1 The editions of the sources cited in Exhibit 1 and the text are in order: Annales Regni Francorum [= ARF]et Annales qui dicuntur Einhardi [= Recension E: Reviser], ed. Kurze, F., MGH, Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum in Usum Scholarum (Hanover, 1895); Annales Laureshamenses , ed. Pertz, G., MGH, Scriptores 1 (Hanover, 1826), 22-39; Annales Mosellani: a. 704-797 , ed. Lappenberg, I., MGH, Scriptores 16 (Hanover, 1859), 491-99; Annales Petaviani , ed. Pertz, G., MGH, Scriptores 1 (Hanover, 1826), 7-18; Murbach Annals in Lendi, W., Untersuchungen zur frühalemannischen Annalistik: Die Murbacher Annalen mit Edition, Scrinium Friburgense 1 (Freiburg [Switzerland], 1971); Einhardi Vita Karoli magni , ed. Holder-Egger, O., MGH, Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum in Usum Scholarum (Hanover, 1911); Anon., “Vita Hludowici” in Thegan, “Die Taten Kaiser Ludwigs”; Astronomus, “Das Leben Kaiser Ludwigs,” ed. and trans. Tremp, E., MGH, Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum in Usum Scholarum Separatim Editi 64 (Hanover, 1995). Recension D of the Frankish Royal Annals with an abbreviated entry seems to have East Frankish provenance. The short notice of Pippin's revolt is also included in one B recension manuscript (B3), now in the Vatican, perhaps from Rheims; it is absent from the other A-C recensions.Google Scholar

2 This rebellion is usually identified by one of the leaders, Count Hardrad; it is not entirely clear from the varied sources besides Einhard whether the East Frankish and the Thuringian opposition were united or two separate groups with different agendas. See most recently McKitterick, R., Perceptions of the Past in the Early Middle Ages , The Conway Lectures in Medieval Studies 2004 (Notre Dame, 2006), 68–80 with texts and references. There is surprisingly little secondary literature on either of these events, which are, of course, mentioned in all general accounts of the period: e.g., Collins, R., Charlemagne (London, Toronto, and Buffalo, 1998), 56, 125-26; and Schieffer, R., Die Karolinger, Urban Taschenbücher 411, 3rd ed. (Stuttgart, 2000), 80-90. The best specialized discussion is probably still that of Brunner, K., Oppositionelle Gruppen im Karolingerreich, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung 25 (Vienna, Cologne, and Graz, 1979), 47-53, 60-65.Google Scholar

3 The Reviser, who seems to be the source of this allegation, applies it only to 792, not to 785. The most complete and convincing exposition of Fastrada's importance is Nelson's, Janet “The Siting of the Council at Frankfort: Some Reflections on Family and Politics,” in Das Frankfurter Konzil von 794: Kristallisationspunkt karolingischer Kultur , ed. Berndt, R., Quellen und Abhandlungen zur mittelrheinischen Kirchengeschichte 80, in two parts (Mainz, 1997), 149–65, and see below, Part 3. Much additional information on Fastrada is provided by Staab, Franz, “Die Königin Fastrada,” ibid., 183-217.Google Scholar

4 So the excellent translation by Lewis Thorpe in the Penguin Classics edition ( Two Lives of Charlemagne: “The Life of Charlemagne” [Harmondsworth, 1969]; 75). The older but still widely used translation by Samuel Turner (The Life of Charlemagne [Ann Arbor, MI, 1960]) renders this as “seduced him with vain promises of the royal authority” (48). On this point, to which we shall return in Part 3, see Bund, K., Thronsturz und Herrscherabsetzung im Frühmittelalter, Bonner Historische Forschungen 44 (Bonn, 1979), 392.Google Scholar

5 Recension E was earlier ascribed to Einhard and, for convenience, is still sometimes referred to under his name although the attribution is no longer accepted; see below, Part 4. For these sources see the recent discussions by Collins, R.: “The ‘Reviser’ Revisited; Another Look at the Alternative Version of the ARF,” in After Rome's Fall: Narrators and Sources of Early Medieval History; Essays Presented to Walter Goffart , ed. Callander Murray, A. (Toronto, 1998), 191–213; and idem, “Charlemagne's Coronation and the Lorsch Annals” in Charlemagne: Empire and Society , ed. Story, J. (Manchester and New York, 2005), 52-70. The older general account of the various late eighth-and early ninth-century annals by Wilhelm Levison (in Wilhelm Wattenbach and Wilhelm Levison, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter: Vorzeit und Karolinger, Heft 2 [Weimar, 1953], 180-92, 245-66), is still very valuable, as is the discussion in Fichtenau, H., “Karl der Große und das Kaisertum,” Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung 61 (1953): 257-334. Several related studies of early Carolingian historiography are now conveniently united in McKitterick, R., History and Memory in the Carolingian World (Cambridge, 2004).Google Scholar

6 This tendency is heightened further in Notker of St. Gall's picaresque Gesta Karoli (in Rau, R., ed., Quellen zur Karolingischen Reichsgeschichte , Part 3, Ausgewählte Quellen zur deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters 7 [Darmstadt, 1982], 321–427, at c. 2/12, 400-403), written in the later ninth century where Pippin is not only deformed but a dwarf as well (nanus et gibberosus)! Pippin may well have had some physical handicap from birth or from injury, but there is no evidence that it was of any concern to contemporaries.Google Scholar

7 The biblical reference in the Lorsch Annals to Abimelech, son of Gideon by a concubine (Judges 9), is particularly interesting (see below, Part 3).Google Scholar

8 Notker, , Gesta Karoli , 2/12; presumably, this act is presented as a token of Pippin's illegitimate status.Google Scholar

9 It is echoed by the Mosel Annals, also from the Lorsch tradition, but not by the Pettau Annals and ignored by the Murbach Annals.Google Scholar

10 Ed. Gundlach, W., MGH, Epistolae 3, Epistolae Merowingici et Karolini aevi 1 (Berlin, 1892), Nr. 45, 561: “iam Dei voluntate et consilio coniugio legitimo ex praeceptione genitoris vestri copulati estis, accipientes sicut preclari et nobilissimi reges, de eadem vestra patria, scilicet ex ipsa nobilissima Francorum gentae, pulchrissimas coniuges.” For comment on this letter see C. Hammer, From Ducatus to Regnum: Ruling Bavaria under the Merovingians and Early Carolingians, Haut Moyen Âge 2 (Turnhout, 2007), Excursus 2, 298-99. For further consideration of this vital issue see below, Part 3. Norbert Brieskorn's questioning the authenticity of this letter (evidently following Hefele), “wegen des unbeherrschten Tones” is unconvincing (idem, “Karl der Große und das Eherecht seiner Zeit [Mit einem Blick auf CLM 6242],” in Das Frankfurter Konzil von 794, 301-29, at 307).Google Scholar

11 The Lorsch and Mosel Annals add one or all of his half brothers to his intended victims, for which there is no documentary corroboration.Google Scholar

12 The Reviser first uses this term in his account of the Hardrad rebellion, for which see McKitterick, , Perceptions of the Past , here esp. 71; and Brunner, K., Oppositonelle Gruppen, 17-20; on oaths see Becher, M., Eid und Herrschaft: Untersuchungen zum Herrscherethos Karls des Großen, Vorträge und Forschungen, Sonderband 39 (Sigmaringen, 1993), passim and 195-201.Google Scholar

