he wrote to abbot Hilduin 4 of Saint-Denis in (*-, in which he mentions Dagobert as a martyr.5,, As 5 such, the dead king contributed to the Carolingian grammar of kingship 6 – and of the sacred. It is, maybe, no coincidence that the only other 7 Merovingian kings about whom hagiographic legends were constructed 8 were his Austrasian son and grandson. 9 0 Sigebert III 1 !e construction of the legend on Sigebert III presents a slightly more 2 complicated case than does his father Dagobert I’s legend. !e only 3 medieval Life we have of Sigebert III is the late XIth-century (!) Vita 4 Sancti Sigeberti regis Austrasiae, from the hand of the king’s namesake 5 Sigebert de Gembloux. !is Vita is a synthetic construction dating from 6 four centuries a=er Sigebert’s death.5,5 Beyond proving that king Sigebert 7 was the object of hagiographic legend construction in the XIth century 8 9 0 5)( Gesta Dagoberti I, c. ::; A similar vision, albeit with opposite outcome. is reported on !euderic the Great in Ex Gregorii Magni dialogorum libris, MGH SS rer. Lang. -:). !e 1 translation of the psalm quoted in the Gesta Dagoberti is the English standard version of 2 psalm +-::. !e axctual Latin text provided in the Gesta is from the Vulgate, Psalmi iuxta 3 LXX, where it is numbered as +::- (Beatus quem elegisti et assumisti, Domine; inhabitabit 4 in atriis tuis. Replebimur in bonus domus tuae, sanctum est templum tuum, mirabile in equitate). 5 5)& Gesta Dagoberti I, c. :+; the monk of Saint Denis inserts the words divae memoriae in a text 6 he borrows from Fredegar. 7 5,) M. Werner, Adelsfamilien im Umkreis der frühen Karolinger (Sigmaringen ,&(5) :&-+). 8 5,, Epistolae variorum inde a morti Caroli Magni usque ad divisionem imperii, ed. E. Dummler, MGH Epistolae Epp. - (Berlin ,(&&) 5&&-*+), *5--*5'. Ut videlicet unus ex priscis Francorum 9 regibus Dagobertus, qui eundem pretiotissimum Christi martirem veneratus non mediocriter 0 fuerat, et vita inmortali est sublimatus, et per eius adiutorium, sicut divina ac celebris ostensio 1 perhibet, a poenis est liberatus inque vita perenni desiderabiliter constitutus. See also Krusch’ 2 introduction to the Gesta Dagoberti I, *&+-*&'. 5,5 Vita Sigeberti III regis Austrasiae. Sigebert of Gembloux, ed. M. Bouquet, ‘Vita Sancti 3 Sigeberti regis Austrasiae’, Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France 5 (Paris ,(+&) -&'- 4 +)5. ,5+ and suggesting that some (modest) cult may have existed, it does not help 1 us much. A more authentic source on the connection between Sigebert 2 and the sacred is formed by the VIIIth-century Vitae of Amandus, in 3 which the child Sigebert becomes instrumental for a miracle ascribed to 4 the saint. !e memory of Sigebert was henceforth linked to the virtus of 5 Amandus. 6 Sigebert III’s rule attests to a series of pious grants and deeds. According 7 to the Vita Sancti Sigeberti, the king founded in Metz the church of 8 Saint-Martin, where he was later buried.5,* Also, the king furnished the 9 land on which the double monastery of Stavelot-Malmédy was founded 0 in the late forties of the sixth century.5,: Its ,5' 1 of Amandus’ legend emphasised between their hero and the king. In 2 the case of the church council of Bourges (c. +-)) a self-assured letter 3 of king Sigebert to bishop Desiderius of Cahors adds to the impression 4 of a king purposely – and personally – active in church matters. Bishop 5 Vulfoleudus of Bourges having convoked the council, the king makes 6 clear that he ought to have been informed of and consulted on it 7 beforehand. !e canonical rules as well as the custom under former 8 kings are clear about it, the king writes: “without our knowledge there 9 ought not to be held a synodal council in our kingdom”.555 As things are, 0 Desiderius is politely but insistently told not to attend the council. 1 All in all, Sigebert III had rather a high pro ,5( Dagobert II 1 !e legend of Dagobert II appears to be more one-sidedly based on 2 martyrdom than his father Sigebert’s. !e king was murdered by his 3 enemies in +'& in the forest north of Dun sur Meuse, on the eastern 4 banks of the Meuse.55( His body was transported to Stenay, where it was 5 buried. Evidence of a cult there is very late. We have a charter of Godfrey 6 with the Beard, duke of Lorraine, from ,)+&, in which he donates the 7 church of Saint Dagobert near the villa of Stenay to the monastery of 8 Gorze, near Metz.55& !e charter refers to the canons at Stenay having 9 neglected their duties, wich prompted Godfrey to have Stenay reformed 0 by Gorze.5*) !ese canons were originaly installed there in ('5, a=er the 1 “discovery” of Dagobert’s grave in the church of St.-Remy in Stenay and 2 the o>cial creation of the cult by the elevation of the relics on the ,)th of 3 September that year, by archbishop Hincmar of Reims and king Charles 4 the Bald.5*, 5 At some time, a=er Godfrey’s donation and with the date of the oldest 6 manuscript, early XIIth century, as terminus ante quem, 5*5 the Vita 7 Dagoberti III [sic] Regis Francorum was written,5** ostensibly at the 8 request of what was since ,)+& the fraternity at Stenay and to provide 9 them with a text to read at the day of Dagobert’s commemoration,5*: 5* 0 December. Graus has argued that the cult at Stenay was not spontaneous 1 and resulted only from the e.orts of the clerics. According to him, the 2 late date as well as the obvious imperfections of the Vita (“miserable 3 patchwork”), mixing up the biographies of Dagobert II and Dagobert III, 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 55( Vita Wilfridi, c. **; … ibique nuper amico suo !deli Daeghoberhto rege per dolum ducum et 1 consensu episcoporum – quod absit! – insidiose occiso. Ebroin may have been behind it: see 2 Wood, #e Merovingian Kingdoms, 5**. !e account of the murder in the Vita Dagobert 3 III Regis Francorum ,5 strongly suggests treason. !e king, while resting during a hunt in 4 the Forest of Woëvre, is said to have been killed by a !liolus of his, i.e. by a godson of his, someone who very much counted as a con ,5& 1 make this clear.5*- !is makes it impossible to link any characteristics of 2 Dagobert II mentioned in this text back to Merovingian times. 3 4 Holy kings – concluding remarks 5 No Austrasian king acquired a fully-;edged cult immediately following 6 his death. !e three mentioned Austrasian kings, however, became 7 subject of hagiographic legend construction. From the products of 8 these construction processes – the Gesta Dagoberti I (c. (*)), the Vita 9 Sancti Sigeberti Regis Austrasiae (c. ,)))) and the Vita Dagoberti III regis 0 Francorum (late IXth century) – as well as from other narrative texts, 1 we may deduce some elements of what was considered important in the 2 relationship between kings and the sacred in the period following the 3 Austrasian VIIth century. We cannot establish any immediate connection 4 between the phenomenon of VIIth-century Anglo-Saxon holy kings and 5 the (later) development of hagiographic legend concerning our three 6 Austrasian would-be saints. But some elements concerning the grammar 7 of kings and the sacred which remained crucial to Carolingian kingship 8 may be deduced. For Dagobert I, his forcefulness against heathen people 9 was praised. For Sigebert III, his close association with the leading 0 Austrasian saint, Amandus, was positively emphasised. 