German History 2011 Dale 557 83

German History Vol. 29, No. 4, pp.
557583
Imperial Self-Representation and the Manipulation of History in Twelfth-Century Germany: Cambridge, Corpus Christi College MS 373*
Johanna Dale
Downloaded from http://gh.oxfordjournals.org/ at Central University Library of Bucharest on November 25, 2011
This paper aims to elucidate a distinctive imperial manipulation of history contained within an early twelfth-century chronicle, and to demonstrate that the coherent and consistent manner in which the past was manipulated was influenced by contemporary Salian political concerns during the reign of Henry V. The chronicle in question, now MS 373 in the Parker Library at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, was dedicated to the last Salian emperor around 1114, the year in which he married Matilda, daughter of Henry I of England.1 That this marriage is commemorated in the anonymous chronicle in both word and image is testimony to the centrality of that union to the perpetuation of the Salian dynasty and draws the readers attention to a dynastic tenor that is manifest throughout the chronicle. The so-called Kaiserchronik or Imperial Chronicle, which is mainly annalistic in form and consists of ninety-six folios, is divided into three books following an introductory statement in the authorial voice. The first book contains a history of the origins of the Franks in Troy and continues to the time of Charlemagne. The second book commences with the coronation of Charlemagne on Christmas Day 800 and concludes with the death of Henry IV. The final book is concerned with the reign of Henry V himself. Despite being one of the few extant Romanesque royal manuscripts in England, the Imperial Chronicle has received surprisingly little scholarly attention. This is mainly due to the fact that the great nineteenth-century historians Pertz and Waitz considered MS 373 to contain merely another version of the universal chronicle of Ekkehard of Aura, and indeed to have been written by his hand.2 In 1956, however, Irene Schmale-Ott argued in a seminal article that the manuscript should be considered to contain a unique chronicle, heavily indebted to Ekkehard, but nevertheless a separate work.3 In her article, Die Rezension C der Weltchronik Ekkehards, Schmale-Ott asserted that Ekkehard could not have been the author of this manuscript, and in tandem with Franz-Josef
* I am extremely grateful to Elisabeth van Houts, Christopher de Hamel, David dAvray and Nicholas Vincent for their encouragement and constructive criticism. I would also like to thank the Arts and Humanities Research Council for the studentship that supported this research. 1 CCCC MS 373 was described by M.R. James in 1912 and is included in the new series of catalogues of manuscripts in Cambridge: M.R. James, Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College Cambridge, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1912), vol. 2, pp. 2158; S. Panayotova and N. Morgan (eds), Illuminated Manuscripts in Cambridge: A Catalogue of Western Book Illumination in the Fitzwilliam Museum and the Cambridge Colleges, Part 1: The Frankish Kingdoms, the Low Countries and Germany (London, 2009), vol. 1, pp. 12526. 2 This led to Waitz attempting to include MS 373 in his edition of Ekkehards chronicle for the Monumenta Germaniae Historica series (MGH): Ekkehard of Aura, Chronicon Universale, MGH Scriptores (in Folio; SS), 6 (Hannover, 1844), pp. 33265. 3 I. Schmale-Ott, Die Rezension C der Weltchronik Ekkehards, Deutsches Archiv (DA), 12 (1956), pp. 36387.
The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the German History Society. All rights reserved. doi:10.1093/gerhis/ghr063
558 Johanna Dale
Schmale she pioneered an explanation of the relationship between the historical works of Frutolf of Michelsberg, Ekkehard of Aura and our anonymous author.4 The complex text history of this important historical work, in addition to the assertion that the main scribe was Ekkehard, accounted for the previous misidentification.5 The realization that MS 373 contains a different work, which was, according to the author, requested by Henry V himself, demands a reinterpretation of the chronicle in order to understand why, despite the existence of Ekkehards work, our anonymous author composed a chronicle so heavily based on Ekkehard that it was mistaken for his work. The author has altered Ekkehards text in three main ways; first by deleting a substantial portion of Ekkehards chronicle, second by augmenting his history with information from Sigebert of Gemblouxs chronicle, and third with his own original composition, though only sparingly before the reign of Henry V.6 As will be demonstrated, our author manipulated his main source in such a way as to portray Henry V and the Salian dynasty in a very particular light. Throughout the eleventh century, royal and ducal houses in Europe had increasingly looked to written histories to explain and justify their positions. This trend was particularly evident in Normandy and England, where the Norman Conquest of 1066 provided an impetus for historical texts to justify Norman rule.7 Concurrently, interest in the Carolingian period was invigorated by the Capetian royal family in the West Frankish kingdom, where Abbot Suger turned Saint Denis into a focus for the growing cult of Charlemagne.8 However, in contrast to the Norman and French dynasties, which were growing in power and confidence in the late eleventh century, the Salian position within the East Frankish kingdom was increasingly perilous, and the elective nature of kingship in Germany added fuel to this fire. The shock of Saxon revolts, Henry IVs excommunication by Pope Gregory VII in 1076 and the election of Rudolf of Rheinfelden as an anti-king in 1077 had left deep scars in the consciousness of the ruling class, leading to what has been termed the crisis of medieval Germany.9 As a result of this crisis, Timothy Reuter has described how twelfth-century Germany was a kingdom undergoing a reorientation of its sense of legitimacy, reordering its sense of distant and recent past as well as of contemporary history.10 It is in this context that the Imperial Chronicle was written for Henry V, who seems to have been the first Salian to have appreciated the potential use of a historical work to justify his position, and who also requested that an account be written of his 1111 Italian
4 Frutolfi et Ekkehardi Chronica necnon Anonymi Chronica Imperatorum, ed. F.-J. Schmale and I. Schmale-Ott, Ausgewhlte Quellen zur deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters (AQDGM), 15 (Darmstadt, 1972), pp. 123210. 5 R. McKitterick, in P. Binski and S. Panayotova (eds), The Cambridge Illuminations: Ten Centuries of Book Production in the Medieval West (London, 2005), p. 241. 6 Sigebert of Gembloux, Chronica, MGH SS, 6 (Hannover, 1844), pp. 30074. The anonymous authors account for the years 11061114 has been published in Frutolfi et Ekkehardi Chronica necnon Anonymi Chronica Imperatorum. 7 For example the Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumiges, which was continued by Orderic Vitalis and finally Robert of Torigny. 8 L. Grant, Abbot Suger of Saint Denis: Church and State in Early Twelfth-Century France (London, 1998), pp. 181277. 9 K. Leyser, The Crisis of Medieval Germany, in Leyser, Communications and Power in Medieval Europe: The Gregorian Revolution and Beyond (London, 1994), pp. 2150. 10 T. Reuter, Past, Present and No Future in the Twelfth-Century Regnum Teutonicum, in P. Magdalino (ed.), The Perception of the Past in Twelfth-Century Europe (London, 1992), pp. 1536, p. 19.