13 Capitulare Francofurtense , ed. Werminghoff, A., MGH, Concilia 2/1 (Hanover and Leipzig, 1906), Nr. 19g, 165–71, at c. 9, 167: “quod ille in mortem regis sive in regno eius non consiliasset [Ms. P1 continues: nec ei infidelis fuisset]”; see the commentary in Becher, , Eid und Herrschaft, 82-83.Google Scholar

14 The homo was evidently freed (a domino liberatus) before the ordeal so that he could undertake it of his own free will. The Latin of this passage is difficult to decipher; see Spilling, H., “Die Sprache des Konzils,” in Das Frankfurter Konzil von 794 (n. 3 above), 699–727, at 717-18.Google Scholar

15 The usual English translation of the Latin term comes is “count” on analogy with French “comte” or German “Graf,” but, with its connotations of autonomous and hereditary public authority, it is anachronistic for the early Carolingian period when the comes was still clearly a royal official. On the other hand, the Anglo-Saxon “shire-reeve” or “sheriff” was a contemporary official with similar functions and exercising the same royal authority as the Carolingian comes in Bavaria (see the OED, 2nd ed., sub verbo). I examined the office of the Bavarian comes in a paper, “From Sheriff to Count? A Prosopography of the ‘comes’ in Carolingian Bavaria,” at the forty-first International Congress on Medieval Studies at Kalamazoo in May 2006, and I hope to publish my findings on this important issue presently. To avoid unnessary confusion, however, I here retain the conventional “count” at the editor's request.Google Scholar

16 Chartae Latinae Antiquiores , 16 (France, 4), ed. Atsma, Hartmut and Vezin, Jean (Dietikon-Zurich, 1986), Nr. 637, 93–95; MGH, Diplomata Karolinorum 1, ed. Mühlbacher, E. et al. (Hanover, 1906), Nr. 181, 244-45: “qualiter suadente diabolo Pippinus, filius noster, cum aliquibus dei infidelibus ac nostris in vita et regno nobis a deo concesso impie conatus est tractare et domino Iesu Christo miserante nihil prevaluit eorum perfidia.” The phrase “dei infidelibus ac nostris” is the inverse of the commendatory “fideles dei ac nostri” in Charlemagne's famous letter of 791 to Fastrada contained in Abbot Fardulf's letter collection from St. Denis, for which see Part 4 below.Google Scholar

17 Chartae Latinae Antiquiores , 16, Nr. 638, 96–98: “tam de alode parentum meorum, quam de conparato.” The deed was executed in front of the basilica of St. Vivien at Bruyère-sur-Oise.Google Scholar

18 Gesta Episcoporum Virdunensium , ed. Waitz, G., MGH, Scriptores 4 (Hanover, 1841), 36–51, at 44.Google Scholar

19 The charge of “infidelity” is included in manuscript P1 of the Frankfurt Council but not in P2. The period stated, twelve years, makes no sense, and the report that Peter betrayed Pavia undermines confidence.Google Scholar

20 Chronicon Hugonis Abbatis Flaviniacensis, PL 154: 160: “et cum obsideret exercitus Karoli in Tharavisa Italiae civitate Stibilinum socerum Chrotgaudi qui contra Karolum rebellaverat, et propter hoc Karolo Italiam ingresso in bello occisus erat; erat in eadem civitate Petrus vir Italicus, a quo tradita est civitas, et ob hoc Virdunensi episcopatus honoratus est.” Google Scholar

21 Le Jan, R., “Prosopographica Neustrica: Les agents du roi en Neustrie de 639 à 840,” in La Neustrie: Les pays au nord de la Loire de 650 à 850; Colloque historique international 1, ed. Atsma, H., 2 vols., Beihefte der Francia 16 (Sigmaringen, 1989), 1: 231–69, Nr. 273, 265: “sans doute [comes] de Chambly.” Google Scholar

22 So with increasing certainty and specificity: Lothar Kolmer: “möglicherweise hatte der Aufstand von 792 in Regensburg deutlich gemacht, daß noch immer eine agilolfingische Partei existierte” (“Zur Kommendation und Absetzung Tassilos III.,” Zeitschrift für bayerische Landesgeschichte 43 [1980]: 291–327, at 316); Stuart Airlie: “one cannot doubt that there was a Bavarian dimension to the plot” (“Narratives of Triumph and Rituals of Submission: Charlemagne's Mastering of Bavaria,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th Series, 9 [1999], 93-119, at 117); and Becher, Matthias: “It seems likely that there were Bavarians within this group [of Pippin's supporters] who wished to free Tassilo from the monastery” (Charlemagne , trans. Bachrach, David S. [New Haven and London, 2003], 103; second German, ed., 92). There is speculation on possible Welf participation in Hammer, From Ducatus to Regnum (n. 10 above), 251.Google Scholar

23 Trad. Freising: Die Traditionen des Hochstifts Freising , ed. Bitterauf, T., in 2 Parts, Quellen und Erörterungen zur bayerischen und deutschen Geschichte, n.s., 4/5 (Munich, 1905/9; repr. Aalen, 1967), cited by document number (here: Nr. 167). Many deeds in the Freising episcopal cartulary at this time during Bishop Atto's pontificate (783-811) are undated, and the editor, Theodore Bitterauf, assigned this one on prosopographical evidence between 793 and 806. Its position in the sequence of the cartulary indicates a date towards the end of this range; its document number in the printed edition is unrelated to its manuscript position.Google Scholar

24 For Bavarian devotion to St. Lawrence see Hammer, C., ‘“For All the Saints’: Bishop Vivolo and the Origins of the Feast,” Revue Mabillon, n.s., 15 (2004): 5–26, at 16.Google Scholar

25 The archaeological evidence is reviewed exhaustively by Böhme, H. W. in “Adelsgräber im Frankenreich: Archäologische Zeugnisse zur Herausbildung einer Herrenschicht unter den merowingischen Königen,” Jahrbuch des römisch-germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 40 (1993): 397–534; and idem, “Adel und Kirche bei den Alamannen der Merowingerzeit,” Germania 74 (1996): 477-507. Böhme, (“Adelsgräber,” 519) remarks: “im Gebiet östlich des Lechs bisher sämtliche hier behandelten merowingerzeitlichen Gräber niemals innerhalb einer Kapelle oder Kirche lagen, sondern stets nur in deren unmittelbarer Nähe.” See also the comment in Wood, S., The Proprietary Church in the Medieval West (Oxford, 2006), 48 n. 98.Google Scholar

26 The most complete description of a funeral is at St. Martin's church in nearby Nörting in 821 (Trad. Freising, Nr. 447): “Convenerunt in illo die ad ilium multi nobiles parentes sui corpus eius sepelire, et deportaverunt eum ad illa ecclesia sancti Martini dei confessoris. Cum autem venit in ecclesia et depositus fuerit eius corpus et orationes et preces legantur antequam corpus eius extra ecclesiam deportatus fuisset” [his executors and heirs completed a grant to the altar on the deceased's behalf].Google Scholar

