C ITHMA VOLUME XLI NOVEMBER 2001 NUMBER 1

Articles

Adalhard of Corbie's De ordine palatii: Some Methodological Observations Regarding Chapters 29-36 by Bernard S. Bachrach

Samuel Johnson: Latitudinarian or High Churchman? by Chester Chapin

Book Reviews: Contents

Book Reviews

Personalia: Articles

Personalia: Book Reviews

3

35

44

45

55

56

St. Bonaventure University does not discriminate on the basis of sex, creed' naniral origin, age, marital or handicapped

status in admissions, education programs, or employment practices' Any grievance pertaining to discrimination should

be directed to the Vice President forrAcademicAffairs-

Copyright 2001 St. Bonaventure University

BERNARD S. BACHRACH Adalhard of Corbie's De ordine palatii: Some Methodological Observations Regarding Chapters 29-36

Writing under very hectic conditions sometime after 9 September but before 8 November 882, Archbishop Hincmar of Rheims wrote an Admonitio to provide advice regarding the administration of the West Frankish kingdom. The tract was addressed jointly to the bishops of Francis occidental is and to young King Carloman,

who had recently succeeded to the throne on the death of Louis III? In this Admonitio, Hincmar calls attention to a libellus entitled De ordine palatii. The

archbishop indicates that the author of this work was a certain Adalhard, whom he

identifies both as a relative of the emperor Charles the Great, and abbot of the

monastery of Corbie. 2 Hincmar characterizes Adalhard as a wise man and emphasizes that he was first among Charlemagne's leading advisers' From the

seventeenth century onward Hincmar's Admonitio has been referred to in the

scholarly literature by the title of Adalhard's earlier work De ordine palatii 4 This

study will focus on questions regarding the authorship and textual integrity of the De ordine palatii, a document that provides valuable insights into the workings of the Carolingian court.

Hincmar would appear to have been in a position personally to have known

something of Adalhard and of this libellus. Indeed, the archbishop avers not only that he had read Adalhard's De ordine palatii, but also that he had made a copy of it ("legi et scripsi"). 5 In addition, Hincmar makes clear that while he was still in his

youth he had seen Adalhard. However, by that time, Hincmar notes that Adalhard

already was an old man 6 Hincmar leaves the impression that he provided this information regarding the importance of Adalhard to the men, i. e. the bishops and the king, for whom his own tract in 882 was intended because he has included Adalhard's De ordine palatii in the body of the Admonitio itself. 7

On the whole, Hincmar makes clear that it is his aim in the Admonitio to

provide the new monarch and his clerical advisers with important information, at the request of the latter (the king was still quite young), regarding the organization and proper functioning of the kingdom and especially of the royal court. He

emphasizes that he has included in the first part (chs. 1-12) of the Admonitio, which he portrays in an unambiguous manner as his own work, observations regarding the "traditio of our ancestors" in regard to these, above mentioned, matters. Further, he avers that he had learned about these traditiones over the years from his

personal experience .8 Hincmar devotes particular attention, in this regard, to his

sojourn at the imperial court of Louis the Pious (d. 840) and in the service of the latter's sons who, however, are not named in this context. ' The second and far larger part of the Admonitio (chapters 13-36), is, as noted above, indicated by

4 Cithara

Hincmar to be the text of Adalhard's De ordine palatii. Hincmar concludes the Admonitio with an epilogue (chapter 37) concerning which he leaves no doubt that it is his own original composition.

Hincmar wasborn ca. 806, and Adalhard died in 826. Thus, it surely is possible from a purely chronological perspective that the future archbishop saw Adalhard,

probably at the court of Louis the Pious. Both men are known to have been there

at various times during the early 820s. 11 However, Hincmar does not, in the Admonitio, say specifically that he spoke with Adalhard in regard to this libellns. Nor does he say that he had met personally with the old man either formally or informally concerning this tract. Nevertheless, and perhaps more importantly, Hincmar would seem to leave his readers to infer that he had obtained a copy of De ordine palatii from Adalhard. " In addition, Hincmar gives the impression that Adalhard, himself, had provided the text of the libellns for him to read and very likely had given him permission to copy it as well. Any other conclusion would mean that there had been some involvement by a person or persons, unmentioned in Hincmar's admittedly brief account, who played a role in the process by which the future archbishop came into possession of the text of Adalhard's De ordine palatii and thereby gained an opportunity to make a copy of it.

It is necessary to call attention to Hincmar's rhetoric in the presentation of the details in this context because many scholars have considered the archbishop to be a forger. Some historians, in fact, would seem to have had reason to believe that Hincmar himself had written that part of De ordine palatii which he attributed to Adalhard. One scholar has claimed: "In this case as in so many others, German historiography accuses Hincmar of having invented Adalhard's entire tract which he pretends to have conserved. "12 Indeed, some of the archbishop's contemporaries, including the pope, would appear to have regarded Hincmar as capable of forgery and even worse 13 In the early post-World War lI era, one historian, Simon Stein, whose erudition apparently outstripped his judgment, even tried to prove that Hincmar had forged the text of Lex Salice, i. e. the Salic law. In this case, at least, Hincmar has been exonerated. 14 Yet, in 1953, Wallace-Hadrill observed: "he [Hincmar] was a forger. That is to say, he added to his sources what he never found there, and thus changed their sense; and he wrote, on occasion, what he wished to be taken for work of an earlier period. This he did over a wide field, forhis interests embraced history, canon law, theology and hagiography. ""

GivenHincmar's reputation, as indicated very briefly above, it is not surprising thathe was suspected of having altered significantly if not actually to have written the De ordine palatii tract that he attributed to Adalhard. The first major effort in this direction, however, was published in 1938 by Louis Halphen. In a very brief and largely undocumented essay, which nevertheless was a rhetorical tour de force, Halphen evinced absolute skepticism regarding the proposition that Adalhard

ever had written a libellns entitled De ordine palatii. He argues, in effect, that Hincmar made up his little story about reading and copying Adalhard's tract in

order to give his own work the kind of authority that adhered to traditionl6 In

support of this proposition, Halphen asserts, without documentation, that scholars, who are familiar with literature of the Middle Ages, know that this tactic is all too

Adalhard of Corbie's De ordine palatii: Some Methodological 5 Observations Regarding Chapters 29 - 36

often used by medieval writers? ' But, failing this argument, Halphen falls back on the position that Hincmar had so thoroughly revised what Adalhard might have said, if he had written such a work-, that it was as though the latter's work had never existed. '' Thus, Halphen tries to convince his readers that the part of the Admonitio attributed to Adalhard by Hincmar also was, in one way or another, the work of the archbishop of Rheims himself.

Halphen presented his paper on this matter as though no one in the past either had questioned Adalhard's authorship or, for thatmatter, had defended it. Halphen makes no allusion to to the German historiography, mentioned above, which apparently had accused Hincmar of having invented Adalhard's older tract. 19 Nor does he discuss Paul Kim's brief effort to ascertain which parts of Adalhard's libellus had been altered or augmented by Hincmar. 20 Indeed, Halphen seems to have proceeded as though he wanted his readers to believe that no one previously had questioned the veracity of Hincmar's claims regarding Adalhard as the author of a libellus entitled De ordine palatii. Rather, Halphen evinces rhetorical contempt for "the majority of historians who continue to follow Hincmar almost blindly. "21 According to Halphen, this majority of historians not only believes "with great confidence" that Hincmar had recorded a sound copy of Adalhard's De ordine palatii, but think, as well, that this document, in turn, provided a "detailed analysis of the way in which the government worked" during the reigns of Charlemagne and Louis the Pious 22

Halphen did not identify any of "la majorite des historiens" who would seem to have followed De ordine paint ii "almost blindly" as a guide to the administrative organization of the early Carolingian court. He does, however, single out for

criticism Maurice Prou, the first modem French editor of De ordine pnlntii u Prou had argued, by and large, that the prologue and first twelve chapters represented the major part of Hincmar's personal contribution. He then took the position that the next twenty-three chapters (13-36) constituted the text of Adalhard's De ordine palatii and the last chapter (37), or "Epilogue, " was the work of the archbishop. Prou did indicate, however, that Hincmar very probably interpolated Adalhard's text at various points. Thus, as editor and commentator, Prou calls attention to many of these instances 21 Prou concluded regarding the value of this composite work with the observation, "The De Ordine Palatii has a twofold interest: it permits us, in connection with the annals and the capitularies, to mark out a schema for Carolingian institutions about 814 and at the same time, it provides a basis for casting light on Hincmar's political views and the reforms that he considered to be necessary in 882. "25

Halphen's views regarding Adalhard's role (or non-role) in the composition of a libelius called De ordine pnlntii saw no immediate support from his fellow medievalists. Indeed, as early as 1940, Joseph Calmette reviewed Halphen's effort and registered great skepticism. Calmette rejected the assertion that Adalhard probably never wrote De ordine pnlntii as argued by Halphen. Indeed, Calmette points out that Halphenbased his position essentially upon the general proposition that it is known that some medieval writers invented sources in order to strengthen the believability of the arguments that they were making. In addition, Calmette

6 Cithara

remained unconvinced by Halphen's rhetoric that if Adalhard had written a libellus, entitled De ordine palatü, Hincmar had undertaken the wholesale revision of it so that it no longer represented the realities of the early Carolingian era. Thus, Calmette observed with his own bit of rhetorical bombast, "to deny [Adahlard's libellus] or to disqualify it totally or even in detail would be, in our opinion, as imprudent as accepting the entire work as Gospel. "

After the Second World War, when scholars gradually came back to their interrupted work in earnest, Halphen's arguments were given superficial but largely negative attention. For example, in 1952, Theodor Mayer would seem to have maintained a traditional view? The following year, Rudolph Buchner published the "Rechtsquellen" volume in Wattenbach-Levison and adopted a posture not very different from that of Prou, discussed above. Indeed, he chose not even to cite Halphen's essay. 26 By 1957, Heinz Löwe in his volume for the Wattenbach-Levison series, while citing Halphen, emphasized the skepticism expressed by Calmette which has been discussed above?

In 1962, Jakob Schmidt published a philological, stylistic, and content analysis of the entire text of Hincmar's Admonitio, including the libellus, entitled De ordine palatii, whichboth the archbishop of Rheims and many modern scholars attributed to Adalhard3° Schmidt agreed with Prou and Halphen and everyone else that Hincmar was solely responsible for the first twelve chapters" He demonstrated, in addition, that chapters thirteen through twenty-eight were based largely on Adalhard'sworkbut thatHincmarhad made efforts to rewvritesomeifnot, indeed, a considerable amount of the material. Here it is important to emphasize that Schmidt recognized that Paul Kim's observations in 1932, which were based upon a qualitative stylistic analysis regarding Adalhard's original contribution, had been insufficient to deter radical speculations such as those ventured by Halphen32 Thus, Schmidt used quantitative data of a comparative nature for his stylistic analysis; these efforts must be seen to carry great weight from a methodological perspective33 However, for scholars interested in the secular administration of the early Carolingian court, it is of immense significance that Schmidt found that chapters twenty-nine through thirty-six were Adalhard's work and were pretty much untouched by Hincmar. 3; Thus, he concludes: "Now we know that chapters 29 through 36, which deal with the royal administration, are almost completely the work of Adalhard.... "35 Of course, the "Epilogue" in chapter thirty-seven was by Hincmar and no one disagreed on that point"

The very next year, Schmidt's defense of Adalhard's authorship of De ordine palatii and particularly of the sections on secular administration, would seem to have found major support in the United States. Richard Sullivan, America's leading Carolingianist for several decades, carefully used Adalhard's libellus, as reproduced by Hincmar in the Admouitio, to develop a description of the workings of Charlemagne's court 37 In 1964, Schmidt's work was accepted also by Carlrichard Brühl, who after reviewing Halphen's argument in detail, rejected the notion that Adalhard's De ordine palatii was a "literary fiction" and concluded that in regard to his argument, Halphen's position rested on a weak base. 33 Moreover, through the use of internal evidence focused upon a discussion of the use of technical

Adalhard of Corbie's De ordine palatii: Some Methodological 7 Observations Regarding Chapters 29 - 36

administrative terminology, unique to the Lombard kingdom (ruled by the Carolingians in Italy), e. g. scapoardus, Brühl was able to date Adalhard's libellus to a particular historical context 39 Indeed, after careful analysis, Brühl provided substantial support for two likely dates. The earlier was ca. 781, or shortly thereafter, when young Pippin, Charlemagne's son, vas established as king in Italy and his staff, which Adalhard headed, needed a written guide or handbook by which to organize the royal palace. The second and in my view, the less plausible date is ca. 810-14, when Bernard, Pippin's son, succeeded his father and also may have needed some guidance in the matter of court .