Imperial Self-Representation and the Manipulation of History in Twelfth-Century Germany 559
expedition.11 Hitherto, the Salians had made little effort to propagate a view of themselves through historical writing. Wipos biography of Conrad II and Erlung of Wrzburgs life of Henry IV were both written after the deaths of their subjects and apparently not on commission.12 The Imperial Chronicle is very different to such biographies, being concerned as it is with the history of the whole dynasty rather than an individual monarch. Furthermore, it almost entirely eschews the kind of anecdotal approach that Karl Leyser has seen as indicative of a twelfth-century interest in the individuality of rulers.13 With the exception of an exhortation to live out the Ciceronian ideal of rulership in the prologue, our author does not appear to have an instructional motive, and the chronicle lacks the crescendo of exploits contained within the contemporaneous Deeds of the Princes of Poland.14 The lack of anecdotes and descriptions of exploits in the Imperial Chronicle might make it a less exciting read, but the factual annalistic style is deceptive. As will be shown, our authors subtle manipulation of texts has the effect of creating a chronicle that is just as dynastic in intent as these more explicitly celebratory genres. The idea of history as a continuation of the narrative of the past set out in the Bible still held sway in this period, and within the Empire our anonymous authors predecessors, Frutolf of Michelsberg and Ekkehard of Aura, and his other main source, Sigebert of Gembloux, wrote universal chronicles that began with the Creation story and presented a linear history to the Holy Roman Empire of the twelfth century.15 However, historians were increasingly influenced by new attitudes to antiquity and instead of dividing their histories at the birth of Christ, they began to include the story of Jesus within their narratives of the Roman Empire.16 In this period, Rome came to be seen as ancient Rome, rather than as the Rome of the saints and martyrs, and given the struggle of the Salians with the papacy in the so-called Investiture Contest, this renewed interest in the ancient past had a sharper political significance in the Reich than in the rest of medieval Christendom.17 Our chronicle incorporates a legitimation of the secular side of imperial rule absent from Ekkehards work, and this is clearly illustrated by a comparison between the prologue of the Imperial Chronicle and a surviving dedicatory epistle contained within a later revision of Ekkehards chronicle. While the anonymous author stressed that the Roman Empire ruled by German lords was a state approved by Cicero, Ekkehard was concerned to portray a good Christian ruler.18 This contrasting ideal of rulership, in which divine favour is replaced by a more historically-based legitimacy, lies at the heart of the different interpretation of the past presented by our anonymous author.
11 David the Irishmans account of Henry Vs expedition to Rome was used as a source by the author of the Imperial Chronicle. 12 Reuter, Past, Present and No Future, p. 24. 13 K. Leyser, Some Reflections on Twelfth-Century Kings and Kingship, in Leyser, Medieval Germany and its Neighbours 9001250 (London, 1982), pp. 24161, p. 248. 14 T.N. Bisson, On Not Eating Polish Bread in Vain: Resonance and Conjecture in the Deeds of the Princes of Poland, Viator, 29 (1998), pp. 27589, p. 278. 15 P. Classen, Res Gestae, Universal History, Apocalypse: Visions of Past and Future, in R.L. Benson and G. Constable (eds), Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century (Oxford, 1982) pp. 387420, p. 400. 16 R. Vaughan, The Past in the Middle Ages, Journal of Medieval History, 12 (1986), pp. 114, p. 2. 17 D.E. Luscombe and G.R. Evans, The Twelfth-Century Renaissance, in J.H. Burns (ed.), The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c. 350-c.1450 (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 30640, pp. 31016; Reuter, Past, Present and No Future, p. 19. 18 Schmale-Ott, Die Rezension C, pp. 3712.
560 Johanna Dale
The author of the Imperial Chronicle claimed to have written at the request of Emperor Henry V. Whether or not this was the case, he certainly portrayed the Salian dynasty in a more favourable light than Ekkehard had in his account. Both the use of a tenth-century copy of a ninth-century deed from the diocese of Wrzburg as an end leaf and the addition of information about Wrzburg affairs suggest that the manuscript was produced at Wrzburg in the Salian heartlands.19 However, beyond this, the early provenance of the manuscript remains unclear, although it was almost certainly in the Rochester Cathedral Library from the late twelfth or early thirteenth century, before becoming part of the Parker bequest to Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.20 John Lowden has set out the problems in understanding the role of what he terms the royal/ imperial book, as representative of the royal/imperial self-image.21 As an art historian, he focuses on the visual images contained within such books, but his assertion that visual messages are likely to be adapted to make different points in differing circumstances of production and destination can surely also be applied to the messages contained within the text of such books. There exists a substantial body of scholarship that has stressed the likelihood that the Imperial Chronicle was a presentation copy for the young Matilda, a view that is confirmed by palaeographical and codicological examination.22 It is therefore possible to see the manipulation of existing historical texts by our anonymous author as indicative of Salian self-image at the time of a great dynastic union for the imperial family with the hope of producing an heir to perpetuate Salian rule. This paper seeks to build on the advances of Irene Schmale-Ott and Franz-Josef Schmale through a systematic analysis of the alterations made to Ekkehards work by the anonymous author of the Imperial Chronicle. It focuses on four main themes: the authors attitude to biblical history, the presentation of the Carolingian past in the chronicle, the manipulation of dynastic changeovers, and the portrayal of Henry V. In doing so it seeks to contribute to the discourse surrounding royal self-representation and historical memory in the central medieval period. John W. Bernhardt has shown how, a century earlier, Henry IIs legitimization of his rulership in the East Frankish realm became a part of written historical memory, and Bernd Schneidmller has indicated our need to be aware of the agility and flexibility with which medieval chroniclers drew a contemporary argument out of the past.23 That the Imperial Chronicle was heavily reliant on other surviving sources, with which it will be compared in this paper, makes it possible to demonstrate that the anonymous author was agile in his approach to the past. Indeed the coherence with which the author manipulated history to justify Salian rulership in the early twelfth century will be shown to be representative of what Stefan Weinfurter has termed, the Salian principles of dynastic thinking.24
19 Ibid., pp. 3778. 20 J. Dale, The Provenance of Cambridge, Corpus Christi College MS 373, in The Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society, XIV/1 (2008), pp. 3350, pp. 3941. 21 J. Lowden, The Royal/Imperial Book and the Image or Self-Image of the Medieval Ruler, in A.J. Duggan (ed.), Kings and Kingship in Medieval Europe (London, 1993), pp. 21340, p. 215. 22 Dale, The Provenance of Cambridge, Corpus Christi College MS 373. 23 J.W. Bernhardt, King Henry II of Germany: Royal Self-Representation and Historical Memory, in G. Althoff, J. Fried and P.J. Geary (eds), Medieval Concepts of the Past: Ritual, Memory and Historiography (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 3970; B. Schneidmller, Constructing the Past by Means of the Present: Historiographical Foundations of Medieval Institutions, Dynasties, Peoples and Communities, in Althoff, Fried and Geary, Medieval Concepts of the Past, pp. 16792, p. 192. 24 S. Weinfurter, The Salian Century: Main Currents in an Age of Transition, trans. B.M. Bowlus (Philadelphia, 1999), p. 165.
I: The Origins of the Franks

Perhaps the most immediately apparent contrast between the Imperial Chronicle and earlier versions of Ekkehards work is its size: it is significantly shorter than Ekkehards universal history. This can be explained by our anonymous authors decision to eschew the Creation story and instead to commence his account with the origins of the Franks. While Ekkehard followed Frutolf of Michelsberg in attempting to write a universal history, the aim of our author seems to have been to justify the dynastic descent of Henry V from the Franks in Troy, rather than to position his rule in the wider context of biblical history. That the author is indebted to two universal chronicles written within the empire, by Sigebert of Gembloux and Ekkehard of Aura, who had reworked the chronicle of Frutolf of Michelsberg, is pertinent because it is clear that the author made an active decision to dispense with this information. It is not because of a lack of sources that biblical history was removed from our chronicle. Indeed as Peter Classen has commented,
probably more than any other medieval author before or after him, Frutolf made an attempt to describe in detail and bring together in a comprehensive presentation covering the entire course of time every conceivable piece of historical information known to him.25
The decision not to include biblical history could of course be explained rather prosaically by the suggestion that our author knew his intended audience could easily find this information elsewhere. However, given another tendency of our author, to remove references to ecclesiastical affairs, this rejection appears symptomatic of a move away from the Ottonian iconographical vocabulary of Christological kingship. 26 Henry Mayr-Harting has pointed to the move away from depicting coronation as indicative of this and thus it is surely significant that while the illustrations of the rulers in the Imperial Chronicle fall, in every case but one, before the narrative for the reign of the respective ruler, they are all presented already crowned and enthroned with sceptres and orbs. Our author did not just dispense with Ekkehards biblical history; he also rejected the equivalent of almost thirty pages of text from Waitzs edition of Ekkehard for the Monumenta Germaniae Historica (MGH) series concerning the origins of other races, including the Goths, Amazons and Huns.27 Our authors commencement of the chronicle with a section taken directly from Ekkehard about the origins of the Franks is thus indicative of this desire to position Henry V at the end of the Frankish dynasty as it originated in Troy, with the Franks playing the role of legitimacy transmitters (Legitimationsvermittler), rather than in the more general context of the origins of peoples (origines gentium).28 Moreover Ekkehard divided his chronicle in an annalistic manner in the year 378, while our author ignored this early history and only wrote year by year from Pippins usurpation of the throne in 752.29 Here, Pippins succession to the throne not
25 P. Classen, Res Gestae, Universal History, Apocalypse, p. 400. 26 H. Mayr-Harting, Ottonian Book Illumination: An Historical Study, 2 vols. (2nd edn, London, 1999), vol. 2, p. 175. 27 Ekkehard describes the origins of these races, Ekkehard of Aura, Chronicon Universale, pp. 11933. 28 A. Plassmann, Origio gentis: Identittsstiftung in frh- und hochmittelalterlichen Herkunftserzhlungen (Berlin, 2006), p. 366. 29 CCCC MS 373, folio 14v.