27 Three early eighth-century aristocratic graves, excavated from within the church at Pfaffenhofen bei Telfs in the Tyrol (the “Poapintal”), can be associated with the family that founded the monastery of Scharnitz-Schlehdorf discussed below; see Prinz, F., “Anhang: Pfaffenhofen bei Telfs in Tirol, Polling bei Weilheim, Uttenkofen bei Metten: Zur historischen Geographie dieser Orte im 8. Jahrhundert,” in Stein, F., Adelsgräber des achten Jahrhunderts in Deutschland , 2 vols., Germanische Denkmäler der Völkerwanderungszeit, Series A, 9 (Berlin, 1967), 399–404. This burial underscores the distinctive social milieu of Deodolt's sepulcher.Google Scholar

28 Trad. Freising, Nr. 73; Gertrud Diepolder has done extremely valuable service sorting out the various Waltrichs, but I am not convinced by the alternative identities she endorses for the place and the priest. See her “Schäftlarn: Nachlese in den Traditionen der Gründerzeit,” in Früh-und hochmittelalterlicher Adel in Schwaben und Bayern , ed. Eberl, I. and Hartung, W., Regio: Forschungen zur schwäbischen Regionalgeschichte 1 (Sigmaringendorf, 1988), 161–88, at 184. This Waltrich the priest was clearly a senior member of the cathedral clergy at Freising and is likely to be the Waltrich who became bishop of Passau in 777 (see also below, Part 3).Google Scholar

29 Classen, P., “Karl der Große und die Thronfolge im Frankenreich,” in Festschrift für Hermann Heimpel, Veröffentlichungen des Max Planck Instituts für Geschichte 36/3 (Göttingen, 1972), 109–34, at 113 with note 27: “Niemand außerhalb des alten Herrscherhauses hatte diese Namen bisher führen dürfen, und wenn die karolingische Familie sie nun aufnahm, so fügte sie deutlicher und offener als bisher merowingisches Erbe und Anspruch dem Bau des eigenen Hauses ein.” Classen cites only a single possible non-royal exception from the correspondence of Alcuin: “frater Chlothar.” So also Walter Schesinger: “Aber die Karolinger sind das Gefühl der ‘illegitimität’ offenbar nie ganz losgeworden. … Schon längst hat Karl den Anschluß an das merowingische Königtum herbeizuführen versucht, indem er für einen Sohn den Namen Ludwig (Chlodowech) wählte. … Man könnte von einer pseudologischen Gleichsetzung mit Hilfe der Namengebung sprechen” (“Die Auflösung des Karlsreiches,” in Karl der Große: Lebenswerk und Nachleben 1, ed. Beumann, H. [Düsseldorf, 1965], 792-857, at 831-32). J. Jarnut's argument that Charlemagne's choice of names was specifically to assert Frankish (and his own) authority over the Aquitainians and Saxons in a difficult year does not necessarily exclude his desire to identify his family with the previous dynasty (“Chlodwig und Chlothar: Anmerkungen zu den Namen zweier Söhne Karls des Großen,” Francia 12 [1984]: 645-51).Google Scholar

30 Another “Hludowic” occurs three generations later amongst the Freising contingent at Verdun in 843, witnessing for properties lying only about twenty kilometers to the northwest of Hohenbercha (Trad. Freising, Nr. 661, 557).Google Scholar

31 Some of the following connections were indicated already sixty years ago in Margaret Neumann's unpublished Erlangen dissertation (see Mayr, G., Studien zum Adel im frühmittelalterlichen Bayern , Studien zur bayerischen Verfassungs-und Sozialgeschichte 5 [Munich, 1974], 73).Google Scholar

32 Trad. Freising , Nr. 199.Google Scholar

33 Trad. Freising , Nr. 44.Google Scholar

34 Alpunia refers to Karolus's fratres. The witness list comprises: “Karolus, Rihpald, Helias, Liutfrid, Popo, Rathoh,” and it is likely that this list includes his brothers and other close relatives who might be expected to guarantee his interests after Alpunia's death.Google Scholar

35 The etymology of the name is still not fully explained; it appears to be an onomastic novum of the late seventh century. See the discussion in Joch, J., Legitimität und Integration: Untersuchungen zu den Anfängen Karl Martells , Historische Studien 456 (Husum, 1999), 32–33.Google Scholar

36 Trad. Freising , Nr. 177.Google Scholar

37 Trad. Freising , Nr. 19.Google Scholar

38 On Odilo's marriage see Brunner, K., Oppositionelle Gruppen (n. 2 above), 96; and Jahn, J., Ducatus Baiuvariorum: Das bairische Herzogtum der Agilolfinger, Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 35 (Stuttgart, 1991), 176-78.Google Scholar

39 See most recently: Diepolder, G., “Schäftlarn” (n. 28 above), passim and 166-67 for Pippinsried and its connection to Pettenbach. The older discussion by Friedrich Prinz of these and other monasteries within the “Huosi-Kreis” is still worth consulting (idem, Frühes Mönchtum im Frankenreich: Kultur und Gesellschaft in Gallien, den Rheinlanden und Bayern am Beispiel der monastischen Entwicklung [4. bis 8. Jahrhundert], 2nd ed. [Darmstadt, 1988], 367-72).Google Scholar

40 For this Waltrich's remarkable Frankish-Carolingian connections see Störmer, W., Früher Adel: Studien zur politischen Führungsschicht im fränkisch-deutschen Reich vom 8. bis 11. Jahrhundert, Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 6, in 2 parts (Stuttgart, 1975), 322–26; and his “Bischöfe von Langres aus Alemannien und Bayern: Beobachtungen zur monastischen und politischen Geschichte im ostrheinischen Raum des 8. und frühen 9. Jahrhunderts,” in Langres et ses évèques viii^e–xi^e siècles: Actes du colloque Langres-Ellwangen, Langres, 28 juin 1985 (Langres, 1985), 43-77, at 59-72.Google Scholar

41 Trad. Schäftlarn: Die Traditionen des Klosters Schäftlarn, Part 1, ed. Weissthanner, A., Quellen und Erörterungen zur bayerischen und deutschen Geschichte, n.s., 10/1 (Munich, 1953), Nrs. 1a/b; the location was “in loco Peipinpach, villa nuncupata Sceftilari” (6). A Count Pippi occurs for the first time amongst Bavarian counts at a great missatical court held in Regensburg in 802 (Trad. Freising [n. 23 above], Nr. 183); it is unlikely that he was the Pippi of these early Schäftlarn deeds, but he was probably related.Google Scholar

42 Trad. Freising , Nr. 225.Google Scholar

43 All of the evidence for these Helmunis is judiciously reviewed and summarized in a useful diagram by Störmer, Wilhelm, Adelsgruppen im früh-und hochmittelalterlichen Bayern , Studien zur bayerischen Verfassungs-und Sozialgeschichte 4 (Munich, 1972), 49–59; there are evidently between two and four near-contemporary Bavarian magnates bearing variants of that name, and while it is impossible to assign all of the references conclusively, nevertheless, it is clear that these important men all belonged to the same kin group and were somehow related. While I here follow Störmer's lucid discussion, I do differ from him in my interpretation of this particular document.Google Scholar

44 The dating between 1×24 September and 8 October is determined by the beginning of the second indiction (whether Greek or Bedan, both of which were used) and the end of Charlemagne's twenty-fifth regnal year as king.Google Scholar

