Libri Carolini2

5/20/2018 Libri Carolini2

1/34

titatntion ant) learning

in Search of iDeologp:

Cibti Carolini

T H O M A S F X N O B L E

T

he text called bymodern scholars the Libri Carolini, the Caroline

books, that is to say, Charlemagne's books, is puzzling in many

ways.

1

It isnot clear, for example, in what sense this treatise can be as

cribed to Charlemagne. I tishard to sayexactlywhat kind oftreatise the

Libri Carolini really is. Sometimes the work is called the Capitulare de

imaginibus,

but itisnot acapitulary.

2

Francois LouisGanshof refused to

accept the Libri Carolini asa capitulary in his authoritative treatment of

those quasi-legislative texts.

3

I twas published by the Monumenta Ger

maniaeHistorica intheConciliaseriesasasupplement,notintheCapitu

laria series,but this isnot helpful either because the treatisewasnot the

product of conciliar deliberations. Isthework actually about images?Is

oneofitscustomarytitlesatleasthalfright?Thisdeceptivelysimpleques

tion requires investigation too,but itcanbesaidright awaythatmuchof

what ismost important in the Libri Carolinihas nothing to dowith im

ages.

TheoldestsurvivingmanuscriptoftheLibri Carolinilacksalltitular

andprefatorymaterial,butaslightlylaterandcompletetextcallsthework,

ifImaybepermittedsomenondistortingabridgement,Opus Caroli contra

synodum.

4

Here isCharles again, but now he has issued neither librinor

capitularia, but rather an opus.And this time itiscontra synodumnot de

imaginibus.

Thesynodreferred toistheSecondCouncilofNicaea,heldin

787,

and itisperfectly clear, on the plain and copious testimony of the

text, that that synod figured largely in the discussions that produced the

7


2/34

22 8 T H O M A S F . X . N O B L E

Libri

Carolini. But,onceagain,thereismuch inthe

LibriCarolini

thatis

onlylooselyconnectedwithSecondNicaea.Confusingtitlesbybothorig

inalauthorsandmoderneditorshavesentreadersscurryingdownseveral

divergentpathsintheirattemptstounderstandthe

Libri

Carolini.

The

Libri Carolini

isabigbookbyanymeasurethatmightbeappliedto

it: 228quartopagesinthestandard printededition.I thas,Ithink,been

moreoften characterized than read,moreoften interpreted than studied.

There havebeen battles overwho wrote it, although it appearsthat the

gunshavebeenstilledonatleastthisfieldofcontentionasaresultofAnn

Freeman's compelling demonstration that Theodulf, the later bishop of

Orleans,wastheauthor.

5

IthasbeensuggestedthattheCarolingianscom

pletelymisunderstoodthesubtletiesofthetheologicalpositionsembraced

atNicaea andthat they responded withamisguidedandintemperatedi

atribethatwaslargelyirrelevanttotheissuesathand.Somehavetriedto

,exculpateCharlemagneandhisassociatesbysayingthattheyworkedfrom

such abad translation of the conciliar

acta

thattheycouldnotpossibly

havecometogripswiththeissuesthathadbeenraisedin787.Thereare

thosewhothinkthatthe

LibriCarolini

wasmainlyaproudassertionby

Charlemagneofhisregalandsacerdotalposition,whileotherscounterby

sayingthatCharlemagnedidnotwishtoembarrassPopeHadrianIand

thathelaidhisgreatbookasidewithoutpublishingit.

6

Itwouldbeeasy,andperhapsinstructive,togoonandonpointingout

puzzles,butitismoreimportanttotrytosolveatleastafewofthem.In

the process of offering solutions, some bold claimswill beadvanced on

behalfofthe

Libri

Carolini. Indefenseofsuchclaims,Icansayonlythis:I

amgoingtotrytotacklethe

Libri Carolini

asawholeandinitshistorical

context. I takemy lead from aremark byWalter Goffart in his brilliant

studyof

early

medievalhistoricalwriting.Hesaysthat"likeus,Jordanes,

Gregoryandtheothersmeanttowritewhattheydidandwerewellaware

of what they said and why."

7

Although poststructuralist critics have

warnedusthattextscanbepolysemicandthatauthorialintentmaybean

illusion,IproceedontheassumptionthatTheodulfhadboththemeans

andthewilltoarticulatehisownviewsandthoseofhiscontemporaries

andassociates.Thecentralpurposeofthisstudy,therefore,istoworkout

whatTheodulfsaidandwhyhesaidit.Iamconfidentthatthisinvestiga

tionwilldemonstratethatthe

LibriCarolini

isaworkofgreatpowerand

sophistication thatm ustbeunderstood asawholeandon itsownterms,

andthat itisabook that revealsagreatdealabouttheculturallifeofthe

Carolingianworldinthelastdecadesoftheeighthcentury.

Mydiscussionof

theLibri Caroliniwill

proceedalongthree

paths.

First,


3/34

229radition and Learning

I shallsayalittle about how the book cameto bewritten and how the

circumstances surrounding its composition provide some clues as to its

meaning.Second,Ishallgivemyreadingofthetextitself,layingparticular

stress on theorganization ofthe work and on the severalmajor linesof

argumentthatitdevelops.Inthecourseofthisdiscussion,Ishallattempt

toassessthekindsoflearningonwhich

theLibri Carolini

depended.Third

andfinally,Ishalloffer

aseriesofinterpretationsoftheLibri Carolinibased

onitspreparation,historicalsetting,andintellectualfoundations.

Ostensiblythe

Libri Carolini

representsaresponseofsomekindtotheis

suesinvolvedintheSecondCouncilofNicaeaof

787.

Letus,asabegin

ning,makeabriefinvestigationofhowthatsynodcametobecalled,what

itscentralconcernswere,andhowthesynodanditsconcernscametothe

attentionoftheFranks.

Byzantine Iconodasm, inaugurated in the 720s byEmperor Leo III,

proceededthroughtw odistinctphasesintheeighthcentury First,during

Leo'sreignandtheearlyyearsofthatof hissonandsuccessor,Constan

tineV,iconsweredestroyedonimperial

orders.

Theprincipalobjectionto

iconsinthisearlyperiodofIconoclasmwasthattheywereidolatrous.Or

thodox theologians, chiefly John of Damascus, were able to show that

idolsand iconswerefundamentally different, and alsoto assertthat there

wereprofoundtheologicalgrounds,tobefoundintherealmsofsoteriol

ogyandChristology,fordefendingtheuseof iconsinthechurch.Atthis

juncture,amajorcouncilwasheldatHiereiain754,andiconswerenow

condemned on ecclesiastical and theological authority with, of course,

complete imperial approval. The chargeof idolatry wasnot abandoned,

butit

was

nowsupplementedbyargumentswhosebaseswereChristologi

cal,

andwhich sought to respond to thedefense of images advancedby

John of Damascus. In 775 the arch-Iconoclast Constantine V died, and

fiveyearslaterhewasfollowedtothegravebyhissonandsuccessor,Leo

IV.Leo left behind aminor son,Constantine VI, and aremarkable and

resourcefulwidow,Irene.

8

Almost immediately upon assuming her regency, Irene embarked

upon aseriesofdiplomaticinitiatives.Her efforts toward theEast areof

nodirectconcerntoushere,buthighlysignificantwasheropeningtothe

West,which took the form of aproposed marriage alliance between her

sonConstantine and Charlemagne's daughter Rotrud. Ireneand theold

patriarch Paul IV had already been making some subtle moves against

Iconoclasm, and without these the empress could have had no hopeof


4/34

230 T H O M A S F . X . N O B L E

reconciliation, letaloneofalliance,with thepopeandtheFranks.Fortwo

generations the popes and their protectors and allies, the Carolingians,

had steadfastly opposed Byzantine Iconodasm. That opposition had

playedaroleinthepapalalienationfrom Byzantium,theFranko-papalal

liance, and the reconfiguration of the political map of Italy.Apparently,

then,Irenewassignalingherwillingnesstorecognizethepermanentloss

to the Byzantine Empire of allofnorthern and central Italy,while also

hopingtomakeCharlemagneguarantorofthecontinuedimperialposses

sionoftheduchyofNaples

andof

Sicily.

Wherethepopewasconcerned,

Ireneprimarilywishedtotellhimthatassoonaspossibletherewouldbe

an end to Iconoclasm. Essentially, Irene was leading the Byzantine state

outof

the

diplomaticandecclesiasticalisolationinwhichithadfoundit

selfforahalfcentury.

9

It isfrustrating that, becauseoflackofsources,wecannotknowmore

precisely the mom entum and motivations of change in Constantinople.

TheapproachtoCharlemagneandthefirstonetoRomecamein781.By

784IrenehaddecidedtocallanecumenicalcounciltocondemnIcono

clasm, and in 785 shedulynotified Pope Hadrian ofher intentions and

invitedhimtoattendortosendrepresentativestothecouncil.

10

Hadrian

respondedinOctoberof

785

withalongletterinwhichheexpressedhis

pleasureattheforthcomingcondemnationofhereticalIconoclasm,raised

anumberofecclesiasticalconcerns,andagreedtosendlegatestoacoun

cil.

x1

Hadrianalsoreceived,perhapsalongwithIrene'sletter,asynodical

letterandprofession offaith from thenewlyelected (25December784),

andfirmlyiconodule,patriarchTarasius.

12

Ireneconvenedhercouncilin

Constantinople in 786, but it was almost immediately disbanded by

troopsloyaltoIconoclasm.

13

Aboutayearlater,andwelloutsidethecapi

tal,

at Nicaea, the council assembled again and this time completed its

workinsixfullsessions,withabrieffinal

sessionintheMagnauraPalacein

Constantinople.

14

Leaving aside rituals and protocols, the work of the

councilconsistedoftwomajoraccomplishments.Thefirstwasareviewof

theplaceofimagesinChristianhistory,withaviewtoshowingthatan

cient and authentic traditions approved their use.The secondwas ade

tailed and systematic refutation of theharas,

the definition, and of the

biblicaland patristicproof-texts advanced atHiereia in 754.The council

didnotofferanythingnew.Itsintentionfromtheoutsetwastorestorethe

statusquo

ante

Iconoclasm.

Hadrian's representatives brought the conciliar

acta

back to Rome,

probablyverylatein787.Accordingtothe

Liber

Pontificate,aLatintrans

lationoftheGreekactawas

preparedandplacedintheLateranarchives.

15


5/34

Tradition and Learning 231

Twothingsonlyareknown with certainty about that translation: itwas

poorly done and it somehow found its way into Charlemagne's hands.

There isno t ascrapofsurvivingevidenceto theeffect that Hadrian sent

the

acta

totheking,andtherearehintsthatCharlemagnethought hehad

gottenhistextdirectlyfromConstantinople.

16

WhileIamnotoptimistic

that we shall ever know exactly how Charlemagne got his copy of the

Niceneacta,Iamquiteconvincedthatitcannothavebeenlaterthan788

whenthekingfirstheardoftheproceedingsofNicaeaandConstantin

ople.

Letusnotethatfrom781to789Charles'sdaughter

was

affianced to

Irene'sson.Inaddition,theFranksandtheGreekswereinvolvedinacom

plicated setofpoliticalanddiplomatic intrigues insouthern Italy.Finally,

thepapalandFrankishcourtswereinalmostconstantcontactthroughout

theperiodthatconcernsus.In789theFranko-Byzantinemarriagealliance

wasbroken off, probably asaresultof thedecisions taken,orthought by

the Franks to have been taken, at Nicaea. Much wasgoing on in these

yearsthathasleft notraceinthescantyrecords.

