Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T07:19:05.726Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Charlemagne and Alcuin: Diplomatic Studies in Carolingian Epistolography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2016

Luitpold Wallach
Luitpold Wallach*
Affiliation:
Cornell University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Legislative documents from the rulers of Germanic states established in former Roman territories are frequently the work of men of Roman descent. Thus Leo of Narbonne was probably the main helper of the Visigothic King Euric, and the Gallo-Roman Syagrius, of the Burgundian Gundobad. The Ostrogoths had Roman jurists in their service; one of these wrote the Edictum Theoderici. Cassiodorus is the author not only of the Variae, a selection of documents composed by him as chancellor of Theoderic the Great, but also of the Edictum Athalarici. The Merovingians Chlodewig and Childebert I employed Gallo-Roman administrators; the patrician Parthenius was an official of the Austrasian King Theudebert I. The need for Roman officials in Germanic governments disappeared largely with the growth of genuine Germanic political and legal institutions. Charlemagne's leading helpers were therefore no longer descendants of the old senatorial nobility which survived in Gaul and Italy, but mostly men of Germanic origin. On the other hand, of all the brilliant scholars of Saxon, Lombard, Spanish-Gothic, and Italic origin in Charlemagne's cosmopolitan entourage, one man alone achieved great political prominence: Alcuin, the Saxon nobleman from the British kingdom of Northumbria. A little-known phase of his activities in the empire of Charlemagne will be investigated here.

Type
Articles
Information
Traditio , Volume 9 , 1953 , pp. 127 - 154
Copyright
Copyright © The Fordham University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

∗ The observations made in this paragraph will be fully developed in Ch. VI I, C Alcuin and the Reception of the Lex Romana Visigothorum by Charlemagne, I of the writer's forthcoming study, The Via Regia of Charlemagne. Google Scholar

1 The letters of Charlemagne are published in various volumes of the MGH: Epistolae 4 and 5; Concilia 2.1; Capitularia 1; for the letters addressed to Amalarius of Trèves, see now the edition by Hanssens, I. M., in his Amalarii Episcopi Opera Liturgica I (Studi e Testi 138; Città del Vaticano 1948); for his letter to Pope Hadrian I, see the ed. by Munding, E., Königsbrief Karls d. Gr. an Papst Hadrian (Texte und Arbeiten ed. Beuron, Erzabtei 1.6, Leipzig 1920; cf. also Levison in Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 43 [1920] 464ff.; Erben, W., ibid. 46 [1926] 11-13, and Historische Zeitschrift 127 [1923] 289-291). Cf. also von den Steinen, W., Karl der Grosse: Leben und Briefe (Breslau 1928).Google Scholar

2 Bresslau, , Handbuch der Urkundenlehre für Deutschland und Italien I (2nd ed. Leipzig 1912) 381–382; Paoli, C., Diplomatica (ed. Bascape, G. S.; Florence 1942) 34-35. Ganshof, F. L., ‘Charlemagne et l’usage de l’écrit en matière administrative,’ Le Moyen Age 57 (1951) 18.Google Scholar

3 Alcuin, , Epist. 27 ‘regiae voluntatis secretarius’ (ed. Dümmler, Ernst, MGH Epistolae 4 [1895] 69.15); I assume that the term has in this instance a secular, and not an ecclesiastical meaning.Google Scholar

4 Sickel, Th., ‘Alkuinstudien,’ Sitzungsberichte Akademie Wien 79 (1875) 532–533.Google Scholar

5 So Erdmann, C., Archiv für Urkundanforschung 16 (1939) 184; we are better informed on later collections of letters. See Erdmann, , ‘Briefsammlungen,’ in Wattenbach, Wilhelm, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter I (ed. Holtzmann, Robert; Tübingen 1948) 415-542, 836-837.Google Scholar