40

At the great Charlemagne conference held at Aachen in 1965, Joseph Fleckenstein, who had established himself by 1959 as the leading specialist on Charlemagne's court, made clear that he was in accord with Schmidt's findings concerning the reliabilityof De ord ine palatii in regard particularly to the organization of the royal court" Fleckenstein cites Halphen's rhetorical foray only for the purpose of noting that it was without weight in the discussion and characterizes it as "withouta thoroughgoing grounding. "u Indeed, Fleckenstein found Sullivan's "recent study, " discussed above, which made extensive use of De ordiue palatii, worthy of citation despite the American author's specific intention to attract a non- specialist audience. "

Other specialists in the reign of Charlemagne also saw the situation in a similar manner. For example, in his contribution to the abovementioned Aachen congress, F. L. Ganshof, the leading Carolingianist of the twentieth century, explicitly rejected Halphen's argument, which he characterized as one of "absolute skepticism. "44 Moreover, Ganshof found Adalhard's account in De ordiue palatii concerning the operations of the central government of the early Carolingians to be ostensibly accurate and cited it frequently. More pointedly in light of the present essay, Ganshof found the chapters 29-36, which dealt with secular administration, to be particularly useful .

45

Indeed, by 1965, a consensus would seem to have formed. It would appear that most scholars had refused to accept Halphen's radical claims that Adalhard had not written a libellus entitled De ordiue palatii but that Hincmar had indicated such a text existed to give authority to his own work. Indeed, it was widely regarded that Adalhard did, in fact, write such a work and that certain parts of it, especially those regarding secular administration in chapters 29-36, have come down to us through Hincmar's Adnmonitio in a largely unaltered form. Thus, in 1968, Walter Schlesinger relied on the researches of both Schmidt and Brühl to support his use of Adalhard's libellus regarding the palace at Aachen during the reign of Charlemagne. Schlesinger did not consider Halphen's apparently now discredited speculations worthy either of discussion or even citation. 46

In the same year, Hans HubertAnton, who was writing on Hincmar's political thought, summed up the state of the question with the observation that Halphen's thesis had found "scarcely any support" among recent scholars who had done research on the text" As a result, Anton confined his own use of the Admonitio to those parts, which as noted above, earlier scholars had recognized either were

8 Cithara

Hincmar's work or concerning which there was scholarly agreement that the

archbishop had intervened. Indeed, Anton scrupulously avoided attributing any

aspect of Hincmar's thought to those chapters (29-36) of Adalhard's De ordine paintii that detail the secular administration of the royal court, which the above- mentioned scholars had shown were, by and large, part of the original early Carolingian work 48

It is not surprising therefore, that Anton's general conclusions regarding the

status questionis were not challenged in any meaningful way in 1972 by Heinz Löwe. The latter focused his own discussion of De online palatii on the office of Apocrisiarius, which was dealt within chapters 13-16, and marks a major contribution toAdalhard's libellus by Hincmar. 49 Löwe recognizes unequivocally that Adalhard

wrote a work called De ordine palatii and that much of it survives in one form or another in Hincmar's Admonitio. He asserts, however, that "a complete separation of the two cannot be carried out. "-` Löwe follows up this assertion with a series of desultory speculations-he calls these "observations without any pretension of completeness, " which nevertheless on occasion touch elements of chapters 29-36 and therefore are examined, below, in detail 51

Before examining these observations, however, it is necessary to emphasize that' in asserting the impossibility for modem scholars to make "a complete identification" of Hincmar's alterations of Adalhard's text-an effort, in any event, not undertaken in the present study, Löwe expresses severe reservations regarding the methods of analysis used both by Kim and Schmidt, which have been noted above. Kirn's effort, which examined various stylistic matters in a qualitative manner, is rejected out of hand by Löwe who focuses his attention on Schmidt's quantitative approach 52 Regarding Schmidt's study) however, Löwe complains: "It would be

... difficult to separate out those parts of the text that werebyAdalhard

from those that were by Hincmar on the basis of stylistic peculiarities in Adalhard's work even if it could be demonstrated on the basis of the limited corpus of materials [produced by Adalhard which have survived] that his style had

peculiarities. "53 Löwe continues and explains his reasoning: "This is true because an author can use different styles to write different works. One would hardly

attribute the Vita Karoti Mogul and the Translatin Snnctorum MnrceIlini et Pet ri to the same Einhard on linguistic grounds. It is simply not possible to use individual termini technici to arrive at clear results. "14

These observations constitute a good reason to question a scholar's methods. It is certainly true that Einhard's Vita Karoli and Translatio have many different

characteristics of a stylistic and linguistic nature asLöwe indicates. However, these two works do not provide an apt analogy for the purpose of criticizing Schmidt's

comparative stylistic method. Vita Karoli and Translatio, respectively, are a secular biography with heavy classical influences and a work of hagiography; i. e. two very different genres of narrative literature. By contrast, the two major tracts ofAdalhard, studied by Schmidt in a quantified manner, are both works dealing with administration: the libellus, under discussion here, and the abbot of Corbie's well known Consuetudines Corbaeienses 55

Adalhard of Corbie's De ordine palatii: Some Methodological 9 Observations Regarding Chapters 29 - 36

Secondly Löwe may perhaps be correct in asserting: "It is simply not possible to use individual termini technici to arrive at clear results. " However, it is essential to emphasize that Schmidt's argument does not rely upon this method of qualitative content analysis that focuses upon the use of special or peculiar technical terms. Rather, as noted above, Schmidt's basic effort rests upon quantitative methods of comparative stylistic analysis. This approach focuses upon the idiosnycracies of patterned usage in small words and compounds, as well as in the syntactical positioning of such elements. " Specialists in this area of research see the results of their analysis as demonstrating in a conclusive manner the peculiarities of a personal writing style.

Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that, despite Löwe's skepticism, an argument that relies essentially or at least in part on a discussion of termini technici from a qualitative perspective can, at least on occasion, arrive at clear results. This is illustrated by Löwe's own compelling treatment of the apocrisiarius question in chapters 13-16, mentioned above. However, the validity of this same qualitative approach is also illustrated on the basis of the convincing treatment by Brühl of Lombard technical administrative terminology used by Adalhard in his libellus. Indeed, when the qualitative evidence, as presented by Brühl, is shown to be consistent with the the quantitative evidence provided by Schmidt, then the case for Adalhard's authorship is strengthened by the former.

Löwe does not characterize the main thrust of Schmidt's method in an accurate manner but would appear to have erected a straw man that he proceeds to attack. As already noted, Sclunidt's stylistic analysis was based upon a quantitative examination of the texts under discussion. First, Schmidt identified the peculiarities of Adalhard's style in the Consuetudines Corbaeienses and then found these same habits of writing in various parts of De ordine palatii. He then compares these stylistic elements, which were intrinsic to Adalhard's personal writing style, with those that were common to Hincmar's personal writing style. Schmidt's analysis of the latter rested on an exhaustive examination of almost two thousand double- column pages of the archbishop's works published in the Patrologia Latina. Among the many stylistic peculiarities that Schmidt notes is Adalhard's tendency to use the expression "Haec interim de his, " "Haec etiam de his, " or "Haec interim ita dicta, " at particular transitional points in his discussions. These stylistic elements, of course, are not found in Hincmar's texts with the same frequency as in Adalhard's work. In addition, they are not found in Hincmar's work in any significant number in an absolute sense, even without making allowances for the archbishop's vastly larger corpus of surviving work. 57

Schmidt, however, did not limit himself to a purely quantitative stylistic analysis of the very technical literary type discussed above. He examined, but also on a quantitative basis, various intellectual tendencies of a stylistic nature that were fundamental to Hincmar's writing and found that ostensibly these were ignored or given little attention byAdalhard. This method too is different from the qualitative identification of termini technici concerning which Löwe evinces skepticism. For example, Hincmar was in the habit of citing biblical texts and also of quoting from the Church fathers. Adalhard, Schmidt shows, was not. In those

10 Cithara

parts of De ordine palatii, which on the technical grounds of personal writing style can be attributed toAdalhard, e. g. the haec construction noted above, Schmidt finds

not a single deployment of biblical citations or quotations from the Church fathers. Although, as Schmidt makes clear, the context in many of these chapters vas ripe for the use either of sacred texts or of patriarchal authority in a manner that would have been the norm for Hincmar. m

In a similar vein, but this time in regard to subject matter, i. e. intellectual interests, Schmidt observed, after his quantitative examination of Hincmar's

work, that the archbishop had frequently written about "Morality in the political realm. " Hincmar, according to this analysis, encouraged rulers to lead "lives

according to the Christian ideal. " The archbishop apparently wanted these rulers, Schmidt makes clear, to regulate their "governmental business" and "administration

operations" according to "the word of Holy Writ. " By contrast, Schmidt notes: "In

no place throughout his [Hincmar's] extensive work does one find those kinds of detailed pronouncements concerning the practical side of public administration and concerning the political conduct of governmental management [that one finds in the work of Adalhard]. "59 The focus of Adalhard's work, of course, is the "practical side" of government. Thus, when Schmidt compared Adalhard's administrative tracts with the entirety of Hincmar's works, he concluded, as noted above, "Now we know that chapters 29 through 36, which deal with the royal administration, are almost completely the work of Adalhard.... "60

When we turn to Löwe's observations that were put forth without any pretension of being based upon thorough research, it appears that he provides some desultory comments regarding a scattering of items in chs. 29 and 30.61 For example, in regard to ch. 29, Löwe argues that Hincmar does not alter Adalhard's terminology in describing the status of various of the men who were summoned to attend the annual royal assembly that is generally thought to have been held in the spring and often in conjunction with the mobilization of an army. 62 However, Löwe then calls attention to the discussion in this same chapter of a conszzeiudo which makes clear that the king held two assemblies each year. He indicates that this semi-annual system of meetings was inaugurated in 818, i. e. very early in the reign of Louis the Pious, when the king established the custom of summoning a smaller assembly of optitnates in addition to the large yearly imperial assembly. ' Löwe argues, however, that this information had to have been introduced into chapter 29by Hincmar. In support of this view, Löwe asserts: "This report could not have come from Adalhard unless one supposes thathe composed it during the last

years of his life (820-6). "61 Beyond the subtle rhetoric of this observation, Löwe

provides no reason to believe thatAdalhard did not or could not have included this information in his libellus during the last years of his life, i. e. sometime between 818 and 826.

Secondly, Löwe asserts that it is far more likely that Hincmar, writing from the vantage point of 882, referred to a practice thathad been in train for more than sixty years as an old usage. He goes onto argue that forAdalhard it is "hardly thinkable" that people living in the 820s would consider this small assembly to have been an "old custom. "65 The term used in chapter 29, however, is consuetudo which simply

Adalhard of Corbie's De ordine palatii: Some Methodological 11 Observations Regarding Chapters 29 - 36

means how things normally were done, i. e. a custom. Or if one were to take a minimalist approach and as a result read the word conisuehudo prescriptively, in this context, rather than normatively, it would mean this is the way in which things should be done. The term cousuetudo, however, does not require that the procedure, whether prescriptive or normative, that is being described be seen as an "ancient" or even an "old" custom or usage, i. e. "als alten Brauch. " Indeed, had Löwe's research on this matter been the result of thorough research, i. e. mit Anspruch auf Vollständigkeit, rather than of cursory research, i. e. "ohne ... Vollständigkeit, " he likely would have been aware that it was Carolingian usage to employ the phrase antiqua cousuetudo and not merely cousuetudo in order to indicate that a particular custom vas an "old custom, " i. e. an "alten Brauch. "11

Löwe's argument that Hincinar introduced the information concerning the use of two annual assemblies into De ordine palatii in the year 818 has some additional weaknesses. For example, his firm assertion that the consuetudo, under discussion here, came into existence specifically in the year 818, is problematic. " Indeed, the normal practice of having two "assemblies" each year is already recognized in a capitulary of Charlemagne which is dated to 769 or shortly thereafter. 6B Further, this capitulary entry gives no indication that Charlemagne was creating a new custom at this time. Rather, he deals with a problem of tardiness which makes clear that the king was acting because he was annoyed by the fact that representatives were coming late to one or another of these "assemblies. "69 Since this measure to correct unacceptable practice was taken at the beginning of Charlemagne's reign, it would seem that he vas intent upon making clear, even to his important subjects, thathewould not tolerate this sort of inherently disrespectful or unseemly behavior.