By790or791Theodulfhadbegunworkonatextthatwouldcometo

beknownasthe

Libri

Carolini.

17

In792adecisionwasmadeattheFrank

ish court to send the recently condemned Adoptionist heretic, Felix of

Urgel,toRomeinthecustodyofAngilbertofSaint-Riquier.Apparently

itwasalsodecided, rather hastily,to inform Hadrian about thedelibera

tions at the Frankish court concerning Second Nicaea.A very briefver

sion,perhapsinvolvingnomorethanchaptertitles,ofthe

Libri Carolini

as

a work-in-progress accompanied Angilbert to Rome. This document is

usuallycalledthe

Capitulare adversussynodum.

18

In,probably,793amas

siveresponse from Hadrian arrivedattheFrankishcourt.

19

Inangryand

exasperated terms Hadrian rejected point after point the Frankish con

demnation ofSecond Nicaea.This responseappears tohavebeenwholly

unexpected,anditsimmediateresultwastoputanendtothediscussions

atcourtsurroundingthe

Libri

Carolini.

The

LibriCarolini

is,therefore, abookprepared atthecourtofChar

lemagnebetweenabout790and793.Ahappyaccidenthaspreservedthe

actual,workingcopyofthe

Libri

Carolini: MS Vaticanus Latinus 7207.

Close studies of that original manuscript, plus some scattered bits of

ninth-century evidence, makeit possible to form areasonably good im

pressionofhowthebookcametobecomposed.

ItistoAnnFreeman,andtoalesserdegreetoWalterSchmandt,that

weareindebtedforourunderstanding,notonlyofthecompositionofthe

Libri

Carolini, but alsoforprecious insights into theway inwhichChar

lemagne'scourttheologiansattackedtheproblemsposedbythecouncilof


6/34

232 T H O M A S F . X . N O B L E

Nicaea.

20

Theodulf of Orleanswas assigned the taskofpreparing a first

draftoftheFrankishresponsetotheByzantines.Thatdraft wasprettywell

advancedwhenthe

Capitulare adversus synodum

wasdispatchedtoRome.

Meanwhile,seriousworkcontinued, apparentlyintwostages.TheodulPs

draft, now the Vatican manuscript, atext that lacks thepreface and the

beginning ofbook 1aswellasthewholeofbook4 ,wassubjected to in

tensescrutinyatcourt.Thistruncatedmanuscriptcontainsnofewer than

3,400corrections.

21

Theheavilycorrectedsectionsstopatbook2,chapter

29,

andafter book3 ,chapter 13thereisamarkeddeclineinthequalityof

the parchment and script.

22

These changes almost certainly betoken the

arrivalofHadrian'sdishearteningresponse.Atsomepointintheproceed

ings,

actual argumentation wascarriedout inCharlemagne's presence,

23

and his reactions were recorded in marginal notations that were subse

quently erased and replaced with Tironian notes.

24

Thus,insum,there

wasathree-stepprocess:compositionby

Theodulf,

reviewbyothertheo

logians,andapprovalbyCharlemagne.Theworkcan,therefore,besaidto

beofficial in the sense that ithad the king's explicit endorsement, but it

mustberemembered that itwastheintellectualproductofaseriesofspir

itedandsophisticatedexchanges.

Manuscript Vat.Lat. 7207 arrived in Romein 1784 andwasalready

mutilated.

25

Initstatteredandcorrectedstate,ithadbeenputinthepal

acearchives,whereHincmarsawitinthe820s

26

andwhereitmighthave

been consulted in connection with the renewed image controversy that

culminated in the Council ofParis in 825 .

27

Around the middle of the

centuryHincmarhadacopymadeforhimself,andthismanuscript,con

taining the complete text ofthe

LibriCarolini,

survives asParisArsenal

663.

2 8

AngeloMercatiwasableto tracethepresence inthepapallibrary

of

a

copyof

theLibriCarolini

inthefifteenthandsixteenthcenturies,but

it is not known what happened to this manuscript.

29

A few years ago,

BernhardBischoffdiscoveredontheflyleafofaParismanuscriptasingle

folio from another copyofthe

LibriCarolini

thatwasmadeatCorbiein

themiddleoftheninthcentury.

30

Allinall,then,onlyfourcopiesofthe

bookcanbeshowntohavebeeninexistence.Thisrepresentsanextremely

limited dissemination indeed for abookofsuchevident importance and

powerful associations. It hasbeenpublished anumber oftimessincethe

middleofthesixteenthcenturybutneversatisfactorily.Anewandtruly

critical edition byAnn Freeman ispresently in press at the Monumenta

GermaniaeHistorica.

ItwillbeclearnowwhyIspokeattheoutsetofpuzzles.Afullconsider

ationofthe Libri Caroliniwouldrequireacarefulassessmentofalltheevi


7/34

Tradition and Learning 233

dentiaryproblemsthatIhaveonlyalludedtohere.Obviouslythisisnot

theplaceforthatassessment.Butthereisonepuzzlethatcannotbepassed

overinsilence.It isthis:whywassomuch effort andsuchgreat learning

lavishedupon aworkthat seemsneverto havebeenpublishedandnever

tohavebeendisseminated?Andwhywasthisworksoapparentlyuninflu

entialuntil,ironically,itwasembracedbyProtestantsinthesixteenthcen

turyandplacedontheIndexofForbiddenBooksuntil1900?Mostofthe

restofthispaperwillconstituteanattempttoanswerthosequestions.

Schmandthasquitecorrectlycalled

theLibri CaroliniaStaatsschrift

(po

liticaltract),

31

but the implications of his observations have often been

missed. An old tradition holds that the

LibriCarolini

andtheSynodof

Frankfurt in 794 represented the high point of Carolingian Caesaro

papism and adeep humiliation for the pope.

32

Another tradition holds

thatthe

LibriCarolini

was,infact,shelvedthisaccountingforitsweak

disseminationeither because the Franksdid not wishto embarrass the

popeorbecauseHadriancommandedtheFrankstogiveuptheiropposi

tiontohisofficial position.

33

Each of these views is anachronistic. Charlemagne never treated the

popes in the haughty way that Roman or Byzantine emperors did, and

the plain testimony of the

LibriCarolini

speaks respectfully of the pa

pacy.

34

Moreover,noearlymedievalpopepossessedorclaimedthekindof

jurisdictionalprimacyinmattersofdogmathathighmedievalpopesrou

tinely asserted. It was only with the professionalization of theological

learningandthehardeningofjurisdictionallinesbythecanonistsandde

cretaliststhatthereemergedasharplyRome-centeredsourceofdogmatic

definition.

35

Intheveryperiodthatconcernsus,theFranksandthepopes

agreedtodisagreeonadoctrinalmatterofsomesignificance:theproces

sion of the Holy Spirit, or the

filioque

controversy.

36

Charlemagne and

Hadrian had some rather sharp differences ofopinion about the nature

anddimensionsoftheterritorialsettlementsinItalythatresultedfrom the

demiseoftheLombard kingdom,butherealsotheymanagedtoworkto

getheramicablytoachieveajustandlastingsolution.

37

AmicablecooperationisindeedthespiritthatIdetectinthewholepe

riodwhenthe

LibriCarolini

wasbeingprepared.Letusconsidersomeof

therelevantactionsofboththekingandthepope.Theprefacetothe Libri

Carolini^asectionwrittenin790andneverrevised,

38

saysthatwhenthe

Frankslearnedofthesynodof

the

Greeksanditshorribledecisions,they

immediatelysettoworkindefenseofthefaithandthechurch.

39

Itisinter

esting to note that the procedure followed wasexactly the same as that

usedintheAdoptionistand

filioque

controversies.That is,whenaproblem


8/34

23 4 T H O M A S F . X . N O B L E

wasbroughttoCharlemagne'sattention,he,asaloyalsonof

the

church,

gatheredhisclergysothatthey,withhisblessingandunderhisauthority,

might assemble the necessary scriptural and patristic texts to settle the

matter.

40

AsinthecasesofAdoptionistandTrinitarianstrife,sotoointhe

matterofimages;theresultsofFrankishdeliberationsweresenttoRome.

Nowhereinanyofthepertinentsourcesistherearemarktotheeffectthat

the Frankswere, in anyof these instances, attempting to dictate to the

pope.NoristhereanywhereahintthattheFranksfeltinsomesensele

gallyobligatedtolaytheirworkbeforethepope.Theyhadactedinde

fenseofthechurchandthefaith,andtheirrecoursetoRome was amarkof

profound respect.

After Hadrian's responseto the

Capitulare adversus synodum

arrivedat

court, planswere continued for thegreat synod and public assembly of

Frankfurt that washeld in 794. Papal legates did attend Frankfurt. The

acta

saythat thecouncilwasheld"withapostolicauthority,"andthat the

council'ssecondcanonpronouncedacondemnationofsortsuponSecond

Nicaea. Thus, it might seem that the Franks imposed their views upon

Rome.Closerinspectionshowsthatsuchwasnotthe

case,

however.Inthe

firstplace,Frankfurt wasoneofthe most significant councilsheld inthe

whole of Charlemagne's reign and it dealt with ahuge agendaofbusi

ness.

41

Nicaeawascertainlynotthefirstitemonthatagenda.Indeed,the

initialtopicwasAdoptionism,andNicaeacamesecond.

42

That issignificant byitself,but twofurther aspectsofFrankfurt's treat

ment of Nicaea are evenmore revealing.Thefirstof these concerns the

languageofthecanonsthemselves.Canonone,dealingwithAdoption-

ism,says"sanctissimipatres...contradixeruntatque...statuerunt"(the

mostholyfathers . . .contradict and . . .declare),andcanontw o,dealing

withNicaea,says"sanctissimipatresnostri...contempseruntatque...

condem pnaverunt" (ourmostholyfathers . ..despiseand . ..condemn).

CanonthreehandledtheaffairsoftherebelliousDukeTassiloofBavaria.

Its dispositive language says that Tassilo was "made to stand up in the

midst of themost holy council"and that after allthe chargeswere read

"dominus noster" (our lord), that is,Charlemagne himself, pronounced

his punishments: "indulsit" (he indulged), "concessit" (he conceded),

"precepit"(heinstructed),and"iussit"(heordered).

The dispositive language in subsequent canons is more like that of

canonthreethanofcanonsoneandtwo.Forexample,canonfourreads

"Statuit piissimus domnus noster rex" (Our most pious lord king de

clared),andcanonsixsays"Statutumestadomnoregeetsanctasynodo"

(Itwasdecreedbythelordkingandbytheholysynod).

43

Itappearsthata


9/34


cleardistinctionwasbeingdrawnbetween thefirst twocanonsandallthe

others.AsHansBarionarguedlongago,"dogmaticissueswerebeingin

dependentlydecidedlegallybythebishops."

