Return to: Theses | Home

Isak M. C. Sexson

Hist. 495 Senior Thesis

Thesis Advisor: Martha Rampton

May 15, 2000

 

Carolingian Propaganda: Kingship by the Hand of God       

            The Carolingians laid the foundation for their successful coup in 751 very carefully, using not only political and religious alliances, but also the written word to ensure a usurpation of Merovingian power.  Up until, and even decades after Pippin IIIís coup, the Carolingians used a written form of propaganda to solidify their claims to the throne and reinforce their power base.  One of the most successful, powerful and persistent features of the Carolingiansí propaganda campaign was their use of God and divine support.  By divine support, I mean the Carolingians stressed their rightful place as rulers of Christiandom and were portrayed as aided in their actions by God and as virtuous, pious rulers.  This strategy of claiming to fulfill Augustineís vision of the ìCity of Godî on Earth worked so well in vaulting the Carolingians to the throne.  It could be argued that later generations saw propaganda as a vital part of building a strong power base even when multiple claimants to the throne emerged within the family during the reign of Louis the Pious.  These differing views can be seen as competing forms of propaganda necessary for a usurpation of power.  As a result of the Carolingiansí success with propaganda it became essential for building power-blocks.

            Many of the sources on the topic were first discovered, collected and translated by positivist historians working for the Monumenta Germaniae Historica in the late nineteenth, or early twentieth centuries.  However, historians have only recently begun to analyze many of the documents.  Bruno Krusch is perhaps the most important historian from this period for the documents I will be dealing with.  He translated, among other things, The Liber Historiae Francorum, The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar and its Continuations and several of the chronological listings of Carolingian and Merovingian kings historians have come to rely upon. [1]   In many cases, however, Krusch drew his conclusions directly from the texts themselves without questioning possible motives or mistakes by the respective authors.

            More recent historians, however, have investigated the motives and objectives behind written documents.  Pierre RichÈ, writing in the 1970s, paid close attention to authorship in his discussion of sources.  In The Carolingians; A Family Who Forged Europe RichÈ mentions that many of the documents were produced by clergy under Carolingian patronage.  Thomas F. X. Noble, in his treatment of the rise of the Papacy in The Republic of St. Peter; The Birth of the Papal State 680-825 also discusses the use of the written word in raising the status of the bishop of Rome.  Rosamond McKiterick has further delved into the use of the written word in Carolingian Europe.  By investigating the use and the knowledge of the written word McKitterick has helped to establish a rough outline of the audience these materials were most likely produced for, therefore shedding some light on the motives for production.  In examining the objectives and reasoning behind the production of Carolingian documents modern historians have gone a step beyond Krusch and other positivist historians.

            In The Rise of the Carolingians and the Liber Historiae Francorum, Richard Gerberding challenges Kruschís treatment of the Liber Historiae Francorum and the chronological listings of kings.  Gerberding sees the Liber Historia Francorum as a valuable and accurate source and suggests that the reason the Liber Historia Francorum is alone in its treatment of Grimoaldís coup, is because of its location of composition.  In other words the motivation of its Neustrian author differs from the Austrasian authors who wrote later treatments of Grimoaldís activities.  Gerberding points to the motivation and royal backing of the author of The Liber Historia Francorum as the basis for the documentís different stance on the Grimoaldian coup, denying its inaccuracy as an historical document. [2]   This is an important step towards recognizing documents as propaganda.  Unlike earlier positivist historians, such as Krusch, Gerberding examines the motivation and biases of The Liber Historia Francorumís author.  This is essential when determining the objective of the author and determining whether the document should correctly be viewed as propaganda.

            Similarly, Paul Fouracre and Richard Gerberding call the Annales Mettenses Priores (The Annals of Metz) into question in their book Late Merovingian France: History and Hagiography 640-720.  Fouracre and Gerberding investigate the manuscript of the Annals of Metz (discovered by Karl Hempe in 1895 and translated for the Monumenta Germaniae Historica by Bernhard von Simson in 1905).  In their analysis they question the provenance of the source and the motivations of the author(s) behind its composition, eventually stating that The Annals ìsee the Merovingian age through Carolingian eyes, and that vision has produced a warped view.î [3]

            The questioning of the motivations of the authors of these documents has recently led to the use of the term ëpropagandaí to describe the warped views of many of these documents.  Yitzahk Hen, in his article ìThe Annals of Metz and the Merovingian Pastî actually describes the Annals as ìas a piece of propaganda, designed to glorify the house of the Carolingians.î [4]   The use of the word propaganda in Henís work is an historiological step forward for understanding the motivations behind many Carolingian documents.  Gerberding, Fouracre and Hen are right in their treatment of the sources and in observing the motivations behind their authors.  Hen understands the implications of the word propaganda and sees it as an accurate description of many Carolingian documents.  I agree that several of the sources are ìa systematic attempt by an interested individual (or individuals) to control the attitudes of groups of individuals through the use of suggestion and, consequently, to control their actionsî ó in other words, propaganda. [5]  

            The word propaganda is a modern word that did not exist in Carolingian Europe.  It carries powerful modern connotations and should not be applied when discussing past documents without keeping its modern (often times negative) usage in mind.  However, even with all its connotations, is not only the best description for the documents I will be examining during the course of this paper, but also an accepted term by the historical community.

The Rise of the Carolingians

            During the decline of the power base of the Roman Empire in the fourth and fifth centuries, Frankish groups of warriors began to take over the duties of policing sections of the empire.  Eventually small kingships formed under the retreating tide of the Roman imperial government.  By the early sixth century one family, the Merovingians, under their leader Clovis, had succeeded in extending its sphere of military and political power over much of what is now northeastern France, Belgium, part of the Netherlands and some small sections of western Germany. [6]   Upon Clovisís death ca. 511, his kingdom was, in essence, broken into three sections and divided among his sons, Chlodomer, Childebert I and Lothar I.  These three kingdoms or the Tria Regna as they were called, were Austrasia (the far northwest portion), Neustria (the section of northern France with its capital at Paris) and Burgundy (the more southern portion of the empire).  While there was a great deal of infighting among the families over the years, they managed to keep there empire in familial hands for over two centuries by way of their military power and effective system of government. [7]   Perhaps the most important position in the Merovingian government was that of Mayor of the Palace, a second in command to the Merovingian king.  The Mayor of the Palace helped run virtually every aspect of the government and literally served, in some instances, as the head of state with the Merovingian king filling the role of figurehead.

            Over time the position of Mayor of the Palace became heritable in the same way a king might pass down his throne to his son.  By the seventh century the family later known as the Carolingians had firmly established themselves as perennial heirs to the office of Mayor of the Palace in Austrasia. [8]

            In 651 Grimoald, the Carolingian holding the office of Mayor of the Palace in Austrasia, attempted a coup when the Merovingian king, Sigibert III, died. [9]   Grimoald thought his influence exceeded that of the Merovingian king and he would be able to take hold of the throne itself.  However, Sigibertís brother, Clovis II of Neustria, intervened, killed Grimoald, crushed the coup and placed Dagobert II, Sigibert IIIís young son, back on the throne of Austrasia as king.  Interestingly though, the Carolingians continued to serve as Mayors of the Palace even after Grimoaldís failed coup.

            Eventually, in the eighth century, Charles Martel succeeded in extending the Carolingian familyís power beyond Austrasia and into Neustria and Burgundy as well as the fairly independent area of Aquitaine.  While he kept the Merovingian kings in power as figureheads, he assumed the role of Mayor of the Palace of both Neustria and Burgundy as well as his inherited kingdom of Austrasia, and was the real power behind the government.  Upon his death Charles was seen as the virtual ruler of the Tria Regna.  One particular monk even recorded his death by writing, ìOctober 741, death of King Charles.î [10]

            After his death, Charles Martelís son Pippin III, or ìThe Shortî as he was commonly known, inherited the seat of power built by his father. [11]   In 751 Pippin effected a successful coup and proclaimed himself king of the Tria Regna.  He tonsured the last Merovingian king, Childeric III, and sent him to the monastery of St. Bertin in an ox cart, where he died in 755.

            Pippin III died in 768 and his son Charles, later known as Charles the Great or Charlemagne, took up the reigns of power in Europe.  Charlemagne extended the Carolingian Empire to include what is now northern Italy, western Germany, including Bavaria, Switzerland, parts of Austria, and part of northern Spain.  On Charlemagneís death in 814 the Carolingian Empire passed intact to his son, Louis the Pious.  Louis, however, was not as lucky as his father had been, for he had three grown sons who could pose as alternative rulers of the Carolingian Empire creating the possibility for tension within the family. [12]   To compound the problem, Louisís wife, Ermengard, died in 818 and Louis married a second wife, Judith of Baveria, shortly after in 819.  By Judith, Louis had yet another son in 823, Charles, who posed as a possible threat to Louisís three older sons, Lothar, Louis and Pippin of Aquitaine.  It was not long before the older sons united against their father and tried to remove Charles as a possible heir to the Carolingian throne.