In addition, and more important than the capitulary mentioned above, is the fact that whenAdalhard referred to the consuetudo, under discussion in chapter 29, he modified it neither with the adjective nova nor with antiqua. This permits the inference that he was referring to an order of business with which he had grown up at the court of King Pippin I, Charlemagne's father. Such an inference is strengthened by the fact that the early Carolingian sources often identified either the process or the results of military planning prior to the supposed initiation date of this smaller planning group by Louis the Pious in 818. These efforts are noticed in a matter of-fact way in the court chronicles such as the Continuator of Fredegar, Antiales regni Francorum and the somewhat later revision, traditionally called Annales qui dicunfur Einhardi, as well as in a scattering of other sources. These sources call attention to the necessary planning which pre-dated the meeting of a larger assembly which more often than not had a military purpose 7D Indeed, it would have been impossible to launch the major military operations of an offensive nature that were undertaken by the early Carolingians in general and Charlemagne in particular without considerable prior planning by a group of advisers at the court.

The one other item to which Löwe calls attention concerns chapter 30. In this instance, he initiates the argument by claiming that Hincmar introduced some of his own Terminologie into this chapter and thus replaced the terminology that

12 Cithara

Adalhard had used. This intervention by Hincmar, according to Löwe, can be

argued because in chapter 29, the author, i. e. Adalhard, does not differentiate between primores regni and ceteri nobiles homines. However, Löwe argues that Hincmar, in various of his writings, is seen to have made this distinction., ' As a result of this finding, Löwe considers the appearance in chapter 30 of the terms

seniores and praecipui consiliarii to be Hincmar's usage. However, he does not introduce examples of this latter terminological pairing in the archbishop's work as he does with regard to the pairings in chapter 29. It would seem that Löwe

assumes that the author (putatively Hincmar) in this latter case (ch. 30) is making a distinction and that the fact, itself, of a distinction being made, which is

problematic (see below), requires that we assume that Hincmar had intervened at this point. It is crucial, however, to note that Löwe is not arguing that there is a parallelism between the terms used in chapter 29 and those used in chapter 30 or that Hincmar in his work used the terms seniores and praecipui consiliarii in some linked manner that is in anyway congruent with their use in chapter 30. In addition to these unsubstantiated speculations regarding the terms seniores and praecipui consiliarii, Löwe recognizes that the term ntarchisus, also used in chapter 30, undoubtedly represents Adalhard's usage. n Finally, Löwe takes note of the fact that the order of business described in chapters 29 and 30, is the reverse of what Hincmar indicated as preferable in his record of the Acta of the Synod of S. Macra which had been held shortly before the Admonitio was drafted. As a result of the difference between the above-mentioned Acta and the description of the order of business in chapters 29 and 30, the latter, i. e. the order of business, according to Löwe, also*must be attributed to Adalhard and not to Hincmar. 3 Löwe, however, was not stimulated to wonder aloud, in the course of these speculations, why Hincmar should have introduced new termini tec)mici, i. e. seniores and praecipui consiliarii, for which no evidence is adduced from the archbishop's own writings, into Adalhard's libelltts while leaving at least one other technical term, marchisus, unchanged and the important matter of the sequence of placita unchanged, as well.

On the whole, Löwe's arguments and assertions in regard to termini technici might be worthy of consideration were they based upon the same sort of thorough research of the type that he undertook in regard to his study of the apocrisiarius. However, perhaps even then, Löwe's own self-imposed methodological limitations cited above: "It is simply not possible to use individual termini technici to arrive at clear results, " would, in principle, undermine his argument. Particularly unsettling with regard to the credibility of these arguments, however, are Löwe's curious and undocumented assertions regarding the use of the terms seniores and praecipui consiliarii, which are found in chapter 30.

In 1975, jean Devisse successfully defended his three volume Doctorate d'Etat

on the career of Hincmar of Rheims. Devisse makes clear that he fully agreed with Schmidt's views in regard to the archbishop's treatment of Adalhard's De ordine palatii, as summarized above, and observed: "Jakob Schmidt's conclusions, which track basically with our own conclusions ... would appear to have been fully

accepted. " As a result, Devisse observes: "Adalbard's text is to be seen as an independent and important witness to the political thought of the first quarter of the ninth century. " However, because Devisse's interest, in this context, is focused

Adalliard of Corbie's De ordine palatii: Sonie Methodological 13 Observations Regarding Chapters 29 - 36

on the political thought of Hincmar, he follows the strategy, noted above, that had been pursued by Anton. Thus, Devisse makes clear that he will have little to say regarding those parts of Adalhard's tract which he believes Schimdt has shown to be authentic. 74 Devisse, whose knowledge of Hincmar's oeuvre and style was unparalleled, did not regard Löwe's unsupported observations regarding particular items in chapters 29 and 30 or his criticism of Schmidt's methods worthy of recognition. The article by Löwe dealing with the apocrisiaritts is neither discussed in the text nor even cited in Devisse's massive bibliography.

In 1976, Fleckenstein once again evidenced his positive views regarding the value of Adalhard's De ordure palatii for the purpose of describing the organization of Charlemagne's court. 73 Four years later, Karl Ferdinand Werner published his magisterial study of Carolingian administration. In this work he characterized De ordiue palatii as "particuliarly precious for the history of Carolingian administration" despite the fact that today we have Adalhard's Iibelltts only in the version provided in Hincmar's Admonitio. Werner does not even entertain the idea that Adalhard's description of various secular administrative structures, e. g. ch. 30, discussed above, represented only thesituation in the reign of Charles the Bald or that of his successors to 882, rather than the way things were during Charlemagne's reign. In this context Werner emphasizes Adalhard's "competence in administrative matters. "76

In the same year, Gross and Schieffer published their new edition and commentary on De ordine palatii. They maintained the general view developed in post-Second World War scholarship as established by Schmidt and Brühl and developed by Fleckenstein and Ganshof. Adalhard did, in fact, write a libellus entitled De ordiue palatii, which Hincmar included in his Admonitio of 882. While parts were Hincmar's original work and other parts were manipulated by the archbishop, the chapters (29-36) dealing with secular administration were left largely intact. In regard to Halphen's efforts, Schieffer and Gross generally followed the arguments developed by Schmidt and agreed with the way in which Anton and Devisse, as noted above, had characterized the state of the question. 77 It might be argued that by 1990, this view became the norm as it was reiterated by Reinhard Schneider in volume five of the Oldenbourg series, Grundriss der Geschichte, which is focused upon presenting an outline of the status gttestiottis in various areas of Frankish history. ' -8

It is important to emphasize, in this context, that the rejection of Halphen's rhetorical assertions in regard to Adalhard's authorship of the libellus and, indeed, the very existence of such a text have been the result of careful and methodologically sound research by numerous scholars. These specialists were well schooled both in regard to Hincmar's views as developed in the context of the later ninth century and those parts of Adalhard's tract which reflect the realities of early Carolingian government. It would be speculation of the meanest sort to suggest that scholars such as Schmidt, Brühl, Fleckenstein, and, even Löwe, not to mention Ganshof and Devisse, were put off merely by the extreme nature of Halphen's claims. Indeed, Stein's no less extreme claim that Hincmar had forged Lex Salica also came under critical scrutiny and, as noted above, was rejected after careful discussion by well informed scholars.

14 Cithara

It would be equally unfair to Halphen's critics to claim that they felt some sort of bias against him. Indeed, he was well known for treating sources, at least on occasion, in hypercritical and idiosyncratic ways. Reginald Lane Poole, for

example, took issue with Halphen's complete rejection of the status questionis regarding the manner in which various of the shorter Carolingian annals had been formed. However, in the present context, Poole's observation regarding Halphen's

compelling literary style is worth noting: "He is very learned, and he writes so persuasively as almost (my ital. ) to carry conviction-at least if one only reads the short Annals in print (my ital. )? 9

This neglect of manuscripts is important, in the present context, from a methodological perspective as well. In the later sixteenth century, fragments of Adalhard's original libell us were discovered and discussions of these were published early in the seventeenth century with several re-editions. These manuscript fragments were compared at this time by the learned scholar Marquard Freher with the relevant sections in Hincmar's Adznonitio and found to be the same. In short, at the time when Halphen wrote there was already a substantial and well documented argument, that was based upon manuscript evidence, which indicated not only that Adalhard had written the libel us under discussion but also that Hincmar had copied parts of this work unchanged P Halphen ignored this research.

In anothervein, i. e. with regard to source criticism, Halphen's rather simplistic claims regarding the lack of value of Einhard's Vita Karoli as a source for understanding Charlemagne's behavior, also have been soundly rejected. This too, however, has been done, despite Halphen's clever rhetoric, on the basis of careful research 81 In short, it may be sufficient to observe that Halphen's efforts to discourage scholars from using Adalhard's De online palatii "in combination with the annals and the capitularies" as Prou had put it, "in order to trace the contours of Carolingian institutions toward 814" was, as noted above, unconvincing in light of subsequent research, especially the compelling quantitative efforts undertaken by Schmidt.

Curiously, this mainland European consensus has not found fertile ground in England. In 1952, Wallace-Hadrill, after reviewing a collection of Halphen's previously published articles, which included the essay on Hincmar, made an observation concerning De orditte palatii that was tobe of ongoing importance in the British Isles. 82 Wallace-Hadrill acknowledged that "Adalhard might have written such a book. " However, he continued: "But whether or not he did so, Hincmar's interpretation of the material is his own. "83 Wallace-Hadrill did not attempt to sustain his broad-gauged support for this muted version of Halphen's claims with any new evidence. In the present context, therefore, it is important that Wallace- Hadrill produced no argument to sustain the notion that the chapters on secular administration (29-36) represented Hincmar's own version of the material that he had found in Adalhard's libelltts. The fact that Halphen had largely ignored these chapters, despite his broad brushed condemnation of the value of the text as a whole for early Carolingian history, did not spur Wallace-Hadrill to further

research on these matters 8a

Adalhard of Corbie's De ordine palatii: Some Methodological 15 Observations Regarding Chapters 29 - 36

It is perhaps not surprising that in 1983, when Janet Nelson contributed an article to Wallace-Hadrill's Festschrift, she vigorously espoused the view that "Hincmar's interpretation of the material is his own. "u However, Nelson took the matter much further. She contended, in clear opposition to the well developed state of the question adumbrated above, that Hincmar reproduced in the last few chapters of the De Ordine Palatii (i. e. 29-36) evidence for the operation of the Carolingian court during the reign of Charles the Bald (d. 877) and not for that of the early Carolingians s6 Her position was refined in her excellent biography of Charles the Bald published in 1992 when she observed: "Just four years after Charles's death, Archbishop Hincmar of Rheims... wrote a treatise, The Government of the Palace, for young King Carloman, Charles's grandson, and lent it an air of authority by claiming to incorporate the work of Abbot Adalard of Corbie, who had died nearly sixty years before. What influenced Hincmar most (though his description idealised it a little) was the regime of Charles the Bald, especially its later years. "

These views, at least as indicated by Nelson's footnotes, do not take into

consideration the full panoply of mainland scholarship discussed above and especially the reported existence of fragments of Adalhard's libellus that were examined in the sixteenth century. To reiterate, Nelson not only insists, contrary to this general consensus, that the later chapters of De ordine palatii (29-36) are the work of Hincmar but that they represent the secular administrative organization in the reign of Charles the Bald rather than, for example, that of Charlemagne. It

must be recognized that Charles the Bald undoubtedly fares very well in Nelson's

not inconsiderable effort to rehabilitate his reputation, in contrast, for example, to that of Charlemagne. However, late ninth-century observers, Hincmar included,

certainly considered Charlemagne as the model worthy of imitation, not Charles the Bald Indeed, and despite Nelsons efforts, there is good reason to believe that Hincmar was not out of step with his contemporaries in this matter of the selection of models. At no point in De ordine palatii, for example, does the archbishop of Rheims mention Charles the Bald by name although he frequently makes reference to Charlemagne 89

Yet, in support of her contrarian view regarding chapters 29-36, Nelson goes so far as to reiterate Halphen's assertion that Hincmar was trying to lend an "air of authority" to his own ideas "by claiming to incorporate the work of AbbotAdalard. " In this context, I am particularly perplexed by her citation of Hans Hubert Anton's Fürstenspiegel (1968) in apparent support of her own position which leans, at least to some extent, on the extreme claims that had been put forth by Halphen. As noted above, Anton had indicated that Halphen's essay on De ordine palatii had found "scarcely support in the research" for Halphen's views. It may perhaps be the case that Nelson read Anton as though he had written "kaum Anklage, " i. e. Halphen's work had suffered "scarcely any criticism, " rather than it enjoyed "scarcely any support" ("kaum Anklang"), as Anton made clear in his summary of the state of the question 90 In a more general sense, it is important to emphasize that Anton, as noted above, was scrupulous in making no use of the secular chapters (29-36) for the purpose of illustrating Hincmar's views. Thus, he remained consistent with the state of the question and the rejection of Halphen's speculations in regard both to the

16 Cithara

matter of forgery and especially concerning the above noted chapters concerning secular administration. As we have also seen, Devisse scrupulously avoided using chapters 29-36 as evidence for Hincmar's views.