44

Intheverycanonswhere

papalauthorityisemphasized,episcopalauthority ismuchtothefore.An

other structural aspect of these canons is striking. Canon one says that

Adoptionism"exortumest"(arose),whilecanontwosaysthattheimage

question"Allataestinmedio"(wasbroughtforward),and,finally,canon

threesaysofTassilothat "definitum estcapitulum " (adecisionwasspelled

out). Each of thesecaseswascomplex, and sothe languagedealingwith

themdoesnotreflecttheclear,crisp,business-likedispositionsof therest

ofthecanons.Hereitisasifcrucialissuesweredecidedopenlyandonly

afterduedeliberation.

45

Thesecondissuethatrequirescarefulanalysistouchestheactualwords

used at Frankfurt concerning Nicaea. In aslightly tortured bit ofLatin,

thecouncil fathers accused theirNicaean counterparts of anathematizing

anyonewhowouldnotpaytoimagesofthesaintsexactlythesamehonor

that

was

tobeaccordedtotheTrinity.

46

AtNicaea,BishopConstantineof

Cyprushadexplicitlycondemnedastatementthatthesamehonorshould

bepaidtoimagesastotheTrinity,buthiswordshadbeengarbledinthe

translation sent to the Franks. At Frankfurt, only Constantine's words

were condemned, and it cannot have been too difficult for the pope's

legates to agree to this condemnation. The Latin translation of the text

hadbeenpreparedinRome,after all,anditmayhavebeenthatallparties

thoughtthatConstantineofCyprushadindeedsaidsomethingreprehens

ibleinthemidstofacouncilthatotherwisemetwithpapal,butnotFrank

ish,approval.Thus, atFrankfurt, one remarkablyminute issuewasfixed

uponforcondemnation.

47

Thepope,throughhislegates,wasnotaskedto

condemnallthat

was

doneatNicaea,andtheFranksgotatleastameasure

ofpapalapprovalfortheirdissatisfaction with Nicaea.

Thepapallegateswenthomeladenwithgifts,

48

andtheFranksdoseem

tohavetakenatleastsomeofHadrian'sobjectionstoheartincarryingout

their revisionsof theLibriCarolini.

49

Here again one detects aspirit of

cooperationandcompromise.ThissamespiritisevidentinHadrian'smas

sive letter to the Franks. It contains no less than two diplomatic safety

valves for the Franks. In one, Hadrian promised Charlemagne that he

mightyetdeclaretheGreekshereticsiftheydidnotrestoretothechurch

provinces and revenues that had been seized many years before by Leo

III.

50

Hadrian did not promise to repudiate Nicaea, but the Franks got

some hopeof acondemnation of the Greeks. In the other, Hadrian at

tempted todissociateCharlemagne from thetotalityof

theLibriCarolini


10/34

2 3 6 T H O M A S F . X . N O B L E

and to associatehimpersonallywithonlyaverylimitedreadingofthefa

mous letter of Gregory I to Serenus of Marseilles concerning images.

Hadrian wassaying, ineffect, that Charlemagnewassurely correct inall

histhinking,but hisbishopshad gotten abitcarriedawayintheheatof

theargument.

51

ThepopegaveCharlemagne,inotherwords,adiplomaticopportun ity

todistancehimselffromtheverydocumentshehaddispatchedtoRome

inthefirstplace,whiletellingthekingthathisunderstandingofthepapal

viewofimageswasimpeccable.Finally,ithasbeensuggestedrecentlythat

HadrianmayhavetakenFrankishviewsonsacredartintoconsiderationin

Rome in theyears after about 790.When, before Hadrian's pontificate,

theLiberPontificates

makesoneofitsnumerousmentionsofimages,itdoes

sowithnoreferencetoaestheticconsiderations.Thespiritual,ortheologi

cal,

significanceofimageswasstressed.InHadrian'stime,however,mod

ifyingadjectivesdenotingsize,color,orbeautybegintoappeartosignify

aesthetic or evendecorative, but not spiritual, value attached to images.

Thiswastheargumentofthe

Libri

Carolini.

52

EinhardsaysthatCharlemagneweptwhenheheardofHadrian'sdeath

in 7 9 5 .

53

Wellmight he have done so. He and the old pope had been

friends and alliesfor more than two decades.They sometimes disagreed

withoneanotherbuttheyneverhadamajorbreakinrelations.Thewhole

affairsurroundingthe

Libri Carolini

didnotprovokeariftinFranko-papal

relationsbecauseitwasnotmeanttodosoandbecausethepopeandthe

Frankishkingknewverywellhowtocompromiseandcooperate.

The

LibriCarolini

wasa

Staatsschrift

inthesensethatitrepresenteda

core of ideological values and ideas that were prominent at the Caro

lingiancourtinthe780sand790s.Butitwasmorelikeatreatise,likea

liber,

than likeacapitulary or other publicactof thewillofthe king. It

receivednowiderdisseminationthanothertreatiseswrittenintheCaro

lingian period, for example, the books on kingship written byJonasof

Orleans, Smaragdus of Saint-Mihiel, Hincmar of Reims, and Sedulius

Scottus,orthevolumesofethicaladvicepreparedbyPaulinusofAquileia,

Alcuin, HrabanusM aurus, and Hincmar.But the

LibriCarolini

wasoffi

cialbecause itreflected theviewsofCharlemagneandhismost influential

associatesatakeymomentinthereign.

Letusturnnowtowhatthe

Libri Carolini

actuallysaysor,m oreprecisely,

tothemajorthemesitdevelops.Therearefourof

these,

andeachistied

closelytoaparticulartypeof

tradition.

ForpurposesofdiscussionIshall


11/34


callthesethemesbiblical,ecclesiastical,papal,andChristian-imperial.Al

though these labels arenotionally accurate,none actually appears in just

thiswayinthe

Libri

Carolini.Thefourtraditionsarewovensotightlyinto

thetextthatitisnoteasytodisentanglethemwithoutrendingthefabric.

Withduecare,then,weshallattemptinwhatfollowstotracefourparticu

larthreads.

The

LibriCarolini

wascomposed infour books,theoriginal intention

havingbeentoproducebooksofthirtychapters,eachbookprecededbya

preface. The survivingversion departs slightlyfrom this scheme,but the

discrepanciesarenotsuch

as

torequirecomment.

54

Book

1

beginswithan

attackontheeasternemperorsandgoesontosaythattheGreeksmisun

derstand images in a fundamental way.The flaws in their reasoning are

particularlyattributableto adeficientunderstandingoftheOldTestament.

PatriarchTarasiusisalsoseverelycriticized,andthenmorescornisheaped

onByzantinemisunderstandingsof

the

OldTestament.Book2beginsby

carryingontheattackagainstByzantinemishandlingoftheBibleandthen

turns to a series of searing indictments of the mistakes of anumber of

GreekFathersandofthemisuseofthoseFathersatNicaea.Book3begins

withaFrankish confessiofideiandthengoesontoanothercondemnation

ofTarasius,which blames him for misleading hischurch. Nextthere are

severalrejectionsofByzantinetheologicalerrors,followed bysharpcriti

cismsofthetheologicalpositionsofagroupofeasterntheologians.After

this we find a neat bit of ecclesiological criticism of Second Nicaea, a

pointedattackonIrene,andthenaremarkablesetofobservationsonwhat

imagesare,whattheyarenot,andwhatplacetheyholdinthechurch.The

fourth andlastbookcontinuesthetheologicalreasoningbegun inbook3

butis,inasense,moresystematicandlesshistorical,exegetical,andec

clesiologicalatleastuntiltheveryend.HerewereadthattheByzantines

donotunderstandwhatanimagetrulyisorwhatimagesareforanddo

notknowhowtoestablishortoverifyevidenceconcerningimages.The

workendswitharingingdenunciationofthefailureoftheByzantinesto

adheretotheuniversaltraditionsoftheChurch.

Again and again the

LibriCarolini

refers to Second Nicaea, and the

problem of imagesappears in somefashion on almostevery page.But I

believethatNicaeaprovidedanopportunity,andimagesprovidedanis

sue,thatenabledthe Carolingianstocrystallizetheirthinkingonahostof

concerns that reached far beyond the immediate historical circumstances

thathadsetTheodulfandhiscolleaguestoworkinginthefirstplace.An

investigation baseduponthefourtraditionsenumeratedabovewillenable

ustotestthevalidityofthat

belief.


12/34

2 3 8 T H O M A S F . X . N O B L E

First,then,letuslookatthebiblicaltradition.Thefirsttwobooksespe

ciallyofthe LibriCarolini contain aseriesof specific and programmatic

condemnations of Byzantine readings of the Old Testament. In specific

terms,

they reject along set ofpassages thatwere adduced atNicaea in

defenseofimages.Forexample,theysaythatAbrahamdidnotadorethe

sonsofHeth,MosesdidnotadoreJethro,andJacobdidnotadorepha

raoh.

55

Likewise,Jacobdidnoterecthispillowstoneasanimage,nordid

hetreatJoseph'scloakinthisway.Jacob'sstaffwasnotanimage,andnei

therwastheArkoftheCovenant.Bezeleeldidnotbuildimages,andthe

storyofMosesandthehyacinthshasnomoretodowithimagesthandoes

the tale of Moses' bronze

staff.

The account of Joshua and the twelve

stonesdoesnotauthorizeimages.

56

Extensiveattentionispaidtotheal

legedmisuseofthepsalmsbytheByzantines.Inparticular,Easterninter

pretationsofelevenpsalms(4,9,11,25,29,47,73,74,84,98,and124)

areexplicitlycriticized.

57

Theminuteattentiondevotedtothepsalmsin

this section ofLibriCarolini is probably attributable to the prominent

placeoccupiedbythesebiblicalprayer-poems inthepublicworshipofthe

Westernchurch.

Themoreprogrammaticcommentsareoftwo kinds.Inone,theByzan

tinesarehectoredforfailingtounderstand thevocabularyandgrammarof

the Old Testament.

58

The second kind is more serious and sustained.

AgainandagaintheFrankscondemntheByzantinesforreadingpassages

intheOldTestamentliterallyandforquotingthosepassagesinconnection

withimageswhen,inreality,allsuchpassagesaretobeunderstoodtypo

logicallyasreferring toChristorto thechurch .

59

TheByzantinescertainlydidnotneedalessonintypologicalexegesis,

and atleastsomeofthe Carolingians'criticismsoftheGreekswereocca

sionedbymisunderstandingsoftheirownpromptedbythepoortransla

tionofNicaea'sactafrom which theywereworking.Tosomeextentthe

controversy wascreated by the fact that the Byzantinesgenerally hewed

close to the more literalistAntiochene schoolofexegesiswhiletheWest

had apreference for the allegoricalschoolofAlexandria.But ittakesvery

littleimaginationtoseethatTheodulfandhisassociateswerereallygiving

voiceto acentralsetofpreoccupations intheCarolingian court.It isto

thoseconcernsthatonemustturninordertounderstandthecontextand

meaningoftheexegeticalandinterpretiveargumentsthatfillmostofthe

firsttwobooksoftheLibri

Carolini.

At just the time when theLibriCarolini was being prepared, Char

lemagne'smassiveprogramofeducationalreformandspiritualrevivalwas

comingintofullswing.Itwouldbenoexaggerationtosaythatthatpro


13/34

239raditionandLearning

gram was focused directly on the Bible.

60

The whole idea o f the reform

wastocom mu nicate biblicaltruthstoth epeoplesothatallm ight beledto

salvation.InorderfortheclergytopreachtheBible,andforthepeopleto

unders tand what was being p reached to them, books had to be ob ta ined

andcopied, teachershad to betrained, schoolshadto beformed, and pu

pilshadtoberecruited.