6 Mühlbacher, E., MGH Diplomatum Kurolinorum 1 (1906).Google Scholar

7 Wallach, L., ‘Charlemagne’s De litteris colendis and Alcuin,’ Speculum 26 (1951) 288–305.Google Scholar

8 Neff, P., Die Gedichte des Paulus Diaconus (München 1908) nos. 33, 34, 41.Google Scholar

9 Wallach, L., ‘Alcuin’s Epitaph of Hadrian I,’ American Journal of Philology 72 (1951) 128–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Barion, H., ‘Der kirchenrechtliche Charakter des Konzils von Frankfurt 794,’ Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kanon. Abt. 19 (1930) 139–170; id., Das Fränkisch-Deutsche Synodalrecht des Frühmittelalters (Bonn-Köln 1931); Ganshof, F. L., ‘Observations sur le synode de Francfort de 794,’ Miscellanea historica in honorem Alberti de Meyer I (Brussels 1946) 306ff.Google Scholar

11 Cf. Rivera, J. F., Elipando de Toledo: Nueva aportación a los estudios Mozárabes (Toledo 1940); de Robles, C. S., Elipando y San Beato de Liébana (Madrid 1935); Amann, Émile, ‘L'adoptionisme espagnol du viiie siècle,’ Revue des sciences religieuses 16 (1936) 281-317; de Abadal y de Vinyals, R., La batalla del adopcionismo en la disintegración de la Iglesia visigoda (Real Academia de Buenas Letras de Barcelona 1949); cf. also Augusto Pascual in Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 45 (1950) 339-340.Google Scholar

12 MGH Concilia 2 (ed. Werminghoff, A. = Conc. aevi Karolini 1; 1906) nos. 19 A-G, pp. 110–171.Google Scholar

13 Halphen, L., Charlemagne et l'empire carolingien (Paris 1947) 213ff.; Voigt, K., Staat und Kirche von Konstantin dem Grossen bis zum Ende der Karolingerzeit (Stuttgart 1936) 320, 344.Google Scholar

14 He participated at Frankfurt, and edited the Italian synodica, the ‘Libellus Sacrosyllabus Episcoporum Italiae,’ MGH Concilia 2 no. 19D, pp. 130–142. He wrote against Felix of Urgel, PL 99; cf. Wilmart, A., ‘L'ordre des parties dans le traité de Paulin d’Aquilée contre Félix d’Urgel,’ Journal of Theological Studies 39 (1938) 22-37.Google Scholar

15 De Spiritu Sancto, PL 105.239-276.Google Scholar

16 Cf. Alcuin, , Libellus adversus Felicis haeresin, PL 101.85-119, written in 797; Libri septem adversus Felicem (of 798) col. 127-230; Adversus Elipandum libri quattuor (about 800) col. 243-300.Google Scholar

17 Alcuin’s letters to Felix of Urgel, ed. Dümmler, Ernst, MGH Epist. 4 nos. 5 and 23; to Elipand no. 166, with Elipand’s answer no. 182; Felix to Charlemagne no. 199, and Elipand to Felix no. 183.Google Scholar

18 Cf. Leo the Great, Epistola dogmatica ad Flavianum, ed. Hahn, August, Bibliothek der Symbole und Glaubensregeln der alten Kirche (3rd ed. Breslau 1897) no. 36 p. 322: ‘et ideo magistri erroris existunt, quia veritatis discipuli non fuerunt’; ed. Schwartz, E., Acta Con. Oecum. II.ii.1 (Berlin-Leipzig 1932) no. 5 p. 25.4; JK 423.Google Scholar

19 MGH Epist. 4 nos. 23, 41, 117, 137, 149, 184, 186, 193, 209, 281; Comment. in Eccles. PL 100.696B; Dialogus de dialectica c. 11, PL 101.963D; Vita Richarii , ed. Krusch, , MGH Scriptores Rerum Merovingicarum 4.392.25-27.Google Scholar

20 See the anonymous ninth-century credo, ed. Hahn, , p. 353: ‘neque ullo modo humana fragilitas debet nec valet ejus originem perscrutari.’ Google Scholar

