| |
This document sets out the families of Merovingian Frankish nobilityfrom the 6th to the mid-8th centuries. Later Frankish nobility (thoserecorded for the first time after approximately 770) is shown in thedocument CAROLINGIAN NOBILITY. The families of the maiores domus of the three Merovingian kingdoms ofAustrasia, Burgundy and Neustria are set out in chapters 1, 2 and 3 ofthis document. During Merovingian times, the "maior domus" was thehead of the royal household. The earliest reference so far identifiedto a maior domus in the kingdom of Neustria dates from the last decadeof the 6th century. Maiores domus are recorded in the kingdom ofBurgundy between the 580s and [643], when the kingdom was ruled by theMerovingian Franks. A maior domus in Austrasia was appointed for thefirst time in [Dec 633/Jan 634], when King Dagobert I named his infantson Sigebert as king of Austrasia, the maior domus acting in thecapacity of regent. The earliest reference so far found to a maiordomus in the kingdom of Burgundy is Fredegar's record of the death ofWarnachar [I] in [600/01][1]. On the death of Warnachar [II] in 627,the Burgundian nobles decided to have no further maior domus but to beruled directly by the king[2], although Queen Nantechildis appointedFlaochad as maior domus of Burgundy in 642. He is the last recordedmaior domus in Burgundy. The traditional view of the maiores domus at the Merovingian courts isthat they assumed a dominant role in the kingdoms of Austrasia andNeustria, and relegated the kings to a subservient position, whichjustified the general nickname "les rois fainéants" which has oftenbeen applied to these monarchs. This appears to over-simplify thesituation. It is true that after the death of King Childebert III in711 the throne passed to a series of weak kings, whose accession wasmanipulated by different factions of nobles in the two kingdoms, untilin 751 maior domus Pépin [III] "le Bref" declared himself King of theFranks with Papal approval and ended the Merovingian kingdom.However, before 711, charter evidence suggests that the role of themaior domus in administration of the Merovingian state may not havebeen so dominant as may appear from the description of events recordedin contemporary or near-contemporary chronicles such as Fredegar (andhis Continuators) and the Liber Historiæ Francorum. For example, nomaior domus is named in any of the surviving charters of KingsDagobert I, Clotaire III, Dagobert II or Clovis III. Only one of theseven surviving charters of King Childeric II names his maior domusWulfoald, and only one of the twelve surviving charters of KingTheoderic III names three of his past maiores domus as well as hiscurrent maior domus Berchar. Even as late as the reign of KingChildebert III (who succeeded in 695), the names of his maiores domusPépin [II] and Pépin´s son Grimoald only appear in four of thethirteen surviving charters. It is accepted that there is no way ofknowing what proportion the surviving charters represent of the totalamount of documentation produced at court. In addition, charters donot necessarily provide conclusive proof, as they mainly relate today-to-day administrative activities in religious and judicial areas.However, the numbers are striking and suggest that the traditionalview deserves some reassessment. Contemporary documentation includes references to numerous otherMerovingian nobles, with the title dux, comes, or an administrativetitle which refers to their role at court. These other nobles areshown in Chapter 4 of this document. From the late 6th to the late 7th centuries, the primary sources namenumerous Merovingian nobles with the title dux. A territorialattribution is applied to some of these individuals, but the majorityare not linked to any specific area of the Frankish kingdom. Morethan twenty duces without specified territories have been identified.In addition, duces are named in Auvergne, Champagne, Gascony andTransjurania (part of the kingdom of Burgundy) during the 7th century,although the documentation does not reveal whether the individuals whosuccessively held these titles were related or not. It is suggestedthat the Merovingian duces were primarily military appointees, in linewith the Roman tradition, and that their jurisdiction over localareas, if any, was limited to military purposes. If this is correct,these nobles were not “dukes”, in the sense in which the term wasapplied in later centuries to indicate the highest level of nobilityimmediately below the king and above counts. This hypothesis appearscorroborated by the relative absence of duces from survivingMerovingian charters, which suggests that the duces fulfilled littleformal role at court. Most of the mentions of these nobles are foundin chronicles, in the record of military exploits. Nor does it appearthat the early Merovingian duces were regional rulers, likecontemporary dukes of neighbouring regions such as Bavaria andAlemannia, whose appointments conferred a large degree of localautonomy in the territories which they administered. If this had beenthe case, one would have expected to find their names in contemporarycharters relating to property in the territories over which