45 Störmer, , Adelsgruppen , 54–55.Google Scholar

46 Helmoin (Helmuni) occurs as a count along with Gerold and other magnates at a missatical court, evidently in late 791 (Trad. Freising, Nr. 143b); the apparent reference to him as a count in 804×8, probably shortly before his death, is clearly appropriated from the record of a much earlier transaction at the time of his wedding to Hadumar's mother (Trad. Freising, Nr. 213a); he may, however, have served later in the lesser office of “iudex” ( Trad. Freising , Nr. 183 for 802). Hadumar himself escaped the consequences of his father's problems; he subsequently served as the Frankish count of Verona until his death by 809.Google Scholar

47 The awkward wording of the final phrase may indicate a defective text requiring emendation: “[partim] ob meditatum scelus [pro] tali morte multati sunt.” Thus, “some others were fined in place of death for the contemplated crime.” Google Scholar

48 Unfortunately, Theodold's conveyance of December 797 to St. Denis (above, Part 1) does not provide any information on his “parentes”; the deed was presumably witnessed by local worthies, none of whom is familiar to me from Bavarian sources although it is interesting to note that a prominent one was named Hardrad (for whom see n. 2 above).Google Scholar

49 See Hammer, , From Ducatus to Regnum (n. 10 above), Excursus 1a, 283–90.Google Scholar

50 Possibly, though not certainly, illegitimate; for Carolingians in early eighth-century Bavaria, see the remarks by Stömier, , “Bischöfe von Langres” (n. 40 above), 71–72; and Hammer, , “For All the Saints” (n. 24 above), 10-11.Google Scholar

51 Most of the relevant primary evidence and secondary literature for the following is helpfully reviewed in Kasten, B., Königssöhne und Königsherrschaft: Untersuchungen zur Teilhabe am Reich in der Merowinger-und Karolingerzeit, Schriften der MGH 44 (Hanover, 1997), 138–51, without arriving at the same conclusions, however. See also Le Jan, R., Famille et pouvoir dans le monde franc (vii^e–x^e siècle): essai d'anthropologie sociale, Histoire Ancienne et Médiévale 33 (Paris, 1995), 202-4, 274.Google Scholar

52 Goffart, W., “Paul the Deacon's ‘Gesta Episcoporum Mettensium’ and the Early Design of Charlemagne's Succession,” Traditio 42 (1986): 59–93, at 60-64, arguing against Peter Classen's powerful interpretation in “Karl der Große” (n. 29 above).Google Scholar

53 Pauli Warnefridi liber de episcopis Mettensibus , ed. Pertz, G., MGH, Scriptores 2 (Hanover, 1829), 260–70, at 265: “Hic ex Hildegard coniuge quattuor filios et quinque filias procreavit. Habuit tamen, ante legale connubium, ex Himiltrude nobili puella filium nomine Pippinum.” Google Scholar

54 “Puella” also had a secondary meaning of “girlfriend” or “sweetheart,” but the primary connotation of age remained dominant as it had in classical Latin. Medieval (and modern) authors focused on “the ages of man,” but, if we equate “puella” with “puer,” then, according to Isidore of Seville, “pueritia” lasted from age 8 to 14 (Etymologiae 11/2). If, however, the relational meaning of “puella” were intended, then it evidences a certain delicacy and deference by Paul for whatever reason.Google Scholar

55 As a “puella,” Himiltrud could hardly have been born before 750 and was probably still in her teens when she married Charlemagne and bore Pippin before 770. This is very plausible. By comparison, Hildegard was born in 757×58, married (according to Paul) in her thirtheenth year in 770×1, and bore her first son, Carl, in 772×73 at about age fifteen. When Himiltrud's tomb at Nivelles was excavated, the skeleton identified as hers was that of a thirty-five to forty year old woman. Thus, on extreme assumptions, Himiltrud may have died in the decade between about 785 and 795, well after the birth of the twins Ludwig and Lothar in 778 and possibly even after Pippin's plot in 792 (see Konecny, S., Die Frauen des karolingischen Königshauses: Die politische Bedeutung der Ehe und die Stellung der Frau in der fränkischen Herrscherfamilie vom 7. bis zum 10. Jahrhundert , Dissertationen der Universität Wien 132 [Vienna, 1976], 65–66, with n. 9 on 193).Google Scholar

56 Reviewed exhaustively and, in my view, definitively in Becher, , Eid und Herrschaft (n. 12 above), 51–58.Google Scholar

57 ARF sub anno 757: “ut in omnibus diebus vitae eius sic conservaret, sicut sacramentis promiserat; sic et eius homines maiores natu qui erant cum eo, firmaverunt, sicut dictum est, in locis superius nominatis quam et in aliis multis.” Google Scholar

58 For comment, see Hammer, , From Ducatus to Regnum (n. 10 above), 129–30.Google Scholar

59 That this was an acute contemporary papal concern is evident from the capitulary drafted by papal legates in England, approved by the kings and chief churchmen there, and sent to Pope Hadrian in 787, where chap. 12 specifies that kings: “non de adulterio vel incoestu procreati; quia sicut nostris temporibus ad sacerdotium secundum canones adulter pervenire non potest; sic nec christus Domini esse valet, et rex totius regni, et haeres patriae, qui ex legitimo non fuerit connubio generatus” ( Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents Relating to Great Britain and Ireland 3, ed. Haddon, A. and Stubbs, W. [Oxford, 1871], 453).Google Scholar

60 Goffart, (“Paul the Deacon,” 90–91) argues that the bishopric of Metz was now held open for him. This is certainly possible, and, no doubt, the necessary dispensations for bastardy, deformity, age, and condition would have been forthcoming from a willing pope, but there is no certain evidence for this supposition.Google Scholar

61 Einhard, , Vita Karoli (n. 1 above), c. 11: “neque provincia, quam tenebat, ulterius duci, sed comitibus ad regendum commissa est.” Google Scholar

62 The evidence is all presented in Hammer, , From Ducatus to Regnum (n. 10 above), Table 4A-B, 208; Trad. Freising (n. 23 above), Nr. 121b, where the year for Tassilo's reign is missing, may also belong here, since the first witness is “Cundhart comes.” Many deeds in the Freising cartulary from this period of Bishop Atto's pontificate are undated as was noted for Deodolt's at Maisach (Part 2); either they were never dated or the later episcopal scribe, Cozroh, excised the dates for some reason. This, however, was not his usual practice. There was evidently some subsequent interest in restoring the duchy, since the Carolingian recensions of the Bavarian Law Code — the only ones to survive — contain provisions regarding the ducal office (Title 2) and even the exclusive, hereditary claims to it by the Agilolfing family (Title 3), and a Passau deed even refers in a dating clause to Charlemagne's ducatus (Trad. Passau: Die Traditionen des Hochstifts Passau , ed. Heuwieser, M., Quellen und Erörterungen zur bayerischen und deutschen Geschichte, n.s., 6 [Munich, 1930; repr. Aalen, 1988], Nr. 27; Hammer, Ducatus to Regnum, Table 4B, 208).Google Scholar

63 Trad. Freising , Nr. 127a and b. The scribe for both deeds was Williperht the clerk. He may have drawn up copies of the deed for each of the two donors, Welto and his wife, Pilihilt, who conveyed separate properties in the same place, Altheim, and these documents then found their way by different routes into the Freising archive along with the episcopal copy.Google Scholar