Whether or not Nelson misread Anton-people on occasion even fail to

understand fully what is written in their own language-may not be crucial. It is fundamental, however, that Nelson offers the proposition that Hincmar portrayed "the practice of the 860s and 870s" when writing' the chapters on assemblies and capitularies. "91 More important is the fact that Nelson's views, following Halphen,

would seem to be influential among Anglophone scholars who would appear either to have ignored the mainland consensus or to havemisunderstood significant elements of it. Of special importance, in this context, is the view of Rosamond McKitterick, whose general history of the Carolingians remains the fundamental

synthesis of the period in the English language. McKitterick follows Nelson and observes: "Hincmar's description of the issuing of capitularies, however, applies more to the reign of Charles the Bald" than to theperiod of the early Carolingians. 92

In support of the view that Hincmar was recounting the way things were done during the later years of the reign of Charles the Bald rather than under the early Carolingians, Nelson argues: "As faras assemblies are concerned, the twice-yearly pattern and the specific forms of attendance and deliberation, at winter and summer meetings respectively, can be seen... to correspond rather well with what the Annals of St. Bertin record, especially for the last decade of Charles the Bald's reign. " She concludes, "Since Hincmar, as author of these Annals, was concerned that this information should be recorded, it seems reasonable to expect a similar interest to be reflected in his reworking of, or additions to, the De Ordine Palatii. "93

If Nelson is to prove that Hincmar reworked or added material to the chapters of Adalhard's libellts dealing with "assemblies and capitularies, " it is methodologically insufficient merely to demonstrate, as she would seem to, that the archbishop's interests were consistent with the information found in the text as we now have it. A showing must be made, as well, that Adalhard could not have made this information available to Hincmar in his libellus. One such approach would be to demonstrate that the situation regarding "assemblies" was thoroughly different in early Carolingian times when Adalhard flourished than sixty years later. If, however, the early Carolingians had held such semi-annual meetings, it is clear that Adalhard would have had access to this information and as a result could have included it in his version of De ordine palatii. Were this the case, Hincmar would have had no reason either to add this information as though it were new or to rework what he found in Adalhard's text in some peculiar way that Nelson does

not address. By contrast, from a perspective consistent with the stains questionis and contrary to Nelson's speculations, the possibility certainly cannot be ruled out that Hincmar, in structuring his own account of royal assemblies for the entries that he made in the Annals of Si. Berlin, leaned on the model that he found in Adalhard's libellus, which he had in his possession from the early 820s»

In addition to her failure to show in material terms that Adalhard could not possibly have had the information under discussion regarding "assemblies, "

Adalhard of Corbie's De ordine palatii: Some Methodological 17 Observations Regarding Chapters 29 - 36

Nelson also has erred methodologically in a procedural sense. She begins with an assumption, i. e. Hincmar either reworked or made additions to the relevant chapters of Adalhard's libellus, but she neither adduces nor attempts to adduce evidence that, in fact, the archbishop did rework or add to the chapters under consideration here. Yet, previous scholars have already developed sound methods, e. g. quantitative stylistic evidence and the termini teclutici discussed above, for demonstrating where and how Hincmar had reworked other chapters 95 This was done while at the same time making clear that Hincmar had not reworked chapters 29-3696 Thus, having asserted that Hincmar made alterations, Nelson's effort is limited to explaining that it vas reasonable for the archbishop to have introduced information in regard to assemblies into Adalhard's libellus because he had an interest in such meetings as evidenced by the fact that he recorded in the section of the Annals of St. Bertin, which he wrote, that such meetings took place. However, it was traditional for early Carolingian writers and even some of Hincmar's predecessors as contributors to theAnnals of St. Bertin to record that meetings of the type under consideration had takenplace. 97 There is no way to demonstrate, in this context, that Hincmar by recording the meeting of "assemblies" was pursuing a personal interest rather than merely following the normal pattern found in the writing of annals.

It mustbe reiterated that Nelson's argument for the reasonability of Hincmar's rewriting or augmenting of what he found in Adalhard's libellus rests upon the assumption that the information which interested the archbishop was not already there in the text that he had copied sometime before 826. By contrast, were the information available inAdalhard's libellus, Hincmar, following Nelson's reasoning, would have had good reason to reproduce what he found in this work in his Adntonitio just as it had appeared in Adalhard's text. To put it another way, a situation that was indicative of continuity between the reign of Charlemagne and that of Charles the Bald did not require Hincmar to make changes in what he found inAdalhard's work. Further, if one accepts the scholarly consensus that Charlemagne was a more important model than Charles the Bald for Hincmar, if not for Nelson, then the archbishop's incentive for leaving unchanged the information that he found in Adalhard's libellus, which is understood to have had a focus on Charlemagne's administration, would obviouslybe a desideratum. Finally, a stimulus for Hincmar to leave the information that had been provided by Adalhard would prevail even if the early Carolingian practice were different from that of Charles the Bald if the archbishop wanted to use the reign of Charlemagne as his model.

The only methodological "groundwork" that Nelson prepares in order to sustain her assertion that Hincmar either reworked or altered the material that he found inAdalhard's libellus concerning chapters 29-36 is to point out that in regard to other chapters, scholars have shown that the archbishop did some and often even a great deal of reworking. She observes "some, at least, of De ordine Paint ii was, as Hincmar asserted, not his own workbut that of Adalard of Corbie (d. 826). " This misstates the archbishop's position. Hincmar did not assert that "some" of the De ordine Pnlntii was not his own work. Rather, he leads his readers to believe that the greater part of the tract, i. e. chapters 13-36, was, in fact, Adalhard's libellus. Parenthetically, one may note here Nelson's attachment to Halphen's confusing of

18 Cithara

the correct methodology in viewing the relation between an original text that is no longer extant and its putative interpolator. "But, " Nelson continues, "it is equally clear that much of it [De ordine palatü7 was Hincmar's own composition. -98 Nelson's methodological lapse here is to assume that since one or another scholar has demonstrated, for example, that Hincmarhad reworked chapter 16 or chapter 22, she is employing sound methodology to assume that the archbishop, if he may have had an interest in the subject, also had reworked or added to chapter 29 or 34. Indeed, the scholarly consensus, discussed above, is that Hincmar did not rework the chapters dealing with secular administration-Nelson ignores Schmidt among others-and, as will be shown below, there is substantial information available to show that the account of the secular administration of the royal court provided in De ordine palatii represents early Carolingian practice. AsWallace-Hadrill, following Devisse, had come to argue, Hincmar had the task of "telling Carloman [the royal adressee of the archbishop's Admonitiol what he recalls or has read (my ital. ) of life under Charlemagne and Louis the Pious. "

However, let usbeginby accepting Nelson's view that there were semi-annual assemblies during the reign of Charles the Bald and that the smaller gathering was the first in this sequence. In order to demonstrate that this was some sort of innovation introduced by Hincmar into Adalhard's De ordine palatii, Nelson must also show that such meetings were not the general practice under the early Carolingians. Of course, she does not do this because it is generally agreed that meetings of the type under consideration here, despite much methodological controversy, were certainly an institutional fixture of early Carolingian government. In fact, such planning meetings very probably were convoked as early as the reign of Charlemagne's father.

From a methodological perspective, the proper conclusion to draw from the available evidence in regard to these meetings is that Adalhard recorded the information concerning them in his libellus because such gatherings were a fixture of early Carolingian government. As Nelson argues, such meetings likely also took place during the reign of Charles the Bald. Therefore, Hincmar, if he were interested in recording what had occurred during Charles' reign as Nelson suggests, had no reason to alter what he had found in Adalhard's tract. The evidence identified by Nelson relative to what generally happened during Charles the Bald's reign in regard to these assemblies, if accepted, demonstrates continuity from the early Carolingians to the reign of Charlemagne's grandson. However, if Nelson is wrong about such assemblies taking place during the reign of Charles the Bald, Hincmar, who would seem to have wanted to emphasize the importance of Charlemagne's reign as his model-pace Nelson, had no reason to alter what he found in Adalhard's libellus.

Let us now move from the general matter of these semi-annual meetings (placita) to the work done at the planning meeting v. 'hich took place at the royal court during the late autumn or winter. 100 This planning meeting was attended by older and therefore presumably more experienced advisers, i. e. serciores, 101 and by special advisers, i. e. praecipui consiliarii. 102 This annual placitum was concerned primarily, if not exclusively, with military matters and particularly with questions

Adalhard of Corbie's De ordine palatii: Some Methodological 19 Observations Regarding Chapters 29 - 36

of war and peace ("rixa et pace"), treaties (dextrae), and military deployments ("actio vel ordo agendi")103 In order to carry out their planning, functionaries of the royal court, i. e. these abovementioned specialists in military matters, provided the greater nobles, who also attended the meeting, with "specifically titled [or perhaps rubricated] topical units of information" or as the Latin has it, the information was denotninata. Each unit or item that was denominatun: was, itself, methodically organized ("ordinata") into specific chapters or capitttla. 10'

In regard to this information, Nelson argues in defense of of her view that the archbishop of Rheims reworked or alteredAdalhard's libellns: "Equally noteworthy [with the mention of semi-annual meetings in the Annals of St. Bertin] is the correspondence between c. 34's very detailed interest in the nature and function of capitula in assembly business, the references to capitula in the Annals of St. Bertin, and Hincmar's role in the composing and keeping of capitulary texts ......

105 First, let us note that this argument follows methodological assumptions similar to those employed in regard to the "assemblies" discussed above, i. e. Nelson would merely establish Hincmar's interest in the topic. However, the fact that Hincmar had an interest in capitularies does not prove that the early Carolingians were not also vitally interested in capitularies or that Adalhard had failed to record this interest in capitula in his libell tts which was intended as an administrative handbook. In fact, the early Carolingians had an abiding and deep interest in capitularies which is well documented and uncontroversial106 One might even speculate that Hincmar, who, as noted above, avers that he had a copy of Adalhard's libellns sometime before the author's death in 826, may have had his own putative interest in capitularies awakened by his reading of this very text 107

Nevertheless, let us assume that Nelson is correct in her claim that Hincmar took a noteworthy interest in "capitularies. " In this context, it is important to note that the term capitltlttm had avariety of meanings within the framework of the more general subject that modem scholars consider under the rubric "capitulary. "108 In the context of ch. 34, Adalhard is describing no ordinary capitulary, if, indeed, such a formulation may be used. Rather, he is discussing, initially in ch. 34, documents prepared by specialists at the court, which were organized by chapters (capitula), and prepared in advance for subsequent review and discussion at a higher level of responsibility in a placitum that was confidential in nature. In short, these were working documents created at the beginning stage of what could be a lengthy and complicated process. These were not the final products, i. e. the traditional capitulary or "published" document, that Hincmar discusses in the texts identified by Nelson. These latter documents, in general, had already been given royal approval 10' Indeed, we have no evidence, as Schmidt put it, following his exhaustive examination of Hincmar's oeuvre, that the archbishop showed any interest in "the practical side of public administration (Staatsvenvaltung). 110

Nelson shows that some of the information-her argument, as will be seen below is hardly exhaustive-recorded in "the chapters on assemblies and capitularies" of De ordine palatii reflects "the practice of the 860s and 870s. " However, as noted above, she fails to demonstrate that this information does not also reflect the practice of the early Carolingians. Capitularies were of vital

20 Cithara

importance to early Carolingian administration in which Adalhard, as will be seen below, played an important role. In addition, Nelson produces no evidence that Hincmar either meaningfully reworked or augmented the information regarding the administrative process in which particular types of capitula were used by

government officials. The information that Nelson adumbrates regarding the 860s and 870s, provides reason to believe, atbest, that there weresome basic continuities in regard to these administrative matters from the early Carolingians to the reign of Charles the Bald.