1 2 3 4 Section '. An Austrasian topography of the sacred 5 6 7 Ancient dioceses and new monastic foundations 8 In chapter two the “Klosterpolitik” of Neustrian and Austrasian kings was 9 discussed. 0 Its origins, which included impulses from Ireland through peregrini like 1 Columbanus, Furseus and Foilan, will not be discussed here – apart 2 from stating that Jonas of Bobbio and the anonymous authors of the 3 4 5*- Graus, Volk, Herrscher und Heiliger, :)*, analysing the Vita, with Levison, as a work in 5 which the author had mixed up Dagobert II with Dagobert III (p. :)*, n +):). On the 6 mix-up between the two kings the following observations may be made. !e only reason 7 why we surmise that the Vita contains elements of the lives of both kings is the account of 8 the king’s murder in the Forest of Woëvre, in caput ,5, which we connect with Dagobert II because the Vita Wilfridi informs us that the latter was murdered. However, the Vita 9 Wilfridi does not provide any additional details which allow us to be certain that the Vita 0 Wilfridi is referring to the same murder as the Vita Dagoberti III. !e Forest of Woëvre is 1 not mentioned. !erefore, the account of the assassination in the Vita Dagoberti III could 2 well refer to the murder of Dagobert III – were it not for the fact that the Liber Historiae Francorum reports that Dagobert III died of a disease: aegrotans mortuus est (LHF, -5). If 3 the LHF were wrong here, there would be no reason whatsoever to assume that the Vita 4 Dagoberti III is mixed up with elements from the life of Dagobert II. ,*) narratives on Furseus and Foilan participated in the general tendency of 1 legend-constructing.5*+ Nor will we deal here with the various accounts 2 on the founding and patronage of monasteries,5*' or with the patrocinia 3 of bishoprics and monastic foundations,5*( as these have little relevance 4 for the purpose of this section: present the topography of the sacred as 5 it developed in Austrasia in the century between c. +:) and c. ':). !is 6 topography – which in the end formed part of the geographical backdrop 7 against which Austrasianness could manifest itself – is an expression of 8 a culture in which bishops like Arnulf or Lambert worked to consolidate 9 episcopal authority, and in which kings and other worldly great were 0 inspired to found monasteries. In so far as we may consider, for instance, 1 the VIIth-century Pippinids in the Sambre-Meuse area as one of the 2 Austrasian “cores of tradition” (in the sense of Wenskus,5*& see chapter 3 ,*, 1 organisation for the church.5:5 In the early VIIth century the main 2 Austrasian episcopal sees were Cologne, Maastricht, Trier, Metz and 3 Mainz. Of these, Maastricht, Metz and Cologne ,*5 is something di.erent from following up missionary ambitions. !is 1 claim of authority was expressed primarily through founding a religious 2 institution and secondarily by the choice of place: in the case of Utrecht 3 an ancient and deserted Roman fortress (much as had been Annegray, 4 which king Guntram had granted to Columbanus to found his ,** 1 founding of this monastic community at Castrum Habendensium, in the 2 wilderness of the Vosges, was stimulated from Columbanus’ foundation 3 at Luxeuil: according to his Life, Amatus had been sent by the brothers 4 of Luxeuil to go to certain places of the Austrasians, in order that these 5 places would pro ,*: places into centres of authority, monastic topography contributed to 1 the dissemination of authority and correctness throughout the land. In 2 a later stage a monastery like Fosses became a royal abbey5+: – which 3 was in fact a formalisation of a previously uno>cial arrangement. Soon, 4 the topography became richer and denser when, apart from the king 5 and the Pippinids, others also took the initiative and founded abbeys 6 like Moustier (+:'/-)),5+- Malonne (founded on behalf of the aristocrat 7 Odacrus, by the Anglo-Saxon bishop Bertuinus,5++ +-,) and Lobbes 8 (Landelinus, stimulated by bishop Aubert of Cambrai,5+' c. ++)).5+( 9 0 Prayer, power and monasteries 1 Gradually, three characteristics became ,*- 1 Charles Martel subdued Plectrudis and her supporters when he took 2 Cologne in ',' and Pippinids became Carolingians.5'5 From then on, 3 Carolingian “Klosterpolitik” led also to foundations further East (e.g. 4 Prüm, '5,, indirectly Lorsch, '+:) and, parallel to this, the topography 5 became Carolingian – or imperial – rather than Austrasian. It centered on 6 Aachen and new foundations like Fulda. In fact, VIIth-century Austrasian 7 topography of the sacred re;ects a period in which Austrasian leaders 8 were oriented towards Neustria rather than to their Eastern frontier – 9 an orientation which also was to change with Charles Martel and his 0 successors. 1 !e third characteristic of Austrasian monastic policy, the revitalisation of 2 the church hierarchy through a new monastic framework, shows a similar 3 geographic fault line in that Western Austrasia in the VIIth century went 4 through a development which was not matched in the Eastern parts, until 5 the ,*+ later VIIth and early VIIIth century.5() Possibly things improved a=er 1 bishop Hubertus moved the seat of the diocese from Maastricht to Liège, 2 closer to the power-base of Charles Martel.5(, Up to that time, at least, 3 a network of monastic foundations, a number of those with their own 4 abbot-bishops, provided an alternative structure to channel authority in 5 North-western Austrasia.5(5 6 When, during the VIIIth century, the saintly legends were constructed 7 which were discussed above, it came naturally to the legend constructors 8 to describe the emergence of a monastic topography of the sacred in 9 terms of a missionary e.ort. !is tendency was strengthened by the fact 0 that by the VIIIth century monasteries e.ectively were founded with 1 missionary purpose in mind: St Peter at Salzburg (c. '))), Fulda ('::), 2 Werden (towards ())). To the narrators of Charlemagne’s time it seemed 3 that the monastic e.ort that had started with Amandus and Romaric had 4 from the very beginning been a purposeful expression of a missionary 5 intention. !is perspective further encouraged them to (possibly 6 unintentionally) reduce and belittle the autonomy and status of older 7 forms of Christianity as these may have existed in Eastern parts of the 8 Frankish Empire (!uringia, Bavaria) before the days of Boniface. It thus 9 made possible to retrospectively connect a strong – if somewhat arti ,*' 1 authority of the king – emperor – who surrounded himself with abbots 2 of prestigious foundations, where the Lives of saints were written in 3 accordance with their ideology. Much of this had its origin in VIIth- 4 century Austrasian monastic developments. 