64 Trad. Freising , Nr. 127b: “Actum est haec IIII. kal. mai. In secundo anno [quo] translatus est Tassilo dux de regno suo.” The verb “translatus est,” the perfect passive form of “transferre,” was applied to the “transfer” of relics or churchmen, just as it is today. Perhaps it is used here as a sarcastic comment on Tassilo's new status.Google Scholar

65 Trad. Freising , Nr. 127a: “Hoc autem factum est die consule quod facit IIII. kal. mai. anno secundo quod domnus rex Carolus Baiuariam adquisivit ad [et] Tasssilonem clericavit.” Google Scholar

66 Trad. Freising , Nr. 177; see above, Part 2.Google Scholar

67 See below, Part 5, and Hammer, , From Ducatus to Regnum (n. 10 above), Table 4C, 208–9. See also another deed, Schlehdorf, Trad. Freising, Nr. 171: “[28 September] anno VII. Postquam Karolus rex venit in Baiuwaria indictione III.” The 3rd Indiction year in this cycle ran 1×24 September 794–95, so the year must be 794, and the 7th year is, thus, consistent with an epoch beginning 6 July 788 although Charlemagne's actual first personal appearance in Bavaria dates only from October 788 (BM² : Böhmer, J. F., Regesta Imperii I. Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter den Karolingern, 751-918 , ed. Mühlbacher, E. et al., 2nd ed. [Innsbruck, 1908], Nrs. 287-88, now available on-line at: http://www.regesta-imperii.de).Google Scholar

68 Fragmentum Annalium Chesnii , ed. Pertz, G., MGH, Scriptores 1 (Hanover, 1826), 33–34, at 33: “Et ipse Dasilo ad sancto Goare pridie Nonas Iulias tunseratus est.” The Mosel Annals place the tonsuring at Ingelheim, which is possible, but the precise date supplied by the “Fragment” and the fact that St. Goar is the lectio difficilior, both favor its report.Google Scholar

69 For the “Fragment” see now the account by Diesenberger, M., “Dissidente Stimmen zum Sturz Tassilos III.,” in Texts and Identities in the Early Middle Ages , ed. Corradini, R. et al., Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 12 [= Österr. Akad. Wiss., Denkschriften, Hist.-phil. Kl., 344] (Vienna, 2006), 105–20, at 111-16. The evidence for Tassilo's amily is reviewed in Laske, W., “Die Mönchung Herzog Tassilos III. und das Schicksal seiner Angehörigen,” in Die Anfänge des Klosters Kremsmünster , ed. Haider, S., Mitteilungen des Oberösterreichischen Landesarchivs, Ergänzungsband 2 (Linz, 1978), 189-97.Google Scholar

70 MGH, Diplomata Karolinorum (n. 16 above) 1, Nr. 162, 219: “Igitur quia ducatus Baioarie ex regno nostro Francorum aliquibus temporibus infideliter per malignos homines Odilonem et Tassilonem, propinquum nostrum, a nobis subtractus et alienatus fuit.” Possibly, homo here is also intended in a subservient sense as it was for Bishop Peter's “man” (above, Part 1).Google Scholar

71 ARF (n. 1 above) sub anno: “Tassilo venit per semetipsum, tradens se manibus in manibus domni regis Caroli in vassaticum et reddens ducatum sibi commissum a domno Pippino rege.” Google Scholar

72 Codex Palatinus sub anno (Lendi, Untersuchungen [n. 1 above], 163): “veniens Dessilo dux Beiuueriorum ad eum et reddidit ei cum baculo ipsam patriam in cuius capite similitudo hominis erat et effectus est vassus eius”; Fragmentum Annalium Chesnii sub anno: “Quinto Non. Octobris [3 October] Dasilo dux ad regem venit, et ei reddidit regnum Bagoariorum, et semetipso Carlo rege in manu tradidit et regnum Bagoariorum.” Google Scholar

73 Becher, , Eid und Herrschaft (n. 12 above), 58–63, at 63: “Zum ersten Mal wird eine Behauptung der Reichsannalen über Tassilo durch andere Quellen gestützt. Die vasallitische Kommendation des Herzogs im Jahr 787 ist daher glaubhaft.” Google Scholar

74 So already the characterization with a review of the evidence by Janner, F., Geschichte der Bischöfe von Regensburg 1 (Regensburg, 1883), 128: “Sindbert stand bei König Karl in hoher Achtung.” For additional information including the Murbach connection see Störnier, , Früher Adel (n. 40 above), 209, 335, based upon Bruckner, A., “Untersuchungen zur älteren Abtreihe des Reichsklosters Murbach,” Elsaß-Lothringisches Jahrbuch 16 (1937): 31-56, at 50-51, where the connection between the two Sintperhts was securely established.Google Scholar

75 Trad. Passau (n. 62 above), Nr. 45; it is now generally conceded that the “Sindperhtus episcopus” sitting in court session with his fellow missi is not his contemporary namesake at Augsburg as proposed by the editor. See most recently Freund, S., Von den Agilolfingern zu den Karolingern: Bayerns Bischöfe zwischen Kirchenorganisation, Reichsintegration und karolingischer Reform (700-847) , Schriftenreihe zur bayerischen Landesgeschichte 144 (Munich, 2004), 163, whose view of Sintperht otherwise differs from mine. The frater abbas amongst the missi in the Passau deed must be a slip for Fater abbas [of Kremsmünster].Google Scholar

76 ARF sub anno; also the Reviser and, with a significant twist, the Annales Mettenses Priores , ed. von Simson, B., MGH, Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum in Usum Scholarum (Hanover and Leipzig, 1905), 69. Murbach tradition, based upon a lost charter but accepted as genuine by Albert Bruckner, even alleged Sintperht to be Charlemagne's nephew, the son of a sister (Regesta Alsatiae Aevi Merovingici et Karolini, 496-918, 1 [Strasbourg and Zürich, 1949], Nr. 350, 222 [= BM², Dep. 349]; for the “Notitia fundationis et primorum abbbatum Murbacensis abbatiae,” which contains this information, see idem, “Untersuchungen zur älteren Abtreihe,” 40-44). This would be chronologically awkward although some sort of Carolingian kinship is not, of itself, implausible for such a favored person.Google Scholar

77 So Diesenberger, , “Dissidente Stimmen,” 114.Google Scholar

78 Trad. Regensburg: Die Traditionen des Hochstifts Regensburg und des Klosters S. Emmeram , ed. Widemann, J., Quellen und Erörterungen zur bayerischen und deutschen Geschichte, n.s., 8 (Munich, 1943; repr. Aalen, , 1988), Nr. 6; he is not amongst those named at the missatical courts held in camp around 20 September (Trad. Freising [n. 23 above], Nrs. 142, 143a).Google Scholar

79 These prayers come from an eighth-century Frankish Gelasian sacramentary, but this annalistic entry lacks the Contestatio or Proper Preface usually included there as does the contemporary sacramentary preserved at the monastery of Rheinau; see the Concordance Table in Liber Sacramentorum Engolismensis , ed. Saint-Roch, P., CCL 159C (Turnhout, 1987), 458–59.Google Scholar