Indeed, Nelson is not unaware of continuityin manyof these matters concerning the capitularies. For example, in discussing the role of"the'consent of faithful men' in the prologue of the 864 [capitulary] text, and several other capitularies of this period, with reference to political decision-making in general, " she observes, "It is important to stress that there was nothing new in such usage; a number of examples can be found in the capitularies of Charlemagne and Louis the Pious (my ital. ). "111 Clearly, in situations where there was nothing in particular that was both new and putatively worthy of imitation from the reign of Charles the Bald to introduce into Adalhard's libellus, then there was, in principle, nothing that required alterationby Hincmar were the archbishop, in fact, of a mind to augment or to alter what he had found concerning the early Carolingians, in general, and Charlemagne in particular.

By the time Nelson's discussion reaches ch. 35, her arguments that Hincmar portrayed "the practice of the 860s and 870s, " in some fundamentally altered version of Adalhard's account of early Carolingian practice, are all but played out. Thus, in regard to a description in De ordine palaiii of the king's informal and relaxed behavior, when he was not taking part in the formal processes of the general placittan as contrasted to a military planning placihun (see above), she concludes: "This could, of course, be any Carolingian king about his business: perhaps it is an idealized Charlemagne, or even a composite royal image. But Hincmar could also be drawing on his memories of Charles the Bald's assemblies. "12

Yet, why, we might ask, should we assume that Hinanar reworked this chapter? Was not Adalhard capable of providing in his libelhts a picture of one or another early Carolingian king or for that matter "any Carolingian king about his business''-'? Could notAdalhard havepresented real information about Charlemagne or even idealized information regarding his cousin, or even a composite royal image? Was it not as likely for Adalhard to have been drawing on his memories of early Carolingian placita as it was for Hincmar to be drawing on his memories of Charles the Bald's placita? Finally, why would Hincmar have been interested in depicting Charles the Bald when Charlemagne was generally regarded as the model worthy of imitation? "'

An early Carolingian king in a relaxed posture (ch. 35): "exchanging stories with people whomhe did not often see, sympathizing with the older representatives (senioribus) to the meeting, and having a good time with the younger men" was hardly alien to Charlemagne. "' One might call attention here to the account by Adalhard's younger contemporary, Einhard, of Charlemagne in a relaxed mood: "He took delight in steam-baths... and loved to exercise himself in the water.... he

Adalhard of Corbie's De ordine palatii: Some Methodological 21 Observations Regarding Chapters 29 - 36

would invite large numbers of nobles and friends and even his ... bodyguards to

go swimming with him. "15 There is no comparable evidence that Charles the Bald behaved in this relaxed manner much less that this was his style. "' Indeed, during the later years of his reign, which provide Nelson's focus as the period from which Hincmar putatively drew his information, Charles the Bald had a reputation for imitatio imperii in the stiff and remote Byzantine style. 'v It is clear that Charles the Bald eschewed the comparatively easy going conmilitio-style cultivated by famous and successful Roman emperors such as Trajan. The latter's behavior, moreover, not only was thought worthy of imitation during the Carolingian era but was, in fact, recommended, apparently without success, to Charles the Bald by one of his important fideles. 7s

In drawing this examination of the question of Adalhard's largely untainted authorship of chapters 29-36 to a close, I will call attention to several additional examples of early Carolingian secular administrativebehavior which are consistent with the information that is recorded in De ordine palatii but which have not been exploited by other scholars such as Schmitz; the latter, in any case, does not seem to have been consulted by Nelson. First, however, it is important to emphasize that Adalhard was an administrator of very high caliber and an author of more than nominal importance. 19 With regard to administration, Adalhard, in addition to writing his libellus, entitled De ordine palatii, was responsible for a remarkably detailed set of monastic statutes, The Constuetudines Corbeienses, which have been mentioned briefly above. This text remains one of the most important monuments of medieval monastic administrative organization. "' In practical circumstances, it is essential to emphasize, Adalhard vas a man of exceptional importance in the governments of several early Carolingian rulers, both within the regnwn Francorum proper and in Italy where he served as regent for two successive Frankish reges Langobardorum. Although Adalhard has left us far less from his quill than Hincmar, it would be rash to presume that he was less well informed about secular government than his much younger contemporary. Indeed, it is clear from their comparative biographies that Adalhard was more thoroughly involved in the administration of royal government than the archbishop of Rheims. 121

In chapter36 ofhis libel his, Adalhard dwellsupon the acquisitionof intelligence and its importance for military planning. After discussing a variety of ways in which the court obtained such intelligence, Adalhard depicts the Frankish kings under whom he served as so eager to obtain information that was of potential use for these military concerns that personally they sought to question, or as we would say today "to debrief, " everyone who came to court. " Such restless energy and a fundamental spirit of inquisitiveness are clearly two of the several positive dispositions of character and behavior thatEinhard attributes to Charlemagne and which are reaffirmed by contemporary anecdotes that later were collected by Notker. By contrast, Nelson, in her defense of Hincmar's authorship, produces no evidence to show that Charles the Bald shared these traits or even a fundamental interest in obtaining intelligence of military value.

In discussing intelligence gathering (ch. 36), Adalhard gives special attention, among other matters, to the need for the king and his military advisers to obtain

22 Cithara

information concerning the potential for revolt by one or another subject people (gens siibdita) that live beyond or outside (extra) the frontiers of the kingdom (regnum). However, a reading of the history of Charles the Bald's reign makes clear that dealing with so-called subject peoples from beyond the frontiers was not a matter of major importance in regard to his foreign policy, in general, orhis military policy, in particular. It would not be possible to make a compelling list of peoples from beyond the frontiers of the regnurn Francorum who were subject to Charles the Bald at any time during his reign much less during the 860s and 870s. Rather, Charles the Bald was more often than not focused on dealing with the revolts of his own subjects who dwelled within the kingdom and foreign invaders whom he had never subjected. 113

In this same chapter (36), Adalhard also emphasizes the need to obtain intelligence concerning one or anothergens, from beyond (extra) the frontiers of the regnum, but who had not yet been conquered, necdum subdita. 124 Charles the Bald, however, does not seem to have had much of an interest in bringing about the conquest of those gentes who lived beyond the frontiers of the kingdom but who were "not yet" conquered. (The use of necdum here presumes a future aim of bringing about such a conquest. )I21 The development of policies for dealing with subject peoples, who lived beyond the frontiers of the empire, and allusions to the future conquest of the homelands of as yet unconquered peoples, from beyond the frontiers, are fundamental to our understanding of the military posture and behavior of the early Carolingians and not to those of Charles the Bald in the 860s and 870s. 126

I will end this discussion with but one more example, to which many more could be added. In chapter 30, Adalhard calls attention to military planning, e. g. making decisions regarding where troops were to be mobilized for offensive operations and where they were to be deployed to defend against the possibility of enemy attacks. Here, Adalhard focuses on the king's practice of bringing together senior advisers (seniores) in conjunction with special advisers (praecipni consiliarii) to carry out the planning. The military planning function was, of course, of central importance to all the governments of the early Middle Ages, but it is not at all clear that Charles the Bald had much need to prepare offensive military operations as he spent most of his efforts defending against Viking attacks and internal revolts. "'

Evidence for offensive or for that matter defensive military planning at the royal court of Charles the Bald is not a subject to which Hincmar would appear to have attended with much interest. This may be seen from Nelson's treatment of chapter 30, discussed above, and from the archbishop's ongoing account of events in the Annales of St. Bertin. 111 However, the anonymous author of the Annales Mettenses priores, writing for the Carolingian court ca. 805, makes a point of calling attention to a military planning group at the court of Charlemagne's great grandfather, the Mayor of the Palace Pippin U. According to this text, Pippin had organized a group of men, which the author of the Annales calls the magistratus, to draw up a plan for the invasion of Neustria in 687.129 The term used for this plan is consilium., i. e. the traditional Roman imperial terminology used for a developed

Adalhard of Corbie's De ordine palatii: Some Methodological 23 Observations Regarding Chapters 29 - 36

military plan, and obviously consistent with early Carolingian interest in imitatio imperii. 10 After receiving the plan from the inagistratus, Pippin is reported to have examined it and then upon finding it satisfactory ordered the mobilization of the Carolingian army. '3'

It would perhaps be less than prudent to conclude on the basis of an account written more than a century after the fact that Pippin II, as early as 687, had a fully developed court planning staff of special advisers, praecipui consiliarii, on military matters similar to that described by Adalhard in his libellus. However, by calling attention to such a group and to the planning process, itself, the author of the Annales undoubtedly understood that contemporaries in the early ninth century would be aware of the existence of the king's praecipui consiliarii, who functioned at the royal court in order to produce plans (consilii) for offensive military operations. In short, the author of the Annales may well have conjured up a fantasy for the reign of Pippin II as Mayor of the Palace. However, the account very likely was projecting back in time a contemporary institution, which was held in sufficiently high regard by Charlemagne's court, thatby attributing such a process to a distant Carolingian ancestor of great illustriousness, the latter was made to seem even more formidable. '-" If one were to show that Charles the Bald used a staff of specialized advisers for military planning then, as in so much of later Carolingian history, this should be taken as evidence for continuity with the early Carolingian era and not for an alteration or augmentation of Adalhard's libellus by the archbishop of Rheims.

To conclude, thebody of mainland scholarship-mostlyin German, whichhas been discussed above briefly would under most circumstances be sufficient to sustain the view that chapters 29-36 of Adalhard's libellus, which was entitled De ordine palatii, were neither largely altered nor augmented in a noteworthy manner by Hincmar when he included these items in his Admonitio of 882. However, the development of an Anglophone Tendenz, which unfortunately has failed to give a full and fairhearing to the relevant scholarship, now holds that these chapters were fundamentally altered and/or augmented by Hincmar to reflect the institutions of Charles the Bald's reign during the 860s and 870s. These changes and additions alleged to have been executed by Hincmar putatively describe a situation that was very different from that which obtained in the early Carolingian era that Adalhard used as his model and had recorded in his tract.

As shown above, when it canbe demonstrated thatlater Carolingian institutions comport with the information found in Adalhard's libellus, chapters 29-36, it is evidence for continuity and not for alterations or augmentations by Archbishop Hincmar. In addition, certain aspects ofAdalhard's libellus, e. g. items dealing with the making of plans to deal with one or another subject people from beyond the frontiers of the regnura, who were possibly preparing to revolt, and allusions to peoples from beyond the frontiers, who were not yet conquered but whose conquest in the future was envisioned, likely were not matters of concern to Charles the Bald. Finally, the details recorded by Adalhard in regard to military planning and sustained by the anonymous author of the Anisales Mettenses priores are not evidenced in Hincmar's works.

24 Cithara

Adalhard, a cousin and close adviser of Charlemagne, wrote a libellus entitled De ordine palatii. This handbook, which indicated how things should be done, sometimes by telling stories indicating how they were done, was incorporated by Archbishop Hincmar of Rheims into his Adntonitio of 882 for the edification of King Carloman. Much of Adalhard's text was not tampered with by Hincmar because the prelate wanted to use the exceptionally successful reign of Charlemagne-as seen in late ninth century perspective-as his model. In more specific terms, chapters 29-36 of Adalhard's libellus were left intact by Hincmar. These chapters represent, among other things, the way in which the court was organized and the manner in which military planning was supposed to be executed for the campaigns that were undertaken under the early Carolingians.

Finally, this study is intended to defend thestatusquestionis regardingAdalhard of Corbie authorship of chapters 29-36 of his libellus, De ordine palatii. This has been undertaken because of a recent and unfortunately influential effort to resuscitate Louis Halphen's long discredited claims that Archbishop Hincmar of Rheims forged and/or rewrote these chapters in order to introduce information from the reign of Charles the Bald as the latter's government was administered during the 860' and 870s. Rather, it must be reaffirmed that chapters 29-36 represent the work of Adalhard and describe how the government was administered under the early Carolingians.