            The first familial revolt occurred in 830 when Louisís son Lothar seized the throne, kidnapped Charles and sent Judith to a monastery.  In early 831 Louis regained control and dismissed Lothar to Italy in early 831.  Then, in 833, Lothar and his brothers overthrew their father and took possession of the throne again.  Louis the Younger and Pippin of Aquitaine eventually turned on their older brother Lothar and helped reinstate their father, Louis the Pious, as emperor in 834.  Lothar continued the civil war in vain and Louis crushed his sonís rebellion early in 835.  Three short years after Louis the Piousís death in 840 the empire was divided into three kingdoms between his three living sons, Lothar, Louis and Charles.

            In order to effect their successful coup in 751 the Carolingians needed to gain the support of the nobles against the Merovinian kings.  In the words of Thomas F. X. Nobel, in The Republic of St. Peter, ìwithout the support of [the] nobilityî the Carolingians and Pippin ìcould not hope to become, or to remain king.î [13]   Therefore it was imperative the Carolingians gain the support of the nobility.  One of the most vital features of the Carolingiansí coup was their use of propaganda.  Perhaps the most persuasive and powerful aspect of their propaganda was their claim to be supported by God as the rightful rulers of the Tria Regna and all of Christiandom.

            In their propaganda campaign, the Carolingians followed many paths to establish their claim of divine support.  They linked themselves, through family connections, with saints, most notably St. Arnulf of Metz.  By claiming descent from a saint, the Carolingians could lay claim to a close relationship to God through sainthood.  Other members of the family, while not literally viewed as saints, were later portrayed as sacred.  The Annales Mettenses Priores (or The Annals of Metz), written during the reigns of Charlemagne and Louis the Pious, link Pippin II with the Bible, stating at one point, ì[Pippin II] is not unlike . . . David who . . . deprived the immense Goliath of his life.î [14]   By linking Pippin II, and other members of their family (such as St. Arnulf) to the Bible, and, as a result, Christianity and God, the Carolingians gained power, prestige and legitimacy in their claims as rulers of Christiandom.

            The Carolingians portrayed their ancestors as holy men in personal league with God and idealized their military exploits and portrayed themselves as directed by the hand of God on the field of battle.  An excellent example of this is the history of the early Carolingians recorded in the continuations of The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar written under Charles Martelís brother Childebrand at St. Denis. [15]   The chronicler depicts Charles Martel, founder of the Carolingian dynasty, as ìvictorious [in battle] through Christ his helper, Who is King of kings and Lord of lords.  Amen.î [16]   Therefore, according to the Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar, written by the brother of Charles Martel, founder of the Carolingian dynasty, the Carolingiansí military exploits were not only the work of excellent military leadership, but also actual support from God.  This helped to reiterate the Carolingiansí claims of being supported by God.

            It appears the Carolingians saw themselves as fulfilling Augustineís notion of ìthe city of Godî on Earth, in a temporal Christian empire.  This Political Ausustinianism formed the idealized basis for their desire to build a unified empire in Europe, and throughout Christiandom, thus creating a ìCity of God.î  The Carolingians seem to have wanted to create one Christian empire with themselves as the rulers.  This explains much of the reasoning behind their claims of divine support.  The Carolingians, however, needed to gain support from the representors of God on Earth, or the clergy, in order to establish themselves as rulers of the ìCity of God.î  Many Carolingian rulers were personally anointed by bishops, or even the pope, as holy heirs to the empire.  Charlemagne himself was personally crowned Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Leo III on Christmas Day 800 in a gesture of papal support of the Frankish rulers.

            In their propaganda campaign, the Carolingians worked to enhance the splendor of their actions and to hide any acts that might have been viewed as contradictory to their claim of Godly support.  For example, Carolingian documents attempted to hide Grimoaldís abortive coup.  Since one of the main focuses of their propaganda was the support of their rule by God, the failed coup attempted in 651 [17] by Grimoald would undermine this claim.  If the Carolingians were supported by the mighty hand of God as the rightful rulers of the Franks, then how could they have been unsuccessful in usurping the throne a century earlier?  To address this question, the Carolingians distanced themselves from Grimoald and the earlier abortive coup.  The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar does not mention the failed coup while the Annales Mettenses Priores actually denies the existence of Grimoald entirely. [18]

            After Charlemagneís death in 814, Louis, at the age of thirty-five, was crowned Holy Roman Emperor; yet Louisís oldest son, Lothar, at the age of twenty, was old enough to present an alternative ruler of the Carolingian Empire. [19]   In 830 Lothar rebelled against his father in an attempt to seize the throne.  During the rebellions the style and tone of many of the written documents changed.  Earlier Carolingian biographies and chronicles presented one fairly cohesive picture of the empire and the dynasty.  During the rebellion, however, many of the writers present different pictures of the events.  These different perspectives can been seen as competing sides of propaganda.  Along with two political groups vying for power emerged competing pieces of propaganda.  By 830 Louis had lost control of the production of propaganda and competing views emerged.  Also, the spread of writing led to a proliferation of the written word so the production of written documents could not only be produced by higher members of the clergy under Carolingian control.  Propaganda had become essential for building power and gaining support.  The change in tone and the differing views presented in the 830s and 840s arise from a shift in power and conflict within the empire.  The propaganda campaign the Carolingians used was so successful in elevating them to the throne in Europe it became a vital part of a rebellion or coup. 

            When dealing with the written word and its use as a form of propaganda two vital questions must be addressed.  First, who is creating this propaganda?  And second, who is the intended audience?

            Historians frequently note that the only people in Carolingian Europe with a mastery of Latin were the highly educated aristocrats, usually church officials.  In fact a mastery of Latin was not required of lower members of the clergy.  A full command of Latin was expected only of the higher clergy who were generally members of the aristocracy. [20]   Since higher church members were the only people required to write with a high level of mastery it is fairly safe to say that most Carolingian annals were written at monasteries or at court by highly educated members of the church.  But who exactly were these authors who created this Carolingian propaganda?  In some cases they were the Carolingians themselves, in others they were simply pro-Carolingian members of the clergy and in others they were members of a Carolingian controlled or subsidized monastery.

            As stated above, the Continuations of The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar was completed under Childebrand, Charles Martelís brother.  It was not unusual for a powerful member of the Carolingian family to enter religious life.  Both Charles Martelís brother Childebrand and Pippin IIIís brother Carloman entered the clergy.  Gisela, Charlemagneís sister, became the head of the monastery at Chelles, and Louis the Piousís brothers Hugo and Drogo were bishops of St. Quentin and Metz respectively.  Pippin IIIís son Nibelung also helped sponsor the Continuations of Fredegar, and his half brother Jerome, bishop of St. Amand, copied the Life of Saint Arnulf, about a saint in the Carolingian family. [21]   In other words, many higher church members, or those capable of writing advanced Latin texts, were Carolingians themselves.

            That still leaves the second question of for whom exactly were these propagandists creating propaganda?  It is extremely difficult to gauge the exact literacy rate of Carolingian Europe.  Many documents, however, have left behind small shreds of evidence that may point out a murky answer.

            Rosamond McKitterick notes that ìwriting in the early middle ages was probably practiced by only a small proportion of those able to read.î [22]   Therefore implying that the propagandistsí audience would be far larger than just those members of the higher clergy.  McKitterick goes on to point out that many nobles had servants who would function as secretaries to aid in reading or writing.  In fact, the highly verbal nature of the middle ages made it possible for illiterate persons to have some knowledge of written texts.  Brian Stock points out that a text does not have to be read to be understood or absorbed by a society since in many cases texts were spoken aloud and used as teaching tools. [23]   Nelson also points out the need for every noble as well as ìmediocres and even some pauperesî to be literate since so many of the legal and bureaucratic documents were conveyed in a written medium. [24]

            The Carolingian government relied on writing to such an extent that Charlemagne revised the standard script in the late eighth century in order to create Caroline miniscule, a new more legible script.  The Carolingians used the written word far more than their predecessors producing over seven thousand manuscripts between c.750 and 900 compared to approximately five hundred Merovingian manuscripts written before 750. [25]   Nelson also points out that the Carolingians created an estimated twenty-eight times the written capitularies of the Merovingians. [26]   Perhaps one of the main reasons for the necessity of written Latin documents was the result of a language barrier in the Frankish Empire.  Since the eastern and western Franks spoke very distinct dialects Latin served as a universal language for the empire.  If the emperor wanted to convey his message to the entire empire he did so through Latin and the written word.  This helps stress, once again, the importance of the written document in Carolingian society.