562 Johanna Dale
only merits dividing the text into years for the first time, but also a full-page illustration (Figure 29.24) of the enthroned king, and the use of a three-line initial decorated with foliage to introduce the new king with the following words:
Pippinus per auctoritatem Zachari papae, more Francorum electus ad regnum, per manus sancti Bonifacii archiepiscopi Mogonciacensis elevatus est in regni solium in Suessionum civitate.30
Our author removed the other information provided by Ekkehard for this year, including the translation of St Kylian, and by doing so concentrates the readers thoughts solely on the founder of the Carolingian dynasty.
Figure 29.24:Pippin (f. 14r) With the kind permission of the Master and Fellows of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.
30 Ibid. This is taken directly from Ekkehard, Ekkehard of Aura, Chronicon Universale, p. 159. Pippin, through the authority of Pope Zacharius in the manner of the Franks was elected to the kingdom, he was elevated to the throne of the kingdom by the hands of Boniface, archbishop of Mainz in the city of Soissons.
With the advent of Pippin our anonymous author adopted an annalistic form for the Imperial Chronicle. A report was composed for every year, and even if there is no information for a certain year, there still tends to be a rubric. In taking this form the author of the chronicle followed Ekkehard, who also wrote his chronicle partly in an annalistic style. In her work on dynastic historiography, Leah Shopkow has seen the adoption of an annalistic form as rendering the work of Ekkehard and our author less dynastic in intent than that of Frutolf of Michelsberg. She comments, Frutolf s successors did not choose a dynastic form for their histories; instead they wrote annals, albeit annals that were clearly dynastic in their intention to celebrate the imperial lineage.31 Frutolf had written his work in a regnal format, in that he did not write about the time before the emperors rule, but began each reign with a summary of the years of the reign.32 In Ekkehards initial reworking of Frutolf, he divided his work into years, but he also included information about the lives and deeds of the rulers, which he often simply assimilated into the first year of their reign, irrespective of when the events in question actually took place. One of the major alterations made by the author of the Imperial Chronicle was the removal of this information from the first year of the rulers reigns. The form of the Imperial Chronicle thus seems to owe more to the other major source used by our author, Sigebert of Gembloux, than to Ekkehard, as Sigebert also set out concise accounts for each year and avoided long narrative sections. There could, however, be pragmatic reasons for choosing an annalistic approach. As the author of the Imperial Chronicle was writing about a contemporary in Henry V, he did not know how long Henrys reign would last and therefore could not follow the regnal approach of Frutolf.33 However, as Shopkow has commented, if one wished to flatter without appearing to do so, a form that did not explicitly focus on the lineage might be preferable to one that did.34 Thus the straightforward organization of the material by the author of the Imperial Chronicle could also be interpreted as an attempt to present the history of the German emperors in an apparently impartial manner. The work of Rosamond McKitterick on Carolingian annals is also illuminating in this context.35 McKitterick has seen the Carolingian development of an annalistic style as a medium through which the Carolingians could support their status and ambitions. A dynastic history as defined by Shopkow focused on the family of the rulers, but McKitterick argues that the annalistic form focuses attention on the office and the succession to that office through time rather than on dynastic descent.36 Given that the Carolingians had usurped the office of the Merovingians, it is surely unsurprising that they did not want to stress their lack of family connections and, as will be argued below, the annalistic approach of our author allows him to do much the same thing for the Salians.
31 L. Shopkow, Dynastic History, in D. Delyiannis (ed.), Medieval Historiography (Leiden, 2003), pp. 21948, p. 226. 32 Shopkow, Dynastic History, n. 21, p. 222. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid., p. 232. 35 R. McKitterick, Constructing the Past in the Early Middle Ages: The Case of the Royal Frankish Annals, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society (TRHS), 6th series, 7 (1997), pp. 10130. 36 McKitterick, Constructing the Past, pp. 1289.
564 Johanna Dale
II: The Carolingian Inheritance

Unfortunately a lost quire between folios 16 and 17 prohibits a thorough assessment of the authors treatment of the reign of Pippin. The surviving material tends to follow Ekkehard very closely, although the author did introduce some information from Sigebert about the emperor of Constantinople in the year 755.37 This is not the only example of the addition of information about the Eastern emperor: the author seemed to wish to draw a parallel between the empires of west and east, thus heightening the position of the Carolingians. The imperial position of Pippins son is highlighted both by additional information, and also by the authors decision to begin the second book in 801, immediately following the imperial coronation of Charlemagne.38 The division of the chronicle here is significant in drawing the readers attention to the newly elevated position of the ruler, and is no doubt an echo of the statement in the prologue that Henry V wanted a history written from the time of Charlemagne to his own.39 The attempt of the author of the Imperial Chronicle to claim a link to the Carolingians foreshadowed the more direct actions of Frederick Barbarossa later in the twelfth century, when he sought to wrest the claim to Charlemagne from the West Franks by pushing for his canonization. This was achieved in 1165 and precipitated the elevation of Charlemagnes burial place at Aachen to the status of an important shrine, in emulation of, and in competition with, the Capetian royal shrine at Saint Denis.40 The addition of text, which seems to be original to this author rather than taken from Sigebert, further emphasizes the change in office.41 Here our author described the initial break between Rome and Constantinople and how, after 468 years, Charlemagne had reunited the kingdom of the Franks with the Roman Church and established the race of the Franks as emperors. This focus on Constantinople as a new Rome precedes several references, often taken from Ekkehard, about legates being sent between the two emperors and gifts being received, and thus helps to put into context these diplomatic gestures and to place Charlemagne on a level with his Byzantine counterpart.42 Interestingly, our author also stressed the Frankish race, which corresponds to his decision to include only the history of the Franks, and not the other peoples contained within Ekkehards account. Indeed the author declared that no other race should produce emperors, explaining the necessity of the authors attempt to situate Henry V as a Frank as epitomized in his presentation of a linear dynastic descent from the Franks in Troy to Henry V. The authors emphasis on the Frankish race also highlights that it is race, even more than close connection to the Holy Roman Church, that justified the imperial status of the Salians.