21 In addition to Hahn (note 18) see Denzinger, H., Umberg, I. B., Enchiridion Symbolorum (Freiburg i. Br. 1932).Google Scholar

22 Cf. 1. Ortiz de Urbina. ‘La struttura del simbolo Costantinopolitano,’ Orientalia Christiana Periodica 12 (1946) 275–285; El Simbolo Niceno (Madrid 1947); d’Alès, A., ‘Nicée-Constantinople. Les premiers Symboles de Foi,’ Recherches des sciences religieuses 26 (1936) 85-93.Google Scholar

23 Turner, C. H., ‘A critical text of the Quicumque vult,’ Journal of Theological Studies 11 (1910) 408 Google Scholar

24 During the Middle Ages ascribed to Jerome and Augustine; cf. Levison, W., England and the Continent in the Eighth Century (Oxford 1946) 237.Google Scholar

25 Madoz, J., Le Symbole du XI e Concile de Tolède (Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense 19; Louvain 1938).Google Scholar

26 Comparable to the one edited by Künstle, K., Eine Bibliothek der Symbole (Mainz 1900), from a MS of the ninth century.Google Scholar

27 And not the Athanasian Creed, as is stated by Hefele-Leclercq, , Histoire des Conciles 3 (Paris 1910) 1059 note 1.Google Scholar

28 Capelle, Dom B., loc. cit. (note a above) 249–260; Levison, op. cit. 159, 320.Google Scholar

29 Cf. Jungmann, J. A., Missarum Sollemnia 1 (2nd ed Wien 1949) 578–579; Neyron, Gustave, ‘Charlemagne, les Papes et l’Orient,’ Orientalia Christiana Periodica 13 (1947) 260-63.Google Scholar

30 See the references collected by von den Steinen, W., Neues Archiv 49 (1930-1932) 217; Bastgen, , ibidem 37 (1912) 516-524.Google Scholar

31 Hauek, A., Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands 2 (3rd-4th ed Leipzig 1912) 313.Google Scholar

32 von Schubert, H., Geschichte der christlichen Kirche im Frühmittelalter (Tübingen 1921) 387.Google Scholar

33 ‘Das Papsttum unter fränkischer Herrschaft,’ Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 54 (1935) 307.Google Scholar

33a Historia de los Heterodoxos Españoles 1 (Madrid 1880) 209.Google Scholar

34 Gaskoin, C. J. B., Alcuin (London 1904) 87.Google Scholar

35 See the summary by Ganshof, F. L., The Imperial Coronation of Charlemagne: Theories and Facts (Glasgow University Publications 1949).Google Scholar

36 MGH Conc. 2.143-157, no. 19E.Google Scholar

37 Gaskoin, , op. cit. 87.Google Scholar

38 de Clercq, C. La législation religieuse franque de Clovis à Charlemagne (Louvain 1936) 185.Google Scholar

39 Kleinclausz, A., Alcuin (Paris 1948) 89.Google Scholar

40 Amann, Émile, L'époque carolingienne (Histoire de l'Église, éd. A. Fliche-V. Martin 6; Paris 1937) 143; Revue des sciences religieuses 16 (1936) 230.Google Scholar

41 Harnack, A., Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte 3 (4th ed. Tübingen 1910) 281; Turmel, J., Histoire des dogmes 2 (Paris 1932) 447-448; Tixeront, J., Histoire des dogmes 3 (Paris 1922) 526 ff.Google Scholar

41a Haddan-Stubbs, , Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents Relating to Great Britain and Ireland 3 (Oxford 1871) 481–482; what is said on p. 483 must be corrected after Ernst Dümmler, MGH Epistolae 4 316-317 no. 189.Google Scholar

42 Hauck, (above, note 31) 311; von Schubert, (n. 32) 387; de Clercq, (n. 38) 185; Levison, (n. 24) 112; Ganshof, (n. 10) 310.Google Scholar