            Therefore, it appears the creators of these texts were, in many cases, the Carolingians themselves or their close supporters.  The texts seem to be aimed mainly at the nobles of the Frankish Empire in order to gain military support, but there is the possibility the poorer members of the aristocracy and even some small land owners would have the basic skills to understand the written documents.

Grimoaldís Coup and the Removal of ëUndesirablesí from the Carolingian Family

            Now that the questions of who produced the propaganda and for whom was it produced have been answered we are able to investigate exactly what the propaganda said and did.  In their attempt to effect a successful coup in 751, the Carolingians spent decades preparing a foundation of power.  They gained backing from the nobles, worked to unite the three kingdoms of Austrasia, Neustria and Burgundy under one puppet king, and, most significantly, they gained support through an extensive propaganda campaign. 

            One of the key elements to the Carolingiansí propaganda campaign was their portrayal as divinely ordained rulers supported by God.  In order to effectively demonstrate that the Carolingians were supported by the power of God, the propagandists had to remove any associations with the earlier Carolingian coup of 651.  Therefore, an important element of the coup of 751 was distancing the dynasty from Grimoaldís abortive coup of 651.  Grimoaldís abortive coup also served as an important learning element since it failed mainly because he did not garner noble support.  The Carolingians tried to learn from earlier mistakes and gain the support of the nobility through propaganda.  The Carolingians appear to have tried to disassociate themselves from Grimoald and gain noble support by several means, among them intentionally failing to record the coup in their official histories.

            The first sign that the Carolingians removed Grimoald from their ancestral tree is that the Liber Historiae Francorum is the only surviving chronicle to record Grimoaldís coup.  Other sources such as hagiographies, personal letters and church histories make mention of the coup and are valuable sources when dealing with the Liber Historiae Francorum, but the fact remains that the Liber Historiae Francorum is the only surviving chronicle that records the actions of Grimoald.  This is not because the coup was a minor event, but because the Carolingians did not want the history of Grimoaldís coup to be widely publicized as it might affect their claim to divine support, and, as a result, to the Merovingian throne and all of Christiandom. [27]   Thus, Grimaold does not appear in the official Carolingian histories which chronicle the rise of the Carolingians as rulers of the Franks. 

            The earlier sections of Liber Historiae Francorum which deal with Grimoaldís coup, as opposed to many of the other annals, were composed most likely by a Neustrian monk in the eighth century under Merovingian support and supervision. [28]   Therefore, it is not surprising to find that the only direct record of Grimoaldís coup is recorded in one of the few annals not controlled by the Carolingians.  Evidence of the coup would be detrimental to their claim of divine appointment if they succeeded as rulers only on their second attempt. [29]

            The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar and its Continuations is an important historical document that deals mainly with the seventh- and eighth-century history of the Franks.  In most cases Fredegar is well detailed and records many of the same events hagiographies and other annals report. [30]   However, when it comes to the subject of the coup, as Pierre RichÈ points out, ìfavorable to the Pippinids, the Pseudo-Fredegar chronicler does not mention Grimoaldís failed usurpation.î [31]   Actually, the fact that Fredegar does not mention the coup is more than simple good fortune, it seems to be a planned use of propaganda.  If Fredegar usually does record the same events as mentioned in hagiographies and other annals, and the coup is mentioned in these hagiographies and annals, then there must be a reason for Fredegarís neglect in this one case.  A closer examination of the background and intentions of Fredegar yields an interesting answer.

            Several different authors composed The Chronicle of Fredegar over many decades.  One of its most prominent contributors, was Childebrand, the brother of the mayor of the palace, Charles Martel.  In the words of Pierre RichÈ, ìthe mayorís brother Childebrand sponsored an unofficial chronicle that continues the work of Pseudo-Fredegar, a text Wilhelm Levison called the ëfamily chronicle of the Carolingian house.íî [32]   The family chronicle of the Carolingian house would not likely mention an event that would diminish the magnitude of the Carolingians, therefore it is not surprising that Fredegar does not record Grimoaldís abortive coup in 651.

            While The Chronicle of Fredegar fails to mention Grimoald and his attempted coup, other sources actually deny the very existence of Grimoald.  The Annales Mettenses Priores, also know as the Annals of Metz, was written in three stages starting in about 806. [33]   As Gerberding notes, the Annals of Metz ìnot only fail to mention Grimoaldís daring usurpation; they deny he ever existed.î [34]   In recording the life of Pippin I the Annales record ìbecause offspring of the masculine sex was lacking to him, he left his name along with his leadership to his surviving grandson, Pippin,î omitting any mention of Pippin Iís son Grimoald, author of the abortive coup attempt. [35]   The Annales are admittedly ìa pro-Carolingian piece of propagandaî created ìto glorify the house of the Carolingians, and to portray their rise to power as . . . legitimate and . . . divinely ordained.î [36]   When viewing the treatment of Grimoaldís coup in the Annals of Metz and The Chronicle of Fredegar, the dismissal of Grimoald as a figure in these ëfamily historiesí is a telling point and can be viewed as a piece of propaganda.  The Carolingians removed Grimoald and his actions from their family history in order to remove a threat to their claim of divine support.

            Not only did the Carolingians remove Grimoald from their history, they also removed his name from their family.  It was Frankish tradition to use the same distinct names for their family members throughout the generations.  The name Grimoald, however, falls out of use after Charles Martel comes to power and begins the Carolingian rise to royalty.  Matthais Becher points out in his article ìDer Sogenannte Staatsstreich Grimoaldsî that the last use of the name Grimoald in the Carolingian family is in 714 with Charles Martelís half brother, Grimoald II. [37]   The Carolingians distanced themselves from Grimoald by removing his deeds from their historical records and his name from their family lineage.

            While Grimoald was the most prominent figure of the Carolingian family to be removed from the dynastyís official histories, he was not the only person to suffer such a fate.  The Carolingians also attempted to remove from their histories an eighth century Mayor of the Palace who presented an early threat to Charles Martel.

            Theudoald, son of Grimoald, and grandson of Pippin II, is recorded in the Liber Historiae Francorum and Fredegar twice; once as Mayor of the Palace of Neustria in 714 and again fighting against, and losing to, Charles Martel at the battle of CompiËgne. [38]   There is no further reference to him in either document.  The Annales Mettenses Priores, however, record that ìnot much later [after the battle] he [Theudoald] ended his innocent life.î [39]   With only the brief information presented by these three sources, it would appear as if Theudoald lost Neustria to Charles Martel and eventually met an unfortunate demise at a seemingly young age. [40]   However, as Roger Collins points out in his article ìDeception and Misrepresentation in Early Eighth-century Frankish Historiography,î evidence of Theudoald appears years after The Annales Mettenses Priores claim he died.

            A charter documenting a donation to the monastery of Willibrord at Utrecht from Charles Martel in 723 or 724 bears evidence of Theudoaldís continuing existence.  One of the signatures of the witnesses to the donation reads ìSignum Thiedoldi nepotis ejus.î [41]   Collins goes on to note that this individual could be no other than Charles Martelís nephew Theudoald.  He reinforces his claim with further evidence of Theudoaldís existence long after The Annales Mettenses Priores removes him from the Carolingian family tree.  Why go to such lengths to eliminate a seemingly unimportant early Mayor of the Palace of Neustria?  A possible answer is that Theudoald was eliminated to preserve the Carolingian claim to divine ordination.

            Theudoald was the legitimate son of Grimoald and thus the legitimate grandson of Pippin II while Charles Martel, founder of the Carolingian dynasty, was the illegitimate son of Pippin II by a concubine.  Therefore, Theudoald would have a greater claim on the office of Mayor of the Palace than Charles Martel upon Pippin IIís death.  Martel, however, was militarily powerful, not a weak boy like Theudoald, at the time of Pippin IIís death and therefore he was able to vanquish his family rival without much difficulty.  The propagandists may have later removed Theudoald to eliminate any competing views on divine ordination; if a family fights within itself, it reduces the belligerent partiesí claims to divine right as a house and can work to split the support of the nobility between to Carolingian claimants.  Also, the propagandists and the ëofficial historiesí seem to have a very difficult time presenting two competing rulers as equally ordained by God.  In many cases they present the history of the Carolingian family as smoothly progressing from father to son.  This is similar to the problem that arose during the reign of Louis the Pious.  When Lothar rebelled against Louis the Pious in 830 the question of which divinely ordained Carolingian emperor has the support of God arises.  It is at this point that a break occurs in the propaganda.  Unlike during the reign of Charles Martel there is not a single powerful leader to control the production of propaganda.  Instead there are two men, each heads of the same family and each anointed as emperors.  This split in power will later create a split in propaganda.  Also, one could argue that Theudoald, even if he had the means to produce propaganda, was not apt to see it as a vital element of warfare since his conflict with Charles Martel took place before the rise of the Carolingians and their use of propaganda.