37 Sigebert of Gembloux, Chronica, p. 332. 38 CCCC MS 373, folio 24v. 39 Anonymi Chronica Imperatorum, p. 214. 40 J. Petersohn, Saint-DenisWestminsterAachen: Die Karls-Translatio von 1165 und ihre Vorbilder, DA, 31 (1975), pp. 42054, p. 450. 41 The text added between Books 1 and 2 is included in Schmale and Schmale-Otts 1972 edition. Anonymi Chronica Imperatorum, p. 214. 42 Relations between the eastern empire and Charlemagne are discussed in the years 802 and 803. CCCC MS 373, folio 25v; Ekkehard of Aura, Chronicon Universale, p. 169.
The importance of the translation of the empire to the Frankish race is further highlighted by the page layout. The top half of folio 24r is taken up with the additional information discussed in the previous paragraph, and this text is introduced with a red initial. The opposite side of the opening, folio 23v, contains a full page of text, which finishes near the bottom of the page with the words here ends the first book (explicit liber primus). In this way the added text is presented right at the start of the second book, thus implying some kind of new beginning. The illustration of Charlemagne enthroned, which takes up the bottom half of folio 24r, makes clear that this new beginning is the return of the empire to the Franks described in the text (Figure 29.25). The positioning of the illustration of Charlemagne here is significant, because all the other ruler illustrations occur before the first year of their royal rule. In this case however the illustration has been placed between the years 800 and 801.43 Given that Charlemagne was crowned emperor on Christmas Day 800, and the Salian emperors followed a calendar in which years ran from Christmas to Christmas, the illustration of Charlemagne is positioned so that, chronologically, it occurs exactly at the moment of his imperial coronation.44 On the following page, folio 24v, his imperial coronation is described under the heading here begins the second book (incipit liber secundus) following the sole historiated initial in the manuscript, which introduces the year 801. The narrative for the rest of Charlemagnes reign comes after this. This introduction of the added text and the illustration of the first Carolingian emperor stresses the return of the imperial office to the Frankish race, and while the remaining ruler portraits are positioned before the commencement of their royal reigns, this material between Books 1 and 2 emphasizes that the succeeding rulers are heirs to an emperor. The author of the Imperial Chronicle followed Ekkehard exactly in describing the first few years of Charlemagnes imperial rule, in which relations between Charlemagne and the Empress Irene of Constantinople are set out.45 However, for the final ten years of Charlemagnes life the author deviated from Ekkehards account, taking most of his information from Sigebert. One clear difference in the reports is that our author assimilated information from Sigebert concerning the eastern reaches of the empire.46 For 804 he followed Ekkehard in mentioning a visit to Aachen by Charlemagne and an army being sent into Saxony, but he rejected a description of events in Italy and instead focused on a campaign against the Huns.47 This spotlight on the east continues to shine on the entry for the following year, in which relations with the Slavs and Bohemia are discussed.48 In this way the author of the Imperial Chronicle sought to tie the history of the eastern part of the Holy Roman Empire, over which Henry V now ruled, to the power of
43 It is of course possible that the lost quire covering the years 760784 might also have had an illustration of Charlemagne before the narrative for his reign began. 44 H. Grotefend, Taschenbuch der Zeitrechnung des deutschen Mittelalters und der Neuzeit, 10th edn., ed. T. Ulrich (Hannover, 1960), p. 12. 45 CCCC MS 373, folios 24v25v. 46 CCCC MS 373, folios 25v28r; Sigebert of Gembloux, Chronica, pp. 3367. 47 CCCC MS 373, folio 25v. Our author incorporates the majority of Sigeberts entry for this year. Ekkehard of Aura, Chronicon Universale, p. 169; Sigebert of Gembloux, Chronica, p. 336. 48 For the year 805 the author completely replaces Ekkehards account with that of Sigebert. CCCC MS 373, folio 26r; Ekkehard of Aura, Chronicon Universale, p. 169; Sigebert of Gembloux, Chronica, p. 336.
566 Johanna Dale
Figure 29.25:Figure 29.25: Charlemagne (f. 24r) With the kind permission of the Master and Fellows of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.
Charlemagne, stressing that the Salian emperor had inherited his authority from his illustrious predecessor. Charlemagnes jurisdiction throughout the whole empire is also stressed, with the author borrowing the information from Sigebert that Karolus per omne imperium iusticias facit et leges capitula xxix instituit.49 This addition again serves
49 Ekkehard of Aura, Chronicon Universale, p. 169. In the whole of his empire Charles did justice and issued laws through twenty-nine capitula.
to emphasize that Charlemagnes justice-providing and law-making powers ran throughout his territories, including those in the east. The inclusion of this information describing the exercise of imperial powers can be seen as an attempt to justify the position of the Salian emperors and to provide a historical precedent for their claims to overlordship of the duchies and kingdoms that came to make up the East Frankish kingdom. Furthermore it could also be interpreted as an assertion of the role of the emperor as the dispenser of peace and justice in the face of princely attempts to usurp the guarding of pax et iusticia for themselves.50 Henry IVs issuing of a Landsfriedengesetz in 1103 can clearly be considered a response to the fact that lay and ecclesiastical lords had been issuing their own general peace (Landfrieden).51 That our anonymous author thus emphasized the role of Charlemagne as an exerciser of justice and giver of laws would surely have been in keeping with Salian pretensions. The last years of Charlemagnes life were dominated by attempts to establish an agreement for the succession of his sons. In discussing the projected division of the empire, under the year 806, the author of the Imperial Chronicle rejected Ekkehards description and replaced it with that of Sigebert.52 The changes thus made are instructive, because they hint at an impatience with the princes of the realm, who were seeking an ever greater role in the governance of Germany under Henry V, and had even gone so far as to elect an anti-king in Rudolf of Rheinfelden at Forchheim in 1077, in opposition to his father Henry IV. Ekkehards report for 806 describes the emperor holding a council and the division being decided with the advice of the leaders of the Franks:
Imperator, habito conventu, iniit consilium cum primoribus Francorum de pace constituenda et conservanda, et de divisione regni facienda inter filios suos in tres partes, ut sciret unusquisque illorum, quam partem tueri et regnere deberet, si sibi superstes deveniret. De hac partitione testamentum est factum et iureiurando ab optimatibus confirmatum.53
In contrast, our author followed Sigebert in presenting the division as the decision solely of the emperor Charlemagne, which the pope then reinforced.
Karolus inter filios suos partitionem regni facit, et inde testamentum factum, sua et Leonis papae auctoritate roboravit.54
He allowed the princes of the realm no role in the partition although, perhaps surprisingly, he did mention papal approval, albeit only in confirming a fait accompli. This rejection of a role for the princes surely points to the troubled internal situation in Germany, in which the nobles were frequently challenging the position of the Salian
50 Tilman Struve has pointed to the link between the renewal of Roman lordship and the exercising of laws. T. Struve, Kaisertum und Romgedanke in salischer Zeit, DA, 44 (1988), pp. 42454, p. 425. 51 H. Vollrath, Ideal and Reality in Twelfth-Century Germany, in A. Haverkamp and H. Vollrath (eds), England and Germany in the High Middle Ages (Oxford, 1996), pp. 93104. 52 CCCC MS 373, folio 26r. 53 Ekkehard of Aura, Chronicon Universale, p. 169. The emperor, a council having been held, formed a plan with the nobles of the Franks concerning the establishment and conservation of the peace, and concerning the division of the kingdom into three parts being accomplished between his sons, in order that each one of them knew which part he was responsible to protect and rule, if he came to outlive him. About this partition a covenant was made and an oath declared by the nobles. 54 Sigebert of Gembloux, Chronica, p. 336. Charles made a division of the kingdom between his sons, and afterwards an oath having been made, it was confirmed by his and Pope Leos authority.
