The Longhaired Kings of the Franks
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The long-haired kings of the Franks: 1 ‘like so many Samsons?’ emed_343 233..259 Erik Goosmann As the paradigm of Germanic sacral kingship has lost its appeal, historians have begun to rethink the concept of Merovingian kingship. Most of the arguments once used in support of its alleged Germanic and pagan character have now been refuted. However, the meaning of their long hair has thus far proven difficult to explain. This article will argue that the Merovingian hairstyle took up Christian meaning shortly after their conversion, presenting them in the image of the biblical Samson. Consequently, their use of biblical analogies to legitimize royal power further challenges the once-held dichotomy between Merovingian and Carolingian kingship. ‘At this time in Gaul, when the kings of the Franks were degenerating from their wonted courage and skill, those who were regarded as stewards of the palace began to administer the kingly power and to do whatever is the custom for kings, since it was ordained from heaven that the sovereignty of the Franks should be transferred to the race of these men.’ Paul the Deacon, History of the Langobards2 * I am very grateful to Mayke de Jong, Guy Geltner, Ian Wood, Rob Meens, Janneke Raaijmak- ers, Carine van Rhijn, Sven Meeder and Dorine van Espelo for their most helpful suggestions and comments on earlier versions of this article. 1 Based on the comment of M. Bloch: ‘Les reges criniti étaient autant de Samsons’. M. Bloch, Les rois thaumaturges. Étude sur le caractère supernaturel attribué a la puissance royale particulièrement en France et en Angleterre (Paris, 1924), p. 61. 2 Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum VI.16, ed. L. Bethmann and G. Waitz, MGH Scriptores rerum Langobardorum 1 (Hanover, 1878), p. 170: ‘Hoc tempore aput Gallias Francorum regibus a soli[ta] fortitudine et scientia degenerantibus, hi qui maiores domui regalis esse videbantur administrare regi potentiam et quicquid regibus agree mos est coepe- runt; quippe cum caelitus esse[t] dispositum, ad horum progeniem Francorum transvehi regnum.’ Early Medieval Europe 2012 20 (3) 233–259 © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX42DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA 234 Erik Goosmann The last Merovingian kings were a degenerate lot, or so their successors would have us believe. In the eyes of Carolingian authors, Dagobert I (d. 639) had been the last great Merovingian king, while those who followed in his wake were castigated as reges inutiles: weak rulers who had been unable to withstand the aristocratic encroachment upon royal authority.3 The accumulation of power by the nobility ultimately led to the famous coup of 751, during which the Merovingian king Childeric III was dethroned, tonsured, and packed off to the monastery of St-Bertin.4 Childeric was replaced by the Carolingian princeps Pippin III (d. 768), the former mayor of the palace, whose rise to the throne is thought to have constituted much more than a mere dynastic transition: it ushered in a new era, featuring a model of Christian kingship deeply inspired by the biblical kings of the Old Testament, as implied by the numerous literary allusions, both foreign and domestic,5 and the introduction of anointing as the new ritual for royal inauguration.6 In this respect, modern scholarship has long considered Carolingian kingship an antithesis to the Merovingian model: where the former came to be viewed as inherently Christian and institutionalized, the latter was perceived as the embodiment of an archaic Sakralkönigtum, rooted in Germanic and pagan traditions.7 Although this view has been successfully challenged and finds few adherents today, some of its features prove to be tenacious. In line herewith, the present article shall focus on the charac- teristic long hair of the Merovingian kings, traditionally held to be an iconic symbol of their purported Germanic identity, and argue instead that the royal hairstyle had acquired a Christian symbolism at a relatively 3 Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum; Einhard, Vita Karoli,c.1, ed. O. Holder-Egger, MGH SRM 25 (Hanover, 1911), pp. 2–4; Annales regni Francorum unde ab a. 741 usque ad a. 829, qui dicuntur annales laurissenses maiores et Einhardi, s.a. 749, ed. F. Kurze, MGH SRG 6 (Hanover, 1895), pp. 8–9; Annales Mettenses priores, s.a. 692, ed. B. von Simson, MGH SRG 10 (Hanover, 1905), p. 14. Attempts to rehabilitate some of the later Merovingian kings on the basis of extant charters have been made by: R.A. Gerberding, The Rise of the Carolingians and the Liber historiae Francorum (Oxford, 1987), pp. 109–13 and 158–9; I.N. Wood, The Merovingian Kingdoms 450–751 (Harlow, 1994), pp. 261–3 and 322–4; P. Fouracre, The Age of Charles Martel (Harlow, 2000), pp. 77–8. Cf. T. Kölzer, ‘Die letzten Merowingerkönige: rois fainéants?’, in M. Becher and J. Jarnut (eds), Der Dynastiewechsel von 751. Vorgeschichte, Legitimationsstrategien und Erinnerung (Münster, 2004), pp. 33–60. 