            After the failed coup of 651 the Carolingians did not attempt to expand their power base until Charles Martel came to power in 714.  Charles, the founder of the Carolingian dynasty, worked to lay the foundation for the successful coup of 751.  Since Charles was the illegitimate son of the Mayor of the Palace, Pippin II, he had to overcome some early challenges to his inheritance and, as I mentioned above, remove Theudoaldís claim to the office of Mayor of the Palace.  Upon Pippin IIís death, Martel was imprisoned by Pippin IIís legitimate wife, Plecturde, in an attempt to destroy his claims to the office of Mayor of the Palace in Austrasia.  Charles eventually escaped and spent much of his early career increasing his support among the nobility and wealth through military conquests.  Later, Martelís military exploits would be presented as propaganda to increase the Carolingiansí strength and prestige.  In fact, it appears that Martel fought certain battles with the end intention of using them as propaganda to increase Carolingian power and to increase the likelihood of a future coup díetat.

            Charlesís victory at the battle of Poitiers was later used as an important piece of propaganda in the Carolingiansí claims of Godly support and as rulers of a political City of God because it pitted the Christian Franks against Muslim invaders.  The battle was turned into a massive assault by propagandists depicted as consisting of over one hundred thousand combatants.  In truth, however, the Muslim force was not an invasion force, but simply a raiding party, and the Frankish force was hurriedly assembled to help fend off the raid.  Therefore, it would seem unlikely that the battle consisted of anywhere near one hundred thousand combatants. [42]   The sources increased the size of the battle of Poitiers, and its importance.  Charles was depicted as the savior of Christian Europe.  In order to discredit the Aquitainians and embellish Martelís accomplishment Carolingian propagandists made the claim that Odo, Duke of Aquitain, had pleaded with Charles for his help in engaging a common enemy at the battle of Poitiers.  In fact, when writers gave Charles the name Martel or Martellus, meaning ìthe Hammer,î in the ninth century they were most likely linking him to Judas Maccabaeus of the Old Testament. [43]   This further increased Martelís image as the man who saved Europe from the invading Muslims and tied him to the Bible and Christianity.  In fact, since Charles had little to gain from an expedition to Aquitaine, which consequently remained independent long after the battle of Poitiers, and the Arab raid was not a direct threat to his domains, the battle can be viewed as an expedition for the reason of propaganda.  Since Charles did not gain any territory or wealth in his incursion into Aquitaine, he may have entered Aquitaine and protected it from a Muslim force in order that his power and influence would grow even more.

            The later portions of the Liber Historiae Francorum and the Continuations of The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar are valuable sources of propaganda surrounding Martel.  The Liber Historiae Francorum depicts Charles Martel as a courageous warrior and a skilled ruler guided and protected by divine power.  Charles is said to have escaped from his step mother Plectrudeís imprisonment ìwith Godís helpî [44] and in his early battles, Charles is seen as peaceful and fair but a victorious and skilled warrior. [45]   According to J. Michael Wallace-Hadrill, the last entry to the Liber Historiae Francorum was written in 737, and therefore during the ëreigní of Charles Martel. [46]   In fact, Charles Martel was a strong patron of the abbey of St. Denis, where the latter part of the Liber Historiae Francorum was most likely written.  Plus, Martelís son, Pippin, was educated by the monks of St. Denis and present during the writing of the Liber Historiae Francorum. [47]   Therefore, it could be assumed that Martel was not only conscious of its existence, he possibly commissioned the later sections to be written during his reign as Mayor of the Palace.

            The Continuations of The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar is another source of propaganda for Charles Martelís accomplishments.  In Fredegar, Charles is portrayed in much the same manner as the Liber Historiae Francorum.  His victories are absolute, and his military actions are brilliant.  Fredegar never depicts Charles as losing a battle and labels his victory at Poitiers a judgement of Christ.  In fact, Fredegar goes so far as to conclude his fifteenth chapter by writing, ìThen he [Charles] returned in peace, victorious through Christ his helper.î [48]  The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar was another tool of propaganda for the enhancement of Martelís image.  Martel used propaganda to gain power and support throughout his kingdom, and his relatives continued the tradition to bring prestige to the Carolingian family.  In fact, Martel and his full brother, Childebrand, are widely viewed as the persons responsible for starting the legend claiming the Trojan origins of the Frankish people. [49]

Pippin III and his Successful Coup in 751:

            After Charles Martelís death in 741 his one surviving legitimate son, Pippin III became virtual ruler of the Franks.  Pippin III worked carefully to follow the examples set by his ancestors to build his power and influence among the nobles of the Tria Regna.  Pippin III felt secure enough to attempt an official coup in 751 and remove the last Merovingian king from power.  The final step in the Carolingianís coup was to gain the approval of the highest representative of God on earth.  However, at this time, there was no single identifiable leader of the Christian church.  Therefore, the Carolingians relied on the doctrine of petrine supremacy, which claimed that the bishop of Rome was a direct successor to Peter, the rock upon which Christ would build his church, to identify the bishop of Rome as the head of the Christian church. [50]   Thus the Carolingians sought to gain the support of the bishop of Rome, whom they held was the highest representative of God on earth.  In order to gain the approval of the bishop of Rome, in the words of RichÈ, the ìCarolingian propagandists emphasized the notion that a king who did nothing was not worthy to reign.î [51]    The Annals of Lorsch record this question presented to Pope Zacharias in 749 or 750 of who should rule, the de jure kings or those with the defacto power to rule.

 

Anno 749.  Burchard, bishop of Wilrzburg, and Fulrad, priest and chaplain, were sent [by Pippin] to Pope Zacharias to ask his advice in regard to the kings who were then ruling in France, who had the title of king but no real royal authority.  The pope replied by these ambassadors that it would be better that he who actually had the power should be called king. [52]

Then, with the assurance of the popeís support, Pippin removed Childerich from the throne and proclaimed himself king of the Franks in 751.

 

750 [751].  In this year Pippin was named king of the Franks with the sanction of the pope, and in the city of Soissons he was anointed with the holy oil by the hands of Boniface . . . and was raised to the throne after the custom of the Franks.  But Childerich, who had the name of king, was shorn of his locks and sent into a monastery. [53]

Note how Pippin was ìanointed with the holy oilî and officially proclaimed king of the Franks by the pope, thus reinforcing the Carolingiansí sacred claim to the throne of the Frankish Empire.  By being anointed with holy oil and approved by the pope, Pippin III became the first king to be divinely ordained as ruler of the Franks and his public display of this event reinforced his claim to the throne and rightful place as ruler of the Franks: Pippin III was ordained by the hand of God as the king of the Franks. [54]

Charlemagne and the Latter Part of his Reign:

            After Pippin IIIís coronation in 751 the act of being anointed as king by a bishop or other holy man became a tradition with the Carolingians.  Pippin IIIís two sons, Charles and Carloman, were anointed by Stephen II and in 781 Pope Hadrian anointed Charlemagneís two sons Pippin and Louis. [55]   Charlemagne, however, took the custom a step further when he was proclaimed Holy Roman Emperor by the pope himself. [56]   This act is perhaps the most important feature of Charlemagneís reign, in reference to divine ordination as a ruler.  Earlier Carolingian rulers were anointed kings by local bishops, but Charlemagne was anointed Holy Roman Emperor of Christiandom by the bishop of Rome.  This was a tremendous step toward reinforcing the claim of divine ordination and establishing the Carolingians as the rulers of the ìCity of God.î

            Charlemagneís coronation as emperor has created a great deal of debate amongst scholars as to the exact motivations of all parties involved in the act.  Einhardís treatment of the coronation would imply that Charlemagne was unsuspecting of Pope Leo IIIís intentions when he came to mass on December 25, 800.  Einhard records the event as follows.