61

Inmanyrespects, thewholeprogramdemanded

that theright thingshadtobetaughtandunderstood.WheretheOldTes

tament was concerned, this mean t tha t it had to be seen as hav ing fo re

shado we dthe N ewT estament andalso,asweshallseebelow,the Frankish

peopleandtheir kings.

Itcann otbemerecoincidencethatjustintheyearswh enthe LibriCaro

lini

was being prepared, there arose am ong Charlemagne's keyadvisers a

potentassociationbetweenthegreatFrankandthekingsoftheOldTesta

men t. In the preface to theAdmonitio generalis o f 789 , Char lemagne is

comparedtoJosiahbecause,likehim,hesought"byvisitation,correction

and admoni t ion to recall the k ingdom which G od had g iven h im to the

worsh ip o f the t rue G od" (cf. 2 K in gs :22 -23 ) .

6 2

As early as 775 Char

lemagne had been addressed as both Solomon and David by

Cathwulf,

63

andCharlemagne's thron e atAachen, inthechapelonw hich construction

hadbegun in about 788 ,wasconsciously modeled on that of Solom on.

6 4

To Alcu in , Charlemagne was like So lomon bo th because o f h is wisdom

and becausehe erected acomplex ofbuildingsl ikethe Templeonce built

in Jerusalem.

65

Paul the Deacon called Charlemagne David in about 787,

ashadC athw ulfearlier,albeitinanumericalrid dle .

6 6

Byabout794,how

ever, it had become comm on to refer to Charlemagne as David .

6 7

These

sources, whether poetic or episto lary , sought to draw aparallel between

Charlemagne's and David's prophet ic wisdom and strength in defense of

Israel and the fai th .

68

The precise significance of these references to Old

Testament k ings can be g rasped from the very first chap ter o f the

L ibri

Carolini,wheretheemperorsofByzantiumareaccusedoffailingtoruleas

David and So lomon had done .

6 9

I t may well have been known a t Char

lemagne's cour t tha t in the East the emperor was ca lled allosDabid (the

secondDavid).

The point of the careful Old Testament exegesis in the

Libri Carolini,

coupled with the designation of Charlemagne as D avid , wasprecisely to

make the Frank ish ruler, and h im a lone , the au thent ic representa tive o f

and heir to the David ic k ingsh ip o f I s rae l.

70

Pope Pau l I had called the

Franksa"newIsrael"

71

andataboutthesametime,inthesecondprologue

t o th e Salic Law, th e Franks h ad referred t o them selves in th e sam e

terms.

7 2

In the

LibriCarolini

theFrankssay,"wearcnotthecarnalbutthe


14/34

2 4 0 T H O M A S F . X . N O B L E

spiritual Israel."

73

Beginning in the late 780s, the Franks are called, in

sourcesofallkinds,thepopulusChristianus.

74

Thenewlydefined"Chris

tianpeople"wasnoneotherthanthenewFrankishIsraelledbythenew

CarolingianDavid.

AcorrectunderstandingoftheOldTestament,therefore,pointedina

palpablyhistoricalwaytotheFranks.Atthesametime,

a

propertypologi

calexegesisoftheOldTestamentpointedtotheageofChrist,theapostles,

andthechurch.Forpurposesofdiscussion,Ilabelthese,takentogether,

theecclesiasticaltraditiontowhichthe

Libri Carolini

drawsattention.

TheLibri Carolini

developeditsargumentsonecclesiasticaltraditionsin

waysthatwerebasedondoctrine,practice,andinstitutions,althoughitis

not always easy to make sharp distinctions between these categories.

Wheredoctrineisconcerned,thebiblicalfoundationwascrucial.Theodulf

saysindeedthatonemustfollowtheteachingsoftheprophets,theLord,

andtheapostles.

75

Theendofbook2presentsaninterestingsetofargu

mentstotheeffectthateverythingthatisneededforeverypossiblekindof

knowledge is available in Scripture.

76

Always,prioritywasgiventothe

wordofGod.

77

Butoveralongperiodof

time,

God'swordhadbeenin

terpreted, made accessible, andkept inviolate byaseriesof authoritative

teachers. In fact, the Scriptures couldonlybeunderstood in thelightof

the"writingsoftheholyfathers."

78

Thusbook3containsalongseriesof

attacks on various Greek theologians, or the way in which those theo

logianswereunderstood or evenmisunderstoodat Nicaea.

79

Butthe

argumentisnotcarriedpurelybynegation.Jerome,Ambrose,Augustine,

andGregoryarerepeatedlycitedashavingheldtothecorrectlineinmat

tersoffaith, and thereisaremarkablestatement inbook2that "after the

writingsoftheprophets,evangelistsandapostlesweareverycontentwith

theteachingsoftheillustriousLatindoctorswhoselifeandteachingare

known to us,aswellaswith those Greekswho wereCatholic and who

havebeentranslatedbyCatholicsintoourlanguage."

80

Itisperfectlytrue

thattheCarolingianssometimesweremuddledaboutwhathadbeensaid

at Nicaea.

81

And on afew occasions they admitted to being unfamiliar

withtextsandauthorscitedthere.

82

Butthisisbesidethepoint.Whatis

clearisthatTheodulf andthosewhoworkedwithhimsawastraightline

ofteachingrunningfromthetimeofJesustothatofCharlemagne,andas

theylookedbackalongthatlinetheycouldseethattheByzantineshadat

some point departed from it, that "they had severed the bond ofeccle

siasticalunity."

83

This is also the argument advanced in thematter ofpractices orcus

toms.

Totakefirstafairlyobviousexample,images,

theLibri Carolini

takes


15/34


arathersimpleline.Traditionhasalwayspermittedthepossessionofim

ages for purposes of ornamentation or commemoration, but nothing

more.

Wedo not reject imagesput up to remind usofgreat deedsor to

beautifychurchessinceweknowtheywereputupthusbySolomon

andMoses,althoughonly

as

typefigures,but

we

objecttotheirado

ration which is contrary to custom and indeed more than super

stitious;and

we

cannotfindthisworshipevertohavebeeninstituted

bypatriarchsorprophetsorapostolicmen.

84

TheByzantinescannotseemtogetthisstraight.TheythinktheOldTesta

menttalksabout imageswhenitdoesnosuchthing.

Byzantine failures in this regard are twofold. First, they do not study

theOldTestamentcorrectly.Iftheydidso,theywouldknowthatevery

passagehasthreelevelsofmeaning:historical,spiritual,andallegorical(or

mystical).

85

Thustheyareledtosupposethatwhenthepsalmistspoke(Ps.

4:7)ofthe"countenance"

(vultus)

oftheLord,hemeantanimage,when

hesimplycannothavebeenreferringtoamanufacturedthing.

86

Orwhen

thepsalmistsaid,"Lord Ihavelovedthebeautyofyourhouse"(Ps.25:8) ,

hesupposed an image to have been implied, whereas "the house ofthe

Lordistobeunderstood accordingtoallegoryasthechurch,oraccording

toanagogy

as

thecelestialhomeland,oraccordingtotropology

as

thesoul

ofman."

87

Their second failure is to reject theuniversal tradition of the

church,which refuses toworshipGod in images.

88

TheGreeksalsomis

readtheFathers,whonevercommandorevenpermittheworshipofim

ages.

89

Theodulf and his associates could even be a bit devious in

separatingtheByzantinesfrompatristictradition.Forexample,Theodulf

givesanextensivecitationfromoneof

the

famouslettersofGregoryIto

SerenusofMarseilleson imagesbut only to argue that Gregory forbade

theadorationanddestructionofimages.AlltherestofGregory'shighly

nuanced argument for thedidacticvaluesof imagesissilently om itted.

90

AndofcourseByzantiumspentahalfcenturydestroyingimagesonlyto

turnaroundandcommandworshipofthem.

Otherreligiouspracticesarebroughtup

as

well.TheFranksunderstand

thecustomary placeof relicsandwhythey areholy.They arethe actual,

physicalremainsofthesaints,orelseobjectscloselyassociatedwiththem

during their lives.

91

The Greeks think images are holy when they are

merely senseless objects made bymen.

92

It hasnever been the universal

practice of the church to worship God through mere objects, and only


16/34

2 4 2 T H O M A S F . X . N O B L E

Godistobeworshipedinthefirstplace.

93

TheFranks,apparentlyalone,

understandthatcertainobjectsareactuallyinsomesenseholy:relics,the

cross,

andthesacredvessels,forexample.

94

Theseobjectsareholybecause

theyareconsecratedbyprayers,usedintheworshipofGod,andapproved

bytradition.Buttheyareneverworshipedforthemselves,astheGreeks

insistthatimagescan,indeedmust,be.

95

TheCarolingianpositionwasthat,eversinceapostolictimes,therehad

beencertainuniversaltraditionswithrespecttocustomaryChristianprac

tices,

andthattimeandtimeagaintheByzantineshaddepartedfrom those

traditionsandthen,havingdeparted,hadhadthetemeritytoinsistthat

othersjointhemontheirwaywardpath.TheCarolingianviewwassome

what less than fair to the Greeks and somewhat lessthan accurate in its

readingofChristianhistorybut,onceagain,thatisbesidethepointifour

goalistounderstandtheargumentofthe

Libri

Carolini.

96

Insofar as ecclesiastical tradition refers to institutions, similar points

weremade,although inthisrealmsomeverynew,andheretofore poorly

understood,argumentswereadvanced.Actually,itseemstomethatami

norandamajorargumentaremadeontheinstitutionalfront.Theminor

oneturnsonthepositionofTarasius.Ontwoseparateoccasions,the

Libri

Carolini

addressestheelectionofthepatriarchofConstantinople.Inbook

1Tarasiusiscriticizedbecausehe


17/34


bishopswhowerelearned,wise, andhumble;bishopswhowouldbeboth

leadersandmodelsfor thoseentrustedtotheir care. Inotherwords, only

the b ishops of Charlemagne's realm represented the ideal b ishopof both

St. Paul and Pope Gregory I . The i rregular s ituat ion of Tarasius, as the

Franks wished toview it, indicated yet again aByzantine departure from

thetraditionsof thechurch andmarked theprecise Frankish adherence to

thosetraditions.

The major and much more h is to rically significant ins ti tu tional issue

tu rned around a cen tral ecc lesio logical p roblem, namely , the natu re o f

synodsandtherelationshipofsynodstothecatholica

fides.

Agenerationor

two agoit wascustomary to argue that the Frankswereoffended because

the Byzantines called Nicaea universal and theyhad not been invi ted .

100

Then, inamorerefinedview,i t wasmaintainedthatwhat theFranksob

jectedtoinNicaeawasitsdeparturefromwhattheybelievedtheCatholic

faith to beand to dem and of its adherents. Inoth er wo rds, Nicaea falsely

called i tself universal, no t because the Franks were absent, but because it

wasuntruetotheuniversal faith.

1 01

In reality, theLibri Carolinisketches

ou t a fasc inating and new concilia r theory that cons ti tu tes no th ing less

thanarecastingofawholeseriesoftraditionalpositions.

Itistruethatsomeofwhatthe

LibriCarolini

saysisquiteconventional.