43 Regesta Imperii (2nd ed. Innsbruck 1908) no. 326; Histoire des Conciles 3 (Paris 1910) 1046; also Voigt (above, n 13) 319; Kleinclausz, A., Charlemagne (Paris 1934) 238.Google Scholar

44 Amann, (above, note 40) 142.Google Scholar

45 Barion, Hans, ‘Der kirchenrechtliche Charakter’ (above, note 10), especially pp. 161–165.Google Scholar

46 Kleinclausz, , Alcuin 87 note 74.Google Scholar

47 Alcuin, , Epist. 43 (Dümmler 38.4-6); Adversus Elipandum 1.16 (PL 101.251C-D); Alcuin, to Charlemagne, , Epist. 229 (D. 373.11) of Sept. or Oct. 801: ‘atque ex diversis mundi partibus amatores illius vestrae bonae voluntati adiutores convocare studuistis’; cf. Epist. 220 (D. 322.28).Google Scholar

48 Gaskoin, , Alcuin 87; Kleinclausz, , Alcuin 88-89, 302.Google Scholar

49 Correctly mentioned by Kleinclausz, p. 79; Alcuin left England between April and June, 793.Google Scholar

50 Alcuin, , Adv. Elipandum 1.16 (PL. 101.251-252) says clearly that he did not attend the Frankish Synod of Regensburg which was held in 792: ‘Antequam ego rege Carolo iubente venissem in Francia’ (from England); see above, note 49, and Boehmer-Mühlbacher, , Regesta Imperii no. 318a.Google Scholar

51 MGH Epistolae 4 No. 137 (D. 211.18) written in 798: ‘ex auctoritate synodali habetis responsum,’ a reference to the Frankish synodica. Google Scholar

52 Alcuin to Arno of Salzburg, Epist. 208 (D. 346.10) from the year 800: ‘Nam quidam Elipandus, Toletanae civitatis—nomine non dignitate episcopus in damnata synodali auctoritate et apostolica censura herese permanens’; Kleinclausz mentions Epist. 208 on p. 233 without realizing that it contains a reference to the Frankfurt Synod.Google Scholar

53 Libri Carolini sive Caroli Magni Capitulare de Imaginibus, ed. Bastgen, H. (MGH Concilia 2: Supplementum; Hannover and Leipzig 1924); see also Bastgen in Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche 6 (1934) 553-554.Google Scholar

54 von den Steinen, W., ‘Karl der Grosse und die Libri Carolini,’ Neues Archiv 49 (1932) 207–280.Google Scholar

55 Von den Steinen, , ‘Entstehungsgeschichte der Libri Carolini,’ Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 21 (1929-1930) 1–70.Google Scholar

56 Von den Steinen expressed this assumption in 1929 (see n. 55), but never supplied the evidence. On the other hand, De Bruyne, Dom, ‘La composition des Libri Carolini,’ Revue Bénédictine 44 (1932) 227 ff. has shown that the argument advanced for the authorship of Theodulph of Orléans by Allgeier, Arthur, ‘Psalmenzitate und die Frage nach der Herkunft der Libri Carolini,’ Historisches Jahrbuch der Görresgesellschaft 46 (1926) 333-353, rests on a wrong premise.Google Scholar

57 Kleinclausz, , Alcuin 295–305.Google Scholar

58 Bastgen, H., ‘Der Verfasser des Capitulare über die Bilder,’ Neues Archiv 37 (1912) 491–533.Google Scholar

59 MGH Concilia 2.163-164. Buchner, Max, ‘Rom oder Reims: Die Heimat des Constitutum Constantini,’ Historisches Jahrbuch der Görresgesellschaft 53 (1933) 161–164, construes a connection between F and the notorious forgery, which is not convincing to me.Google Scholar

60 Listed by von den Steinen, , Neues Archiv 49 (1932) 211. I read summe (instead of summa) as suggested by Mentz, A., ‘Die Tironischen Noten,’ Archiv für Urkundenforschung (1942) 262.Google Scholar