 

It was on this occasion that he received the title of Emperor and Augustus.  At first he was far from wanting this.  He made it clear that he would not have entered the cathedral that day at all, although it was the greatest of all festivals of the Church, if he had known in advance what the Pope was planning to do. [57]

            Charlemagne had traveled to Rome to defend Pope Leo III from fellow Romans who had attacked him earlier in the winter.  However, Charlemagne ended up staying the entire winter in Rome even after quieting the dissenters and reestablishing Leo as the proper spiritual leader of the Roman people.  Thomas F. X. Noble doubts Charlemagneís innocence and surprise at being crowned emperor by Leo.  He suggests that Charlemagne most likely spent such a long time in Rome in order to negotiate with Leo.  Charlemagne was possibly anointed the divine emperor of the Frankish and Roman peoples as payment, so to speak, for protecting Leo. [58]

            The Liber Pontificatus or Book of the Popes records that the crowd of bishops and clergy in St. Peterís ìcried aloud with one accord: ëTo Charles, pious Augustus crowned by God, great and pacific Emperor, life and victory!íî [59]   There is nothing recorded in the Book of the Popes to depict Charlemagne as surprised by his coronation as emperor.  Note how the crowd recognizes Charlemagne as ìcrowned by Godî not the human hands of Pope Leo III further enforcing his role as divinely ordained and his role as ruler of the city of God.  The first document to bear Charlemagneís new title as emperor was issued six months later on May 29, 801.  Charlemagne signed the diploma, ìCharles, clearly crowned Augustus by God, great pacific emperor you govern the Roman Empire, and who is, through the mercy of God, the ruler of the Franks and Lombardsî further reiterating his status (and that of the Carolingians as well) as divine emperor of both the Franks and Christiandom. [60]

Louis the Pious and the Propaganda Problem

            Upon Charlemagneís death in 814, his son Louis the Pious took over both Charlemagneís imperium and his title of Holy Roman Emperor.  One of Louisís first acts as emperor was to clear the royal palace at Aachen of Charlemagneís advisors and retainers and appoint his own loyals in their places.  Louis wanted to claim Aachen for himself and stress his claim as emperor from the very beginning of his reign.  Louis continued in the same vein as his father and signed his documents, ìLouis, by order of Divine Providence, Emperor and Augustusî thus reinforcing his claim to the title of ruler of Christiandom.  Louis also continued to use the blessing of the pope as a sign of divine ordination.  Louis had himself and his wife crowned emperor and empress by Pope Stephen IV, but this time the ceremony took place at Reims, not Rome. [61]   The empire appears to have made a seamless shift in power from father to son during the earlier years of Louisís reign.  However, by 817 this situation began to change.

            In 817 Louis the Pious was strolling in his palace when he was almost crushed to death by a falling archway.  Louisís anonymous biographer, often referred to as the Astronomer, records the event as follows.

 

It came to pass that, when the emperor sought to withdraw from the church to his royal residence, the lower parts of the wooden colonnade through which he had to go, weakened by decay and age and rotten with continual moisture, cracked and collapsed under the feet of the emperor and his counts.  Great terror struck the entire palace with the noise of the crash, everyone fearing that the impact of that fall might have crushed the emperor.  But he was protected from the immediate crisis by God to Whom he was a beloved son. [62]

Following this close brush with death, Louis drew up a will and divided the empire among his three sons, Lothar, Pippin and Louis.  Louis crowned Lothar, the eldest of his three sons, co-emperor and made Lotharís brothers subordinate kings (Pippin became king of Aquitaine and Louis became king of Bavaria).  In essence, Lothar would become the ruler of the Frankish Empire and Christiandom after Louis the Piousís death while Pippin and Louis would be sub-kings to their older brother.  This division of the empire based on primogeniture was an alien concept to the Franks and did not sit will with Lotharís brothers. [63]

            Pippin and Louis, however, appear to have accepted their roles as sub-kings in the beginning and were not the first members of the Carolingian family to rebel against Louis the Piousís divisions of the empire.  Bernard, king of Italy, Charlemagneís grandson and Louis the Piousís nephew by way of his brother Pippin, revolted against Louis shortly after the decree was signed in 817.  Louis quickly crushed the rebellion and captured Bernard and his supporters and brought them back to Aachen.  The original sentence handed down to Bernard was capital punishment, but Louis the Pious reduced the sentence to blinding.  The blinding, however, was so severe Bernard died two days afterward.  In order to remove any other threats by family members Louis had his half-brothers tonsured and cloistered and called meeting across Austrasia and Neustria where he forced the nobility to respect his division of the empire. [64]

            Several of the official biographers and chroniclers of the Carolingian realm reacted to this event by blaming Bernardís advisors for his actions.  The Astronomer writes, Louisís ìnephew, Bernard, in whose behalf he had been Charlesís chief adviser in making him king of Italy, had been maddened by the counsels of evil men to such a degree that he deserted him.î [65]   Note both the blame laid on Bernardís advisors and not Bernard himself.  While Bernard performed the actions the blame is placed on evil council.  Also, the chronicler intentionally records that Louis helped, like any good uncle, sponsor Bernard as king of Italy.  This creates a more favorable image of Louis and makes what Bernardís advisors did all the more wicked.  It seems the chronicler attempts to keep all members of the Carolingian family free from culpability.  While Louis is currently the divinely appointed emperor of the Franks, the Carolingians are still the divine family from which he sprung.  Therefore, in order to keep both Louisís and the Carolingian familyís appearance as pure and divine, the chronicler passes some of the blame onto other, non royal parties.  At this point there is still one cohesive purpose for propaganda; preserve Louis and do not stain the Carolingian family by blaming Bernard for his revolt.  Once revolt breaks out in 830 the objectives of the propagandist will no longer follow one clear path controlled by one leader.

            In 818, not long after Bernardís revolt, Louisís wife, Ermengard, died.  Louis appears to have mourned her loss for several months, then, at the urging of his nobles, chosen a second wife from the young nobility of the empire.  In what must have been a memorable display, Louisís retainers paraded the most beautiful aristocratic young women in the empire before the emperor in what seems to have amounted to an early medieval beauty contest. [66]   Eventually Louis made his selection, the fifteen year old Judith of Bavaria, daughter of Count Welf of Alamannia and Eigilwi of Saxony. [67]

The Rebellions of the 830s

            While it is not the intention of this paper to suggest why Louisís sons revolted in the 830s, some discussion of the events leading up to the rebellions is necessary.  Perhaps one of the most important causes of the rebellion of 830 was the birth of Louisís fourth son Charles in 823.  This event appears to have placed stress on the relationships between Louis and his three earlier sons.  Lothar, Louis and Pippin saw Charles as another heir to the Frankish Empire and someone who would disrupt the already shaky balance of power established in 817.  The division of the Carolingian Empire would have to be reworked to include Louisís newest son, Charles.  In 830, rebellion broke out.  Lothar seized the throne, kidnapped Charles and sent Judith to a monastery.  Louis the Pious was restored as ruler in 831, and Lothar was sent to Italy as a punishment for his actions against his father.  Again in 833, rebellion broke out.  Lothar seized the throne and overthrew his father.  This time the civil war lasted until 835 when Louis the Pious, with the help of his sons, was restored as emperor.

            When discussing these rebellions, the tone and substance of many of the chronicles and the official histories and biographies of the Carolingian family change.  The four main writers who covered this period of history present slightly different views of the parties involved and the actions that took place.  In some histories the emperor is portrayed as bumbling, incompetent and aged, while in others he is a father manipulated by his sons.  Some of the histories, especially Pascasiusís, charge that Judith and Bernard corrupted the emperor.  Others, however, record only false accusations against these two that were later dispelled.  This split in propaganda arose from a split in power.  Both Louis and his belligerent sons were able to produce and issue propaganda as an element of revolt and warfare.  A proliferation of the written word allowed the formation of multiple loci of propaganda production.  It was no longer possible for one powerful side to control the majority of the writing in the empire.  Also, one could argue that the production of propaganda was now seen as an essential piece for effecting a successful coup.  Propaganda was a major cornerstone of the Carolingian coup in 751.  Conversely, Grimoald, in his failed attempt in 651, does not appear to have used propaganda to gain the support of the nobility.  This could have been seen as a major failing of the 651 coup.  Theudoald did not produce any surviving material against Charles Martel in their conflict in 714.  Likewise, Einhard glossed over an early dispute between Charlemagne and his brother Carloman during their join rule.  When Einhard had an opportunity to go into detail about the ìgreat difficultyî that surrounded their joint reign he ignored any problems that might have existed, writing, ìHowever, the course of events proved that this danger [of warfare] was more imaginary than real, for Carloman died, and his wife and sons, together with a number of men who had been the leaders among his nobles, fled to Italy.î [68]   Carlomanís side of the events is not recorded by Einhard who attempted to keep the story of the Carolingian family linear and uncontested.  The emergence of differing histories is an important event in the study of Carolingian propaganda.  Earlier documents might have differed slightly on dates and exact details of events, but the metanarrative of divine support for both one specific ruler and the family as a whole was present throughout.