A couple o f po in ts , however, a t first read ing suggest something a little

odd.WearetoldthatNicaeawasheld"carelessly"and"indiscreetly,"and

tha t a synod shou ld only be held to dea l w i th " se rious" p rob lems and

should confine itself to taking only those actions that are s tr ictly neces

sary.

102

W hat canthismean?W asno t theremovalof theIconoclastic her

esy se riou s and necessary? Yes and n o . C o n st an ti ne V I and I rene , as

W ilhelm deVries has astutely pointed out, were in aprecarious posit ion.

They wished to res to re images , bu t the Iconoclasts were still numerous

andpowerful. M oreov er, theofficial Byzantinechu rchwascompletelyiso

latedfrom alltheoth er churchesoftheEastandW est.N oth ing lessthan a

properly ecumenical council would solve their theological and pol it ical

problem s.Butfor theF ranks,and,p erhapsinitiallyatleast,for H adr ian as

well, Iconoclasm was merely a local heresy . N o official council , Hiereia

havingbeenroundlycondemned,hadproclaimedit, andsonoecumenical

counci l wasneeded to renounce i t.T he Byzantine church needed only to

p ut its o w n h ou se in o r de r .

1 0 3

Th is a lone might well exp lain why the

Franksconsidered the Greeksa rrogant for callingN icaea ecumenical, but

thereisevenmoretoi t thanthis.

Theodulfandhiscolleaguestooktheopportunitytoengageinabit of


18/34

24 4 T H O M A S F . X . N O B L E

reflection on ecumenicity anduniversality.The ancient church had built

up a conciliar theory that had both "vertical" and "horizontal" dimen

sions.

Theverticalonesinvolvedauthoritative,acceptedteachingreaching

back through theFathers to theBible.Thehorizontalonesmeantrepre

sentation and acceptance by the "pentarchy" of ancient patriarchates

(Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Rome) and the

churchestheyrepresented.TheFranksacceptedtheverticalargumentbut

addedanewtwist.Theyraisedanargumentbasedonthetwinprinciples

ofscrutinium

and

ratio.

104

Aswehaveseen,theysharplyrejected theBy

zantine readingofScripture andpatristicteaching.In otherwords,they

said it isnot enough merely to cite precedents or to claim adherence to

tradition.No,everytextadducedmustbeexaminedcloselytoseewhatit

meansandifitistrulyrelevant.

10 5

ThiswillexplainwhytheFrankssub

mittedtextaftertexttotheirownpowerfullyreasonedscrutiny.

The vertical conciliar theory wasno t astaticmeasurebut aconstantly

evolvingandrationallyfoundedstandard.Astothehorizontaltheory,the

Franks found its received version inadequate.They complained that the

issues raised atNicaea, if they had to bediscussed at all,ought to have

been submitted to "each and every part of the church."

106

The Franks

wereadjusting conciliartheorytohistoricalreality.Theoldpentarchyhad

arisen before the Franks had come on the scene.They did not feel that

their "monarch," thepope, adequately represented them.They deserved

representation oftheirown.Theywerenot offended materiallyathaving

gottennoinvitationtoNicaea,butformallyattheideathatthepopealone

couldrepresentthewholeWesternchurch.Intheendtherearetwoissues

here:

theverydifferent viewstheFranksandtheByzantineshadofwhata

synodwasandofhowthechurchwasorganizedintheworld.

So the Old Testament had pointed to the New, and the New had

pointed to the church.Only the Frankshad sofar been faithful inallre

spectstothesetwolinksinanunbrokenchainoftradition.TheByzantines

had fallen away in both instances. Christ himself, in hiswords to Peter

(Mt.16:16-18),hadinstitutedaguarantorofhistraditions. Weturnnow

to athird tradition, the papal, towhich, accordingto the

Libri

Carolini,

theFrankshadbeen faithful andtheByzantines,faithless.

Veryearlythe LibriCarolinisetsaboutemphasizingtheimportanceof

communionwithRome.Attheendofthefifthchapterofbook1weread

that"amongallotherchurches,theHolyRomanChurchisheldinspecial

veneration concerning matters ofthe faith."

10 7

The following chapteris

themostrigorouslypapalofthewholetreatise.Itmakesthreeverysimple,

directarguments:theRomanchurchhasfromthebeginningbeensetbe


19/34


fore allotherchurches;onlybooksusedinRomeandteachingsthathold

authority there are to be admitted; and although many people have at

some time broken from Rome's communion, theFranksneverhave. In

deed,theystrugglemightilytobringnewpeoples,suchastheSaxons,into

theRoman fold.

108

Elsewhere in the text,on one occasion the teaching

authorityofPopeSylvesterisaffirmed,

109

whileonanotheroccasionsome

debating points are scored against the Byzantines bypointing out that

evensogreatascholarasSt.Jeromedidnothesitatetoturnforinstruction

toPopeDamasus.

110

PopeGregoryIwascitedasanauthorityonimages

andtheordinationofbishops.

111

ThecitationatNicaeaoftheallegedcor

respondence betweenJesusandAbgarofEdessawasrejected on theau

thorityofPopeGelasius.

112

TheodulfalsomentionsSt.Peter'sleadership

oftheapostolicchurch.

113

Thepositionofthepapacyasthe culmination

andguaranteeofecclesiastical traditions can besetoffneatly against the

irregularandschismaticsituationofTarasius.

The broadcontextwithinwhichTheodulfwaswriting serves to shed

evenmore light on the relationship between the Franks and the Roman

church.Inbook 1,TheodulfsaidthattheFrankshadturnedtoRomefor

instructioninliturgicalchant"sothattherewouldbenodifference insing

ingbetweenthosewhowerealikeinbelieving."

114

WhatTheodulfisrefer

ringto,ofcourse, istheextraordinarily livelyliturgicalexchangebetween

Romeand theFrankishcourt thatbeganunderPepinIII inthe760sand

carriedonwellinto the ninthcentury.

115

In 774,or shortly after, Char

lemagnegotfromRomeacopyoftheDionysio-Hadriana,whichwasthen

regarded by the Franks as the definitive collection of canon law.

116

In

around 787,Charlemagne turned toRome for an authentic copyof the

RuleofSt.Benedictinordertopromotemonasticreforminhisrealm.

:17

In

about 791,whileTheodulfwasdrafting the

Libri

Carolini,Charlemagne

orderedacollectiontobemadeofhisandhispredecessors'correspondence

withRome.Theresultwasthebookknownasthe

Codex

Carolinus.

118

In

794CharlemagnerequestedfromRomeacopyofthelettersofPopeGreg

ory I, another sure sign of the Frankish adherence to Roman and papal

traditions.

119

Afewyearsearlier,Charlemagneshowedhisattachment to

RomanandPetrinetraditionsbycommissioningPaultheDeacontowritea

historyofthebishopsofMetz.

120

Paulstressed,asnoonebeforehimhad

done,theconnectionbetweentheCarolingiansandtheseeofMetzandthe

connectionbetweenMetzandSt.Peter,theseeallegedlyhavingbeenfoun

ded byadisciple.

121

This passion for doing thingsmore Romano(in the

Roman fashion) wasnot confined to liturgy and law, inotherwords to

books.IthaslongbeenrecognizedthatCarolingian architecture,whether


20/34

246 T H O M A S F . X . N O B L E

therebuildingofSaint-Deniswithoccidentation andanannularcrypt,or

themodeling ofparts oftheAachen complexon theLateran baptistery,

owedagreatdealtogenuineorputativeRomanexemplars.

122

Theremarksinthe

Libri Carolini

aboutthepapacyareinperfectagree

mentwithwhatwasgoingonattheCarolingiancourt.DonaldBullough

has sagely observed that the massive Carolingian educational reform

sought authentic books and that, to those associatedwith Charlemagne

and his court, authenticmeant "Roman" and Roman meant "papal."

123

Josef Flechenstein has also shown that the Carolingian emphasis on au

thenticbooksandpropertraditions,as

well

as

correct(orcorrected)books

andteachers,had itssourceinpapalRome.Zacharyhadwritten tourge

Pepinto adheretothe "normarectitudinis,"aphrasethatsurelyneedsno

translation and very little explanation.

12 4

The synod ofVerneuil in 755

referredtoaneedtogetbackto"rectissimanorma."

125

Inpromotinghis

religiousreforms,ChrodegangofMetzoftenusedsuchphrasesas"norma

rectitudinis" and "linea rectitudinis."

126

TheAdmonitio generalisof789,

thecircularletter

Delitteris colendis

(whichmust date from around 789),

thecorrespondenceofAlcuin,andthe

LibriCarolini

arerepletewiththe

word

recte

(rightly) inallitsvariousforms.Anddoingitright,whatsoever

"it"happenedtobe,meantdoingit

moreRomano^

thewaythepopedid.In

alltheirwordsanddeeds,theFranksclungsteadfastlytothetraditionsof

papalRom e,whilethe perfidious Byzantinesattackedthe popes,ignored

their teachings, and challenged their authority. Thosewho have argued

that Charlemagne somehow setout to humiliate Hadrian orto subordi

nate him to the Frankish royal power have simply ignored the radically

papalist current in Carolingian thought and action in the 780s and

790s.

127

It is ironic but nevertheless true that the Carolingians, much

more than the popes themselves, placed the pope at the center of the

church,enhancedpapalpowers,andevokedpapalpretensions.

Onefinalineofhistoricaldevelopmentisworkedoutinthe

Libri

Caro

lini.

It might be called Christian-imperial. The

LibriCarolini

talks fairly

often about rulership,andvirtuallyeverything itsaysinvolvesimplicitor

explicit comparisons of good and bad rulership. The Byzantine rulers,

oftenderisivelytitled"kings,"arecalledarrogantanduncharitable.

128

The

point ofthesecriticisms isto drivehomethedistinction betweentheBy

zantines and the Franks, whose royal theory demanded that rulers be

humble,lovingservantsofGodandhispeople.

129

Atonepoint,Theodulf

remarks that David was ahumble minister ofG od, and evenof Christ,

whosetypehebore.

130

TheOldTestamentkings,aswehaveseen,werein

manyrespectsappropriated asmodelsbyTheodulfandtheCarolingians.


21/34

TraditionandLearning 247

The reason why the Byzant ines got their image of ru lership out of focus

wasthat theydrew their inspiration from thew orldofpagan Rom e.This

ledthemtocallthemselvesdivasandth eirofficial actsdivalia.Theyhadthe

hauteurtocomparetheir ownimagestothoseofChrist , andtocall them

selves the "equal of the apost les" (isapostolos).

131

These were t rad it ional

epithets andprotocols atB yzantium, inheritancesfrom antiquity.

1 32

T h e

odulfand his associates fixed up on them with avengeance, however, be

cause they provided a pretext for elaborating anew view of h is tory . By

viewingtheBibleastherecordofsalvationhistory,theFrankscouldinsist

that the o ld sequence o f k ingdoms runn ing from Babylon to Rome had

beenbroken.TheodulfexplicitlystatedthatRome,bywhichhemeantBy

zant ium,was theheir of Babylon.

1 3 3

Byzant iumwas, in o ther words, the

heirtotheorderthathadbeenoverthrown.Charlemagnewasthetrueheir

ofthesalvationhistoryfirstrevealedintheBible.