4 K.H. Krüger, ‘Sithiu/Saint Bertin als Grablege Childerichs III und der Grafen von Flandern’, Frühmittelalterliche Studien: Jahrbuch des Instituts für Frühmittelalterforschung der Universität Münster 8 (1974), pp. 71–80. 5 M. Garrison, ‘The Franks as the New Israel? Education for an Identity from Pippin to Charlemagne’, in Y. Hen and M. Innes (eds), The Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 114–61,atpp.119–20 and 123. 6 J.L. Nelson, ‘The Lord’s Anointed and the People’s Choice: Carolingian Royal Ritual’, in J.L. Nelson, The Frankish World, 750–900 (London and Rio Grande, 1996), pp. 99–132,atp.102. 7 W. Ullmann, The Carolingian Renaissance and the Idea of Kingship, The Birbeck Lectures, 1968–9 (London, 1969), pp. 53–5; W. Kienast, ‘Germanische Treue und “Königsheil” ’, His- torische Zeitschrift 227 (1978), pp. 265–324,atpp.292 and 305. Early Medieval Europe 2012 20 (3) © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd The long-haired kings of the Franks 235 early date, thus further rendering void any sharp distinction between Merovingian and Carolingian kingship. The theory of germanisches Sakralkönigtum originated in nineteenth- century Germanic antiquity studies (germanisches Altertumskunde) and religious studies (Religionswissenschaft), which, betraying their national- istic undertones, sought to disclose Germany’s earliest history as distinc- tively Germanic, i.e. culturally distinct from Roman or Christian influences.8 Ironically, this Germanic perception of the German past rested mainly on the works of classical Roman authors. Tacitus’ Germania especially came to be viewed as the blueprint for the modern perception of early Germanic society – something a later generation of scholars began to regard as methodologically askew.9 The traditional scholarly perception of Germanic sacral kingship, using Eve Picard’s definition, was based on three main premises.10 First, Germanic society was religiously ordered: religion dominated every aspect of life, including politics. Second, the ruler was recognized by his followers as a descendant of the gods, who possessed divine qualities, and who mediated between the realm of men and that of the gods (i.e. he acted as priest). It was this religious aspect that formed the basis of the ruler’s charismatic embodiment of the people’s fortune and the main source of legitimation for his royal power.11 A third premise underlying the previous two, was the idea that Frankish kingship was intrinsically 8 For example: J. Grimm, Deutsche Rechts Alterthümer (Göttingen, 1828). For an overview of the discussion and literature, see H.H. Anton et al., ‘Sakralkönigtum’, in J. Hoops and R. Müller (eds), Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde, 2nd edn (Berlin and New York, 2004), pp. 179–320. On the concept of ‘archaic early Middle Ages’, see W. Pohl, ‘Ursprungserzählungen und Gegenbilder. Das archaische Frühmittelalter’, in F. Rexroth (ed.), Meistererzählungen vom Mittelalter. Epochenimaginationen und Verlaufsmuster in der Praxis mediavistischer Disziplinen, Historische Zeitschrift, Beihefte (Munich, 2007), pp. 23–42,atpp.23–9. 9 J.M. Wallace-Hadrill, Early Germanic Kingship in England and on the Continent, The Ford Lectures Delivered in the University of Oxford in Hilary Term 1970 (Oxford, 1971), pp. 1–2;E. Picard, Germanisches Sakralkönigtum? Quellenkritische Studien zur Germania des Tacitus und zur altnordischen Überlieferung, Skandinavische Arbeiten (Heidelberg, 1991), p. 38. 10 Picard, Germanisches Sakralkönigtum?,pp.31–3. Picard’s attempt at a broad definition is a reaction to the widely held critique that the definition of sacrality, charismatic kingship, Königsheil etc. has become increasingly imprecise: H. Wolfram, ‘Methodische Fragen zur Kritik am “sakralen” Königtum germanischer Stämme’, in I. Hansberger-Wilflinger (ed.), Festschrift für Otto Höfler zum 65. Geburtstag, 2 vols (Vienna, 1968), II, pp. 473–90,atp.476; M.J. Enright, Iona, Tara and Soissons. The Origin of the Royal Anointing Ritual (Berlin and New York, 1985), p. 109,n.7; I.N. Wood, ‘Deconstructing the Merovingian Family’, in R. Corradini, M. Diesenberger and H. Reimitz (eds), The Construction of Communities in the Early Middle Ages: Texts, Resources and Artefacts (Leiden and Boston, 2003), pp. 149–71,atpp.153–4; Y. Hen, ‘The Christianisation of Kingship’, in Becher and Jarnut (eds), Der Dynastiewechsel von 751,pp. 163–77,atpp.164–5; F.-R. Erkens, ‘Sakralkönigtum und sakrales Königtum. Anmerkungen und Hinweise’, in F.-R. Erkens (ed.), Das frühmittelalterliche Königtum. Ideelle und reliöse Grundlagen (Berlin and New York,