5 6 7 8 Section %. Some conclusions on Austrasian identity 9 and the sacred 0 1 2 !e start of genuine missionary activity, intended to evangelise among 3 the pagans (as it was de ,*( Austrasia and the German lands to the East.5(' One thing we can conclude 1 about Austrasian identity in the crucial mid-VIIIth century, at the time 2 of the Carolingian take-over of kingship, is that the importance of the 3 sacred, in relation to that identity, was rapidly increasing. !is is strongly 4 suggested by the legend construction crystallizing around saints active 5 in Austrasia and the East. Next to the special characteristics of kingship 6 in Austrasia (dealt with in the previous chapter), the speci ,*& 1 promiscuous kings5&,), as well as the (dangers and) potentials for kings 2 of (withholding) a sapiens’ blessing.5&5 Such newly conceived connections 3 between the sacred and kingship contributed to the broader VIIth- 4 century process mentioned earlier of kings moving into an ecclesiastical 5 atmosphere.5&* Jonas’ insistence on the power of prophecy5&: is also typical 6 of this development. When, during the VIIth century, the concept of 7 the peregrinatio became connected in Austrasia to the founding of 8 monasteries sponsored by magnates and the (circles around) the king, 9 the long pilgrimage of Columbanus as described by Jonas provided the 0 format for other itinerant monastic founders5&- like Amandus, Foilan and 1 Remaclus. 2 Concepts as used by Jonas in the VIIth century recur in the legend 3 constructed in the VIIIth century about Amandus. Although it is 4 doubtful whether the saint actually ever met Dagobert I,5&+ his relationship 5 c.q. confrontation with that king as described in the Vita Prima*,) is very 6 reminiscent of the confrontation between Columbanus and Brunhild and 7 !euderic II. !e legend constructor uses a similar format. !e ,:) the Austrasian aristocratic leadership increasingly tended to get mixed 1 up in Neustrian a.airs and, to a degree, neglected – or had given up on 2 – the East, is re;ected in the fact that until deep into the VIIIth century 3 Austrasian ecclesiastical topography mainly developed West of the Rhine. 4 Here the sedes regni, monastic foundations and cult centres formed a 5 topographical expression of the symbiosis between two main elements of 6 Austrasian identity: idiosyncratic kingship and a speci ,:, 1 2 3 4 5 IV. Aristocrats and kingship 6 7 8 9 Section $. Austrasians as a group 0 1 !e origin of the names “Austrasia” and “Austrasians” is unclear and will 2 probably remain so. An explanation proposed by Steinbach, has partial 3 plausibility: we may accept that “Austrasia” contains a root signifying 4 “East” and that the concept served to distinguish the Eastern “Teilreich” 5 of the Frankish Kingdom from its Western part, Neustria.5 !is 6 interpretation appears to be supported by the term Osterliudi as used in 7 the Annales Mettenses Priores. !e lack of a clear etymology for the name 8 prevents us from attributing emotional value to the names “Austrasia” and 9 “Austrasians”. Although we may assume that – as far as the Eastern Franks 0 themselves used the names – the connotation will have rather been a 1 positive one, at the same time we have to accept that, in the narrative 2 sources of the VIIth and VIIIth centuries, the names are applied to the 3 Eastern Franks by outsiders writing about them. !ere are no instances 4 in our sources of Eastern Franks referring to themselves or to their 5 territory as “Austrasia” or “Austrasians”. An exception is the reference to 6 the Osterliudi in the Annales Mettenses Priores, which is clearly a self- 7 referring term used by an Austrasian author.* 8 Yet an analysis of what the outsiders write on Austrasians and Austrasia 9 is revealing of – at least – the contemporary views on the Eastern Franks 0 and we have to work with the assumption that these views will re;ect to 1 a considerable degree the attitudes and (self)perceptions of the Osterliudi 2 themselves. It is, therefore, helpful to have a closer look at what our 3 narratives may teach us in this respect. 4 !e Chronicle of Fredegar is a crucial source for approaching the 5 concept of “Austrasians” and of “Austrasia”. In the fourth book of the 6 7 , F. Steinbach, ‘Austrien und Neustrien. Die Anfänge der deutschen Volkwerdung und des 8 deutsch-französischen Gegensatzes’ [originally ,&:)] in: H. Eggers ed., Der Volksname Deutsch (Darmstadt ,&')) ,++-,(5. !e text was originally published in ,&:), a date which 9 coloured Steinbach’s interpretation. 0 5 We do not accept Steinbach’s explanation of the name of “Neustria” as “the new kingdom”, 1 which would – in his view – imply that the Austrasians conceived of Neustria as a new c.q. 2 “colonial” territory. Nor do we accept Steinbach’s views of Austrasia’s origins being linked to an alleged reversal in the process of romanisation of the Franks. !ese views are obviously 3 determined by the context of ,&:). 4 * AMP :. See also Fouracre, Late Merovingian France, **)-*:&. ,:5 chronicle – not considering the continuatio – the names “Austrasians” 1 and/or “Austrasia” are used forty-three times. It appears, therefore, that 2 both designations, in the seventy years or so since the ,:* 1 In Fredegar’s book IV the designation “Austrasians”, denoting a 2 collectivity, is rather more frequent than the territorial designation 3 “Austrasia” (!e ration being 5- to ,(). !e designation “Austrasians” is, 4 in ,& cases, found linked to a) political action or kingship, b) expressions 5 of opinion and c) the army. In other words: Fredegar’s narrative suggests 6 a link between the use of “Austrasians”, on the one hand, and Eastern 7 Frankish magnates undertaking political action, applying political 8 pressure, consenting with or opposing some action, or ,:: #e Liber Historiae Francorum and the Annales Mettenses Priores about 1 the Austrasians 2 !e Austrasian élite was jealous of its privileges and its in;uence. !eir 3 pride and autonomy re;ect also in the Neustrian narrative we know as 4 the Liber Historiae Francorum. At the occasion of Dagobert I’s installation 5 to (co-)kingship in the East, its narrative mentions how “the Austrasians, 6 who are actually the Upper Franks, came together and set up Dagobert 7 as king over themselves.”( !e work being composed two generations 8 a=er Fredegar (and almost a century a=er Dagobert I’s installation in 9 Austrasia), we may learn two things from this passage. First, that in the 0 ,:- 1 the Austrasian aristocrats were with regard to the territorial integrity of 2 Austrasia.,, 3 In this chapter, the Austrasian élite will be studied from various other 4 perspectives. Section two will analyze the signi ,:+ in Austrasia) to suit his taste ...”.,( To this “taste” we will return. On the 1 regional colour of the work, Austrasian or otherwise, we must also heed 2 Collins. He not only recognised that Childebrand’s (and Nibelung’s) 3 initiative led to an essentially di.erent and new work, but he also 4 succeeded in placing the Historia vel Gesta Francorum in its context. 5 Collins sees the Historia vel Gesta Francorum as a strongly pro- 6 Carolingian work, probably written as a dedication to the ,:' 1 a cleric named Daniel before his accession to the kingship.5+ From the 2 comparison between the Liber Historiae Francorum and the ,:( possible origin of the work’s '-,-version in South-West Germany or the 1 Bodensee region.*5 Also he points out that the ,:& 1 depot when waging war with the Saxons.:- He tells us about Carloman 2 gaining power in Auster, his account distinguishing between Alemannia 3 and !uringia.:+ In his narrative he has rather precise references to the 4 Austrasian royal seats !ionville:' and Metz,:( both on the Moselle. 