134

Rome's pagan inheri tance from Babylon was no t , however , the only

potent ial Frankish legacyfrom Rom e. There wasalso the Rom e of Con

stantine. It was C onstantine 's R om e, n ot that of the C aesars, that

C ha rlem ag ne sou g ht t o evo ke. T his w as a R o m e w h ose first em p er or

turned for instruction to Pope Sylvester

135

and whose most recent ruler ,

Pope Hadr ian , had addressed Charlemagne h imself as a "new Constan

t ine ."

1 3 6

Charlemagne'schapelatAachen,whichisalmostexactlycontem

porary with theLibri Carolini,expressedwell the program ofthat treatise

andi tscontrastingofByzantiumandtheFranks. I t canbecomparedwith

the imperial Chrysotryklinos, a room a lmost certa in ly known to a t least

some a t the Caro ling ian cou rt th rough d ip lomatic exchanges . In Con

stantinople, the em pero r 's thron e wasplaced in the east , behind the altar

and before amaiestasimage.A t Aachen, the altarwasin the east , but the

t hr on e m o d e led , as w e saw earlier, o n t ha t o f S olo m on w as in t he

west.A mosaicofChrist inM ajesty (orpossiblyanimageof theL am b of

God) was p laced in the cupola , regnan t over the whole scene .

1 3 7

These

comparisons se rved to demonst ra te , first, t ha t only Chris t tru ly ruled ;

earthly potentates acted in his nam e and on his behalf bu t never

reigned.

1 3 8

Second, Cons tan tine was a complex and amb iguous symbol

for theCarolingians. I tm aybetrue,asRichard Krautheimer said, that "i t

seem s as t h ou g h A n ti qu it y w ere epito m ized in th e C hristian R o m e o f

Constant ineandSylvester ."

139

But C onstant ine wasan Arian heretic and

a R o m an. I t w as n o t u ntil th e n in th century, a g en er atio n after C ha r

lemagne, that the Carolingians became comfortable with the ideal of the

first Chris t ian em pero r .

1 4 0

What was no t amb iguous at all was tha t, ac

cording to the

Libri Carolini

and the ideas prevai ling at the Carol ingian


22/34

248 T H O M A S F . X . N O B L E

court, only the Franks had been true to the correct ideal of Christian

rulership.

It istime to conclude.The LibriCarolini represents one masterfully de

signedstrategyintheCarolingianfightforhistory.Itwasonlynaturalthat

the Carolingians felt compelled to wage thatfight.Eversincethe fourth

century, Christians had been obliged to locate themselves in history.

141

Theveryfactofconversionmeantthediscoveryof

a

newhistory,which

beganwithAdamandEveandcontinueddowntocurrentevents.

14 2

Fora

longtime,ChristianandRomanuniversalismconverged.Thenthewest

ernprovincesoftheoldRomanEmpireweredividedamong

genUs

who

hadhadnopreviousplaceinbiblicalorclassicalschemesoftemporalreck

oning. As these peoples were converted to Christianity, they learned to

thinkinuniversaltermswhileseparatingthosetermsfrom thereferentsof

thevanishedRomanorder.

143

TheByzantineviewofhistorywasparadox

ical,implyingatonceadramaticchange,representedbytheadoptionof

Christianity, and a total absence of change, implicit in Roman continu

ity.

144

SoitwasthattheLibri Carolini"proclaimed,onbiblical-typological

grounds, a Christian universalism which directly opposed the constitu

tionallyfixed Byzantine claims upon world rulership."

14 5

For the Car

olingianstotaketheirplaceasChristiansintherollofnations,theyhadto

battletheByzantines.Todothis,theycontestedthemoneveryfieldthat

really mattered; the biblical, the apostolic, the ecclesiastical, and the

institutional.

Afewwidelychosenexamplesmayhelptoshowthatthehistoricalcon

cerns evidenced by theLibriCarolini were byno means unique to that

book.Wehavealreadymentionedtheparallelsdrawnbetweenthekingsof

theOldandNewIsraels.Noticewastaken,too,ofPaultheDeacon'shis

toryoftheseeofMetz.TheSacramentaryofGellone,writteninthelast

decade of the eighth century, contains alitany for the dead that begins

withNoahandgoesdowntoPeterandPaul.Thepointoftheseprayers

wastocreateasenseofcommunity"notonlyamongtheattendantsatthe

death,but betweenthem andthosewhohadprecededthem insacredhis

tory."

146

Carolingian collections of canon law tended to be "historical"

ratherthan"systematic."That is,theyorganizedtheirmaterialchronologi

callyaccordingtothecouncilsfromwhichthecanonsweretakeninstead

oftopicallyaccordingtothesubjectmattertreated.

147

Anepiscopalstatute

from the early ninth century mentions four great epochsof lawgiving:

naturallawbeforethefall;theMosaiclawof

the

OldTestament;Christ's


23/34


law and the N ew Testam ent; and the legislation of the Frankish

C h u r ch .

1 4 8

Even Carolingian l ibrary collections were organized his tor i

cally.

149

T here is need for a b ig s tudy of the Carol ingian ideaof h is tory ,

andthe intensehistorical-mindedness ofCharlemag ne andhiskeyadvisers

willdoubtless playakeyrole inth at inquiry.

T he

Libri Carolini

consti tutes anelegant metahistory that can in every

waybear favorable comparison with the more famous works of Eusebius

andOrosiusandeven,inaway,withthatofAugustine.Itisametahistory

thatseekstolocatetheFranksintheirowntimebutalsoinalltime.Thisis

whyIinsistthatN icaeaandthe issueofimagesmerelyprovidedan opp or

tuni ty for deeper reflections on larger themes. Ca n anyone be surprised

tha t a few years after the L ibri Carolini was wr it ten Char lemagne was

crowned emperor? This magnificen t book had a lready prepared for that

event by d em o n st ra ti ng th at G o d 's cov en an t w i th A b raham h ad b een

communicated to the church, preserved by the popes, and t ransferred to

the Franks. The Byzant ines , wh o a lone in the la te e igh th cen tury cou ld

havecom petedw ith theFrankson groun ds ofspiri tual andhistorical uni

versalism,hadtobewrittenoutofhistory,asitwere.Thiswasdoneintwo

ways.First,theyweremadeobjectsofalmostunspeakablescorn.Theyand

their teachings were called arrogant, contem ptible, damnable, laughable,

stupid, foolish, silly,inad equa te, inapp ropriate , incautious, superficial I

could go on and on. At Byzantium, a physicalm utilation rendered aper

son inelig ib le for h igh office. The Franks rendered the Byzant ines ineli

g ib le for h is tor ical participat ion by verbal muti lat ion . Second, and more

significantly, theLibri Carolinineatly sets asideallpossibility that the By

zantinescouldberegardedastheheirsofIsrael,theOldTestament,apos

tolictraditions,theancientcouncils,theRomanpapacy,andtheChristian

Roman Empi re . W hen Theodu lf laid down h is quill, all o f h is to ry had

beenmade to p oint to theverycourt in whichhehad been working.

What is theargument of theLibriCarolinti I t is asimpleone that goes

like this : Abraham was a F rank , and David was a Caro ling ian. Go d in

heaven rulesthe world andhis agent on earth isCharlemagne.T his book

wasnot puto n theshelfforfear that i tw ould humiliate Ha drian, because

therewaslittleinitscentralthesis,qu itea part from itsdetails,that w ould

haveoffended the pop e.A nd itwasin asensepublished and disseminated

because its basic argumen ts were preached from the pulpits of the cathe

dral and mo nastic and parishchurches that played inallwayssodecisivea

role inspreading theC arolingian reform. If the eventsofChristmas Day,

800,haveanymeaningatall,thencertainlytheideascontainedinthe Libri

Carolini w ere official. T h e b oo k has been called a Staatsschrift and a


24/34

250 T H O M A S F . X . N O B L E

Streitschrift

(polemic).

15 0

Both characterizations are accurate but incom

plete,fortheLibriCaroliniwentbeyondpoliticsandpolemicstobecome

anexceptionallylearnedworkofhistory thatcontainednothing lessthan

the fullest single expression of the ideological program of the court of

Charlemagneduringthemostcreativeyearsofhislongreign.

Hotes

1. Libri CarolinisiveCaroliMagni capitularedeimaginibus, ed . Hu ber t

Bastgen,M G H , Conci lia , pt . 2 , Supplementum (Hannover , 1924) ,

hereafter

LC.

Anew edi tion is beingprepared for theM G H byAnn

Freeman.

2. This is the t i t le given to thew ork byBastgen (citedn. 1)and often

adoptedbymodernscholars .

3. FrancoisLouisGanshof,Recherchessurlescapitulaires.

4 .

Paris,Bib liotheq ue de PArsenal, MS 6 6 3 ,fol. 1.For areproduc tion ofthis

manuscript's titlepage,see Karl derGrosse: Werkund Wirkung, p i. 33 and

p.

193 .

5.

SeeAnnFreeman, "Theodul f ofOr leans and theLibriCarolini"; "F urther

Studies in theLibri CaroliniIII";" Fu rther Studies intheLibri Carolini

I I I :

The Margina l Notes in

VaticanusLatinus 7207";

and "Theodul f of

OrleansandthePsalmCitationsof the 'Libri Carolini. '" Freeman'sgreat

op po ne nt wasLuitpo ldW allach,w hosestudiesareconveniently assembled

inhis

DiplomaticStudiesinLatin and GreekDocumentsfrom theCarolingian

Age. Wallachm aintained , atdifferent times,that Alcuinw aseither the

author or the edi tor of theLibri Carolini.Foranassessmentofthe

authorshipproblem,seePaulJ. Meyvaert , "TheAuthorshipof the 'Libri

Carol ini ': Observations Prom pted bya RecentB ook."Don ald Bullough

hastaken aslighdy different line, arguing thatA lcuinplayedarolein the

revisionofthetextat thecourt. Hisevidenceconsistsprimarilyof

a

dem onstration that textsp repared byAlcuin inhiscampaign against the

Ad optionists found theirw ayinto, at the least,b ook4 of theLC; seehis

"AlcuinandtheKingdomofHeaven:Liturgy, Theology, andtheCarolin

gianAg e,"esp.pp. 3 4 - 3 8 ( repr. in Bullough,

CarolingianRenewal:Sources

andHeritage, esp.pp . 18087).Freeman, "Add itions andC orrections to

theLibri Carolini:L inksw ithAlcuin andtheAdo ptionist Controversy,"

says that Bullough's approach "comm ands respect."There isano ther

intr iguingp roblemdiscussed byJohnM arenbon,FromtheCircleofAlcuin

totheSchoolofAuxerre: Logic,Theology, andPhilosophyintheEarlyMiddle

Ages, p p .

35ff.

Theproblemis that theso-calleddictaAlbini, som e ph ilo

sophical fragments of Alcuin, tu rn up in theLibriCarolini, wheretheyare,

inone instance, attr ibuted toAugustine. Thequestionsare:Wheredid

Th eodu lf get thismaterial? Did heknow itwasbyhiscontempo rary and

fellowcourtier?Did it enter theLC du ring revision?Answersto these

questio ns willhaveto awaitfurther research.

