| |
This document sets out the families of Frankish nobility from the late8th to 10th centuries, covering the period of rule by the Carolingianmonarchs. It shows nobles associated with the Carolingian empireprior to the partition of territories agreed under the 843 Treaty ofVerdun and, after that date, those connected mainly with the westernFrankish kingdom. Early nobility which can be linked post-843principally with the eastern Frankish kingdom, or with one of theoriginal provinces of Germany, is found in the document GERMANY, EARLYNOBILITY. There is inevitably some overlap in the coverage of thesetwo documents due to the fluidity of movement of the nobility withinthe empire, as discussed further below. The Merovingian nobility inearlier centuries is shown in the document MEROVINGIAN NOBILITY.Similarity of names suggests many unprovable connections between theCarolingian nobility and the earlier Merovingian nobility. It is feltthat, in the absence of direct proof from primary sources, speculationabout family connections is unproductive, especially if based solelyon onomastics, given the numerous possible family relationshipsthrough both agnatic and cognatic lines. Nineteen family groups of Carolingian nobility have been partiallyreconstructed. These are set out in the different parts of Chapter 1.They include the descendants of junior members of the Carolingianroyal family: the family of Nibelung (descendants of Childebrand,illegitimate son of Pepin [II] "le Gros" maior domus of Neustria), andthe descendants of Bernard and Hieronymus, illegitimate sons ofCharles "Martel". The children of Bernard included the monks Adalhardand Walo, prominent figures at court under both Emperor Charlemagneand his son Emperor Louis I, while the descendants of Hieronymus wereclosely associated with the monastery of Saint-Bertin in Flanders.Many of the family reconstructions are sketchy and uncertain. Inaddition, numerous references have been found to nobles who cannot atthis time be linked with any confidence to any family grouping. Theyare set out in Chapter 2, in alphabetical order and split between the8th, 9th and 10th centuries for ease of reference. It is hoped thatthis method of displaying the information will facilitate the correctincorporation of further data as it comes to light and maximise thechances of positing more family connections. The difficulty in reliably reconstructing the families of theCarolingian nobility is due to the relative absence of information incontemporary primary sources concerning family relationships.References in royal and imperial diplomas are mainly limited to thenames and titles of subscribers or of those "faithful nobility" whoare recorded as present. Events recounted in contemporary chroniclesrarely place the nobles in their family context, despite the fact thatthe family of the Carolingian monarchs can be reconstructed withrelative certainty from these sources. Other sources are selective inthe family information which they record, in line with the purpose forwhich the documents were created. For example, contemporary recordsof saintly lives mainly name other saintly relatives of the eponymoussaint, adding to the aura of sanctity of the main protagonist, andusually ignore lay members of the family. For example, the VitaAdalhardi, which records the life and deeds of Adalhard (nephew ofKing Pepin "le Bref") names his five brothers and sisters whose liveswere devoted to religion[1]. The Vita Fulcuini deals with thedescendants of Hieronymus, another nephew of King Pepin, but alsoconcentrates almost exclusively on family members with a monasticvocation, to such an extent that at least two generations of thefamily appear to have been ignored altogether[2]. In the case of boththese families, closely related to the Carolingian monarchs, it isreasonable to suppose that other unknown siblings led military ordiplomatic careers or, in the case of daughters, married into othernoble families. Information obtained from these sources issupplemented by some unusual lists of names from the Carolingian era.These include a list of Saxons in Westphalia and Ostphalia, datedJan/Feb 802, which records the names of 32 Saxons (also naming theirfathers) each linked to the name of a Frankish nobleman[3]. From thecontext, it appears that the Franks were assigned responsibility forthe allegiance sworn to the emperor by the Saxon captives, althoughthis is not specified in the document. Among the Franks listed, areeight with the title count (Ansbert, Audracus, Bertold, Gereman,Ripoin, Unruoch, Vulfald and Waning), most of whom are also named inother contemporary records. Other useful lists are the signatories ofpeace with the Vikings in 811[4], and the fifteen witnesses of thetestament of Emperor Charlemagne dated 811[5]. A greater amount ofgenealogical information is contained in two other sources whichdeserve special mention: the Manual of Dhuoda, which records advicefrom Doda (wife of Bernard Marquis of Septimania) to her sonGuillaume, later count of Bordeaux[6], and the so-called donation ofEkkehard, a series of documents which record the testamentarydispositions of count Ekkehard, who died in [876/77], and name 43different individuals (not all of whom can be identified withcertainty)[7]. This apparent lack of interest in family relationships in Carolingianera primary sources may be due to the fluidity of movement of Frankishnobles within the Carolingian empire. The sources reveal continualchanges in appointments of nobles to govern particular territories.In many cases, there is no apparent family connection betweensuccessive appointees. For example, any family relationship betweenthe three counts of Auvergne noted in this document in the middleyears of the 9th century is unproven. In the case of the county ofParis, this is recorded in the late 8th and early 9th centuries asbeing held by count Gérard [I] and two of his sons, but was alsogoverned