5 All in all, a case could be made for the Historia vel Gesta Francorum 6 having been written in Austrasia, perhaps in the Moselle region. !e 7 plausibility of such a case is comparable to the propositions of Collins, 8 who rather favours South-Western Germany or the Burgundian region. 9 In this context, it should be considered that in the Continuatio the terms 0 “Austrasia” or “Austrasians” are used less frequently than in the Fourth 1 Book of Fredegar: ,) references in -: chapters, as against :* mentions in 2 &) chapters (see above, section ,). !is probably re;ects the decreasing 3 familiarity and use of the name in the second half of the VIIIth century. 4 Nonetheless, when the author reports what part of Pippin’s heritage 5 Charlemagne received in '+(, he refers to the Austrasiorum Regnum.:& 6 7 An aristocratic Origo Francorum 8 !ere is yet another perspective which is characteristic of the Historia 9 vel Gesta Francorum – and this follows from the work’s emphasis on 0 the – alleged – origin of the Franks. Already in the +-)’s the “original” 1 Fredegar had shown interest in a pretended Trojan origin of the 2 Franks,-) possibly taking his clue from a by then misunderstood 3 Roman diplomatic practice of honouring allies by naming them 4 “brothers” of the Romans.-, Remarkably the Liber Historiae Francorum 5 (c. '5'), too, knows a Trojan tradition, but this di.ers markedly from 6 Fredegar’s.-5 Whereas Fredegar reports a migration history leading the 7 Franks’ ancestors from Troy to the Rhine mainly led by duces (a=er 8 a king Francio had died, that is),-* the Liber Historiae Francorum is 9 more speci ,-) of the Liber Historiae Francorum – as if he had more use for a past with 1 duces than for a past with Pharamond. It was Fredegar’s original text 2 which he maintained in book II of the Historia vel Gesta Francorum. 3 In addition, he included into his work the Historia Daretis Phrygii de 4 Origine Francorum,-- which constitutes in fact a reworked version of 5 the VIth-century Historia de Excidio Troiae.-+ !e main adaptation of 6 this text consists of a report on the descendants of a certain Frankish 7 leader Pherecides, otherwise unaccounted for. His son Frigio (II) 8 allegedly ruled the Franks for +* years, a=er which he was succeeded 9 by his sons Franco and Vasso.-' !ey are depicted as belligerent leaders, 0 also ,-, 1 consciousness, Austrasian or Frankish, which they liked to see re;ected 2 in an Origo Francorum. 3 4 5 6 Section -. Austrasians as a politically active group 7 8 9 A history of self-consciousness 0 As we saw, Fredegar depicted Austrasians as regularly asserting 1 themselves through political action, through pressure and through 2 using their control of the army. Obviously, when Fredegar wrote about 3 “Austrasians”, he was thinking about in;uential men. !ey were also 4 committed to Austrasia’s territorial integrity (if only because they owned 5 land themselves in Austrasian territories), which suggests a certain 6 regional “awareness”. !e Historia vel Gesta Francorum adds a distinct 7 aristocratic ;avour to this. It shows a self-conscious group which 8 remained jealous of its prerogatives – also when dealing with the king and 9 kingship. In this section we will look at the way in which the aristocratic 0 activism of the Austrasians worked out in political reality. 1 A ,-5 and depose Childebert II.+* Rather than the actual course of a.airs, what 1 is important in this episode is how Austrasian aristocrats, as a matter of 2 course, thought they could decide whom to have for their king. 3 We may discern a development within the activism of the Eastern Franks. 4 In the -5)’s they clamoured for war and booty. In the -()’s they tried to 5 determine who would be king. !is development continued throughout 6 the VIIth and VIIIth centuries. Fredegar mentions the gathering of the 7 Franks which was to convene to settle Austrasian a.airs – presumably 8 including kingship – in the wake of the upheaval of +,5/,*. Parallel to the 9 increasingly e.ective activism of the Austrasians there is an increasingly 0 expressive self-awareness, witness the strong emphasis on the Frankish 1 origo in the Historia vel Gesta Francorum as compared to the original 2 chronicle of Fredegar. 3 4 Arnulf and Romaric 5 !e career of Arnulf of Metz is clarifying for the way in which individual 6 Frankish aristocrats could function and grow within these activist 7 dynamics and in;uence them in their own turn.+: Arnulf was born c. 8 -() from a family who probably possessed landed wealth in the Moselle 9 region near Metz.+- As an adolescent he became a trainee with Gundulf, 0 who had started out as a domesticus of the king, subsequently became a 1 dux and, ultimately, mayor of the palace.++ Arnulf became, when still a 2 very young man, a member of the personal entourage of king !eudebert 3 II of Austrasia and the Vita hints at successful military action, probably 4 against heathen peoples beyond the Rhine.+' Arnulf married and fathered 5 two sons.+( He was made bishop of Metz, doubtlessly by king !eudebert 6 II, in +,, or early +,5.+& 7 During the upheaval of +,5/+,* it was Arnulf who, together with Pippin 8 and other Austrasian magnates – not necessarily all of them – invited 9 0 1 +* DLH, VII, c. *5 and *+ and Fredegarius, III, c. (&. 2 +: Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon (BBKL), author Friedrich Wilhelm Bautz: 3 Arnulf, Bischof von Metz, Heiliger. Hamm ,&'-. 5., unveränderte Au;age Hamm ,&&), 4 Band I Sp. 5:+–5:'. +- It seems possible that the settlements of Dodigny and Chaucy were family possessions. Vita 5 Arnul!, c. ,, ,-. 6 ++ Vita Arnul!, c. *. Probably this is the same Gundulf who was related to the mother of 7 Gregory of Tours and who visited Gregory in the year -(,, DLH, VI, c. ,,. 8 +' Vita Arnul!, c. : ... phalangas adversarum gencium ... +( Vita Arnul!, c. -. According to Paul the Deacon the sons were named Ansegisel and 9 Chlodulf. I do not feel that Paul’s late report provides conclusive evidence to make Arnulf, 0 through a son allegedly called Ansegisel, a forebear of the Carolingians. 1 +& Vita Arnul!, c. '. It is not explicitly said at when and by whom Arnulf was made bishop. Yet 2 the Vita says that he was a domesticus and a counselor of the king when he became bishop. !is strongly suggests the ,-* 1 Chlothar II of Neustria into Austrasia.') In +55/+5* Chlothar made his son 2 Dagobert I consors regni in Austrasia.', Arnulf gained a position of high 3 trust, at least with Chlothar if not with his son: “Chlotharius had given 4 him into his hands a kingdom to govern and a son to educate”.'5 !ere 5 are indications that the bishop may have not been very intimate with the 6 young king.'* Arnulf certainly used his position. Together with Pippin he 7 managed to set Dagobert against the Agilol ,-: !is is suggested by the career of Arnulf, who ended up as a hermit. It 1 is also strongly suggested by the career of his friend Romaric, another 2 Austrasian aristocrat. Romaric was born about -&). Already as a young 3 man, he had connections to the court (palacio) of !eudebert II (-&+- 4 +,5), as had his parents.'