568 Johanna Dale
dynasty and pushing the right of the princes to elect the successor to the German kingdom. On his election in 1077, Rudolf had been forced to acknowledge that royal power should no longer be transmitted, as had formerly been the custom, by hereditary right.55 This would surely have been a deeply unattractive sentiment to Henry V. In swapping Ekkehards version for Sigeberts our author attempted to justify the dynastic descent of the throne and the fact that the king or emperor should be able to make a decision about the succession without the interference of the princes. Our author stressed the right of Henry V to determine the succession by linking such a right to Charlemagne. Our authors treatment of the death of Charlemagne also differs slightly from that of Ekkehard. He removed detailed information about the succession and dramatized the achievements of Charlemagne, following Sigebert by mentioning the grief felt in the whole Roman empire.56 These small textual changes elevate the position of the deceased ruler and stress the positive nature of the rule of the first emperor in the dynastic chain. The authors treatment of the rest of Carolingian history was far more cursory, with just a few lines, at most, being devoted to each year. When Ekkehards account contained no information for a particular year our author tended to supplement his chronicle with information from Sigebert, but there does not seem to be a motive for this, other than to maintain comprehensive coverage. Despite the assimilation of details from Sigebert, our author significantly reduced Ekkehards text. In fact the author removed detailed information about the lives and deeds of the Carolingian rulers and compressed them into an uninterrupted and rhythmical sequence. Despite the brief textual treatment of the remaining Carolingian rulers, they were all deemed to merit a portrait. The short amount of text devoted to each ruler caused the illustrations of the rulers to be placed only a few pages apart, which in turn creates the effect of a rapid and direct succession of kings and emperors.57 This impression is maximized by similar pictorial presentations of all the Carolingians from Louis the Pious to Louis the Child. They are depicted sitting on jewelled thrones, wearing almost identical crowns and holding the same shaped sceptre. With the exception of Louis the Child they all hold an orb topped with a cross. This visual similarity heightens the impression of a simple and direct succession. This is further stressed by the captions accompanying the illustrations, which link the rulers to their predecessors. Thus, for example, Louis the Pious is described as the son of Charlemagne (karoli magni filius) and his son Louis the German as the son of Louis (ludewici filius).58 This treatment of the remaining Carolingians, akin to a briefly annotated family tree,
55 J. Gillingham, Elective Kingship and the Unity of Medieval Germany, German History, 9 (1991), pp. 12441, p. 126. 56 CCCC MS 373, folio 28r; Ekkehard of Aura, Chronicon Universale, p. 170; Sigebert of Gembloux, Chronica, p. 337. 57 The portraits of five Carolingian rulers after Charlemagne occur within ten folios. Louis the Pious, folio 28r; Louis the German, folio 31r; Charles the Fat, folio 34v; Arnulf, folio 35v; Louis the Child, folio 36v. 58 These captions were all transcribed by M.R. James. James, Descriptive Catalogue, Vol. 2, pp. 2167.
minimizes the impact of the various divisions of territorial inheritance described within the text.59
III: Dynastic Continuity

Our authors linear focus demands a consideration of the way dynastic changes are documented within the chronicle, including Pippins usurpation of the Merovingian throne and shifts from Carolingian to Saxon, and from Saxon to Salian. All three dynastic changeovers were manipulated by the author so as to emphasize continuity and to hint at direct descent, even when this was not actually the case. This approach anticipated the construction of fourteenth-century genealogies found in Germany, which tended to present dynasties that were not always biological, but focused on the control of a particular piece of property. In the case of the Welfs, this allowed the inclusion of the Saxon Hermann Billung in their genealogies even though he was not related to them by blood.60 The author as far as possible removed information concerning the biological lineages of the three dynasties described in the chronicle and as a result he presents one long and distinguished imperial dynasty. Our author followed Ekkehard almost word for word in describing Pippins takeover of power.61 Like Ekkehard, he highlighted the authority of Pope Zacharius and the fact that Pippin was elected according to the custom of the Franks. However, unlike Ekkehard, our author hardly presents this as a change of dynasty, because Pippins accession to the throne was not placed in its historical context. Ekkehard documented the reigns of the Merovingian kings in detail. By contrast, as noted above, our author began his more comprehensive account, in which he wrote a report for most years, in 752 with Pippins accession to the throne. By starting the annalistic section of the text with the reign of Pippin, who also merits the first portrait in the manuscript, the author presents Pippin as the founder of the dynasty and at the same time as a direct and legitimate successor of the Franks in Troy. In this way the amount of dynastic discontinuity is minimized, as the Merovingians are barely referred to. The sense of Pippins reign as a beginning rather than a change of dynasty is heightened by the layout of the text and images on the double opening formed by folios 13v and 14r, and on the following folio, 14v. The part of text at the end of de origine francorum, which is taken directly from Ekkehards report for the year 851, ends with six lines spare at the bottom of folio 13v. The opposite page, folio 14r, contains a full-page portrait of the king enthroned within an architectural frame (Figure 29.24). The story of Pippins reign then begins over the page on folio 14v where the text is first divided into
59 The caption on folio 34v is incorrect. The caption reads, karolus iunior filius pii ludewici, Charles, youngest son of Louis the Pious, which suggests the identification of the ruler as Charles the Bald, who was the youngest son of Louis the Pious. However the ruler pictured is Charles the Fat, youngest son of Louis the German, who succeeded his father in the Eastern Kingdom. It would be illogical for the ruler to be Charles the Bald as he ruled in the West Frankish kingdom, which is not the subject of this chronicle, and the identification of the ruler in this portrait as Charles the Fat is made clear in the text below, which explains his brothers are Carloman and Louis and removes the reference to pii ludewicii, describing him simply as karolus iunior filius ludewici, Charles, youngest son of Louis. 60 Shopkow, Dynastic History, p. 245. 61 CCCC MS 373, folio 13v; Ekkehard of Aura, Chronicon Universale, p. 159.
570 Johanna Dale
years. This contrasts with later treatments, where no gaps were left and ruler portraits were fitted into whatever space remained on a page. Indeed, while Pippin has been given a full-page portrait, his more famous son is squeezed into the lower half of folio 24r.62 In this context the layout thus serves to emphasize Pippins position as the founder of the Carolingian royal dynasty without drawing attention to the fact that he had usurped the throne: instead he is presented as directly related to the Trojan Franks. Having documented the Carolingian kings and emperors, the author could not take the same approach to the change between the Carolingian and Saxons dynasties. He did, however, again present the change of dynasty in such a way that any discontinuity was glossed over and instead a smooth descent is implied. The death of Louis the Child, king of the East Franks, in 912 with no direct heirs is presented very differently by our author. He shortened Ekkehards entry for 912 so that it reads only Ludewicus rex moritur, thus presenting the fact itself but not expounding on it.63 Significantly he removed the sentence, hic iuxta quosdam ultimus dicitur Karolorum apud orientales Francos imperantium.64 Our author did not want to highlight the fact that Louis was the last Carolingian to rule over the eastern Franks but instead attempted to do just the opposite, by presenting the Salians as legitimate heirs of the Carolingians. Other information which our author has removed includes a discussion of the origins of Louiss successor Conrad, and those of his wife.65 Clearly there is an attempt here to present Conrad as a direct descendant and thus the author did not wish to include information about his actual biological descent. The author generally followed Ekkehard for the years of Conrads reign, augmenting his reports with information from Sigebert when Ekkehards entries were short. Conrads death was reported in exactly the same way as Louis the Childs with just the bare minimum of information, Chuonradus rex moritur, remaining from Ekkehards fuller entry.66 Significantly he also removed the following sentence, sed quia Karolorum stirpe in regno Francorum deficiente, regnum iam ad Saxones per Heinricum transfertur.67 Our author did not want to highlight the fact that, with the accession of Henry the Fowler, the succession was transferred from the Carolingian to the Saxon dynasty and as a result he also removed the equivalent of four pages of MGH text concerning the origins of the Saxons.68 In ignoring this information the author yet again sought to present a change of dynasty as a direct descent. He also removed much of Ekkehards description of the first year of Henrys rule, in which Ekkehard described Henrys relations with the other princes of the realm and his efforts to exert his authority over them.69 As the direct dynastic successor, Henry would not have been expected to face such opposition and, in
62 R. McKitterick, in Binski and Panayotova, The Cambridge Illuminations, p 241. 63 CCCC MS 373, folio 39v. King Louis died. 64 Ekkehard of Aura, Chronicon Universale, p. 175. This certain one at hand was the last being called of the Charleses ruling among the eastern Franks. 65 Ekkehard of Aura, Chronicon Universale, p. 175. 66 CCCC MS 373, folio 39v. 67 Ekkehard of Aura, Chronicon Universale, p. 175. But because the line of the Charleses had become extinct in the kingdom of the Franks, the kingdom was now transferred to the Saxons through Henry. 68 Ekkehard of Aura, Chronicon Universale, p. 17580. 69 Ekkehard of Aura, Chronicon Universale, p. 175.