61 Pelagius: ‘ut nec tempore nec gradu nec potestate possit esse inferior’; Leo the Great: ‘non posterior tempore, non inferior potestate’ (see above, note 18).Google Scholar

62 See the remarks by von den Steinen, , Quellen und Forsch. 21.74 n. 1; Neues Archiv 49. 230–231.Google Scholar

62a This interdependence remained unknown to Dom Capelle, B., ‘L'introduction du symbole à la messe,’ Mélanges Joseph de Ghellinck 2 (Gembloux 1951) 1009–1015, who suggests Alcuin’s possible authorship of F on the basis of the occurrence of the identical, unique (even incorrect) variants in the text of the symbol and in that of the Irish Stowe Missal, which had been adopted by the Saxon.Google Scholar

63 Ed. Bastgen, 5.29-6.1; 102.16.Google Scholar

64 See above, note 19.Google Scholar

65 Wattenbach, Wilhelm, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter I (7th ed. 1904) 189.Google Scholar

66 Schmeidler, Bernhard in Historisches Jahrbuch der Görresgesellschaft 62–69 (1949) 320–338; see above note 5.Google Scholar

67 Napier, A. S., The Old English Version with the Latin Original of the Enlarged Rule of Chrodegang (EETS 150; London 1916) 90–94; PL 89.1092-1094.Google Scholar

68 Cf. Hannemann, Otto, Die Kanonikerregeln Chrodegangs von Metz und der Aachener Synode von 816 (Greifswald 1914), overlooked by Napier; Morhain, E., in Miscellanea Pio Paschini I (Rome 1948) 173-185.Google Scholar

69 Ed. Dümmler, , MGH Epistolae 4 no. 74 pp. 116–117; cf. note 80, below, on another edition of the same letter.Google Scholar

70 Ed. Napier 93.34.Google Scholar

71 See Skeat, W. W., The Gospel According to Saint John in Anglo-Saxon, Northumbrian, and Old Mercian Versions (Cambridge 1887) 138; the same, Matthew (1887) 208.Google Scholar

72 See Fehr, Bernhard, Die Hirtenbriefe Aelfrics (Bibliothek der Angelsächsischen Prosa 9; Hamburg 1914) 1ff. ‘þe Preoste Synode,’ especially pp. 2 12-3 2 and the reference to the Council of Nicaea in the OE, ed. Napier, (above note 67), pp. 1.25-2.2.Google Scholar

73 The account given of Alcuin by Anderson, G. K., The Literature of the Anglo-Saxons (Princeton 1949) 233–237, 251-254 notes 57-68, is unsatisfactory. Anderson is not familial’ with the modern editions of Alcuin’s treatises and epistles, and speaks of Alcuin’s ‘few poems’ (p. 234) although the Carmina comprise 182 pages in large quarto in Dümmler’s edition (MGH Poetae 1).Google Scholar

74 Edited by MacLean, G. E., ‘Aelfric’s Version of Alcuin’s Interrogationes in Genesin,’ Anglia 7 (1884) 1–59; Mitchell, F. H., Aelfric's Sigewulfi Interrogationes in Genesin (diss. Zürich 1888); Tessmann, A., Aelfrics altenglische Bearbeitung der Interrogationes (diss. Berlin 1891); Dubois, M. M., Aelfric: Sermonnaire, docteur et grammarien (Paris 1943) 92, 248-251.Google Scholar

75 Förster, M., ‘Ueber die Quellen von Aelfrics exegetischen Homiliae Catholicae,’ Anglia 16 (1893-1894) 46.Google Scholar

76 Edited by Warner, R. D. N., Early English Homilies from the Twelfth Century (EETS 152; London 1917) 91–105; an older edition by Assman, B. appeared in Anglia 11 (1889) 371-391.Google Scholar