80 The date comes from the St. Emmeram necrology (MGH, Necrologia Germaniae 3 [Dioceses Brixinensis, Frisingensis, Ratisbonensis], ed. Baumann, F. L. [Berlin, 1905], 326); Sintperht's participation is usually assumed although there is no source for his place of death as there is for Angilram of Metz, the royal archchaplain, on the following 26 October (BM² [n. 67 above], Nr. 307d). Angilram certainly had interests in Bavaria but would not have had the extensive, personal involvement with Tassilo and his family that we can reasonably assume for Sintperht, whose authorship of these entries in the “Codex Palatinus” was also argued recently by Hummer, Hans, Politics and Power in Early Medieval Europe: Alsace and the Frankish Realm, 600-1000 (Cambridge, 2005), 113-15.Google Scholar

81 Annales Laureshamenses (n. 1 above) sub anno: “Introivit [Charlemagne] etiam in ipsam patriam, et venit ei Tasilo obviam pacifice, et dedit ei obsidem filium suum Theudonem, et sic reversus est rex cum pace et gaudio ad Wormaciam.” Google Scholar

82 ARF Recension E sub anno: “venit [Tassilo] supplex ac veniam de ante gestis sibi dari deprecatus est. Sed et rex, sicut erat natura mitissimus, supplici ac deprecanti pepercit.” Thus, Becher is quite misleading when he claims that this account, like the Prior Metz Annals, “übernahm weitgehend den Bericht der Reichsannalen. … Dasselbe gilt auch für die sogenannten Einhardsannalen” ( Eid und Herrschaft [n. 12 above], 61).Google Scholar

83 Einhard, , Vita Karoli (n. 1 above), chap. 11: “Sed … ille … supplex se regi permisit, obsides qui imperabantur dedit.” Google Scholar

84 Trad. Freising (n. 23 above), Nr. 120: “regnante domno magnifico atque glorioso Karolo rege Francorum atque Longobardorum seu et patricio Romanorum.” The deed is dated to the 20th year of his reign (788) but to the 11th indiction (787). Usually, one would prefer the regnal year, but in this case the indiction may be more reliable. This was an entirely novel usage for Bishop Atto and the scribe, Snelmot, and Charlemagne's regnal year began only a few days later on 9 October, so their prematurely advancing the regnal year from 19 to 20 would be quite understandable. Freising clerks, including Snelmot, subsequently normally referred to Charlemagne only as “king” without ethnic qualifiers (Trad. Freising, Nrs. 126, 140, 143a, 151, 152, 153, 165, 170, 176). This deed is also significant for the reappearance of Alprat comes as first witness twenty-two years after his appearance in the last deed dated exclusively by King Pippin's regnal year (Trad. Freising, Nr. 23)!.Google Scholar

85 Thus, I differ from Diesenberger's argument (“Dissidente Stimmen” [n. 69 above], 115) that there were “zwei Wendepunkte”; at the basic level of chronological calculation; Trad. Freising, Nr. 127, can be dated only from a single “epoch,” since 28 April could not be dated in the second year from two “epochs” beginning on 3 October 787 and 6 July 788, respectively.Google Scholar

86 MGH, Diplomata Karolinorum (n. 16 above) 1, Nr. 162, 219: “ducatus Baioarie ex regno nostro Francorum”; this may be the earliest documented reference to the “ducatus” as a territorial entity.Google Scholar

87 There is a mass of miscellaneous information in Hoyoux, J., “Reges crinite: chevelures, tonsures et scalps chez les Mérovingiens,” Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire 26 (1948): 479–508; Laske's article, “Mönchung Tassilos” (n. 69 above), is more concerned with the monastic aspects of tonsuring.Google Scholar

88 Einhard, , Vita Karoli (n. 1 above), c. 1: “qui [Childerich] iussu Stephani Romani pontificis depositus ac detonsus atque in monasterium trusus est.” Google Scholar

89 Wandalberti Miracula S. Goaris , ed. Holder-Egger, O., MGH, Scriptores 15/1 (Hanover, 1887), 366, Nr. 11: “egressus et ipse [Pippin] est fratrique [Carl] nesciens in ecclesia sociatus. Ibi, quod inter eos graves aliquamdiu simultates et inimicitiae fuerant, inspirante superna clementia et opitulante confessoris sanctissimi merito, in fraternam concordiam et foedus amicitiae coierunt. Cibo deinde potuque sumpto, alacres et laeti,” they returned to the landing. In a continuation of the miracle (11 bis, 367), Fastrada is healed of a toothache, evidently before 9 June 790 (see Staab, , “Die Königin Fastrada” [n. 3 above], 199-200). This certainly indicates some personal connection between her and St. Goar and possibly also to Prüm.Google Scholar

90 As proposed by Classen, Peter, “Karl der Große” (n. 29 above), 120; followed somewhat obliquely by Karl Brunner, Oppositionelle Gruppen (n. 2 above), 62, who initially identifies him as Pippin of Italy. It is somewhat more difficult to imagine this Pippin, born in 777, in the mature political role ascribed to him by Wandalbert.Google Scholar

91 BM² (n. 67 above), Nr. 513a. Charlemagne is also documented at Ingelheim in 774 (ARF [n. 1 above] sub anno) and 807 (MGH, Diplomata Karolinorum [n. 16 above] 1, Nr. 206, 275-76). The “synodus” that condemned Tassilo at Ingelheim must have been the Frankish assembly, which normally met in the late spring before the campaigning season. According to the Royal Annals, Charlemagne was at Ingelheim from Christmas 787 through at least Eastertide (30 March) 788, and he issued a charter there on Good Friday, 28 March (MGH, Diplomata Karolinorum 1, Nr. 160).Google Scholar

92 Annales Mettenses Priores (n. 76 above) sub anno 790, which refer to Carl as “primogenitum filium suum [of Charlemagne]”; for comment on the status of this territory and its implications for Carl's rank see Kasten, , Königssöhne (n. 51 above), 150–51.Google Scholar

93 As Wolfram, Herwig notes, we have no “diplomatische Selbstaussagen” from Pippin's reign in Italy and only one from Ludwig's reign in the Aquitaine ( Intitulatio 1. Lateinische Königs-und Fürstentitel bis zum Ende des 8. Jahrhunderts , Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung, Ergänzungsband 21 [Graz, Vienna, and Cologne, 1967], 217–24 with 262-63, at 220-21). This hardly indicates a robust exercise of rule, and it looks as though the royal leash, particularly in Italy, was very short. Indeed, it could hardly have been otherwise in view of the new rulers' ages.Google Scholar

94 For the following see Hammer, C., “The Social Landscape of the Prague Sacramentary: The Prosopography of an Eighth-Century Mass-Book,” Traditio 54 (1999): 41–80.Google Scholar

95 Trad. Freising (n. 23 above), Nr. 157; Hammer, , “Prague Sacramentary,” 56.Google Scholar

96 For the Salzburg Liber Vitae and the Laudes Regiae, see Hammer, , From Ducatus to Regnum (n. 10 above), Part 4.1.h and 4.2.b.Google Scholar

97 The other bishops are: Arn of Salzburg (also present in 776 as a priest leading the other witnesses from the cathedral clergy), Alim of Säben, and Odalhart of Neuburg / Staffelsee.Google Scholar

98 Possibly, this reflects some uncertainty regarding their claims to territorial authority in contrast to their younger brothers. The editors of the sacramentary have incorrectly reversed the identifications of the two Pippins in their commentary ( Das Prager Sakramentar [Cod. 0.83 (Fol.1-120) der Bibliothek des Metropolitankapitels], 2, ed. Dold, A. and Eizenhöfer, L., Texte und Arbeiten herausgegeben durch die Erzabtei Beuron 38-42 [Beuron, 1949], 22–23).Google Scholar