            This subtle fragmentation of the propaganda seems to occur as a result of the rebellions of the 830s.   Even as little as four years before the first familial rebellion took place in 830 there was still one thread of propaganda depicting the Carolingians and Louis as divinely appointed rulers of Christiandom.  Ermoldus Nigellus wrote the poem In Honorem Hludovici Pii (In honor of Louis the Pious) in approximately 826.  In his poem Nigellus praises Louis as a skilled leader and a powerful hunter as well as linking Louis and Judithís three-year-old son Charles with Charlemagne, his namesake.  Ermoldus begins his poem by describing the paintings at the palace at Ingelheim which consist of scenes from the Bible. [69]   Nigellus continues to follow the standards set by his predecessors who wrote the Annals of Metz, The Continuations of Fredegar, and other earlier Carolingian documents when he mentions the Bible and then continues on to link Christian tradition with the Carolingian family.  Throughout his description of Ingelheim Nigellus advances through the Bible starting with the Old Testament and moving through the New Testament to the Carolingian family.  This type of writing not only shows the Carolingians as linked with Christianity, it also depicts them as players in salvation history.

            After covering the passages and the history of the Bible Nigellus turns to the Carolingian family and its place in both history and Christiandom.  Nigellus writes:

 

. . . then there is a painting of the first Charles,

masterly victor in the Frisian war,

and with him the great exploits he performed; then a splendid picture

of Pippin, restoring the rule of law to the Aquitanians,

and annexing them to his realms through success in battle.

Wise Charlemagneís frank expression is clear to see,

his head is crowned, as his lineage and achievements demand.

A throng of Saxons stand opposite him, waging battle,

he subdues, vanquishes and reduces them to subjection.

With these and other deeds that place shines brightly;

those who gaze on it with pleasure take strength from the sight. [70]

Nigellus also continued the precedent set by his predecessors when he depicted the Carolingians as benevolent rulers acting to preserve the Christian kingdom on Earth.  These elements, which are so prominent in all of the preceding documents examined in this paper, are missing from later works.  The rebellions of the 830s seem to have changed the views of the writers of Carolingian history and created a perforation in propaganda.  This break in the propaganda narrative is the result of the outcropping of different power blocs within the Carolingian family.  The tone of Carolingian writers is the same as late as 826 reinforcing the idea that this change in propaganda occurred suddenly and as a result of the rebellions.

            One of the most extreme writers who recorded the events surrounding the rebellion of 830 was Pascasius.  Pascasius was a monk at the monastery of Corbie during the rebellions.  His treatment of the events surrounding the revolution is frantic in its language and it does not keep with the precedent set by pieces of earlier Carolingian propaganda in presenting a single, powerful claimant to the sacral Carolingian throne.  Pascasius writes:

 

No day was more troubled than when that scoundrel Bernard was recalled from Spain, that wretch who abandoned every honor vested in him by his origins.  He wallowed in self-conceit and gluttony.  He came like an enraged boar: he overturned the palace, smashed the council, and cast down every principle of law and reason.  He chases off and trampled all the clerical and secular advisers; he occupied the emperorís bed [and] . . . the palace became a sty where shame ruled, adultery reigned, where felonies, sorcery and all manner of prohibited black arts abounded.  The emperor went like an innocent lamb to the slaughter.  That great and clement emperor was deceived by the woman [Judith] against whom Solomon warned.î [71]

            The tone, feeling and voice of Pascasius is unlike many of the earlier documents.  He uses a frantic voice and insinuating language which does not appear in the Liber Historiae Francorum, Fredegar, The Annals of Metz or many of the other documents of the previous period.  Pascasius describes Bernard as ìa boarî who rips apart the very fabric of the Carolingian family with his actions.  Pascasius portrays Judith and Bernard as committing adultery and depicts the royal palace as ìa sty where shame ruled, adultery reigned, where felonies, sorcery and all manner of prohibited black arts abounded.î  Also, note his treatment of Louis as an innocent lamb being led to the slaughter.  In this treatment the emperor is frail, weak and incapable of resisting Bernard and Judith.  Pascasius is setting the stage for Lothar to revolt against his father.  If Lothar were to revolt against Louis, kill his retainers and wife and place himself on the throne, he would be saving the empire.  Lothar would be protecting his aged father from the manipulative hands of Bernard and Judith if Pascasiusís interpretation is accurate. 

            The images Pascasius uses are not in line with the earlier documents which hailed the Carolingians as divine rulers.  Contrast Pascasiusís passage with earlier descriptions of the Carolingian rulersóPippin II as a new David, Charles Martel, victorious through the divine aid of God, Charlemagne, crowned emperor of the Christian world.  Louis was depicted similarly up until the revolts of the 830s and then the language of some of the documents changes because of a disruption of power and therefore a disruption of propaganda.

            Pascasius is not alone in his treatment of the rebellions and the latter half of Louisís reign.  Three other notable writers, Thegan, Nithard and the Astronomer cover this period as well.  Their treatments, however, differ from Pascasius because of their different backgrounds and allegiances. 

            The Astronomer, as he is called by historians because of his knowledge of scientific events, was not a clergyman.  He is thought to be a high ranking court official, perhaps an astrologer or astronomer to the emperor.  It appears he wrote the majority of his biography of Louis in order to garner favor with the emperor and finished his work shortly after Louisís death in 840. [72]   The Astronomer portrayed Louis the Pious as a caring father wronged by his sons.  This is a sharp contrast to the feeble emperor who was led to the slaughter in Pascasiusís writings.  While Louis is shown as manipulated by his sons in the Astronomerís biography, he is not manipulated because of incompetence, but because of his great kindness.  The Astronomer wrote that Louis sons and those opposing him ìinsinuated . . . [Louis] was baffled by certain delusions to such a degree that he was in no way able toî rule sufficiently. [73]   According to the Astronomer, Louis was removed in all but name as emperor and his sons turned against him.  Lothar had an opportunity to save his father but, ìas he was approaching [Louis], the entire faction hostile to the emperor joined itself to him . . . [and Lothar] approved what had been doneî to Louis, i.e. his removal as emperor. [74]   The Astronomer then recorded Louis return to power in 831 and his kindness which had allowed his sons to take advantage of him writing:

 

ìWhen they [the rebels] were later brought to judgment, the emperor permitted none of them to be slain, although all the magistrates of the law had decreed by legal decision that they suffer the death penalty as persons guilty of lËse-majestÈ.  But employing, as it seemed to many, a milder procedure than was fitting (although kindness and mercy were his custom), he commanded the laymen to be tonsured at suitable places and the clerics to be detained in similarly appropriate monasteries.î [75]

Following his standard practice of mercy and forgiveness the emperor dismissed the wrongs committed by his sons and let the nobles who supported them live.  According to the Astronomer the weaknesses of the emperor were those of any Christian man.  Also, the Astronomer only mentions accusations against Bernard and Judith in reference to false charges issued by the rebels to incite rebellion.  The Astronomer and Pascasius appear to be members of opposing propaganda campaigns when this single detail is considered.  While Pascasius insisted Bernard was a corruptive influence on the emperor and Judith was an adulteress the Astronomer recorded these claims as the false views of the camp opposing the emperor.

            Thegan, a Frankish noble and the bishop of Trier, also wrote a biography of Louis c. 836, or approximately four years before Louisís death.  Theganís biography appears to be more of a commissioned work than the Astronomer because of his position as bishop of Trier and the fact that it was composed and finished during Louisís lifetime.  Like the Astronomer, Thegan took a stance opposite to the accusations against Judith and Bernard.  He writes:

 

 These brazen men [the rebels] made many accusations against him [Louis], which it is impious to say or believe.  They charged that Queen Judith had been violated by a certain Duke Bernard, who was of royal lineage and the godson of the lord emperor.  They told all these lies. [76]

When Thegan writes that the nobles made accusations against Louis, Judith and Bernard he is making reference to the propaganda of another faction.  One of the principle elements of the rebellion of 830 was the use of propaganda to depict Louis as an unfit ruler controlled by corrupt retainers.  Thegan, much like the Astronomer, seems to write Louis biography as a way of dispelling these reports.  Thegan, however, takes his treatment of the emperor one step further and, instead of showing him as an overly kind father wronged by his sons, he depicts Louis as a much more powerful figure.  In Theganís biography, when Louisís adversaries come to remove him from power ìthe lord emperor overcame them.î [77]   Thegan depicts Louis as a capable ruler who restored order after the nobles and his sons rebelled against him, in both 830 and 833.  This helps reinforce the notion that Theganís biography of Louis is the official treatment commissioned by the emperor during his lifetime.