77 Förster, M. in Anglia 16 (1893-1894) 46–47.Google Scholar

78 Wells, J. E., A Manual of the Writings in Middle English (New Haven 1916) 275.Google Scholar

79 Flom, G. T., Codex AM 619 Quarto: Old Norwegian Book of Homelies … and Alcuin's De Virtutibus et Vitiis (University of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature 14 no. 4; 1929); Indebrø, Gustav, Gamal norsk Homiliebok Cod. Am 619.4° (Oslo 1931).Google Scholar

80 Ed. Krusch, Bruno, MGH Script. Rer. Merov. 3 (1896) 414–416.Google Scholar

81 Cf. Lestocquoy, J., ‘Notes sur l'épigraphie de l’abbaye de S. Vaast: Les Inscriptions d'Alcuin,’ Bulletin de la Commission départementale des monuments historiques du Pas-de-Calais NS. 7 (1941) 54–59; van Moé, E. A., Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes 102 (1941) 292.Google Scholar

82 Ed. Zeumer, Karl, MGH Formulae Merowingici et Karolini Aevi pp. 438ff.Google Scholar

83 To be discussed in a paper soon to appear in Speculum. Google Scholar

84 Cf. Lorenz, , ‘Fruitio Dei bei Augustin,’ Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 63 (1950) 75–132.Google Scholar

85 Alcuin, , De virtutibus et vitiis 5 (PL 101.616D).Google Scholar

86 Epist. 112 (D. 162.28); cf. Dümmler, , ‘Alcuinstudien,’ SB. Akademie Berlin (1891) 501 note 3. Cf. Luc. 9.26; Cicero, , Ad Fam. 5.12.1; Terence, , Eunuch 41: ‘nullum est iam dictum quod non sit dictum prius.’ Google Scholar

87 This fact cancels out the assumption of Sickel, Th., Historische Zeitschrift 32 (1874) 365, that the repetition of ‘certain ideas, formulae, and quotations’ in the letters of Alcuin is indicative of their respective dates.Google Scholar

88 Or his notaries; see Alcuin, , Vita Richarii, ed. Krusch, , MGH Script. Rer. Merov. 4 (1902) 389; Epist. 242 (D. 387.30): ‘vocato notario’ and ‘aceito notario.’ On the functions of the notarius see Wattenbach, Wilhelm, Das Schriftwesen im Mittelalter (3rd ed. Leipzig 1896) 421.Google Scholar

89 See Ramackers, J., ‘Eine unbekannte Handschrift der Alchuinbriefe,’ Neues Archiv 50 (1935) 425–428. — A revised dating is suggested by Nestler, H, ‘Ein Beitrag zur Datierung der Briefe Alkuins,’ Verhandlungen des historischen Vereins der Oberpfalz 77 pp. 48-52, for Epist. 264 (autumn, 799) and 265 (Easter, 804).Google Scholar

90 Halphen, L., Charlemagne et l'Empire Carolingien (Paris 1947) 121.Google Scholar

91 Edited in MGH Epistolae 5.579 as a letter by Grimold of St. Gall; but see Bäumer, , Historisches Jahrbuch der Görresgesellschaft 14 (1893) 259; Lietzmann, Hans, Petrus und Paulus (2nd ed. Berlin-Leipzig 1927) 50-51.Google Scholar

92 Nos. 2 and 3 were reedited by Levison, W., England and the Continent 244–246, 314-323. On no. 3 see Rivera, J. F., ‘A propósito de una carta de Alcuino recientemente encontrada,’ Revista española de Teologia 1 (1940-41) 418-433, who assumes that the letter was written at the beginning of the year 800. Erdmann, C. in Deutsches Archiv für die Erforschung des Mittelalters 6 (1943) 565 suggests the second half of 798, Levison 797-798.Google Scholar

93 ‘Una lettera inedita di Alcuino,’ Benedictina 2 (Rome 1948) 227–230, from MS 3 of La Cava, saec. xi, f. 318-319. Considerations of style and diction, however, militate against accepting Alcuin’s authorship of this letter without a note of doubt.Google Scholar