theypresided. An isolated example of a ducal appointment which apparentlydid include territorial jurisdiction is provided in Fredegar(Continuator) which records that Pépin [II] maior domus of Neustriaand Austrasia invested his son Drogo as dux in Champagne in[688/90][3], and dux of the Burgunds after 697. However, this shouldnot provide a basis for assuming that the 6th and earlier 7th centuryducal appointments involved territorial attribution. Few referencesto Merovingian duces have been found after the mid-7th century. It issuggested that the practice of appointing duces declined with the risein power of the maiores domus in the Merovingian Frankish kingdoms,and that the maior domus assumed greater personal control overmilitary affairs to avoid the emergence of rival power bases in thearmy. After the decline in the number of references to duces, observed fromthe mid-7th century, those surviving Merovingian charters whichinclude lists of subscribers or witnesses mainly name individuals whoare described as “viri inlustri” (or similar epithets) without nobletitles. This can be observed particularly in the charters of KingsClotaire III, Theoderic III, Clovis III, and Childebert III, whoreigned between 657 and 711, although it is recognised that the numberof these subscribed charters are too few (nine out of the total 46 inthe MGH compilation for this period[4], without including the chartersclassified as spurious) to reach definite conclusions about prevailingnoble titles. The first charter which names an individual with the title “comes” isdated 635[5]. However, this is an isolated example and it is notuntil 693 that we find a surviving charter which names several nobleswith the unqualified title “comes”[6], although an official with thetitle “comes palatii“ is first recorded in a charter dated 653[7].From the early 8th century, the presence in charters of nobles withthe title “count” is relatively frequent, especially in chartersissued by the maior domus. This suggests that, by this time, the bodyof counts had established themselves as part of the inner circle ofnobles at court, in contrast to the position of the duces in the 6thand 7th centuries. However, the documentation includes nogeographical epithets applied to these counts. In addition, allcharters dated before the Carolingian period identify specificlocations which are the subject of the grant or donation only byreference to the relevant pagus not a county. It is therefore not atall clear whether these Merovingian “counts” were local rulers of“counties”, in the sense of fulfilling a role in local administration,or whether the titles were mainly honorific. More than a hundred suchcounts have been identified. Only in very few cases has it beenpossible to establish family relationships between these individuals,or between the 7th and 8th century Merovingian nobility and laternobility in either the West Frankish kingdom (see the documentCAROLINGIAN NOBILITY) or East Frankish kingdom (see GERMANY EARLYNOBILITY), although many of the names of the early Merovingian noblesare repeated among the later Frankish nobility. The known court titles include comes palatii, grafio, domesticus, andreferendarius, presumably in descending order of precedence as shownby the charter dated 28 Feb 693 of King Clovis III, which namesindividuals in each category in this order[8]. One interesting pointrelates to the nature of the appointment of the "comes palatii" at theMerovingian court. Presumably these officials were assigned importantadministrative duties, although the precise nature of these cannot beidentified from the available sources. However, in contrast to themaiores domus, large numbers of successive comes palatii are named inthe royal charters. The same person rarely appears more than twice,which suggests that their appointments may have been short-term, thepost possibly being held in rotation by senior nobility at court. Inaddition, in charters which list several named nobles, the comespalatii is not generally named first in the list, suggesting that theoffice-holder enjoyed no position of precedence. In the 7th centurythe documentation indicates that the comes palatii held a subordinateposition at court compared to the maior domus. However, it appearsthat their position may have evolved over time, possibly replacingthat of the maior domus after the accession of the Carolingiandynasty. For example, Wicbert is recorded as the only comes palatiiof Pépin I King of the Franks between 752 and 759[9]. [1] Fredegar, IV, 18, MGH SS rer Merov II, p. 128. [2] McKitterick, R. (1983) Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians751-987 (Longman, London and New York), p. 25. [3] Fredegar (Continuator), 6, MGH SS rer Merov II, p. 172. [4] MGH DD Mer (1872), Diplomata Regum Francorum, nos. 25, 28, 31, 33,43, 57, 60, 66, and 70, pp. 31-79. [5] MGH DD Mer (1872), Diplomata Regum Francorum, no. 15, p. 16. [6] MGH DD Mer (1872), Diplomata Regum Francorum, no. 66, p. 58. [7] MGH DD Mer (1872), Diplomata Regum Francorum, no. 19, p. 19. [8] MGH DD Mer (1872), Diplomata Regum Francorum, no. 66, p. 58. [9] DD Kar. 1, 1, p. 3, 6, p. 9, and 12, p. 17. |
Roger Engelken
visit the user's profile page