by count Enguerrand, who was apparently unrelated to theearlier and later counts, during the later years of the 8th century.The example of count Gérard also shows that sources, especially in theearlier period, rarely specify which territory a particular countgoverned. Gérard, whose death is recorded in 779, is known to historyas count of Paris. However, he is named in five charters datedbetween 747 and 775, none of which refer to his territorial holdingwhen noting his title. Count Gérard's family also demonstrates howmany different territories could be held at different times by membersof a single family, his sons being recorded as counts of Paris,marquis of Septimania and count of Fezensac, while the latter's sonwas count of Vienne. Insufficient information has been found to provewhether this practice of changing appointments resulted from aconscious decision on the part of the Carolingian monarchs to avoidcreating new local power-bases, although the examples of Bavaria andAquitaine, where the ruling families were a constant thorn in the sideof King Pepin in the mid-8th century, would have justified such apolicy. A further factor was the geographical extent of the empirewhich inevitably meant rebellions would sprout in different placesfrom time to time. The focus for enforcing control would thereforechange over time. The central imperial authorities reacted quickly tothese situations, as shown by the late 8th and early 9th centuryFrankish appointments to rule the duchy of Spoleto and the march ofFriulia, and the installation of Wido as count and prefect in themarch of Brittany in the late 790s. However, control of suchterritories rarely passed between family members. The last pointwhich demonstrates the lack of strong territorial connections amongthe nobility is the process of appointing trusted members of thesenior nobility as royal or imperial missi, often named incontemporary documentation in pairs, one nominee being a religiousfigure, the other from the lay nobility. The role of missus was aflexible one. Some missi led diplomatic missions to other courts(notably to the Byzantine emperors), while others are recorded ascommanding armies of conquest (for example in the subjugation ofSaxony and the march of Spain). However, one individual could beappointed successively as missus in many different areas of theempire, although the sources are not sufficiently precise to determinehow long each appointment lasted. Nor is it clear whether the missiwere appointed only for a specific mission or whether there werelong-term missi appointed as resident imperial representatives inparticular territories. The result of all these various factors isthat recording the names of other family members of a newly appointedofficial was presumably considered irrelevant by the compiler of achronicle, if the relative had no prior connection with the territoryin question. The difficulties in family reconstruction are highlighted by theexample of the family of the various individuals named Nibelung,Childebrand and Theoderic (Chapter 1, part J). If a precisereconstruction of this family presents challenges, despite theseunusual names which should in the normal course greatly facilitatefamily reconstruction, it is unsurprising that even greaterdifficulties arise where the family names are more common. There is also remarkably little information available on the wives ofthe Carolingian nobility. In most cases, their names are not knownand, where they are named in the sources, it is rare to find areference to their parentage. Only relatively few male line descents from Carolingian nobility canbe traced into later times. This document shows descents to the latercomtes d'Angoulême, different ruling families of the duchy of Spoleto,the dukes of Aquitaine, the marchesi of Friulia (later, kings ofItaly), the vicomtes de Turenne, the comtes de Vermandois, and maybethe comtes de Metz. However, there are many examples of names used bythe early Carolingian nobility which are similar to those used bylater nobility in France, suggesting a large number of other descentswhich are unascertainable because of the absence of data in thesources. A few words on titles. The title comes palatii, recorded sofrequently among the nobility of the later Merovingian period, isrelatively absent from sources which name Carolingian nobility. Onlyfour examples are cited in the current document: those of Chrodoin (in770), Anselm ([775]), Adalhard [I] (800), and Adalhard [II] (824). Itis possible that this title was of less significance during theCarolingian era as the Carolingian monarchs ruled their empire byconstantly travelling from palace to palace, as shown from the placeswhere imperial diploma were issued. It is nevertheless clear that thetitle was never forgotten, as shown by the importance which theposition "Pfalzgraf" (presumably derived from comes palatii) lateracquired in the German courts of Bavaria, Lotharingia and Saxony. Thevast majority of titled Carolingian nobles are described as "count".The only recorded examples of "dux" so far identified are the singlereference in Thegan's Vita Hludowici Imperatoris to the first wife ofEmperor Louis I being "filiam nobilissimi ducisIngorammi…Irmingarda"[8] (which may have been included to boost theprestige of the emperor's wife's family rather than reflect thereality of a ducal position), and the reference of "Burchardus miles,filius Alberici ducis" in the charter of "Lotharius…Francorum rex"dated 10 Dec 958[9] ("Albericus dux" has not been identified from anyother source). Semi-autonomous territories in Italy, such as Spoleto,continued to be ruled by dukes, apparently the only exception. Noother official titles are cited in early Carolingian diplomas, whichcontrasts with the numerous court officials such as grafio,domesticus, and referendarius, who are named in documentation from theMerovingian period. |
Roger Engelken
visit the user's profile page