6. Themostvaluablestudiesof theLC areWolfram vonden Steinen,


25/34


"Entstehungsgeschichte derL ibri Carolini";von den Steinen, "Karl der

GrosseunddieLibri Carolini: Die t ironischenNotenzumCodex";Walter

Schmandt , Studien zu denLibri Carolini (I amgrateful to PaulM eyvaert for

providingm eacopyof thisstudy);and Freeman, "Carolingian O rthod oxy

andtheFateof theLibri Carolini.. Severalverywidelyheldviewscanbe

traced backto three sources: KarlH am pe, "Had rians I Vertheidigung der

zweitennicaeanischen Synode gegen dieAngriffe Karlsdes Grossen ";

Alber t Hauck,KirchengeschichteDeutschlands,2:32743;and Ge org

Ostrogorsky, "RomundByzanz imKampfurndieBilderverehrung."

Amongmanyotherworks thatmightbecited, theseseempertinent:

EdwardJamesMartin, A HistoryoftheIconoclasticControversy, p p . 2 2 2 - 5 7 ;

Ger t Haendler ,

Epochen karolingischer

Theologie:

Eine Untersuchungiiberdie

karolingischenGutachten zum byzantinischenBilderstreit,pp.2743, 6 7

101 ; S tephenG ero," Th eL ibri Carolini and the ImageControversy"; and

GirolamoArnaldi, "LaquestionedeiLibri Carolini."

7.

WalterGoffart,

TheNarratorsofBarbarian History:

Jordanes, Gregory

of

Tours,Bede,andPaul theDeacon,p.ix.

8. Th is ishardly the placefor afull bibliograph ical assessment ofthe first

period ofByzantine Iconoclasm.T he interpretation offered hereisbased

onmystudy, "JohnDamasceneandtheHistoryof theIconoclastic

Controversy,"whichcitesmucholder l i terature. Notmentionedinmy

earlierwo rkb utveryvaluable areHan s-G eorg Beck,

VonderFragwurdig

keitderIkone;PaulSpeck, "IkonoklasmusunddieAnfangedermakedo

nischen Renaissance"; Speck,"WeitereU berlegung en un d Un tersuchung en

iiberdieUrspriinge der byzantinischen Renaissance";An tonio Carile ,

"L'iconoclasmo fra bisanzioePItalia";and Peter Schreiner, "D er byzan

tinischeB ilderstreit: KritischeAnalysederzeitgenossischen M einu nge n

unddasUrteil der Nachwelt bisheute."

9. T he critical decadeofthe 780s inBy zantium hasrecentlybeen the subject

ofseveralim po rtan t studies: Speck,KaiserKonstantin VI; Judith Her r in ,

TheFormationofChristendom,pp. 408-66; andWarrenTreadgold, The

Byzantine Revival, 780-842,

pp .6 0 -1 2 6 .An interes ting assessment of

EmpressIrene isStevenRunciman, "TheEmpressIrene theAthenian."

10.

Mansi ,Concilia, 1 2 : 9 8 4 - 8 6 .

11.

Mansi ,

Concilia,

12:1056-72; andPhi l ippusJaffe ,

RegestaPontificum

Romanorum, no .2 44 8 (hereafter Jaffe, RP).

12. VenanceGrumel,LesRegestes des actesdupatriarchat deConstantinople,

no. 351; Mans i ,Concilia,12:1077-84; andJaffe ,RP, n o . 2 4 4 9 .

13. Treadgold,Byzantine Revival, p p .

4 9 - 8 1 ,

with full references atp.40 0 ,

n.9 ; andTreadgold, "T he EmpressIrene 'sPreparation for the Seventh

Ecumenical Co uncil ."

14.

T he

acta

of SecondNicaeaarepublished inMansi,

Concilia,

1 2 : 9 9 1 - 1 1 5 4 ,

13:1418.Extend ed discussions ofthecouncilm aybe found in Charles

JosephHefele and He nri Leclercq,Histoiredesconciles, p p . 6 0 1 - 8 0 4 ;

GervaisDumeige,Niceell; F.Boespflug andN . Lossky,eds. ,N iceell, 787

1987:Douzesieclesd'imagesreligieuses; JosefWohlmuth, ed. ,Streitumdas

Bild:

DaszweiteKonzil vonNicaa (787) inokumenischenPerspektive;Wilhelm


26/34

252 T H O M A S F . X . N O B L E

deVries,"DieStrukturderKirchegemassdemIIKonzilvonNicaa

(787)";andVittorioFazzo,"IIIIConciliodiNiceanellastoriacristianaed

irapporti fra RomaeBisanzio."ThereisavaluableEnglishtranslation of,

andcommentaryupon,thesixthsession (whichgavethe

horos

of

754,

its

refutation, andthe horosof

787)

inDanielJ.Sahas,Icon andLogos:Sources

in Eighth-CenturyIconoclasm.

15.

Le Liber

Pontificate,ed.LouisDuchesne,vol.1,2nded.(Paris,1955):

"Quamsynodumiamdictimissiingrecosermonesecumdeferentesuna

cumimperialibussacrismanibuspropriissubscriptis,praedictusegregius

antistesinlatinoearntranslatariiussit,etinsacrabibliothecapariter

recondi,dignamsibiorthodoxefideimemoriamaeternam faciens"

(p.512).

16.

Gero,"LibriCarolini,"hasemphasized(andperhapsexaggerated)the

importance ofthepoor translation.HealsobelievesthattheFranksmay

havehadnomorethanextractsof

the

actaofthecouncil.Intheninth

century,HincmarofReimssaidthatCharlemagnehadgottenhiscopyof

theacta f rom the pop e; seeOpusculaetepistolaequaespectantadcausam

HincmariLaudunensis,PL126:360ab.Freeman,"CarolingianOrtho

doxy,"p.68 ,thinkstha tH incmar basedhisaccountofeventsontheentry

in

theAnnales regni Francorumpertainingtothe SynodofFrankfurt in794

(ed.FriedrichKurze,M GH,SSrer.Germ. [Hannover, 1895],p.94).I

suspectthatsheisrightingeneral,buttheAnnalessaynothingaboutthe

acta. Hincm arwaseitherguessingor elsehehadanother sourceofinfor

mationofwhichweareignorant.(Pseudo-)SimeonofDurham,anno792,

ed.R.Pauli,MGH,SS13(Hannover,1881),says"KarolusrexFrancorum

misitsinodalemlibrumadBritanniamsibiaConstantinopolidirectum"

(p.

155).ScholarshaveconcludedthattheYorkannalsasquotedaboveare

substantially reliable (for afulldiscussion,seeFreeman,"Carolingian

Orthodoxy,"pp.

7778,

withnn.4248),butConstantinoplecannothave

beenthedirectsourceforCharlemagne.TheLC,aletterofHadrianto

Charlemagne (discussedbelow),anddocumentsfrom thereneweddiscus

sionofimagesundertakenatParisin825allcitetheLatintranslation,

itselfnolongerextant,towhichtheLiber Pontificaterefers.Theprefaceto

theLC merelyrefers to"textus . . adnosusquepervenit"without

elaboration (p.5).

17.

LC,Praef.: "Gestapraetereaestferme antetrienniumetalterasynodum"

(p.

3).AsFreeman,"CarolingianOrthodoxy,"

p.

71,

carefully reasons,this

statementdatesonlythepreface.Becausetheword"ferme"isimprecise,it

ispossibletothinkofTheodulf ashavingbegunworkinabout790or

791,thoughFreemanwouldprefer790.

18. ThisisFreeman'sreconstructionofthechronologyofevents;seeher

"CarolingianOrthodoxy,"pp.7 1 -75 .Shepointsout,andIagree,thatthe

mostdifficult of

all

problemsconcernspreciselywhytheFrankswentto

workatallontheLC iftheyhadknownHadrianhadembracedthe

decisionsofSecondNicaea.GiventhatTheodulfdidlaborsoassiduously

onthetext,itwouldseemthattheFrankseitherdidnotgettheircopyof

theactadirectlyfrom thepope,orelsetheydidnot thinkthecopythathad


27/34

253

raditionandLearning

beensentto themboretheofficial stampofpapalapproval.Foranin

geniousbutunpersuasive reconstructionofthechronologyoftheseyears,

consistingessentiallyofanattempttomovethe LC toaround794,see

Arnaldi,"LaquestionedeiLibriCarolini."

19. EpistolaeHadriani I.papae, no.2,ed.ErnstDiimmler,MGH,Epp.5

(Berlin, 1899),pp. 5-57 .

20.

Seethestudiescitedabove,nn. 5and6,esp.thosebyFreeman.

21. Schmandt,Studien,p.6.

22. Freeman,"CarolingianOrthodoxy,"p.86.

23. SuchwasthebeliefofthebishopswhogatheredinParisin825foranew

discussionofimages;Concilia aevikarolini,no.44,ed.AlbertWerming

hoff,MGH,Concilia,pt.2 (Hannover, 1908):"Eandemporro synodum

cumsanctaememoriaegenitorvester [thiswasaddressedtoLouisthe

Pious]coramsesuisqueperlegifecissetetmultisinlocis,utdignumerat,

reprehendisset" (p.481).

24. Seeesp.Freeman,"FurtherStudiesIII,"pp.597612.

25.

Freeman,"CarolingianOrthodoxy,"p.96andn.125.

26. Hincmar's testimonyiscitedbyFreeman,"CarolingianOrthodoxy" (from

Paris,B.N.,lat.2865):"Nonmodicumvolumen,quodinpalatioadoles

centuluslegi"(p.96,n.121).

27.

Freeman,"CarolingianOrthodoxy,"pp. 100105,pointsoutthat nowhere

intherichtestimony from825 isthereasinglereference to LC.

28.

Ibid.,pp.96-99.

29.

AngeloMercati,"PerlastoriadelcodiceVaticanodeiLibriCarolini,"

pp. 112-19. Freemanargues,plausibly,thatthismanuscriptwasdestroyed

intheriotafter thedeathofPaulIVin 1559,whenamobsackedtheHoly

Office andburned allthebookstheycouldfind;see"Carolingian Ortho

doxy,"p.97,n. 127.

30.

Paris,B.N., lat.12125,fol.157.SeeFreeman,"FurtherStudiesIII,"

pp.

21819;andFreeman,"CarolingianOrthodoxy,"p.66.

31. Schmandt,Studien,p.1.

32. HampeandHauck, asinn.6,above;andJohannesHaller,Das Papsttum:

Idee und

Wirklichkeit,

2:15.Haller'shighlyinfluentialworkisstillinprint,

recentlyin paperback.

33. SeetheworksofvondenSteinen,Freeman,andArnaldi(citedn.6,

above).

34.

CharlemagneandHadrianwerealliesandcooperated inmanyventures.

On this

alliance,

seemyThe Republic ofSt.Peter:The Birth of the Papal

State, 680-825, pp.256-76.AquickconsultationofJaffe,RP,no.

2467ff,

willsuffice toshowthatCharlemagneandHadrian carriedon allsortsof

routinebusinessduringthewholeperiodwhentheLCwasinpreparation.

Forsomerepresentativestatements from theLConthepapacy,see,LC

1.5-6,

pp.19,20-22.

35. See,e.g.,R.I.Moore ,TheFormation of a Persecuting Society,pp.69,134.

36.

Fora

summary

ofthe

filioque

struggle

intheageof

Charlemagne,

see

Richard H a u g h ,

Photius

and the

Carolingians:

The

TrinitarianControversy,

pp. 4 1 - 8 1 .And

LC

3.3,pp.110-13 ,mentions

thcfilioque

issue.