University of Minnesota Minneapolis

Adalhard of Corbie's De ordine palatii: Sorte Methodological Observations Regarding Chapters 29 - 36

NOTES

25

1. ) The title normally given to this text, De ordine palatii, which as noted above, became common from the seventeenth century and does not represent Hincmar's original intentions. Hincmar simply referred to his tract as an Adittottitio. The basic editions are: Hinauarus de ordine Palatii, ed., trans., with a commentary by Thomas Gross and Rudolf Schieffer inMonuntenta GernianiaeHistorica. Font es lttrisgermanici Atttiqui in usunt scholarum separatist editi, (Hannover, 1980); and Hincmar, De Ordine Palatii, ed. and trans. Maurice Prou (Paris, 1884). There is an English translation as well by David Herlihy, History of Feudalism (Atlantic Highlands-N. J., 1970), pp. 209-27. All translations in this study are my own unless otherwise indicated. All citations of the text, Hincmar, De ordine palatii, are to the Gross-Schieffer edition by line with chapter numbers as established in the Prou edition and maintained in the margin by Gross and Schieffer. References to the Gross and Schieffer commentary are to Hittctttarus and to Prou's commentary Hincmar. Heinz Löwe, "Hinkmar von Reims and der Apocrisiar: Beiträge zur Interpretation von De ordine palatii, " in Festschrift für Hermann HeintpeI zum 70. Geburtstag am 19. September 1971,3 vols. (Göttingen, 1972), 111,200, provides a compelling argument for the very narrow dating range of the Adtnottitio. 2. ) De ordine palatii, ch. 12 (lines 218-20). Regarding the historical development of the intitulation "Karolus magnus" see the basic work by Karl Ferdinand Werner, Karl der Grosse oder Charlemagne? Von der Aktualitl t einer überholten Fragestellung (Munich, 1995). 3. ) De ordine palatii, ch. 12 (lines 218-20). 4. ) See, for example, Prou, Hittctnar, pp. v-vii, for a list of printed editions. See also the discussion by Carlrichard Briihl, "Hincmariana: I. Hinkmar and die Verfasserschaft des Traktats'De ordine palatii, " Deutsches Archiv fiir Erforschung des Mittelalters, 20 (1960), 51-2; and Gross and Schieffer, Hittcstarus, pp. 11-2. 5. ) De ordine palatii, ch. 12 (lines 220-1). 6. ) De ordine palatii, ch. 12 (lines 218-20). 7. ) De ordine palatii, ch. 12 (lines 221-2), where Hincmar discusses how Adalhard organized his libellus. 8. ) De ordine palatii, ch. 1 [Prologus], (line 12); and ch. 3 (lines 44-5). 9. ) De ordine palatii, ch. 1 [Prologus], (lines 13-4). 10. ) The basic study of Hincmar's career as archbishop is Jean Devisse, Hincmar, Arcltevegtte de Reims, 845-82,3 vols. (Geneva, 1975-6). Regarding Hincmar's birth and early life see Heinrich Schrörs, Hinktnar Erzbischof von Reims, sein Leben turd seine Schriften (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1884), pp. 9-12; and Gross and Schieffer, Hittcmartts, p. 11, concerning Adalhard. 11. ) Löwe, "Hinkmar von Reims and der Apocrisiar, " pp. 201-2, argues that this process was consistent with the way in which copying was done at the royal court and also in regard to Hincmar's role at this time while he was serving at the court of Louis the Pious in a comparatively minor position. 12. ) See Devisse, Hittctttar, II, 992, who unfortunately does not provide even a single example to support his claim: "Dans ce cas comme dans tantd'autres, l'historiographie allemande avait accuse Hincmar d'avoir invente de toutes pieces le traite ancien d'Adalhard dont it pretendait se servir. " I have not found evidence of such a trend worthy ofspecial national identification in German historiography to have flourished

26 Cithara

either before or after the Second World War. By contrast, for example, Paul Kirn, "Die mittlelaterliche Staatsverwaltung als geistesgesgeschichtliches Problem, " Historische Vierteljalirsclirift, 27 (1932), 532-6, discusses Adalhard's libellus in connection with the matter of Hincmar's alterations and augmentations and argues that much of the former's original text survives. 13. ) This matter is reviewed by J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, "Archbishop Hincmar and the Authorship of Lex Salica, " Tijdschrift voor Reclhtsgeschiedenis XXI (1953), 1-29; and reprinted in J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Long-haired Kings and other studies in Frankish History (London, 1962), 95-120. 14. ) Wallace-Hadrill, "Archbishop Hincmar and theAuthorship of Lex Salica, " pp. 106-19. 15. ) Wallace-Hadrill, "Archbishop Hincmar and theAuthorship of LexSalica, " p. 96. 16. ) Louis Halphen, "De ordine palatii d'Hincmar, " Revue historique 183 (1938), 1- 9 and reprinted in Halphen, A travers 1'histoire du moyen age (Paris, 1950), 83-91. 17. ) Halphen, "Hincmar's De ordine, " p. 83. 18. ) Halphen, "Hincmar's De ordine, " p. 91. 19. ) Devisse, Hincmar, II, 992. 20. ) Kirn, "Die mittelalterliche Staatsverwaltung, " pp. 532-6, employs a qualitative analysis to identify Adalhard's style. 21. ) Halphen, "Hincmar's De ordine, " p. 90, "la majorite des historiens continuent de suivre presque aveuglement notre auteur [Hincmar]. " 22. ) Halphen, "Hincmar's De ordine, " p. 90. 23. ) Halphen, "Hincmar's De ordine, " p. 90. 24. ) Prou, Hincmar, pp. xviii-xx. 25. ) Hincmar, p. xx. 26. ) Review of "Louis Halphen, "Deordine palatii d'Hincmar, " Revuehistorique, 183 (1938), 1-9" in Annales du Midi, 52 (1940), 107. 27. ) "Staatsauffassung in der Karolingerzeit, " Historische Zeitschrift, 173 (1952), 467-84; and reprinted Das Königtum, seine geistigen und rechtlichen Grundlagen (Lindau-Konstanz, 1956), 173. 28. ) Rudolph Buchner, "Die Rechtsquellen, " in Wattenbach-Levison, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen int Mittlealter: Vorzeit und Karolinger (Weimar, 1953), 61. 29. ) Heinz Löwe, "Die Karolinger vom Tode Karls des Grossen bis zum Vertrag von Verdun, " in Wattenbach-Levison, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen in: Mittelal ter: Vorzeit und Karolinger (Weimar, 1957), III, 317. 30. ) Hinkmars "De ordine palatii": und seine Quellen (Frankfurt-am Main, 1962). 31. ) Hinkmars "De ordine palatii", pp. 27-33. 32. ) For the arguments put forth by Kim, "Die mittlelalterliche Staatsverwaltung als geistesgesgeschichtliches Problem, " pp. 532-36; and concerning the impact of Kirn's work and the reaction to Halphen's critiqueby Schmidt, Hinlanars "De ordine palatii ", p. 6. Löwe, "Hinkmar von Reims und der Apocrisiar, " p. 197, argues that Kirr provided the impetus to Schmidt's effort and is probably correct in this regard since the latter was the student of the former. 33. ) Hinkmars "Deordinepalatii", pp. 34-41. Schmidt's effort was executed ostensibly in the pre-computer era and thus he did not prepare a machine readable program to develop his quantitatively based conclusions. However, in regard to his comparisons between Adalhard's Consuetudines Corbaeienses and chapters 13-36 of De ordine palatii, Schmidt's work employs the methods that shadow what is available with far greater power in a computer assisted study. The results for stylistic identity, as noted above, are especially the case in the comparisons which deal with chapters 29-36.

Adalhard of Corbie's De ordine palatii: Some Methodological 27 Observations Regarding Chapters 29 - 36

34. ) Hinkntars "De orditte paint ii", pp. 42-51. 35. ) Hinkntars, "De ordine palatii", p. 42. 36. ) Hittkrttars "De ordine palntii, p. 31. 37. ) Aix-la-Chapelle in the Age of Charlemagne (Norman-Oklahoma, 1963), pp. 67, 107,110-3. 38. ) Brühl, "Hincmariana, " pp. 49-50. 39. ) Brühl, "Hinkmariana, " pp. 52-3. Cf. Löwe, "Hink-mar von Reims and der Apocrisiar, " p. 198, n. 6, who does not seem to doubt the importance of the role played by Adalhard in Italy as the regent for both Pippin the younger beginning in 781 and during the reign of the latter's son, Bernard, some thirty years later. Löwe does, however, doubt (pp. 198-9) that the use of Lombard technical terminology is a valid basis for Brühl's argument and opines that this terminology could have been introduced by Hincmar. Löwe, however, does not indicate to us why Hincmar might have done so except to suggest the possibility that the archbishop might have relished using a "Terminus deliciostts, " a stylistic affectation one would associate with a leisurely process of composition. However, the Adtttonitio as a whole was a very rushed production. As a result, it seems unlikely that Hincmar, who never participated in the administration of the Carolingian regnuttt Langobardorum, went searching for a Lombard "Terminus deliciosus" at this time. 40. ) Brühl, "Hinkmariana, " pp. 52-4. Nb. Gross and Schieffer, Hinktttar, p. 65, n. 145, who argue that the terminological evidence is too fragmentary to base a firm conclusion. However, they do not doubt the Italian provenance of the term at issue and they do not embrace the notion that Hincmar supplied it to the text. 41. ) Regarding the initial magisterial work on the court see Josef Fleckenstein, Die Hofkapelle der deutschen Könige, 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 1959). With regard to the acceptance of Schmidt's arguments and the use of De ordine palntii, Josef Fleckenstein, "Karl der Grosse and sein Hof, " Karl der Grosse: Lebenswerk and Nachleben, 5 vols. ed. Helmut Beumann et al. (Düsseldorf, 1966), 1, p. 30, in discussing Adalhard, De orditte palatii, ch. 31; p. 33, re chs. 21,22,23; p. 50, ch. 19. 42. ) Fleckenstein, "Karl der Grosse and sein Hof, " p. 33, n. 64. 43. ) Fleckenstein, "Karl der Grosse and sein Hof, " p. 37. 44. ) "Charlemagne and the Institutions of the Frankish Monarchy, " in Frankish Institutions under Charlemagne, trans. B. and M. Lyon (Providence, R. I., 1968), p. 113, n. 96 and p. 119, n. 142, where Halphen's argument is rejected. This is an expanded version of the article by Ganshof, "Charlemagne et les institutions de la monarche franque, " contributed to Karl der Grosse: Lebenswerk and Nachleben, 5 vols. ed. Helmut Beumann et al. (Düsseldorf, 1966), I, 349-93. 45. ) Ganshof, "Charlemagne and the Institutions of the Frankish Monarchy, " p. 113, recognized thatAdalhard's De ordine palatii was used by Hincmar as the latter "saw fit. " Thus, Ganshof went about with great care using those parts concerning which there was early Carolingian supporting evidence. See, for example, loc. cit. p. 114, n. 103, where Ganshof makes use of ch. 23 in regard to three separate matters and ch. 22 on one point; n. 104, where ch. 17 is cited twice, n. 107, ch. 22; p. 115, n. 120, chs. 31 and 32, are found acceptable; p. 119, n. 142, for the use of chs. 29,30,34- 36; p. 138, notes 283 and 294, for the use of ch. 23. See also F. L. Ganshof, "Charlemagne et ('administration de la justice dans la monarchie franque, " in Karl der Grosse: Lebenswerk und Nachleben, 5 vols. ed. Helmut Beumann et al. (Düsseldorf, 1966), I, 407, n. 98, regarding chs. 19,21, and an additional note on his method in regard to items "qui proviennent vraisemblablement du traite d'adalard"; n. 100 regarding chs. 19,21.