removing this information, our author made plain his intention to reduce the impression of dynastic discontinuity. The final change of dynasty between the Saxons and the Salians was again treated so as to minimize any sense of rupture in the smooth succession of rulers described in the chronicle.70 The authors presentation of the death of Otto III differs from Ekkehards, with the assimilation of information from Sigebert. Significantly, both Ekkehard and our author dated Ottos death to the year 1000, the only year in the Imperial Chronicle in which the report was divided into two sections, with two red letters. The first part of the year dealt with Ottos fight against the Crescenti and the second part with his death and the succession of Henry II to the throne. The reason for this division is not immediately clear. Perhaps Ottos death was so highlighted because even only one hundred years after his death his successors agreed that Otto III was the epitome of the imperial idea. The attraction of an emperor who sought to move his capital to Rome must have been great to Henry V who, in opposition to papal claims that his rule only extended over the German kingdom, took the title rex romanorum.71 On the other hand this treatment of the year standing at the turn of the first millennium perhaps points to the influence of millenarian ideas, such as those propagated by Rupert of Deutz.72 Whatever the reason for this treatment of the year 1000, it is interesting to note that contrary to a previous inclination to remove information about biological descent our author actually added details about Henrys familial descent: Erat quippe filius henrici ducis qui fuit natus de henrico duce fratre primi ottonis imperatoris.73 The reason for this change of tactic becomes clear: the elements added from Sigebert serve to tie Henry closely to the Ottonian dynasty. The author treated the reign of Henry II in a cursory manner, removing the information from Ekkehard about the first year of his reign and not even attempting to flesh out the description with details from Sigebert when Ekkehards accounts were short or non-existent. Again the author went against previous form by following Ekkehard almost exactly in his reporting of the year 1025, in which Conrad II, the first ruler of the Salian dynasty, succeeded to the throne.74 This can perhaps be explained by the fact that Conrad the Elder could claim descent from the Ottonians, so that there was less of an imperative for the author to manipulate the dynastic element. Moreover since Ekkehard had already avoided any reference to a dispute or choice between Conrad the Elder and Conrad the Younger, our author did not need to smooth over this change as he had done with previous dynastic shifts and uncertain successions. Interestingly, both Ekkehard and our authorfollowing Ekkehardstressed the role of Henry IIs brother, Brun, who was archbishop of Augsburg, and in highlighting this imperial connection further ratify the succession of Conrad. The authors treatment of these three dynastic discontinuities, whether he chose to reject or accept Ekkehards version of events, points to the fact that his emphasis was on
70 CCCC MS 373, folios 50v51v. 71 Gillingham, Elective Kingship, p. 126. 72 Classen, Res Gestae, Universal History, Apocalypse, p. 4047. 73 CCCC MS 373, folio 51r. This is taken from Sigeberts report for the year 1002. Sigebert of Gembloux, Chronica, p. 354. He was the son of Duke Henry who was born of Duke Henry brother of Otto the first emperor. 74 CCCC MS 373, folios 53r-53v. Ekkehard of Aura, Chronicon Universale, pp. 1945.
572 Johanna Dale
the effective authority of the office rather than on biological links. Without explicitly claiming descent from the Carolingians, our author presented the succession of kings and emperors by manipulating familial details and presenting undisputed and straightforward successions. In this way he recorded a dynastic history, in which it is manifest that the Salians were the heirs of the Carolingians. Thus our authors treatment of the translation of the empire (translatio imperii) differs from that of Ekkehard, and, interestingly, from that of Otto of Freising, who considered the empire as having passed to the Germans through the Romans, Greeks, Franks and Lombards.75 The presentation by our author denied the removal of the empire from the Franks, and instead transmits a history of the empire that stressed the Frankish credentials of the Salians. In a consideration of the portraits of the Carolingian rulers above, it was suggested that the visual effect of the succession of the Carolingian ruler-portraits was similar to that of a family tree. This has important implications for all of the portraits in the Imperial Chronicle, because the kings and emperors are similarly presented throughout the chronicle, with sixteen of the eighteen illustrations contained within the chronicle depicting an enthroned king. The impression given by the succession of illustrations is thus of one long family tree stretching from Pippin to Henry V. This analogy is illuminating when the illustrations in surviving copies of Ekkehards chronicle in Jena, Paris, Berlin and Gotha are considered.76 Illustrated genealogies are contained within all of these manuscripts, and significantly the three different dynasties, Carolingian, Saxon and Salian, are presented separately.77 The family trees also contain information about members of the family not directly implicated in ruling. This is again in contrast to the attitude of the architect of the Imperial Chronicle, who removed superfluous family members from the text and had, with the exception of the Empress, not allowed them to be recorded in image. The ruler portraits in the Imperial Chronicle, and their different approach to the depiction of the succession of dynasties to the separate family trees contained within the Ekkehard manuscripts, reflect the attempt to present a straight succession from Pippin to Henry V and to minimize the suggestion of discontinuity between the dynasties. Rather than a biological family tree, we are presented with a line of succession of the office, in which dynastic changes are glossed over and smooth, and legitimate transitions are implied. The kings and emperors from Pippin to Henry IV are all pictured in the same manner, crowned, enthroned and holding royal regalia. Indeed it is the repetition of these iconographical motifs that visually lead to the identification of each ruler with his predecessor and successor, and serve to enhance the idea of smooth transition. These motifs are also important because they are reminiscent of Salian coinage. Indeed, Percy Ernst Schramm explicitly linked the illustration of Henry IV in this
75 J. Le Goff, Medieval Civilisation, 4001500, trans. J. Barrow (Oxford, 1988), p. 171. 76 Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, MS Lat. Fol. 295; Gotha, Forschungsbibliothek, Memb. I 92.; Jena, Universittsbibliothek, Cod. Bose Q. 19; Paris, Bibliothque Nationale, MS Lat. 4889. 77 The pictures are reproduced and discussed in C.A. Meier, Chronicon Pictum von den Anfngen der Chronikenillustration zu den narrativen Bilderzyklen in den Weltchroniken des hohen Mittelalters (Mainz, 2005); Christiane Klaptisch-Zuber has studied the development of the genealogical illustrations in successive versions of Ekkehard, commenting on such innovations as the placing of the illustrations within an architectural framework in the Berlin Ekkehard thus presenting the respective houses as being as strong as fortresses. C. Klaptisch-Zuber LOmbre des anctres: Essai sur limaginaire mdival de la parent (Paris, 2000), p. 107.