& In +,5 king !eudebert was vanquished and 5 killed by his brother, !euderic II. Romaric’s father was murdered, too, 6 his possessions being forfeited. According to the Vita, Romaric went as 7 a supplicant to the court at Metz, but his pleading was rejected by queen 8 Brunhild and bishop Aridius of Lyons, who had accompanied her there 9 from Burgundy. Immediately a=erwards, however, king !euderic II 0 died. !e narrative suggests that this was a divine punishment, resulting 1 from Romaric’s fervent prayer. Subsequently, Romaric had his father’s 2 goods restored to him, and he facilitated the precipitate departure 3 of Brunhild, Aridius (and presumably young Sigebert II) from Metz 4 (+,*).() Under Chlothar, Romaric acquired high status at court.(, 5 However, when Romaric met the Burgundian monk Amatus he was 6 induced by him to give up his wealth and exchange his courtier’s life 7 for a monastic existence at Luxeuil. Next Amatus and Romaric founded 8 the monastery which in later years became known as Romarici Mons, 9 Remiremont.(5 We have seen in chapter two that Romaric had direct 0 access to Grimoald, the princeps palacium and was possibly consulted 1 by him on matters of state.(* Romaric is atypical for an Austrasian 2 power broker in that he is also an abbot (in the sense that Arnulf was 3 atypical as political leader because he was also a bishop). However, the 4 combination of political leadership and the function of abbot would be 5 seen rather o=en in Carolingian times. 6 !e most important source on Romaric is his Vita. !is Vita Romarici 7 is probably an Austrasian text, dating from the second half of the VIIth 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 '& Vita Romarici, c. 5. () Vita Romarici, c. *; (Krusch’ introduction p. 5,5:) Fugae Brunichildis cum Aridio … 5 nemo praeterea mentionem fecit eamque con!ctam esse patet per se. !ere is, however, no 6 justi ,-- 1 century.(: It is interesting to see what the text suggests on the relationship 2 between an aristocrat like Romaric and consecutive kings. !e narrative 3 has !euderic II die a=er he refuses the restitution of Romaric’s paternal 4 inheritance. It also has Brunhild take young Sigebert II away, with the 5 support of Romaric: obviously he had no use for kings who were under 6 someone else’s in;uence. To Chlothar II Romaric relates quite di.erently: 7 this king had been invited by the aristocrats Arnulf and Pippin, and 8 Romaric, too, found himself a niche at Chlothar’s court. Aristocrats pro ,-+ instilled into Dagobert in the days when the king used to listen to him”.(+ 1 !e episode is linked to Dagobert’s departure from Austrasia a=er he 2 succeeded his father and settled in the Île de France, moving out of 3 the Austrasians’ sphere of control and obliging Pippin to try and keep 4 together things in the East. In a sense Pippin had to ,-' 1 against his lord. His death came with terrible torture”.&) 2 3 Pippin, dukes and alliances 4 Although both Pippin and Grimoald (before the latter’s fall) obviously 5 enjoyed great prestige and authority in Austrasia and among the 6 Austrasians, Fredegar uses no special term for their dignity. Of course 7 he terms Pippin maior domus, but this indicates an o>ce rather than 8 aristocratic leadership. Such leadership is o=en indicated by the word 9 dux, yet Fredegar, the source closest in time to Pippin, does not use the 0 word in relation to Pippin.&, With Fredegar the term dux seems rather 1 connected to factional and/or regional leadership&5 and Pippin may have 2 seemed to have acquired a higher position.&* On the other hand, in his 3 report on Arnulf and Pippin inviting king Chlothar II into Austrasia in 4 +,*, both magnates are portrayed as factional leaders, without any explicit 5 mention of dignities (bishop, dux).&: Fredegar provides no indication 6 of the exact relationship between the two men – one, Arnulf, from the 7 Moselle region, the other from the mid-Meuse area. From Fredegar’s 8 further report it is clear that they remained political allies a=er +,*.&- 9 !ey are the two Austrasian aristocrats whose political activism is most 0 obviously e.ective. 1 Yet neither Arnulf nor Pippin is ever called dux in (semi-) 2 contemporaneous accounts. In the case of Pippin, once again, it appears 3 that he stood above the dux-title. In the Life of Saint Gertrude (written 4 c. +')) we ,-( a lordly meal”. !e episode will have taken place during Dagobert’s royal 1 progress through Austrasia in +*),&' at Nivelles or near there. Dagobert 2 was not the only guest at Pippin’s table at that occasion. !ere arrived 3 also “the son of a duke of the Austrasians ..., a noxious character, and he 4 had entreated the king and the parents of the girl (= Gertrude, daughter 5 of Pippin and Itta) that this girl be promised to him in matrimony 6 according to the custom of the world for the sake of his worldly ambition 7 and a mutual alliance”. Mark that there is mention of “a duke of the 8 Austrasians”, not of “another duke of the Austrasians”.&( It has been 9 proposed that the obnoxious suitor was the son of duke Adalgisel, but this 0 cannot be proven.&& Be that as it may, the suitor was refused. !e Vita says 1 that Gertrude, who must have been a girl of about ten at the time, “said 2 she wanted...neither him nor any other earthly man as her groom, but 3 rather Christ the Lord”. It appears as if an e.ort, sponsored by Dagobert, 4 to forge a political alliance between two factions (Pippin’s and some 5 Austrasian duke’s) had miscarried. Rather than that the devout motives of 6 young Gertrude settled the matter, it appears that Pippin and the “duke” 7 had been unable to ,-& 1 but not certain, he may have had family ties with the clan of Arnulf of 2 Metz.,)* Pippin of Herstal, who restored his families fortunes a=er the 3 hard years following the fall of his uncle Grimoald, found an ally in 4 duke Martin of Champagne.,): Pippin had revenged the murder of his 5 father Ansegisel on duke Gundoin, who had been an ally of Vulfoald 6 and is called a tirannus in the Annales Mettenses Priores.,)- In fact, 7 we may discern at least two “clouds of allies” in mid VIIth-century 8 Austrasia (the word “faction” appears too neat for the phenomenon). 9 One was grouped around Grimoald and, later, his nephew Pippin of 0 Herstal; it included Adalgisel, Martin and the Arnul ,+) It helps explain why Dagobert I appears to have gone out of his way to try 1 and arrange the crucial marriage. 2 As it is, the alliance between Pippin and the dux Austrasiorum sprang 3 o.. !ere may or there may not have been a link between this failure and 4 the subsequent trouble Pippin found himself in.,,) In any case, Pippin’s 5 troubles sprang from Dagobert’s departure to the West to govern the 6 three kingdoms from there. Part – or symptom – of his troubles was 7 the temporary estrangement between him and bishop Chunibert of 8 Cologne, who a=er +** shared authority at young Sigebert III’s court 9 with Adalgisel, not with Pippin. !eir relations were mended following 0 Dagobert I’s death (+*(), when the Austrasians con ,+, 1 su.ered at the hand of Radulf of !uringia (+*&),,+ suggests that military 2 reputation was crucial to authority in Austrasia and that, consequently, 3 defeat in war entailed loss of authority. 