28 Cithara

46. ) "Beobachtungen zur Geschichte und Gestalt der Aachener Pfalz in der Zeit Karls des Grossen, " in Studien zur europäischen Vor-und Frühgeschichte, eds. Martin Glaus, Werner Haarnagel and Klaus Raddatz (Neumünster, 1968), 262-3,275. 47. ) See Anton, Fürstenspiegel und Herrscherethos in der larolinger_eit (Bonn, 1968), p. 289, n. 732. 48. ) See Anton, Fürstenspiegel und Herrscherethos in der Karolingerzeit, pp. 288-356, 401,441. 49. ) Löwe, "Hinkmar von Reims und der Apocrisiar, " pp. 203-22. 50. ) Löwe, "Hinkmar von Reims und der Apocrisiar, " p. 224. 51. ) Löwe, "Hinkmar von Reims und der Apocrisiar, " p. 222-4. 52. ) Löwe, "Hinkmar von Reims und der Apocrisiar, " pp. 197-9. 53. ) Löwe, "Hinkmar von Reims und der Apocrisiar, " p. 198. 54. ) Löwe, "Hinkmar von Reims und der Apocrisiar, " p. 198. 55. ) See Adalhard, Consuetudines Corbaeienses, ed. J. Semmler, in Corpus Consuetudinum Monasticarum, I (Siegburg, 1963), 364-418. See the discussion by Schmidt, Hinkmars "De ordine palatii, " p. 24-6. 56. ) See, for example, Schmidt, Hinkmars "Deordine palatii, "p. 26, in regard to the deployment of "Demonstrativpronomen" and "Prädikat oder die Kopula. " 57. ) Schmidt, Hinkmars "De ordine palatii, "pp. 37-9; for the haec constructions cited. 58. ) Hinkmars, "De ordine palatii, " p. 32. 59. ) Hinkmars, "De ordine palatii, " p. 32. 60. ) Hinkmars, "De ordine palatii, " p. 42. 61. ) Löwe, "Hinkmar von Reims und der Apocrisiar, " p l'-)). 62. ) Löwe, "Hinkmar von Reims und der Apocrisiar, " p. 222. 63. ) Löwe, "Hinkmar von Reims und der Apocrisiar, " pp. 221-2. 64. ) Löwe, "Hinkmar von Reims und der Apocrisiar, " pp. 221-2. 65. ) Löwe, "Hinkmar von Reims und der Apocrisiar, " p. 222. 66. ) See, for example, Cap. reg. Fr. I, (Capitularia regum Franconum, I, ed. A. Boretius. Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Leguin sectio 11 [Hanover, 18831), no. 44, ch. 8; no. 46, ch. 10; no. 74, ch. 8; no. 91, ch. 4; no. 93, ch. 7; no. 217, ch. 4. The various antiquae consuetudines are discussed by Bernard S. Bachrach, "Quelques observations sur la composition et les caracteristiques des armees de Clovis, " in Clovis: Histoire et Memoire, 2 vols. ed. Michel Rouche (Paris, 1997), 1,698-9; and Bernard S. Bachrach, Early Carolingian Warfare: Prelude to Empire (Philadelphia, 2001), pp. 55,120,137. 67. ) Löwe, "Hinkmar von Reims und der Apocrisiar, " pp. 221-2, relies for the notion of an innovation by Louis the Pious in 818 upon the rather limited research published in the dissertation of Erich Seyfarth, Friinkische Reichsversammlungen unter Karl dein Grossen und Ludwig dein Frommen (Leipzig, 1910), as developed in his chapter "Kleine Optimatenversammlungen" pp. 81-7. However, as Fustel de Coulanges, Histoire des institutions politiques de 1 ancienne France, 7,341-412, made clear more than a century ago there is no consistent terminology in the sources regarding assemblies, in general, or, for that matter, regarding particular types of assemblies. (Seyfarth, pp. 4-10, also finds no consistent Terminologie but without reference to Fustel de Coulanges' earlier research. ) A very useful critique of Fustel de Coulanges' fundamentally inconclusive effort is provided by Joel T. Rosenthal, "The Public Assembly in the Time of Louis the Pious, " Traditio, (1964), 25-40. Rosenthal's study, however, does not examine the capitularies and, in the end, creates fewer but less useful categories. See also, F. L. Ganshof, "Louis the Pious reconsidered, " History XLII (1957), 171-80; and reprinted in F. L. Ganshof, The Carolingians and the Frankish Monarchy, trans. JanetSondheimer (London, 1971), pp.

Adalhard of Corbie's De ordine palatii: Some Methodological 29 Observations Regarding Chapters 29 - 36

265-6, who discusses what he believes is the changing character of the assemblies under Louis the Pious. Note also should be taken of the effort by Janet Nelson, "Legislation and Consensus in the Reign of Charles the Bald, " Ideal and Reality in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Society: Studies presented to J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, ed. by Patrick Wormald with Donald Bullough and Roger Collins (Oxford, 1983), pp. 226- 7, Appendix 2, where the capitularies are cited but the methodological problems, see below, remain.

As noted above, there is no consistent terminology to be found in the sources that indicate what is to be considered an "assembly. " In addition, there is no definition in the sources of the competence of one or another "assembly" and no agreed upon view by Carolingian writers in regard to what constitutes the responsibilities of an "assembly. " 68. ) Cap. reg. Fr. 1, no. 19, ch. 12, where summer and winter meetings are identified. See Gross and Schieffer, Hinkmar, p: 83, n. 194, for additional discussion. 69. ) Cap. reg. Fr. no. 19, ch. 12, "nemo venire tardet. " 70. ) Fustel de Coulanges, Histoire des institutions politiques de 1 ancienne France, 7, 341-55, with a focus on the king's council provides a useful starting point for further research. For a somewhat different construction see Seyfarth, Fränkische Reichsversa: nmlungen unter Karl dent Grossen and Ludwig dem Frommen, pp. 81-94, where the early examples are identified and both the place and time of the meetings of the "small council" on the basis of these sources. This is a topic that needs a great deal more work. Some useful material, for example, is to be found in Jürgen Hannig, Consensus Fidelium: Früh feudale Interpretationen des Verhältnisses von Königtum and Adel ant beispiel des Frankenreiches (Stuttgart, 1982). 71. ) Löwe, "Hinkmar von Reims and derApocrisiar, " p. 223, and note 89. 72. ) Löwe, "Hinkmar von Reims and der Apocrisiar, " p. 222. 73. ) Löwe, "Hinkmar von Reims and der Apocrisiar, " p. 222-3. 74. ) Devisse, Hincinar, II, 992. 75. ) Josef Fleckenstein, "Die Struktur des Hofes Karls des Grossen im Spiegel von Hinkmars De ordine palatii, " Zeitschrift des Aachener Geschichtsvereins, 83 (1976), 5- 22. This is more than a crushing response to the published university lectures of Edmond Perroy, Le monde carolingian (Paris, 1974), pp. 192-3, who believed that De ordinepalatii was a worthless document. The out of date nature of these lectures and particularly of the bibliography was a subject upon which reviewers focused. See for example, the reviews by Bryce Lyon, Speculum, 52 (1977), 726-7; and Andre joris, Le Moyen Age, 82 (1976), 352. 76. ) "Missus-Marchio-Canes. Entre l'administration centrale et l'administration locale de l'Empire carolingien, " Histoire comparee de l'administration (IVe-XXVIIe siecles, eds. Werner Paravicini et Karl Ferdinand Werner (Munich, 1980), 13. 77. ) Gross and Schieffer, Hinkmarus, passim, and esp. pp. 82-96. Of course, one cannot expect total agreement on all points but the areas of disagreement are marginal. 78. ) Das Frankenreich (Munich, 1990), p. 98. 79. ) See, for example, Reginald Lane Poole, Chronicles and annals; a brief outline of their origin and growth (Oxford, 1926), p. 33, for the quotation. 80. ) The basic work on this matter-vas published in 1602 and republished several times by Marquard Freher, Origines Palatine, 3rd ed. (Heidelberg, 1688). See the discussion by Schmidt, Hinkmars, "De Ordine Palatii, "pp. 20-1; and the affirmation of the soundness of Freher's judgment by Brühl, "Hinkmariana, " pp. 50-1. For a problematic effort to limit the extent of Freher's discoverybutnot to undermine the notion of an independent text by Adalhard see Wolfgang Metz, "Drei Abschnitte

30 Cithara

zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Capitulare de Villis, " Deutsches Archiv, 22 (1966), 272-3, who seems to be arguing a negative. Löwe, "Hinkmar von Reims and der Apocrisiar, " pp. 197-8, recognizes that Freherhad something ofAdalhard's original text at hand. For more references to work on the manuscripts see Gross and Schieffer, Hinkinar, pp. 12-8. 81. ) 1 cite here only the important study by F. L. Ganshof, "Eginhard, biographe de Charlemagne, " Bibliotheque d'Hun anisme et Renaissance, XIII (1951), 217-320; and reprinted as "Einhard, biographer of Charlemagne, " in F. L. Ganshof, The Carolingians and the Frankish Monarchy, trans. Janet Sondheimer (London, 1971), 1- 16. This study is of particular importance because Ganshof and Halphen were close associates. 82. ) As noted above, Halphen's study of De ordine pnlntii vas reprinted in 1950; and Wallace-Hadrill reviewed this reprint in The English Historical Review, XXXVI (1951), 430-1. 83. ) "Archbishop Hincmar, " pp. 119-20. 84. ) Wallace-Hadrill would seem to have made some effort to alter or perhaps nuance his views regarding Adalhard's De ordine palatii in apparent recognition of the consensus, discussed above, that had developed on the mainland. Thus, as early as 1965, Wallace-Hadrill ("The via Regia of the Carolingian Age, " in Trends in Medieval Political Thought, ed. Beryl Smalley [Oxford, 1965], 22-41; and reprinted in Early Medieval History [Oxford, 1975], p. 193) speaks of Hincmar's Dc ordine palatii as "an old man's work, as it looks back to the reign of Charlemagne (my ital. ), the imagined golden age of a Christian society.... " This may perhaps be taken to mean than the archbishop left much of what he found in Adalhard's libeilus largely intact with regard to what the latter had written concerning the reign of Charlemagne. 85. ) "Legislation and Consensus in the Reign of Charles the Bald, " Ideal and Reality in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Society: Studies presented to J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, ed. by Patrick Wormald with Donald Bullough and Roger Collins (Oxford, 1983), 202-27. However, it should be noted that Wallace-Hadrill, Review: Jean Devisse, Hincinar, Archeveque de Reims, 845-882,3 vols. (Geneva, 1975-1976) in The English Historical Review, 93 (1978), 102, reversed himself in regard to Hincmar as a forger (see above) and observed that Devisse had succeeded in his efforts to exonerate the archbishop. 86. ) "Legislation and Consensus, " p. 214. 87. ) Charles The Bald (New York), p. 43. 88. ) Wallace-Hadrill's early flirtation with the Halphen thesis would appear to have set the stage in England regarding Adalhard's h7rellus as a product of Hincmar's quill. However, just as Nelson was formulating her radical views on Hincmar's role in augmenting and revisingAdalhard's work, Wallace-Hadrill was in the process of revising his own evaluation of the role putatively played by the archbishop of Rheims in altering the text that he had copied some six decades earlier. As indicated above, Wallace-Hadrill accepted Devisse's view that Hincmar was not an out and out forger. In addition, Q. M. Wallace-Had rill, "History in the mind of Archbishop Hincmar, " The Writing of History in the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to Richard William Southern, ed. R. H. C. Davis and J. M. Wallace-Hadrill with the assistance of R. J. A. I. Catto and M. H. Keen [Oxford, 1981], 43-70), he made a point of emphasizing the influence of Adalhard on Hincmar (p. 44). Further, Wallace-Hadrill (p. 60), would appear to follow Devisse, Hincinar, II, 992 ff., regarding the accuracy of Schmidt's conclusions.

Shortly after embracing Devisse's views, as these had been influenced by Schmidt, Wallace-Hadrill, The Frankish Church (Oxford, 1983), p. 294, observed that

Adalhard of Corbie's De ordine palatii: Some Methodological 31 Observations Regarding Chapters 29 - 36

Hincmar "composed De ordine palatii on the basis of an earlier treatise, from which the new king might learn how administrative matters had been arranged under Charlemagne (my ital. ). " Thus, Wallace-Hadrill recognized the state of the question which holds that "The whole of the earlier part of this important study is Hincmar's own. " Further, he admits that "The later part, which treats of royal administration and organization of the court, is based on a now lost libellus from the pen of Adalhard of Corbie...... 89. See, for example, ch. 12 (line 218), ch. 14 (line 252), and ch. 15 (lines 264-5). 90. ) "Legislation and Consensus, " " p. 215, n. 64. This study was reprinted in Janet L. Nelson, Politics and Ritual in Early Medieval Europe (London, 1986), 91-116, where no change is made (p. 104, n. 65). 91. ) Nelson, "Legislation and Consensus, " p. 217, for the quotations. 92. ) The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751-987 (London, 1983), p. 79. 93. ) Nelson, "Legislation and Consensus, " p. 217, for the quotations. 94. ) Nelson, "Legislation and Consensus, " pp. 216-7, observes that she is unconvinced by the arguments made by Löwe, which are discussed above, that the information in chapters 29 and 34 belong to the reigns of Charlemagne and Louis the Pious, respectively. The former argument she characterizes as artificial and concerning latter she proclaims "I am not convinced. " In neither case does she bring evidence to bear in order to sustain these positions. 95. ) See, for example, Schmidt, Hinkinars, "De Ordine Palatii ", pp. 18-26, regarding quantitative methods; and Löwe, "Hinkmar von Reims and der Apocrisiar, " pp. 199-221, for an example of the thoroughuse of both tennini technici and context with regard to the apocrisiarius. 96. ) Of course, Schmidt, Hink-mars, "De Ordine Palatii, "pp. 18-26, is fundamental here in regard to quantitative methods; but see also Brühl, "Hincmariana, " pp. 52- 3, in the use of particular a tenninus technicus in a firmly controlled historical and geographical context. 97. ) In general, the various annals and chronicles provide the information for Seyfarth, Fränkische Reichsversammlungen unter Karl dem Grossen and Ludwig dem Fronunen, pp. 81-94; Rosenthal, "The Public Assembly in the Time of Louis the Pious, " pp. 27-30; and Nelson, "Legislation and Consensus, " pp. 226-7. See the collection of this material in J. F. Böhmer and Engelbert Mühlbacher, Resgesta Imperii: Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter den Karolingern, 751-918, vol. I, (Innsbruck, 1908). With particular regard to Hincmar's predecessors as compilers of the Annales St. Bertin it should be noted that mentions of assemblies are a commonplace until the death of Louis the Pious. The author of the Annales, who deals with the period roughly from 840-861, does not give much attention to assemblies. However, when Hincmar takes over as author, he goes back to the style that dominated the writing of the Annales with regard to the mention of assemblies between 830 and 839. 98. ) "Legislation and Consensus, " p. 217, for the quotation. 99. ) Wallace-Hadrill, "History in the mind of Archbishop Hincmar, " p. 60. 100. ) De ordine palatii, chs. 29,30 (lines 474-506). 101. ) Adalhard, Deordinepalatii, ch. 30 (lines 480-1). As noted above, the assertions regarding these terms by Löwe, "Hinkmar von Reims and der Apocrisiar, " p. 223, were put forth without evidence to sustain his claim that this terminology was introduced into De ordine palatii by Hincmar. Concerning Adalhard's usage in regard to senior in these administrative chapters to mean a senior or elder participant in a placitum see chapter 35 (lines 592-3), discussed below. The translation of senior as hohe by Gross and Schieffer, Hincmarns, p. 84, in regard to ch. 30 is not warranted