manuscript to the image on his seal, and thus also to the medallion-shaped images that were often used in the composition of family trees.78
IV: Henry V and the German Kingdom

The distinctive attitude towards the Church displayed by our author is epitomized by the reference to Cicero in the prologue to the Imperial Chronicle:79
Quamlibet rem publicam testatur Tullius felicem fore, si vel a sapientibus regatur aut eos, qui eam rexerint, studere contingat sapienti, sine qua ipsam fortitudinem constat usque ad nomen temeritatis degenerare.80 Downloaded from http://gh.oxfordjournals.org/ at Central University Library of Bucharest on November 25, 2011
He thus portrays Henry V as a wise man and, as such, fit to rule over the Roman Empire. This is in opposition to Ekkehards spiritual view of the world, in which it was not the wise men of antiquity, but the wise men of the Church who should rule the happy state.81 The inclusion of Ciceronian ideas, as well as indicating that the author was influenced by the renewed interest in the scholarship of antiquity current in the twelfth century, lays the foundations for the introduction of two key concepts on which the Imperial Chronicle is focused: the romanum imperium and the teutonicum regnum.82 In addition to the complete absence of the word ecclesia from the Imperial Chronicle, the focus on political entities contrasts with the dedication of the later version of Ekkehard, which Irene Schmale-Ott considered to be representative of Ekkehards opinions as we know them from his other works:
Ihm liegt die ecclesia am Herzen, die katholische und rechtglabige Christenheit, als ihr getreuer Sohn soll sich der Herrscher erweisen, dann ist seine Herrschaft gut und gerecht.83
That the author of the Imperial Chronicle had a different political outlook from Ekkehards is further confirmed by Ekkehards later disappointment with the rule of Henry V, and this is demonstrated by the changing attitude of Ekkehard to Henry V in different versions of his chronicle. In a dedicatory letter written to preface a version of his chronicle from 1106 that has not survived, Ekkehard wrote to Henry with enthusiasm for his rule following the dark days of his fathers reign and the constant quarrels with the papacy and the nobles:84
78 P.E. Schramm, Die Deutschen Kaiser und Knige in Bildern ihrer Zeit, 7511152, 2 vols (Leipzig, 1928), Vol. 2, abb. 122. 79 Schmale-Ott, Die Rezension C, pp. 3712. 80 Anonymi Chronica Imperatorum, p. 241. Tullius testifies to how much happiness there is in the res publica, if it is actually ruled over by wise men, or they, who will have ruled it, might happen to be desiring of wisdom, without which it is well known strength always deteriorates on account of rashness. 81 Schmale-Ott, Die Rezension C, p. 370. 82 Ibid., p. 371. Heinz Thomas has seen the Imperial Chronicle as an example of the way that the phrases regnum Teutonicum and regnum Francorum could be used as synonyms c.1100. H. Thomas, Julius Caesar und die Deutschen: Zu Ursprung und Gehalt eines deutschen Geschichtsbewusstseins in der Zeit Gregors VII. und Heinrichs IV., in S. Weinfurter (ed.), Die Salier und das Reich, 3 vols. (Sigmaringen, 19912), vol. 3, pp. 24577, p. 269. 83 Schmale-Ott, Die Rezension C, p. 372. His sympathies are with the church, with Catholic and orthodox Christendom, the ruler must show himself to be the true son, then is his rulership good and lawful. 84 S. Weinfurter, Reformidee und Knigtum im sptsalischen Reich, in S. Weinfurter (ed.), Reformidee und Reformpolitik in sptsalisch-frhstaufischen Reich (Mainz, 1992), pp. 147, p. 2.
574 Johanna Dale Tibi Romanus a pulvere iam expergiscens orbis a mari usque ad mare, immo totus a solis ortu usque ad occasum mundus inenarrabili tripudio congratulatur. In te suscitatum David germen iustum universa sanum sapientia corda speculantur; sed precipue Deo servientium persone undique prorumpentes e latibulis lumen te sibimet in tenebris exortum.85
But following the emperors death in 1125, when Ekkehard wrote the last version of his chronicle, his attitude towards Henry was far less positive:
Hic [Henry V], ut prescriptum est, primo sub specie religionis partem excommunicatum imperio privavit, confirmatus in honoribus mores mutavit.86 Downloaded from http://gh.oxfordjournals.org/ at Central University Library of Bucharest on November 25, 2011
In this declaration of disappointment the historian can thus see that Ekkehards initial enthusiasm for the young king lay in his hope that Henry V would prove to have a different and more God-fearing attitude to rulership than his father, Henry IV. Once Henry V had elucidated his agenda towards the Church and papacy and had alienated many of the princes of the realm, Ekkehard ceased to view him positively. In contrast, our author, writing in 1113, when Henry V was facing both ecclesiastical opposition and the hostility of various of his magnates, shows unequivocal support for the monarch. The rebellion of Henry V against his father, Henry IV, in 1105 was well supported by the German princes, and even by the Pope, who had absolved Henry V of his promise never to break his oath of fealty to his father.87 Despite papal support, rebellion against ones father was clearly not considered the ideal path for a prince, and even Ekkehard, who was no supporter of Henry IV, has Henry V addressing his followers saying that he has no intention of fighting and killing his father. He is not driven by a desire to rule, but instead by a determination to hold onto kingship as heir and to defend his paternal legacy.88 The author of the Imperial Chronicle followed Ekkehards justification of the rebellion, but he also sought to tone down and palliate the young Henry Vs pitiless rising against his father in 1105.89
Sunt qui dicant ipsum discidium industria ipsius imperatoris ... provisum, quatinus simulata discordia illam partem regni, que a patre deficiebat, in filii traheret artificiose contubernium.90
The intriguing suggestion that discord between father and son was simulated in order to make the succession of Henry V acceptable to the princes is implausible, but it does raise the question as to why Henry V rebelled, only to defy the wishes of the princes almost immediately after the death of his father. Stefan Weinfurter has emphasized that Henry
85 Ekkehard of Aura, Chronicon Universale, p. 206. Rising from the dust, the whole Roman orb from sea to sea, the whole world from sunrise to sunset, jubilantly, wishes you good fortune. The hearts of all wise men are directed towards you, the newly awakened scion of David. But especially Gods servants, who are re-emerging from their hiding places, view you as the light that has arisen in their darkness. Translation from Weinfurter, The Salian Century, p. 169. 86 Ekkehard of Aura, Chronicon Universale, p. 374. This one [Henry V], as described, took the realm away from his excommunicated father, initially by feigning piety. But once he was firmly established in the kingship, he changed his behaviour. Translation in Weinfurter, The Salian Century, p. 169. 87 H. Vollrath, The Western Empire under the Salians, in D.E. Luscombe and J. Riley-Smith (eds), The New Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 4, Pt 2: c.1024-c.1198 (Cambridge, 2004), pp. 3871, p. 68. 88 Ekkehard of Aura, Chronicon Universale, p. 196. 89 K. Leyser, The Crisis of Medieval Germany, p. 30. 90 Anonymi Chronica Imperatorum, p. 226. There were some who thought discord between father and son was simulated so that loyalties that had forsaken Henry IV could be attached to his heir and successor. Translation in Leyser, The Crisis of Medieval Germany, p. 30.