4 A period of aristocratic strife and con;ict in Austrasia followed the 5 execution of Grimoald by the Neustrians. For a while, the stage was 6 dominated by the opposing faction. Vulfoald dominated the Austrasian 7 court. One if his allies was Gundoin, the murderer of Grimoald’s brother- 8 in-law Ansegisel.,,' 9 0 #e crisis of Childeric II 1 !e dux and faction leader Vulfoald had allied himself with Sigebert III’s 2 widow Himnechild and became the major power broker at the Austrasian 3 court of Childeric II.,,( !is alliance between dux and queen-widow 4 is a remarkable one and may have contributed to the unusual power 5 obviously wielded by Himnechild.,,& In +'*, a=er an uprising in Neustria 6 had temporarily ousted !euderic III and Ebroin, Vulfoald and “his” 7 Austrasian king Childeric II took over in Neustria. Vulfoald became the 8 king’s mayor of the palace.,5) Other than in +5&, when the departure of 9 Dagobert I and Pippin to Neustria led to much dissatisfaction in Austrasia 0 things initially kept calm this time. A main reason for this will have been 1 that king Childeric, following a general appeal, issued some edicts, the texts 2 of which unfortunately are not preserved, that dealt with the distribution 3 of competences between the magistrates in the three kingdoms.,5, !e 4 Burgundian Passio Leudegarii, a near contemporary source, reports how, 5 in response to the general appeal, Childeric originally decided to “issue 6 the following edicts throughout the three kingdoms over which he had 7 gained sway: that as of old the judges should maintain the law and custom 8 of each kingdom and that rules from one [province] should not intrude in 9 the others lest one of them should ... look down on his peers, for, as they 0 acknowledged that access to the highest position should be open to all, 1 nobody was to presume to place himself before another”.,55 !e text used by 2 3 4 ,,+ Fredegarius, IV, c. ('. ,,' AMP, ,-5. Ebling, Prosopographie, CXCIX. 5 ,,( On the alliance between Himnechild and Vulfoald see Fouracre, Late Merovingian France, 6 5+:. Also: Passio Praejecti episcopi et martyris Averni, ed. B. Krusch, MGH SSRM V 7 (Hanover and Leipzig ,&,)) 55*-55:, c. 5: and 5-. 8 ,,& Passio Praejecti, c. 5:; Fouracre, Late Merovingian France, 5(&, note ,,5. ,5) Ebling, Prosopographie, CCCXIII. 9 ,5, Passio Leudegarii, c. '. 0 ,55 Ibidem; translation: see Fouracre, Late Merovingian France; Interea Childerico rege expetiunt 1 universi, ut talia daret decreta per tria quam obtinuerit regna, ut uniuscuiusque patriae 2 legem vel consuetudinem deberent, sicut antiquitus, iudices conservare, et ne de una provintia rectore in aliis introirent, neque unus at instar Ebroini tyrrannidem adsumeret, ut postmodum 3 sicut ille contubernales suos despiceret; sed dum mutua sibi successione culminis habere 4 cognoscerent, nullus se alio anteferre auderet. ,+5 the Passio reminds one of the Paris edicts which Chlothar II had issued in 1 +,:. However, soon a=erwards things went awry. !e Passio next reports: 2 “Childeric was now corrupted by the advice he took from foolish and 3 nearly pagan people. And, subject to the inconstancy of youth, what he had 4 con ,+* 1 factional strife. A character typical of the times is presented by Adalrich 2 Eticho, an intriguing personality who – although rather an Alsatian 3 than an Austrasian,*, – probably played a role in what was to prove 4 the last Austrasian bid to have, in Dagobert II, a king of its own. !e 5 Passio Leudegarii reports on Adalrich’s ambitions to become patricius of 6 Provence and also on a military expedition he undertook against Lyons 7 during Ebroin’s return to power.,*5 He failed on both occasions and next 8 turned against !euderic III and Ebroin, in the meantime focussing on 9 ,+: found there as bishop of Worms.,*: His Vita practically opens with the 1 account of his departure from Worms for Bavaria, where he allegedly 2 became the founder-bishop of Salzburg. But what is important here is 3 the fact that Rupert’s departure from Worms was more a consequence 4 of his opposition to Pippin II than of his obeying a missionary vocation 5 retrospectively ascribed to him.,*- !e departure of Rupert did not imply 6 that the opposition ended. Pippin was to see his son Grimoald murdered 7 by one Rantgar (',:),*+ and although we know nothing of the murderers 8 background the assassination ,+- 1 Section '. Austrasian aristocrats and kingship 2 3 4 Rather than sharing Eugen Ewig’s views on the divisions of the Regnum 5 Francorum as resulting from political or dynastical expediency, this 6 study operates from the conviction that regional di.erences between the 7 “Teilreiche” formed a conclusive element and, speci ,++ leaders’ charisma and the hallowedness of the people’s “kuning”;,:- and 1 the multitudo nobilium, the “ gathering of the great”, had to take his bid 2 for kingship in serious consideration.,:+ !ere were more conditions to 3 become a king (idoneitas being a general term in this context), but we 4 will not deal with all of them. Su>ce it to say that “no early medieval king 5 ever succeeded to his kingdom as a matter of course”.,:' 6 Historiography provides us with several episodes illustrating – more or less 7 clearly – how the “gathering of the great” actually worked with respect to 8 royal successions in Austrasia. 9 When in +,* Chlothar II of Neustria, invited by the faction of Arnulf 0 and Pippin, entered Austrasia, ambassadors of Brunhild met him at 1 Andernach and demanded that he leave the kingdom, which the late 2 !euderic II had le= to his sons. Chlothar’s response, as reported by 3 Fredegar, is revealing: “Chlothar then replied to Brunechildis through 4 her envoys that he undertook to abide by whatever decision should, 5 with God’s help, be arrived at by a gathering of Franks chosen for that 6 purpose”.,:( Chlothar in fact states that a gathering will have to take place 7 because that is the thing to do when, a=er the death of a king, in this case 8 !euderic II, succession is in order. Fredegar’s text suggests that such 9 a gathering would consist “of a group of selected Franks” (Francorum 0 electorum) – the “selected” actually referring to a process through which 1 competing leaders come to agree upon a group of negotiators –, power- 2 brokers who would constitute a gathering with authority to acclaim a 3 king (or sanction an act of state in general).,:& In the current case the 4 triumphant Chlothar had his young rival Sigebert II killed. !erefore, the 5 “gathering of the great” – if actually it did meet in +,*; Fredegar does not 6 con ,+' 1 men of his kingdom, placed his son Sigebert on the throne of Austrasia 2 and allowed him to make Metz his headquarters”.,-) Although according 3 to Fredegar “all the great men of his (=Dagobert’s) kingdom” consented, 4 implying Neustrian and Burgundian consent, we can be certain that the 5 Austrasians’ demands were decisive at the occasion: it was the disastrous 6 war in the East which had led to the very disturbed relationship between 7 them and Dagobert and now, in +**, they forced the king’s hand. When, 8 some months later, Dagobert had to consent in the eventual divided 9 succession as kings by his sons Sigebert III and the newly-born Clovis, 0 Fredegar reports how “all the Austrasian magnates, the bishops and all 1 the warriors of Sigebert swore with hands raised” on the arrangement.,-, 2 Five years later, a=er Dagobert I had died, the Austrasian great asserted 3 their rights as they “unanimously sought Sigebert for their king”,,-5 led by 4 Pippin (+*(). 