32 Cithara

either by context or by Adalhard's usage. By contrast, Gross and Schieffer's translation of senior as Alter (p. 93) in regard to ch. 35, is important because it pretty much guarantees a reading of "elder" or senior participant in a placitum rather than old (holies Alter) which would have been an appropriate way to render the Latin senex but not senior. 102. ) Adalhard, De ordine palatii, ch. 30 (lines 480-1). F

. L. Ganshof, Recherches sur

les Capitulaires (Sirey, 1958), pp. 22-3, calls attention to the use of experts in the preparation of the capitularies, i. e. men who are mentioned in the documents themselves. There is no reason to believe that these experts were among the higher ranking men in Carolingian society. This gives us some warning not to confound the term praecipuus consiliarius, i. e. special adviser or "specialist" with the term consiliarius regis. The latter is generally taken to mean a very high ranking adviser to the king. This point has been made in considerable detail for both Carolingian Italy and this same region in the immediate post-Carolingian era with significant comparisons to the area north of the Alps by Hagen Keller, "Zur Struktur des Königsherrschaft im karolingischen and nachkarolingischen Italien. Der 'consiliarius regis' in den italienischen Königdiplomen des 9. and 10. Jhdts., " Quellen turd Forschungen aus Italienischen Archiven and Bibliotheken, 47 (1967), 123- 233. N. b. Nelson, "Legislation and Consensus, " p. 215, would seem tobe translating praeciptti consiliarii, who are discussed in ch. 30, as though they were "the more influential men, the leading men" of the kingdom and there is no warrant for such a translation. In this context, she may well be following the flawed English renderingby Herlihy, Deorditte palatii, p. 223, who mistakenly translated "praecipui consiliarii" as "the principal councilors. " 103. ) De ordine palatii, ch. 30 (lines 488-91,486, and 492-3, respectively). Regarding the meaning of dextra in the present context, see Gross and Schieffer, Hinctttnrus, p. 85, n. 200, with the literature cited there. 104. ) N. b. as Adalhard, De ordine palatii, ch. 34 (lines 575- 6), points out, this type of preparation was used at both placita, i. e. the meeting dealt with in ch. 30, and is included in Adalhard's discussion here. 105. ) "Legislation and Consensus, " p. 217. 106. ) In addition to Ganshof,, Recltercltes sur les Capitulaires; now see Hubert Mordek, Bibliotheca capitularittm regttm Francorttnt tuanuscripta. l. lberlieferuttg rind Traditionszusa»unenhang der friinkischen Herrschererlasse (Munich, 1995), regarding both manuscripts and additional bibliography. 107. ) As will be discussed below, there are many kinds of capitularies and Hincmar's interests, as adumbrated by Nelson, do not go to the type of internal administrative operations carried out by the praeciptti consiliarii. 108. ) Regarding the classification of capitularies see Ganshof, Recherches stir les Capitulaires, pp. 11-8. 109. ) Ganshof, Recltercltes stir les Capitulaires, pp. 3-7, concerning terminology. 110. ) Hinktttars, "De ordinepalatii, "p. 32. Nelson, "Legislation and Consensus, " pp. 205-8, argues that Hincmar followed a policy of arranging for capitulary collections to be available at Rheims. If she is correct, and I believe that she is, this is certainly evidence that the archbishop was interested in the finished product. It does not show, however, that he was interested in the bureaucratic underpinnings of the process by which the documents were constructed. This type of deep interest in the details of administration can be found inAdalhard, Consttetudines Corbaeiettses, ed. J. Semmler, pnssittt. 111. ) "Legislation and Consensus, " p. 219.

Adalhard of Corbie's De ordine palatii: Some Methodological 33 Observations Regarding Chapters 29 - 36

112. ) "Legislation and Consensus, " p. 220. 113. ) For the overarching importance of Charlemagne's Nachleben see, for example, Robert Folz, Le souvenir et la legende de Charlemagne daps l'Empire germanique medieval (Paris, 1950). Of additional interest are Barton Sholad, Charlemagne in Spain (Geneva, 1966); and Dutton, The Politics of Dreaming in the Carolingian Empire. 114. ) De ordine palatii, ch. 35 (line 592-3); and Cf. Nelson, "Legislation and Consensus, " p. 220. 115. ) Vita Karoli, ch. 22. 116. ) Nelson, "Legislation and Consensus, " p. 220, who must be assumed to have been aware of Charlemagne's informal behavior as reported by Einhard, tried to find a similar pattern of behavior for Charles the Bald. In this context, she calls attention (n. 82) to whatshe calls "Charles' close and informal relationship with his faithful men. " Nelson cites Nithard, Histoire des Fils de Louis le Pieux, ed. and trans. Ph. Lauer (Paris, 1926), bk. II, ch. 4, in support of this conclusion. However, this text provides neither a suitable parallel to Adalhard's account inch. 35 or to the account by Einhard cited above. Indeed, there is nothing in this account by Nithard which indicates either a close or an informal relationship. 117. ) Annales Fuldenses, ed. R. Rau (Darmstadt, 1960), an. 876. Percy Ernst Schramm, Kaiser, Könige and Päpste, Gesammelte Aufsätze (Stuttgart, 1968), 2,132-4, is undoubtedly correct in seeing the Fulda annalist as providing a hostile interpretation of Charles' adoption of various imperial behaviors. However, this does not mean that Charles did not adopt such Greco-centered imperial behaviors. Cf. Nelson, "Legislation and Consensus, " p. 220, n. 82, who observes: "There is no real evidence that Charles' political style changed in later life despite the hostile remarks about his 'Greek' imperial costume in the Annals of Fulda.... " This assertion is unconvincing because there is no evidence, real or otherwise, that Charles the Bald had an easy going style (see above note) in the first place, while the facts regarding Charles' laterbehavior, in adopting Byzantine manners, are not at issue. What is at issue are the reasons why the Fulda annalist chose to portray this Byzantinizing tendency in such an overwhelmingly negative manner. 118. ) Regarding conmilitio and Trajan as an ideal, see J. Brian Campbell, The Emperor and the Roman army, 31 B. C. -A. D. 235 (Oxford, 1984), pp. 32-59. In this context, it is important that Lupus of Ferrieres, Epist., no. 37 (Loup de Ferrieres, Correspomdamce, ed. and trans. Leon Levillain, 2 vols. [Paris, 1927], I, p. 165), provides detailed advice to the young king in the later summer of 844. 119. ) The basic studies of Adalhard's career are Paul Bauters, Adalhard van Huise (750-826) abt van Corbie er Corvey (Oudenaarde, 1964); and Henri Peltier, Adalhard, Abbe de Corbie (Amiens, 1969). 120. ) See Adalhard, Comsuetudires Corbaeienses, ed. J. Semmler, 364-418; and the discussion by Schmidt, Hirknmrs "De ordine palatii, pp. 18-26. 121. ) Regarding the career of Adalhard see Bauters, Adalhard van Huise; and Peltier, Adalhard, Abbe de Corbie. Concerning the career of Hincmar see Devisse, Hincmar. 122. ) Adalhard, De ordine palatii, ch. 36 (lines 619-34). 123. ) Cf. Nelson, Charles the Bald, pp. 190-253, who places these decades in the best possible light for her subject. 124. ) Adalhard, De ordine palatii, ch. 36 (lines 623-32). 125. ) Although Nelson, Charles the Bald, pp. 190-253, emphasizes that King Charles was not always on the defensive, his efforts and successes were by and large against his own subjects and his own relatives in other parts of the regrmn Francorum and not

aimed at conquering peoples beyond the frontiers of the regmum Frmuorum.

34 Cithara

126. ) Cf. Timothy Reuter, "The End of Carolingian Military Expansion, " in Charlentagne's Heir: New Perspectives on the Reign of Louis the Pious (814-840), eds. Peter Godman and Roger Collins (Oxford, 1990), 391-405, who argues that the Carolingian era of conquest was b rought to an end late in the reign of Charlemagne, i. e. after he became emperor. This is, however, an exaggeration with regard to Charlemagne. See, for example, Bernard S. Bachrach, "Military Organization in Aquitaine Under the Early Carolingians, " Speculum, 49 (1974): 1-33: reprinted in Bernard S. Bachrach, in Armies and Politics in theEarlyMedieval West (London, 1993), with the same pagination. 127. ) Nelson, Charles the Bald, pp. 190-253, who understates Charles' problems in regard to his capacity to sustain offensive military operations and by comparison tends to exaggerate his successes. 128. ) The basic text is Annales de Saint-Berlin, eds. Felix Grat, Jeanne Vielliard and Suzanne Clemencet (Paris, 1964). In this context, The Annals of St-Berlin, trans. and annotated by Janet Nelson (Manchester, 1991), certainly is serviceable for those who do not read Latin and her commentary is very good. Janet Nelson, "The 'Annals of St Bertin, "' in Charles the Bald: Court and Kingdosn, eds. Margaret Gibson and Janet Nelson with the assistance of David Ganz (Oxford, 1981), 15-36, does not address Hincmar's general interest in military matters or military planning in particular. She does, however, (pp. 25-6) discuss the archbishop's doctrinaire view that Charles the Bald should not pay Danegeld to the Vikings. 129. ) Annalesmettestsespriores, ed. B. vonSimsoninMctuntentaGermaniaeHistorica: Scriptores in Usttnt Scholaruttt (Hannover, 1905) an. (sic) 690 (p. 8). The basic modern work on the Annales has been done by Hartmut Hofmann, Untersuchung zur karolingian Anttalistik (Bonn, 1958), pp. 9-68; and Irene Haselbach, "Aufstieg and Herrschaft der Karolinger in der Darstellung der sogenannten Annalen Mettenscs prioress" Historische Studien, 412 (1970), 1-208. Numerous other studies, moreover, have been written to explain why the Metz annalist wrote and there is no consensus. For example, WaltharSchlessinger, "Kaisertum and Reichsteilung. Zur divisio regnortmt von 806, " in Forschung zu Staat and Verfassung, Festgabe ftir Fritz Hartung, eds. R. Dietrich and G. Oestreich, (Berlin, 1958), 9-51, and reprinted in Walthar Schlessinger, Beiträger zur deutschen Verfassungsgeschichte des Mittelalters, 2 vols. (Göttingen, 1963), I, 193-232, with an afterword p. 345. 130. ) Annales mettenses priores, an. (sic) 690 (p. 8), as noted above. 131. ) Annales mettenses priores, an. (sic) 690 (p. 8), "When Peppin [II] had received the plan, i. e. consilium, from the magistrates, which it had been considering in its meeting (gttod aped se versabat), he was exceptionally pleased [and] he mobilized the army (exercitus). See the discussion by Bachrach, Early Caroli» giast Warfare, pp. 202-3. 132. ) Regarding the question of a fully developed magistrates at the Carolingian court as early as 687, see the discussion by Bernard S. Bachrach, "Charlemagne's Military Responsibilities 'Am Vorabend der Kaiserkrönung, "' in Am Vorabend der Kaiserkrönung: Das Epos 'Karohts Magnus et Leo Papa' and der Papstbesuch, eds. Jörg Jarnut and Peter Johanek (Paderborn, 2001), 232-3.