            As mentioned above, one standard convention of propaganda was in use as late as 826.  Therefore, it seems likely the rebellion of 830 had some profound effect on the writers and their relationship with the Carolingian family.  The rebellion caused a split in the once cohesive propaganda discourse.  Earlier family disputes (such as Charlemagneís conflict with Carloman) were ignored by writers.  However, once the written word has proliferated throughout the empire and the power base has been divided between several kings and two emperors (Lothar and Louis the Pious) it is no longer possible to control the discourse of propaganda.  This split in propaganda is indicated by different treatments of the rebellion of 830.  By 830 the use of propaganda has become an essential tool in the inner conflicts of the empire.  However, the propaganda must not only raise one side (as the Carolingians did against the Merovingians in 751) but degrade the opposing side in order to combat the decades of propaganda which have reinforced Louisís claims to the throne.  This need for degradation is the reason why we see Judith and Bernard slandered at the hands of pro-Lothar propagandists.  The rebellions of the 830s created a schism in the empire militarily and in terms of propaganda.  By 830 the written word had truly become a weapon of warfare.

            The Carolingian family laid the foundation for their coup over several decades.  With the help of the written word, they were able to bolster their own claims to the throne and gain noble support against the current Merovingian kings.  The Carolingians also worked to remove from their lineage historical figures, like Grimoald and Theudoald, who might threaten this claim to divine rulership.  Then, through both the written word and public displays, the Carolingians effected a successful coup in 751 under Pippin III.  By December 800 the Carolingians, and Charlemagne in particular, saw themselves as the destined rulers of the Christian world.  This vision culminated in the coronation of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor on Christmas day.  The symbolism of the coronation powerfully reinforced the Carolingiansí status as divine rulers of a political Christiandom.

            Then, in 830, the first of the familial rebellions took place.  The tone of many of the writers changed.  These writers had, up to this point, been producing documents which could be viewed as propaganda bolstering the claims of the Carolingians as divine rulers of both the Frankish Empire and Christiandom as a whole.  The use of biblical language to describe the Carolingians, a feature so prominent in earlier documents, is virtually missing from these works.  The standard propaganda formula established under Charles Martel and continued through Charlemagne and even into the early part of Louisís reign, was abandoned once the rebellions began in 830.  The documents produced during this period focus more on attacking belligerents rather than solidifying the Carolingians as the rulers of Christiandom.  This drastic change arose from the infighting which swept through the Carolingian family in the 830s.  Propaganda was a weapon for conquest and power and as a weapon it was used to destroy existing power blocs.  This is why the documents spend so much time attacking Bernard, Judith and Louis; in order to convince the nobility that they were not worthy as rulers.

            It is also significant that this change was brought about so quickly.  Only four years prior to the first rebellion Nigellus wrote his outwardly pro-Carolingian poem to win favor with Louis the Pious.  The poem contains the standard references to God and earlier Carolingians found in previous documents.  Then, only four years later the tones of the writers change drastically.  The biblical, Christian element is removed and the court is no longer portrayed in the golden light Nigellus used to paint his picture of Ingelheim.  The rebellions caused this disruption of the propaganda.

Appendix One: Grimoaldís Coup, 656 or 651?

The common consensus of the historical community is widely based on the work of Bruno Krusch and outlines the events surrounding Sigibert IIIís death and Grimoaldís usurpation of the Austrasian throne via his son Childebert. [78]   According to this theory, Sigibert III, lacking a male heir, accepted a proposal made by his mayor of the palace Grimoald, and adopted Grimoaldís son giving him the Merovingian name Childebert the Adopted.  Some years later, however, Chimnechild, Sigibertís wife, bore him a son, Dagobert II, thus negating the need to have adopted Childebert as an heir.  Sigibert III died in 656 at the age of twenty-six and, seizing his opportunity, Grimoald tonsured Dagobert II, gave him to Dido, bishop of Poitiers, who in tern exiled Dagobert II to Ireland while Grimoald placed his own son, Childebert the Adopted, on the throne.  According to this interpretation, the coup lasted only a short time, then Grimoald and Childebert were lured to Neustria and killed by Clovis II whose own son, Childeric II, was installed as king of Austrasia by his mother Bathild. [79]   This view, established and propagated by Krusch, has been widely accepted by many historians, among them Pierre RichÈ, Patrick Geary and Ian Wood. [80]  

            The account most contemporary to the events in question is recorded in the Liber Historiae Francorum, a chronicle produced by an eighth century Neustrian monk.  The Liber Historiae Francorum states:

 

After this, [the death of Dagobert I and Clovisís appointment as king of Neustria] however, King Sigibert of Austrasia died and Peppin who also died was replaced as mayor of the palace by his son Grimoald.  Just after Sigibert died, Grimoald had the kingís young son who was named Dagobert tonsured and directed Didon, the bishop of the city of Poitiers, to take the boy on a pilgrimage to Ireland.  Then Grimoald placed his own son on the throne.  The Franks were very indignant about this and they prepared an ambush for Grimoald.  They seized him, and sent him to Clovis, king of the Franks, to be condemned.  In the city of Paris he was put in prison, tightly bound with the torture of chains since he was worthy of dying as one who had harmed his lord.  His death came with a great deal of torture. [81]

 

            The Liber Historiae Francorum does not mention the fate of Grimoaldís son, an interesting point when comparing the text with RichÈís summary.  RichÈ, following Kruschís investigation, writes, ìAccording to the chronicler of St. Denis [the author of the Liber Historiae Francorum], they [the Neustrians] lured the mayor and his son into Neustria and put them to death . . . î [82]   There is no mention of Grimoaldís son in Bernard Bachrachís translation of the Liber Historiae Francorum nor in Richard Gerberdingís or Patrick Gearyís translations. [83]   Therefore, it is fairly safe to conclude RichÈ, like many scholars before and after him, assumed Krusch was correct in his concise summary of the events surrounding Grimoaldís coup.  This assumption draws into question the validity of the entire proposal made by Krusch and followed by many in the historical community.  In fact, upon further investigation, spearheaded by Gerberding, not only is Kruschís summary a point of question, but also his proposed dates for the coup.

            The widely accepted date for Grimoaldís coup is 656, the year proposed as the death date for Sigibert III.  But how was this date determined?  Gerberding points out that Krusch, and scholars building on his work, determined the death of Sigibert III solely by consulting the Austrasian royal catalogs which place his reign at twenty-two and twenty-three years respectively.  However, as Gerberding indicates, the years assigned to many of the other rulers are admittedly wrong.  In fact, Krusch himself even acknowledges that the Carolingian sources are wrong in all cases save Sigibert III, Childebert the Adopted and Theuderic III. [84]   Therefore, the only basis for assuming Sigibert III died in 656, and thus the coup took place in 656, is the unreliable Austrasian royal catalogs, a Carolingian source dealing with Merovingian kings who reigned over one hundred years before the composition of the catalogs.

            Gerberding revises the tradition established by Krusch, and proposes the date of 651 for Grimoaldís coup.  In his investigation, Gerberding calls attention to the lack of evidence supporting the date of 656, then goes on to mention that the latest date containing evidence of Sigibert IIIís life is a charter issued in 651. [85]   However, a lack of evidence is not enough to disprove Kruschís findings which are supported by the Austrasian royal catalogs.  Therefore, Gerberding points to the discrepancy in chronology that occurs if the date of Sigibert IIIís death is indeed 656.  First of all, the Liber Historiae Francorum clearly records Grimoald being tortured to death at the hands of Clovis II, King of Neustria.  Clovis II died between the dates of October 26 and 31, 657 thus putting Grimoaldís death sometime before 657. [86]   Secondly, it is commonly agreed that Childerich ruled for at least five years. [87]   A charter recording the donation of a villa in the Saarland by Bonefatius to the monastery of Wissembourg is dated ìin the sixth year of the glorious lord King Childebert.î [88]   The letter is addressed to Bishop Dragobod who, according to church records, could have only lived under one King Childebert: Childebert the Adopted.  Therefore, when comparing these two pieces of information it becomes obvious that either Childebert ruled after his father was killed or he began ruling five or more years before Clovis IIís death.  This is highly unlikely since Childebert would most likely have been overthrown after his fatherís demise and the familyís decrease in power.  Also several sources, among them the Liber Historiae Francorum, record Clovis IIís son as taking over in Austrasia after the fall of Grimoald.