5 “Gatherings of the great” were, of course, also held in Neustria and 6 Burgundy, not to speak about other ‘successor-states in the West’.,-* Yet in 7 Austrasia – or at least in contemporary narratives on Austrasia,-: – there 8 seems to have been a particular emphasis on the link between royal 9 successions / accessions and such gatherings. Neither Fredegar nor other 0 narrative sources show a comparably close link existing within the other 1 kingdoms. !is suggests that Austrasian magnates had rather a strong say 2 3 ,-) Fredegarius, IV, c. '- (Translation Wallace-Hadrill, Chronicle of Fredegar): Dagobertus 4 Mettis orbem ueniens, cum consilio ponteuecum seo et procerum, omnesque primatis regni 5 sui consencientebus, Sigybertum !lium suum in Auster regem sublimauit sedemque ei Mettis 6 ciuitatem habere permisit. Although Fredegar makes no mention of a “gathering of the great” when Chlothar II made Dagobert his consors regni in +55, we can be certain that 7 such a gethering took place – it would be interesting to know whether in Austrasia or in 8 Neustria. 9 ,-, Fredegarius, IV, c. '+ (Translation Wallace-Hadrill, Chronicle of Fredegar): ... Austrasiorum 0 omnes primati, ponteuecis citirique leudis Sigyberti manus eorum ponentes insuper, sacramentis !rmauerunt ... 1 ,-5 Ibidem, (- (Wallace-Hadrill, Chronicle of Fredegar): Cum Pippinus maior domi post 2 Dagoberti obetum et citiri ducis Austrasiorum qui usque in transito Dagoberti suae fuerant 3 dicione retenti Sigybertum unanemem conspiracionem expetissent ... 4 ,-* For Neustria see, for instance, Passio Leudegarii, I, -; Nelson, ‘Inauguration rituals’, -*; for Burgundy see Fredegarius, IV, :: (Gathering probably at Bonneuil-sur-Marne). 5 ,-: Fredegarius, IV, c. :); LHF, c. :,; HGF, c. **; Annales Regni Francorum, s.a. ':& and '-) 6 (Although this passage refers, according to the source, to a gathering held at Soissons, it 7 concerns the elevation of the Austrasian Pippin to the kingship; other sources – HGF, AMP 8 – make no mention of Soissons); See also the AMP, 5: Interea duces ac optimates Francorum ... ad Pippinum properant seque cum omnibus quos gubernabant suae dictioni mancipant. 9 Here a gathering of the (Austrasian) great is said to have put themselves under the “rule” 0 of Pippin I (who was of course not a king but was unabashedly presented as one by the 1 AMP-text two centuries later); p. 5): Ut autem [Carolus = Charles Martel] aperte cunctanto 2 plebi aparuit, tanta favore tantaque gratulatione ab universis susceptus est, acsi dominator eorum Pippinus ad consolationem eorum revixisset (Charles Martel is accepted as leader by a 3 gathering of the Austrasian great. Again: although Charles is not a king, the AMP presents 4 him as such). ,+( when it came to accepting kings. If this is the case, it is a circumstance 1 which may help us to understand why the so-called coup of Grimoald, 2 while anathema to the Neustrians, seems to have been accepted by the 3 Austrasians: Grimoald and his allies in Austrasia may have felt they 4 were merely exercizin a legitimate right when they preferred Childebert 5 Adoptivus above the infant Dagobert (II). Also, this strong say of 6 Austrasian magnates on who was to be (their) king will have contributed 7 greatly to the acceptance of Pippin the Short’s accession to the throne in 8 '-,. 9 Now – once again – for the episode of Dagobert II’s rule and fall, the 0 account of which, though both obscure and anecdotic, may serve to 1 illustrate how Austrasian aristocrats went about acquiring a king of their 2 own. !is episode was referred to in the previous section, within the 3 context of aristocratic activism, and also in chapter two, as an instance of 4 how kingship and policy-making in;uenced each other. Here the focus is 5 on aristocrats making alliances among themselves and with churchmen 6 to procure themselves with a king who may legitimately lead them against 7 their enemies. 8 Following the murder of Childeric II and his queen Bilichild, the 9 Austrasians – or at least a substantial part of the magnates – faced with 0 the need to have a new king, decided that they preferred a ruler with a 1 su>cient degree of Austrasianness. !ey placed their hope on the son of 2 the late Sigebert III, Dagobert, by now at least twenty-six years old and 3 still living in exile in Ireland, where Dido of Poitiers had taken him when 4 an infant. 5 How this new chance for Dagobert came about is described in the 6 Vita Wilfridi, which dates from c. ',-. Wilfrid, the prominent and 7 controversial bishop of York, got involved in Dagobert’s “restoration”. 8 In chapter 5( of his Vita the author, Stephen of Ripon, writes: “A=er 9 the passing of years, when his friends and relatives heard from sailors 0 that he (Dagobert) was living and ;ourishing in adulthood, they sent 1 their messengers to blessed bishop Wilfred asking that he call him from 2 Scotland and Ireland to himself and sent him forth to be made king”. 3 !e author goes on: “And our holy bishop did indeed bring about that, 4 when he had been fetched from Ireland, he could be sent in great style 5 to his own country, supported by all kinds of riches and by men allied 6 to him”.,-- !us leading factions in Austrasia acquired a king. It is not 7 clear who were in the lead in this process. Gerberding points out that his 8 reinterpretation of the Liber Historiae Francorum suggests that Pippin II 9 0 1 2 ,-- Vita Wilfridi, c. 5(; Et sic sanctus pontifex noster perfecit, sucipiens eum de Hibernia venientem, per omnia ditatum et viribus sociorum elevatum magni!ce ad suam regionem 3 emisit. 4 ,+& 1 and Martin may already have “dominated” Austrasia at the time.,-+ Wood 2 sees, quite plausibly, a leading role in Dagobert’s restoration for their rival 3 Adalrich Eticho, who deserted !euderic III for the Austrasian side.,-' 4 In the meantime, several things are suggested by the circumstances of 5 Dagobert’s return. First, there is the nature of the ,') bishops, had just been insidiously killed”.,+, So much for the episcopal 1 connections of Dagobert II, one would say – yet Stephen’s further account 2 gives food for thought on this point. 3 Who killed Dagobert II and for what reason? Listen to what Stephen 4 of Ripon writes in the Vita Wilfridi, when describing Wilfrid’s way 5 back from Rome and travelling through Francia. It is not stated which 6 route the Northumbrian bishop took or in what part of Francia he 7 found himself when he was met on the road by a very angry bishop 8 who led a huge armed retinue and stopped Wilfrid and his company, 9 “intending to plunder them all or lead them into slavery or have them 0 auctioned o., even to kill those who would ,', 1 Burgundian kind of argument than an Austrasian one, and apart 2 from the fact that the reproaches were probably brought forward by 3 a Neustrian-Burgundian bishop, there is the fact that Ebroin indeed 4 was an enemy of Dagobert II, who had been set up against “his” king 5 !euderic III. War had been waged – speci ,'5 Ebroin. Despite the defeat at Lucofao, it might have proved a viable 1 gambit, had it not been for the murder of the king.,', 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 ,', P. Fouracre, ‘Forgetting and remembering Dagobert II’ in: P. Fouracre and D. Ganz ed., 3 Frankland (Manchester 5))() ')-(&. 