99 Judg. 9:1-2 (Vulgate): “Abiit autem Abimelech filius Ierobaal in Sichem ad fratres matris suae, et locutus est ad eos, et ad omnem cognationem domus patris matris suae, dicens: ‘Loquimini ad omnes viros Sichem, quid vobis est melius, ut dominentur vestri septuaginta viri omnes filii Ierobaal, an ut dominetur unus vir? Simulque considerate quod os vestrum et caro vestra sum.’” Paul the Deacon compared Bishop Arnulf and, by implication, Charlemagne to the mighty warrior, Gideon, so the analogy is complete ( Liber de Episcopis Mettensium , 264; Nelson, J., “Charlemagne the Man,” in Charlemagne , ed. Story, [n. 5 above], 22-37, at 32-33). This comparison was also claimed for Tassilo (Airlie, “Narratives of Triumph” [n. 22 above], 99).Google Scholar

100 Kasten, , Königssöhne (n. 51 above), 150 n. 44, and 144 n. 27. Nelson, Janet (“The Siting of the Council at Frankfort” [n. 3 above], 160) suggests that Fastrada's favoring Pippin of Italy and, to a lesser extent, Ludwig of the Aquitaine, “and, by implication (this, admittedly, is an argument from silence) encouraging a highly discriminatory family policy, which denied Pippin the Hunchback any share in the spoils on either the Avar or the Beneventan front, and by further implication, denying him any sub-kingdom either. This, I suggest, was the ‘cruelty’ against which Charlemagne's eldest son rebelled.” Kasten's hypothesis provides a plausible motive. Unfortunately, Staab (“Die Königin Fastrada” [n. 3 above], esp. 209-17) does not address this crucial problem directly.Google Scholar

101 So also Paul Dutton in his translation but without explanation ( Carolingian Civilization: A Reader , Readings in Medieval Civilizations and Cultures 1, 2nd ed. [Peterborough, ON, 2004]).Google Scholar

102 Notker, , Gesta Karoli (n. 6 above) 2/12: “coctio derasus insulsus et insaniens linea tantum et demoralibus indutus.” Notker claims that Pippin was first sent to St. Gall, which is not impossible but hardly certain.Google Scholar

103 Hauck, A., Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands 2, 9th ed. (Berlin, 1958), 208: “Seltener war es, daß er [Charlemagne] politische Verdienste mit kirchlichen Würden belohnte. … Das … weiß man nur von den zwei Langobarden Peter von Verdun und Fardulf von St. Denis.” Fardulf protested his loyalty to his earlier Langobard lords to his grave: “Attamen hic fidei dominis servavit honorem (Fardulfi Abbatis Carmina , ed. Dümmler, E., MGH, Poetae 1, 352-54, at 353). The involvement of two Langobards, albeit ostensibly on opposite sides, in Pippin's plot raises the question about whether it was also directed in some way towards Italy and the rival “Pippin.” Google Scholar

104 Very complete information about Fardulf is presented in Hauck, , Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, 162-63; Levison, W., “Das Formularbuch von Saint-Denis,” Neues Archiv 41 (1917): 283–304, at 287-90; and Fleckenstein, J., Die Hofkapelle der deutschen Könige, 1: Grundlegung: Die karolingische Hofkapelle, Schriften der MGH 16/1 (Stuttgart, 1959), 74. Fardulf merits a comprehensive reassessment; his letter collection (n. 107 below) contains the earliest text of the “Donation of Constantine” (Nr. 11 there). As Joanna Story points out (“Cathwulf, Kingship and the Royal Abbey of Saint-Denis,” Speculum 74 [1999]: 1-21, at 14), “scholars of the Donation have still to explain why a copy of that document appears in the personal letter collection of the eighth-century abbots of Saint-Denis. This critical issue is not addressed in Johannes Fried's otherwise interesting recent study, “Donation of Constantine” and “Constitutum Constantini”: The Misinterpretation of a Fiction and Its Original Meaning, Millennium Studies 3 (Berlin and New York, 2007), 69-72.Google Scholar

105 See most recently, Kaschke, S., Die karolingischen Reichsteilungen bis 831: Herrschaftspraxis und Normvorstellungen in zeitgenössischer Sicht , Schriften zur Mediävistik 7 (Hamburg, 2006), 287–89. This is a difficult argument to prove, since the Annales Mettenses Priores' original entries for 792-798 are missing. Did they, despite their tireless championing of the Carolingian cause, contain offensive material that was suppressed?.Google Scholar

106 Collins, , “The ‘Reviser’ Revisited” (n. 5 above), 199–203 (date); 212: “(1) a monastic outlook on the basically secular events; (2) his interest in the Adoptionist controversy; (3) the eastern Frankish nature of some of his place-and personal names; (4) the unusually full nature of his Italian and papal information; (5) as well as that concerning several of the Saxon campaigns.” Biographical information for items 1 and 3-5 is provided by the sources cited above in note 104. Regarding item 2, Adoptionism, Fardulf would have been present at the Regensburg synod in 792 when this Spanish heresy was first condemned, and for which the Reviser provides an extended report. It is, perhaps, an additional indication of the Reviser's ethnicity that he provides the first two instances of “Langobardia” as a territorial entity where the Royal Annals refer to “Italia” (sub annis 781 and 786; for comment from a different perspective see: Chrysos, E., “Zum Landesname Langobardia,” in Die Langobarden: Herrschaft und Identität , ed. Pohl, W. and Erhart, P., Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 9 [= Denkschriften, Österr. Akad., 329] [Vienna, 2005], 429–35). The communis opinio for the Reviser's date is, I believe, still the period immediately after Charlemagne's death; so Wilhelm Levison, in Wattenbach and Levison, Geschichtsguellen (n. 5 above), 255.Google Scholar

107 Formulae Collectionis Sancti Dionysii , ed. Zeumer, K., MGH, Formulae (Hanover, 1886), 493–511, here the second group, Nrs. 16-25, 504-11. Besides Levison, “Formularbuch,” there is good commentary with a calendar of the letters in Story, “Cathwulf,” at 11-21.Google Scholar

108 For the importance of the Avar campaigns to Charlemagne see Pohl, W., Die Awaren: Ein Steppenvolk in Mitteleuropa 567-822 (Munich, 1988), 312–23; and Hammer, C., “Recycling Rome and Ravenna: Two Studies in Early-Medieval Reuse,” Saeculum 56 (2005): 295-325, at 316-17.Google Scholar

109 Better Latinists than I will have to determine whether the language of the letter is “chapel quality”; I have some doubts.Google Scholar

110 Levison, , “Formularbuch,” 288: “Empfänger und Schreiber von nr. 17, der Empfänger von nr. 20 waren Aebte, über deren Klöster Genaueres nicht zu ersehen ist; aber hier wie dort an Fardulf zu denken, liegt wenigstens kein Hindernis vor.” Story's calendar (“Cathwulf,” 16), seems to reverse the identity of the Sender and the Recipient.Google Scholar