            Gerberding then draws attention to another document concerned with the planning of the coup between Grimoald and Dido.  The Additamentum Nivialense de Fuilano documents the misfortune of a holy man named Foillan who journeyed from Britain to Gaul where he had a falling out of favor with the Neustrian mayor of the palace.  He decided to flee Neustria and was aided by Itta of Nivelles.  Some time after the death of Itta, abbess of Nivelles, Foillan returned to Nivelles on the vigil of St. Quentin, October 30.  During that same night, he and his party were murdered in a local village and their bodies were not found until seventy-seven days later on January 16.  When the two bodies were found by Abbess Gertrud, both Grimoald and Dido were in attendance at Nivelles and took part in the service for the murdered men.  The source records that the bodies of the men were found after Ittaís death and obviously before Gertrudís retirement since she was present at the funeral.  According to Kruschís work, Itta died in 652 and Gertrud retired in 658, thus placing the meeting of Dido and Grimoald sometime between January 16, 653 and January 16, 658. 

            The fact that both Dido and Grimoald appear together so close to the date they effected their coup seems to be more than coincidence. [89]   It appears Dido and Grimoald were meeting in preparation for their attempted coup but the given dates are at least two years after the date of 651 for the coup proposed by Gerberding.  However, Gerberding defends himself when he traces the path used to arrive at these two figures.  Krusch placed Ittaís death at 652, which Gerberding contends is two years too late.  The Vita Sanctae Gertrudis records Ittaís death as occurring in the twelfth year after Pippinís death, yet Krusch calculates it as twelve years after Pippinís death.  Pippinís death date is arrived at by consulting Fredegar which states Pippin died approximately a year after Dagobert I who Krusch indicates died on January 19, 639.  However, J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, Jacques Courtios and several other scholars place Dagobert Iís death a year earlier on January 19, 638, thus making Ittaís death fall in 650, not 652. [90]  

            After consulting the Additamentum Nivialense de Fuilano, Gerberding proved that Itta died in 650 and Gertrud retired as abbess in 656 as opposed to the dates of 652 and 658 respectively proposed by Krusch.  Thus the meeting between Dido and Grimoald must have taken place between January 16, 651 and January 16, 656 meaning Gerberdingís proposed date of 651 is not only possibly, but highly likely.  Therefore, what seemed like a fatal blow to Gerberdingís contention that the coup took place in 651 and not 656 is not only not disproved, but the validity of Gerberdingís contention is reinforced.  If indeed Grimoald and Dido were meeting to discuss the plans of their forthcoming coup what better time than on the eve of the coup; the year 651.

            Gerberdingís new research would seem to put a fairly sizeable hole in the earlier views of historians.  Many historians, however, while not contributing any evidence to dismiss Gerberdingís claims, have been slow to accept his ideas.  Patrick Geary in Before France and Germany, a book published one year after Gerberdingís The Rise of the Carolingians and the Liber Historiae Francorum, does not mention Gerberdingís work concerning the possibility that the coup occurred in 651, and not 656.  While he makes no mention of Gerberding or his book, Geary seems to be defending his own adherence to the older system of dating.  Geary claims that the passage concerning Clovis II in the Liber Historiae Francorum was a mistake by the chronicler who ìwrote ëChlodoveoí (Clovis) by error instead of ëClotharioí and that thus Grimoaldís execution actually took place under Chlothar II around 661 or 662î therefore allowing ample time for Childebert the Adopted to rule five years and have the coup occur in 656. [91]   There is no evidence outside of speculation to suggest a writer would mistake the name ìChlodoveoî for ìClothario.î  Geary is merely proposing a way the earlier date proposed by Krusch could have been correct.  His evidence, however, is based on conjecture and does not disprove Gerberdingís findings.  Gerberdingís argument is very convincing and it is supported by solid evidence.  After reading several treatments of Grimoaldís coup, Gerberdingís proposal seems the most likely and historically accurate.  Ian Wood makes a slight concession to Gerberding when he writes, ì. . .the suggestion of 651 by Gerberding . . . is, nevertheless, not impossible.î [92]   As time goes on and Gerberdingís contentions settle in the historical community, they will be more widely accepted as the most accurate dates for Grimoaldís coup, which occurred in 651. [93]

 

Appendix Two: The Carolingian World

 

 

Appendix Three: The Carolingian Family

 

 

Bibliography

Bachrach, Bernard S.  ed. and trans.  Liber Historiae Francorum.  Kansas: Coronado      Press, 1973.

Boutelle, Donna Lee.  Louis the Pious and Ermoldus Nigellus: An Inquiry into the      Historical Reliability of In Honorem Hludowici.  Berkeley:  University of             California Berkeley Press, 1971.

Cabaniss, Allen.  Judith Augusta: A Daughter-in-law of Charlemagne and Other Essays.          New York:  Vantage Press, 1974.

---.  Son of Charlemagne: A Contemporary Life of Louis the Pious.  Syracuse: Syracuse       University Press, 1965.

Davis, Raymond trans.  The Lives of the Eighth-Century Popes.  Liverpool: Liverpool       University Press, 1992.

---.  The Lives of the Ninth-Century Popes.  Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1995.

Doob, Leonard W.  Propaganda, its Psychology and Technique.  New York: Henry Hold    and Company, 1935.

Dutton, Paul Edward ed., Carolingian Civilization: A Reader.  New York: Broadview     Press, 1993.

Easton, Stewart C. and Helene Wieruszowski.  The Era of Charlemagne.  Huntington,   New York: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, Inc., 1961.

Fouracre, Paul and Richard A. Gerberding.  Late Merovingian France, History and     Hagiography 640-720.  New York: Manchester University Press, 1996.

Geary, Patrick J.  Before France and Germany.  New York: Oxford University Press,            1988.

Gerberding, Richard A.  The Rise of the Carolingians and the Liber Historiae             Francorum.  Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.

Godman, Peter and Roger Collins eds.  Charlemagneís Heir: New Perspectives on the            Reign of Louis the Pious.  New York:  Oxford University Press, 1990.

Godman, Peter.  Poetry of the Carolingian Renaissance.  Norman: University of             Oklahoma Press, 1985.

---.  Poets and Emperors: Frankish Politics and Carolingian Poetry.  New York:            Clarendon Press, 1986.

Hen, Yitzhak.  ìThe Annals of Metz and the Merovingian Past,î in The Uses of the Past in            the Early Middle Ages.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Hummel, William and Keith Huntress.  The Analysis of Propaganda.  New York: William          Sloane Associates, Inc., 1949.

Jarnut, Jˆrg, Ulrich Nonn and Michael Richter eds.  Karl Martell in Seiner Zeit.              Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 1994.

McKitterick, Rosamond.  The Carolingians and the Written Word.  Cambridge:             Cambridge University Press, 1989.

---.  The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians 751-987.  New York: Longman,     1983.

---. ed.  The New Cambridge Medieval History, Volume II c.700-c.900.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

---. ed.  The Uses of Literacy in Early Mediaeval Europe.  Cambridge: Cambridge   University Press, 1990.

Nelson, Janet, trans. and ed.  The Annals of St. Bertin.  New York: Manchester University      Press, 1991.

---.  Charles the Bald.  New York: Longman Inc., 1992.

Nobel, Thomas F. X.  The Republic of St. Peter, The Birth of the Papal State, 680-825.        Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984.

Picard, Jean-Michel.  Ireland and Northern France AD 600-850.  Dublin: Four Courts            Press, 1991.

RichÈ, Pierre.  The Carolingians, a Family Who Forged Europe, trans. Michael Idomir            Allen.  Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998.

Schoenfeld, Edward J.  ìBattle of Poitiers, October 732.î  The Readerís Companion to          Military History.  Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996.

Scholz, Bernhard Walter trans.  Carolingian Chronicles: The Royal Frankish Annals and   Nithardís Histories.  Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1970.

Stock, Brian.  The Implications of Literacy: Written Language and Models of             Interpretation in the Elevnth and Twelfth Centuries.  Princeton: Princeton             University Press, 1983.

Thatcher, Oliver J. and Edgar Holmes McNeal, eds., A Source Book for Medieval History.     New York: Scribners, 1905.  The Annals of Lorsch, in Medieval Sourcebook        at <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/lorsch1.html>

Thorpe, Lewis, ed. and trans.  Einhard and Notker the Stammerer: Two Lives of             Charlemagne.  New York: Penguin Books, 1969.

---, ed. and trans.  The History of the Franks by Gregory of Tours.  England: Penguin         Books, 1974.

Tremp, Ernst ed. and trans.  Die Taten Kaiser Ludwigs von Thegan und Das Leben            Kaiser Ludwigs von Astronomus.  Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1995.

Wallace-Hadrill, J. M.  ed. and trans.  The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar.      London: Tomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1960.

Wood, Ian.  The Merovingian Kingdoms 450-751.  New York: Longman, 1994.