4 ,'* 1 2 3 4 5 V. Elements of ethnogenesis and 6 7 understanding Austrasian identity 8 9 0 Section $. !e Franks: a short history and 1 a pretentious tradition 2 3 4 Gregory of Tours reports that many of his contemporaries were of the 5 opinion that the Franks had lived in Pannonia in ancient days and 6 later settled in !uringia. Having settled there, they allegedly installed 7 reges crinites, long-haired kings, according to their various pagi and 8 civitates;, Gregory introduces Chlodio, who conquered the region of 9 Cambrai, made the Somme his southern frontier and became the father 0 of Merovech. For the rest, Gregory is rather reticent on Frankish origins, 1 certainly when compared with Fredegar and with the Liber Historiae 2 Francorum. 3 Fredegar presents us with a fantastic account of how the Franks allegedly 4 originated from a group of fugitive Trojans who, following the fall of 5 their city and a=er many vicissitudes, settled between the Rhine, the 6 Danube and the sea and chose themselves a certain Francio as their king, 7 a=er whom they were named. A=er Francio died, the Franks were ruled 8 by duces.5 !e Liber Historiae Francorum provides a report which, too, 9 claims a Trojan origin for the Franks. !e narrative tells us that they 0 reached, a=er much combat, the farthest regions of Germany on the 1 borders of the Rhine. Following their arrival there, they chose themselves 2 Pharamond as their rex crinitus.* 3 All three narratives agree on the assumption that the Franks came to 4 north-western Germany from the East, although Gregory obviously had 5 no knowledge of the alleged Trojan connection which Fredegar and the 6 Liber Historiae Francorum elaborate upon.: All three narratives also 7 8 , DLH, II c. &; Tradunt enim multi eosdem de Pannonia fuisse degressus [et] #oringiam 9 transmeasse, ibique iuxta pagus vel civitates regis crinitos super se creavisse ... See also I.N. 0 Wood, ‘De ,': report how, having settled in north-western Germany, the Franks took 1 themselves kings – whom Gregory and the Liber Historiae Francorum 2 designate reges crinites.% 3 In Gregory’s version, the Franks had not much history to look back upon 4 – and this was even more true of their ruling dynasty, the Merovingians. 5 !e Franks came from Pannonia, settled in !uringia and Chlodio 6 conquered Northern Gaul. Chlodio was only the great-grandfather of 7 Clovis. !is compares poorly to, say, the seventeen kings in the genealogy 8 of the Osthrogothic kings.+ Fredegar and the Liber Historiae Francorum 9 do not provide the Merovingians with more seniority, but they certainly 0 go out of their way to provide the Franks as such with a respectable 1 background, making them Trojans and, as such, “brothers of the 2 Romans”.' 3 Seen in the context of the debate between Wolfram and Go.art( on 4 whether gentes in late antiquity had “long histories” or, on the contrary, 5 short ones, the Franks provide us with the example of a people with a 6 short history. Certainly the Merovingian dynasty had a short history. 7 Neither Gregory nor Fredegar or the author of the Liber Historiae 8 Francorum reveal anything about Merovingian Frankish kings from 9 before Chlodio, that is to say: before the mid-Vth century; Pharamond is 0 not presented as a Merovingian.& 1 All this is not to say that there did not exist or develop, during the two 2 centuries of Merovingian rule, a distinct set of Frankish-Merovingian 3 traditions closely connected to what I will venture to call a Frankish 4 identity. !e Trojan stories, the Pannonian adventures and the warlike 5 competition with the Roman brother people are crucial elements of this 6 tradition. So are the reports on Pharamond and on the origins of the reges 7 8 9 - DLH, II, c. & and LHF, c. :. 0 + H. Wolfram, ‘Origo et religio. Ethnic traditions and literature in early medieval texts’ in: T.F.X. Noble ed., From Roman provinces to medieval kingdoms (London and New York 1 5))+) ')-&). 2 ' On the possible origins of the Trojan connection in IVth-century diplomatic practice and 3 the speci ,'- 1 crinites, as well as the fabulous account of Merovech being sired by a sea 2 monster, a quinotaurus, rather than by his human father Chlodio.,) !ese 3 traditions, however, clearly did not have any relationship with distant 4 past realities.,, Nor were they very ancient as traditions. In the view of 5 Wood, the Trojan tradition probably found its origin in Vth-century 6 Roman diplomatic practice.,5 Of the authors who wrote on reges crinites 7 Gregory, working in the later VIth century, is the earliest. In this respect, 8 the case of the VIIth-century Franks provides us with the example of a 9 “diplomatic-literary” tradition which itself was of mainly VIIth-century 0 origin but which yet, by mobilizing ancient themes like the Trojan 1 War, older Roman history and pristine Frankish kingship, presented its 2 audience a virtual historical context to identify with. !is may appear 3 to be a vindication of the view of Go.art, who is critical of Wolfram’s 4 views on how distant past reality would palpably in;uence, through myth 5 and its re;ection in the origines gentium, the Germanic peoples of late 6 antiquity. Myths and origines gentium are constructions. Yet this being 7 said, it does not mean that the concepts of ethnogenesis as proposed by 8 Wolfram and further developed by the “Vienna School” would not be 9 helpful when addressing questions of identity. 0 In fact, in this chapter we will try and ,'+ aristocratic identity had further developed into a regionally anchored 1 collective identity. Whereas in '5' the Neustrian Liber Historiae 2 Francorum, being a very “Frankish” narrative, had ideologically settled 3 around kings and kingship in Neustria, in the '')’s and '()’s the Historia 4 vel Gesta Francorum re;ects the self-consciousness of an aristocratic 5 ruling class which, while emanating from Austrasia, was assertively 6 active throughout the expanding Frankish Kingdom. !roughout the 7 VIIth and into the early VIIIth century, Frankish identity had developed 8 as re;ected by Gregory, Fredegar and the Liber Historiae Francorum. 9 Now, in the (later) VIIIth century from this basis a broader, ultimately 0 imperial, identity evolved which, although it soon embraced most 1 of Francia, yet long kept much of its roots in Austrasia. It is as if the 2 Austrasian “Kulturraum” expanded and came to include the Regnum 3 Francorum as a whole. A genesis had taken place between c. +)) and c. 4 ()), which was carried by a blend of Austrasian concepts on kingship, 5 on the sacred and on aristocratic ethics. When we explore this genesis 6 with help of the concepts proposed by Wolfram, our understanding of 7 the process may be enhanced – provided that we keep in mind Go.art’s 8 doubts. Whereas the actual, lived-through history of the Austrasians – 9 like that of the Franks in general – remained a relatively short history, 0 we are fully justi