111 This term usually refers to church fabric, which is consistent with the request for building materials below, but here it may also include the opus dei, a church service, possibly the important feast of St. Germanus of Auxerre on 31 July. If the Sender were writing well in advance of his departure (see below), a prominent saint's day, albeit unnamed, may have been a marker for his travel schedule as well marking an important milestone in church construction.Google Scholar

112 Formulae , Nr. 17, 505: “quatenus dominum meum sanctum ilium, amatorem vestrum, una cum omnibus sanctis, quorum reliquias in monasterio habemus, intercessores exinde habeatis.” Google Scholar

113 Formulae , Nr. 17, 505: “Tassilo vero, ut speramus, fidelis vester, de his, que ab eo quesivimus, [prude]nter nobis in omnibus responsum dedit, et putamus, si eum probaveritis et secundum [scien]tiam vel doctrinam vestram aliquod servicium ei iniunxeritis, quod vobis exinde placere [curab]it.” Google Scholar

114 It is, of course, always possible that Tassilo was confined at this time on one of the unnamed estates mentioned in the letter rather than at the monastery itself.Google Scholar

115 Tassilo's premier foundation, Kremsmünster, celebrates a requiem for him every year on 11 December, and he is entered as “duke and monk” on 5 January in the necrology from St. Emmeram at Regensburg, but no early source reports the year or the place of his death. The Bavarian humanist and historian, Aventin, claimed to have seen and excerpted a contemporary, “Vita Thessaloni III … Ab anno Christi 771 usque ad annum 796”; presumably, the latter date marked Tassilo's death. For Tassilo's, “Nachleben” see now Christian Lohmer's review of the “Mythos Agilolfinger: Das Nachleben der Bayernherzöge in Mittelalter und Neuzeit,” in Tassilo III. von Bayern: Großmacht und Ohnmacht im 8. Jahrhundert , ed. Kolmer, L. and Rohr, C. (Regensburg, 2005), 191–210, at 195-97 with the quotation in n. 16.Google Scholar

116 Story, , “Cathwulf” (n. 104 above), 17 n. 10.Google Scholar

117 This problem is primarily documented with regard to church properties acquired under Tassilo and his father, Odilo, which is discussed thoroughly in Wanderwitz, H., “Quellenkritische Studien zu den bayerischen Besitzlisten des 8. Jahrhunderts,” Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 39 (1983): 27–84, esp. Part 7 there. It appears that Charlemagne confirmed all Bavarian church properties in 793; see the discussion in Wolfram, H., Salzburg, Bayern, Österreich: Die Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum und die Quellen ihrer Zeit, Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung, Ergänzungsband 31 (Vienna and Munich, 1995), 210-11.Google Scholar

118 Capitulare Francofurtense (n. 13 above), 166. I here follow the exposition of the Capitulary and of this chapter by Spilling, Herbert, “Die Sprache des Konzils” (n. 14 above), 711-27; see also Mordek, H., “Aachen, Frankfurt, Reims: Beobachtungen zu Genese und Tradition des ‘Capitulare Francofurtense’ (794),” in Das Frankfurter Konzil von 794 (n. 3 above), 125–48.Google Scholar

119 Mordek, , “Aachen, Frankfurt, Reims,” 128: “Fast möchte man, mit Karl, den glücklosen letzten Agilolfinger bemitleiden, so ereignisnah und authentisch wird geschildert.” He then notes, however, that this tone is not unusual in capitulary texts.Google Scholar

120 Spilling, , “Die Sprache des Konzils” (n. 14 above), 724: “daß die für Tassilo überlieferten Worte entweder in redigierter Form wiedergegeben oder überhaupt am Hof für ihn aufgesetzt, ihm sozusagen vorgesprochen worden sind.” Google Scholar

121 See the valuable comments by Schieffer, Rudolf, “Ein politischer Prozeß des 8. Jahrhunderts im Vexierspiegel der Quellen,” in idem, Das Frankfurter Konzil von 794 (n. 3 above), 167–82, at 182: “Alles spricht dafür, daß er [the author of the Royal Annals] keinen Schatten auf seine bereits fixierte Darstellung fallen lassen wollte, derzufolge die Sache des Agilolfingers sechs Jahre zuvor schon hieb-und stichfest zum Abschluß gebracht worden war und daher keines derartigen ‘Nachspiels’ bedurfte.” Google Scholar

122 Annales Lauresheimenses (n. 1 above) sub anno: “abnegans omnem potestatem quam in Paioaria habuit, tradens eam domno regi.” Google Scholar

123 Capitulare Francofurtense (n. 13 above), 165: “His peractis de Tasiloni definitum est capitulum.” Google Scholar

124 Spilling, , “Die Sprache des Konzils” (n. 14 above), 714: “Tassilos Auftrifft … erfährt eine Darstellung, die in ihrer Ausführlichkeit alle übrigen Kapitel des Capitulare übertrifft.” The first two chapters were promulgated solely by the ecclesiastics; the third, although it takes place “in medio sanctissimi … concilii,” was disposed of solely by Charlemagne, while the following chapters are enacted in tandem (see Depreux, P., “L'expression ‘statutum est a domno rege et sancta synodo’ anonçant certaines dispositions du capitulaire de Francfort [794],” in Das Frankfurter Konzil von 794, 81-101, at 100-101).Google Scholar

125 Spilling, , “Die Sprache des Konzils,” 718–19; “gurpire/werpire” is cognate with modern German “werfen,” to throw or cast [i.e., away]. Unfortunately, the manuscript evidence does not provide further evidence of origin or authorship. The older of the two extant copies (P1) dates from the late ninth century and seems to come from St. Remi, Rheims; the later copy (P2) dates from the late tenth century and apparently comes from St. Denis. Thus, no firm conclusions can be drawn about the exemplar although the circumscribed provenance of the two copies is consistent with the linguistic argument offered here.Google Scholar

126 So Spilling, , “Die Sprache des Konzils,” 722: “Die Schilderung des Gottesurteils [by Peter] und die Tassilo-Szene sind die Kapitel, in denen sich am deutlichsten zeigt, welche Schwierigkeiten der Berichterstatter bei seinem Werk hatte. … Er beschränkte aber seinen Bericht dennoch nicht auf das reine Ergebnis des Gottesurteils, sondern verzeichnete zum Beweis der Rechtskräftigkeit alle vorbereitenden Schritte und Begleitumstände dieser Urteilsfindung. … Entsprechend vermerkte er alle Einzelheiten von Tassilos Bekenntnis und Verzicht und schilderte Karls des Großen Reaktion … in absichtsvoller Breite.” Google Scholar

127 Wolfram, , Intitulado 1 (n. 93 above), 222: “Karl sah die Notwendigkeit, gefährdete Gebiete, die eine starke Tradition einte, der Karolingerherrschaft zu erhalten, ohne daß daraus eine endlose Kette von Aufständen und Schwierigkeit aller Art entstünde; das drohte aber, wenn man Langobarden wie Aquitanier dem Regnum Francorum unmittelbar unterwarf.” Google Scholar

128 These developments are discussed in Hammer, , From Ducatus to Regnum (n. 10 above), Part 5.Google Scholar

129 For a concise review of the Alemannic regime of Counts Warin and Ruthard from the late 740s to the early 770s, see Zettler, Alfons, Handbuch der Baden-Würtembergischen Geschichte 1/1, ed. Schaab, M. et al. (Stuttgart, 2001), 319–24.Google Scholar