28/34

254 T H O M A S F . X . N O B L E

37.

Noble,

Republic of St.Peter,

pp.138-83.

38. Freeman,"CarolingianOrthodoxy,"pp.72-73,n.31;seealsoMeyvaert,

"Authorship,"pp.40-42.

39. LC,

Praef,esp.pp. 23.

40. LC,Praef.:

"cumconhibentia sacerdotuminregnoaDeonobisconcesso

catholicisgregibuspraelatorum" (p.5).FortheAdoptionist issue,see

Concilia aevi karolini,

no. 19,ed.Werminghoff, MGH,Concilia,pt.1

(Hannover andLeipzig, 1906),pp. 11064;for

filioque,

ibid.,no.33,

pp.

235-44.

41. Ganshof,"ObservationssurlesynodedeFrancfort de794."

42. Concilia aevi karolini,

no. 19,ed.Werminghoff, MGH,Concilia,pt.1,

p.

165.

43.

Ibid.,pp. 165-66.

44. Hans

Barion,

Dasfrdnkisch-deutsche Synodalrecbt desFruhmittelalters,

pp.252-53,265-66.

45.

Freeman,"CarolingianOrthodoxy,"offers theinterestingspeculationthat

"thereisreasontothinkthatwhentheCouncilassembledtheimage

questionwasnotontheagenda"(p.92).Itiscertainlytruethatitwasnot

emphasized.

46. Concilia aevi karolini,

no. 19,ed.Werminghoff, MGH,Concilia,pt.1:

"AllataestinmediodenovaGrecorumsynodo,quamdeadorandis

imaginibusConstantinopolimfecerunt; inquascriptumhabebatur,utqui

imaginessanctorumitautdeificamtrinitatemservitioautadorationemnon

inpenderent,anathemaiudicaverunt"(p.165).

47.

Freeman,"CarolingianOrthodoxy,"pp.92-95,givesaverycareful

readingoftheseevents.

48. Annales regni Francorum,

anno793,ed.Kurze,p.94.

49. Freeman,"CarolingianOrthodoxy,"pp.8792.

50. Ep.

Hadrianil,

no.2,ed.Diimmler,p.57.

51. Ibid.,pp.55-56.

52.

MariaAndoloro,"IILiberPontificalisetlequestionedelleimmaginida

SergioIaAdrianoI."Herviewswillhavetoawaitconfirmation,butif

thereisanythingtothem,theywouldpointtoanextremelypoliticgesture

onHadrian'spart,particularlybecause,asFlorentineMiitherichand

HenryMayr-Hartunghaveargued,itisverydifficult toshowthatthe

LC

hadanyclearimpactonFrankishart;see,respectively,"ILibriCaroliniela

miniaturacarolingia";and"CharlemagneasaPatronofArt."

53.

Eginhard,Viede

Charlemagne,

chap.19,ed.andtrans.LouisHalphen,4th

ed.(Paris,1967),p.60.

54.

Theworkhasageneralpreface,andthenbooks2through4havebriefer

individualprefaces.Thebookscontainthefollowingnumberofchapters:

bk.1= 30;bk.2 =

3 1 ;

bk.3= 31;bk.4=28.

55.

LC1.9,pp.26-28.

56. LC

1.10, 1.12, 1.13, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.18, 1.21,pp.28-29 ,31-32, 32

33,

34-37,37-39,39-42,42-44,48-49.

57. LC

1.22,1.23, 1.25, 1.26, 1.29, 1.30,2.1-2,2.3,2.4,2.5,2.7-8,pp.5 0

52,

53-54,54-55,56-57,57-59,60,63-64,64-65,65-66,66-68,


29/34

255

raditionandLearning

69. Foradiscussionoftheextensivecorrections inthissectionofthe

LC,

seeFreeman,"FurtherStudiesIII,"pp.214-15.

58.

Forsomeexamples:LC 1.9, 1.29,2.1,pp.26-28 ,57 -59,63.

59.

LC 1.5, 1.15, 1.17, 1.18, 1.19, 1.20,pp.18-19,34-37, 39-42 , 42 -44,

4445,48.Mostofthepassagescitedinn.57arerelevanthereaswell.In

fact,virtuallyeverychapterinbooks 1and2concernsexegeticalmatters.

60.

JohnJ.Contreni, "CarolingianBiblicalStudies,"esp.pp.71-77; Robert

E.McNally,TheBibleintheEarlyMiddle Ages,pp.

20ff.,

esp.:"The

Carolingian renaissancecanbecharacterizedasarebirth oftheChristian

aspiration for biblicalspiritualityandbiblicalstudies"(p.20).

61. ThethreesourcesthatspelloutmostclearlythecontoursofCharlemagne's

programare:thepreface totheAdmonitiogeneralis(MGH,Capit.,no.22,

ed.Alfred Boretius,vol.1[Hannover, 1883],pp.53-54);theEpistola de

litteris colendis(ibid.,no.29,p.79);andthecyclicallettersentoutwith

PaultheDeacon'srevisionofthe lectionary (ibid.,no.30,pp.8081).For

thewidercontextofCharlemagne'seducationalprogram,seeContreni's

chapterinthisvolume,chap.3,andtheliteraturecitedbyhim.

62. Admonitiogeneralis,MGH,Capit.,no.22,ed.Boretius,1:53-54.The

preface to theAdmonitioisalmostcertainlytheworkofAlcuin;see

Friedrich-CarlScheibe,"Alcuinund dieAdmonitioGeneralis."Bullough

acceptsScheibe'sarguments;seehis"AlcuinandtheKingdomofHeaven,"

p.24;and AulaRenovata:TheCarolingianCourt beforetheAachen

Palace,"p.294 (repr.inBullough,

Carolingian Renewal,

p.142).Idonot

sharethereservationsofRosamondMcKitterick,

The

Frankish Church

and

theCarolingianReforms, 789-895, p.1.IwishtothankKatyCubittand

PatrickWormaldfor interestingandhelpful discussionsofthismatter.

63. EpistolaevariorumCaroloMagno regnantescriptae,no.7,ed.Diimmler,

MGH,Epp.4(Berlin, 1895),p.503.

64.

Heinrich Fichtenau, "ByzanzunddiePfalzzuAachen,"pp.2526;Horst

Appuhn, "ZumThron KarlsdesGrossen,"pp. 12729;andRoderich

Schmidt,"ZurGeschichtedesfrankischen Konigsthrons."

65.

AlcviniEpistolae,no. 145,ed.Diimmler,MGH,Epp.4:235.

66.

Pauli et

Petri Diaconorum

Carmina,no. 14,ed.ErnstDiimmler,MGH,

Poetae1(Berlin, 1881),p.52.SeeFichtenau,"Pfalz,"p.29andn. 144.

67.

Mostfamously inthededicatoryversestotheDagulfPsalter:MGH,

Poetae 1:9091;andinthepoembyAngilbertwiththefrequent refrain

"Davidamatvates,"ibid.,pp.360-63.ThereisaLatintextandEnglish

translationof

this

poeminPeterGodman,Poetryof theCarolingian

Renaissance, pp. 11219.ForthedateoftheDagulfPsalter,seeLawrence

Nees'sreview ofKur t Holter ,ed.,DergoldenePsalter

cc

DagulfPsalter, in

Art Bulletin67 (1985):681-90 .AnotherDavidappellation from thesame

periodmaybefound inAlcvini Epistolae, no.41,ed.Diimmler,MGH,

Epp.

4:84.

68. Peter Godman,PoetsandEmperors:Frankish PoliticsandCarolingianPoetry,

pp.

65-66.

69.

LC 1.1,p.9.

70. Fichtenau,"Pfalz,"pp.30,32-34.


30/34

256 T H O M A S F . X . N O B L E

71. CodexCarolinus, no .39,ed.WilhelmGundlach,MGH,Epp.3(Berlin,

1892),p.552.

72. LexSalica, ed.KarlAugustusEckhardt,M GH ,LegumSectioI,Legum

Nationum Germanicarum,vol.4,pt.2 (Hannover, 1969),pp.19.

73. LC 1.19, p.44.O nthe FranksasaNewIsrael,seeEugenEwig,"Zum

christlichenKonigsgedankenimFriihmittelalter,"pp.39-45;andRobert

Folz,

The CoronationofCharlemagne 25 December

800

,

pp.97-100.

74. Forsomeexamples:AdmonitiogeneraliseMGH,Capit.,no.22,chap.62,

ed.Boretius,1:58;AnnalesregniFrancorum, anno791,ed.Kurze,p.88;

PaulinusofAquileia,

Libellus adversusElipandum,

ed.

Werminghoff,

MGH,

Concilia,pt.1,p.142;AlcviniEpistolae,no.41,ed.Diimmler,MGH,Epp.

4:84.ClaudioLeonardihasdevelopedafascinatingargumentforthe

centralityofAlcuinto theuniversalizingandhistoricizingefforts atthe

court;seehis"Alcuinoelascuolapalatina:Leambizionidiunacultura

unitaria,"1:459-96.SurelyAlcuinhadlittletoteachTheodulf

along

these

lines.

75. LC2.25,pp.84-85.

76. LC 2 .30-31 ,pp.92-102,esp.95-96.Theultimatesourceforthispoint

ofviewistheworkofAugustine,esp. Dedoctrina

Christiana.

77.

SoMcKitterick,"TextandImageintheCarolingianWorld."

78.

LC 1.5, p.19.

79. LC 3.4,3.6,3.7,3.10,3.17,3.18,3.19,3.20,3.26,pp.113-15,116-19,

119-20, 122-23, 138-40, 140-42, 143-45, 158-61.

80. LC2.17, p .77.

81. Forexample,in LC 2.27,p.87,TheodulfcriticizestheGreeksforclaiming

thatthebodyandbloodofChristwereimages.Infact,atSecondNicaea

theCouncilofHiereiawascondemned forthisteaching.Anotherexample

concernsthe refutation in787ofthe754teachingsbythedeacon

Epiphanios,whowastakenbytheCarolingianstohaveadvanced thevery

argument hewasrefuting; see

LC

4.15,pp.2012.

82. LC 2.17,p.76,containsanadmissionthattheFranksknowneither

GregoryofNyssanorhisworks,while2.20,p .79,admits unfamiliarity

withabookof

Cyril

ofAlexandria.

83. LC,Praef,p.3.

84. LC 2.9,p.70.Thisisthebasicargumentof LC;cf.Praef.,p.3;2.13,3.16,

pp.

73,138.

85.

LCI.17 , p . 41 .

86. LCI.23 , p . 51 .

87.

LCI.29,p. 57.

88.

LC 4.2,

p.175.

89. LC,Praef.,p.4.

90. LC 2 .23 ,pp.81 -82 .O ntheactualmeaningofGregory'sletter,seeCelia

M.Chazelle,"Pictures,BooksandtheIlliterate:PopeGregoryPsLetters

toSerenusofMarseilles."Forabrilliantdiscussionofathousandyearsof

interpretationofGregory'sletters,seeLawrenceG.Duggan,"WasArt

Reallythe'Bookof

the

Illiterate'?"

91. LC 1.18, 2.2 1,3.16,pp.4 0 -4 2 ,80,1 36 -38.Foranilluminating


31/34


discussionofthissubject,seeDavidAppleb

Libri Carolini2

Documents

Transcript of Libri Carolini2