V was not the first son to rebel against Henry IV: indeed his elder brother, Conrad, had already rebelled and Weinfurter interprets these rebellions as an attempt, first by Conrad and then by Henry V, to maintain dynastic continuity despite the perilous position of their father Henry IV.91 As Caspar Ehlers has identified, he barely made reference to Conrad at all, in contrast to Ekkehard, who mentioned how popular Conrad was in Italy.92 Following Weinfurters assertion that Henry V had no choice but to rebel to save his kingship, or to put it more succinctly ... to save the kingship for the Salian dynasty, helps to explain the changes the author of the Imperial Chronicle has made to his narrative of the reign of Henry IV.93 It must also be kept in mind that the greater part of the Imperial Chronicle had been composed by 1113, by which time Henry V had also fallen out of favour with the papacy. It is therefore unsurprising that the authors attitude to the struggle over investiture was different from Ekkehards. By 1113, Henry V had also taken steps to honour the memory of his father. He had first moved the body of his excommunicated father from Lige to an unconsecrated side-chapel at Speyer and then, having achieved absolution from the Church for his father at his imperial coronation in 1111, had arranged for Henry IVs solemn burial in the Salian cathedral at Speyer. On 14 August 1111 he had granted generous privileges to the inhabitants of Speyer in return for their attendance at a vigil and mass in the cathedral once a year.94 Considering both the importance of Speyer as a dynastic burial place, and Henry Vs reburial of his father Henry IV in the cathedral at Speyer, it is interesting to note the textual changes the author made to the description of the death of Henry III, the grandfather of Henry V.95 Our author shortened Ekkehards entry for the year, but added information about the death of Henry III, particularly stressing that he was buried next to his father, Conrad II, at Speyer.96 Following the death of Henry III, who was succeeded by his young son, Henry IV, in the care of his wife the Empress Agnes, the author completely erased Ekkehards account of the year 1057 and replaced it with a much shorter entry.97 Here the problems Agnes encountered in the minority of her son Henry IV are entirely ignored, and once again the succession of the East Frankish kingdom is presented as untroubled and smooth. Yet under the year 1062, our author added information about the young kings kidnapping by Anno of Cologne, which is not included in Ekkehard.98 Since he had removed most references to any trouble in the minority, this addition is puzzling, but it might be considered that Anno had shown himself to be such an enemy
91 Weinfurter, The Salian Century, p. 161. 92 C. Ehlers, Rumliche Konzepte europischer Monarchien an der Wende vom 11. zum 12. Jahrhundert, in B. Schneidmller and S. Weinfurter (eds), Salisches Kaisertum und neues Europa: Die Zeit Heinrichs IV. und Heinrichs V. (Darmstadt, 2007), pp. 12337, p. 133. 93 Weinfurter, The Salian century, p. 165. 94 S. Weinfurter, Salisches Herrschaftverstndnis im Wandel: Heinrich V. und sein Privileg fr die Brger von Speyer, Frhmittelalterliche Studien (FS), 36 (2002), pp. 31735, p. 319. 95 S. Weinfurter, Herrschaftslegitimation und Knigsautoritt im Wandel: Die Salier und ihr Dom zu Speyer, in Weinfurter, Die Salier und das Reich, vol. 1, pp. 5597. 96 CCCC MS 373, folio 59v; Ekkehard of Aura, Chronicon Universale, p. 197. 97 CCCC MS 373, folio 60r; Ekkehard of Aura, Chronicon Universale, p. 198. 98 CCCC MS 373, folio 61r; Ekkehard of Aura, Chronicon Universale, p. 199.
576 Johanna Dale
of the king that describing his kidnapping of the young king served to help portray him as a power-hungry and under-hand opponent. Thus, in contrast to Ekkehardwho dedicated a version of his chronicle to Henry V with hope for a future of peace both with the princes and the papacyour author was writing for an emperor who, by 1113, faced the hostility of magnates and churchmen alike. Henry Vs alienation from the papacy must be the reason behind several alterations to Ekkehards text exhibited by the Imperial Chronicle. One such alteration is the removal of Ekkehards reference to the deposition of bishop Hermann of Bamberg by Gregory VII, in 1075.99 Hermann of Bamberg was one of Henry IVs most trusted advisors and was deposed by Gregory VII after his cathedral chapter had denounced him as a simoniac.100 Their accusations were unjustified, and hostility towards Hermann was mainly inspired by his enthusiasm for the monastic at the expense of the canonical life.101 However, his removal on the unfounded charge of simony demonstrated the effectiveness of an appeal to the pope by disgruntled German churchmen. With Henry V himself now in opposition to the pope, and with several German churchmen scheming with the princes against him, it seems clear that the exclusion of this episode from the Imperial Chronicle would have met with imperial approval. In removing this episode, our author avoided making reference to the power of the pope to depose members of the German church, and also eliminated an unflattering portrayal of Henry Vs fathers inability to protect his closest advisor. Our authors account of 1076, the year of the council of Worms, is much shorter than Ekkehards.102 He followed Ekkehard in describing the council of Worms and the decision of the king and the German Church to demand Gregory VIIs abdication; however, he then altered Ekkehards account of the colloquium at Oppenheim later in the same year, so that the renunciation of the Worms declaration was made to appear less of a defeat for the king. Although the author removed the reference to Henry IVs excommunication and rejected entirely Ekkehards report for the year 1077, he does mention Henry IVs receiving absolution from the pope at Canossa. Interestingly he manipulated Henry IVs absolution so as to mention merely in passing Rudolf of Rheinfeldens elevation to the kingship, which is presented as not having the support of the papacy.103 These changes to the narrative of the reign of Henry IV, which result in a considerably more positive account of his reign, are clearly in keeping with Henry Vs wish to present himself as the direct heir to a legitimate emperor. The Imperial Chronicle contains two pictorial representations of Henry V. The first illustration, which occurs on folio 83r between Books 2 and 3, portrays Henry receiving an orb from a churchman (Figure 29.26). The second, on folio 95v, shows Henry at his wedding feast with his bride Matilda of England (Figure 29.27). Percy Ernst Schramm identified the churchman in the first portrait as Pope Paschal II, and assumed that this miniature depicted Henry Vs imperial coronation in 1111.104 The portrait is the only painted picture in the manuscript. It is a full-page
99 CCCC MS 373, folio 64v; Ekkehard of Aura, Chronicon Universale, p. 201. 100 I.S. Robinson, Henry IV of Germany, 10561106 (Cambridge, 1999), p. 119. 101 Robinson, Henry IV, p. 119. 102 CCCC MS 373, folio 65r; Ekkehard of Aura, Chronicon Universale, p. 201. 103 CCCC MS 373, folios 65v66r; Ekkehard of Aura, Chronicon Universale, pp. 2012. 104 Schramm, Die Deutschen Kaiser und Knige, vol. 1, pp. 1445.
Figure 29.26:Henry V (f. 83r) With the kind permission of the Master and Fellows of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.
miniature in reds, greens and blues with the regalia highlighted in silver along with parts of the architecture and the frame within which the ruler and churchman are portrayed. Schramm considered the portrait to be an altered copy of an illustration contained within an early version of Ekkehard, in which Henry V was pictured, within a similar architectural frame, receiving the insignia from his father Henry IV.105 This picture ignores the fact that father and son were amassing forces against one another before the sudden death of Henry IV in August 1106, and instead evokes a peaceful transfer of power within the Salian house.106 For Schramm it seemed logical to suggest that the miniature contained
105 Schramm, Die Deutschen Kaiser und Knige, vol. 1, p. 144. 106 Weinfurter, The Salian Century, p. 165.
578 Johanna Dale
within the Imperial Chronicle should be considered as representing Henry V and the pope, because, by the time of the manuscripts production, Henry V had been crowned emperor. Schramm thus argued that the architecture, which he considered to represent Aachen in the Ekkehard version, should now be seen as depicting Rome.107 That this picture, which is immediately set apart from the other illustrations through the use of colour, should be assumed to represent the imperial coronation is perhaps unsurprising. But doubts have been cast on this interpretation and it has instead been suggested that the miniature depicts Henry V receiving the royal regalia from Archbishop Ruthart in 1106.108 Evidence for this interpretation has been derived from the caption beside the miniature, which reads Henricus quintus. While Henry was the fifth king of that name, he was only the fourth emperor, and thus providing the miniature with the caption Henricus quintus surely points to it being a celebration of his reception of the royal regalia, as does the position of this miniature between the years 1105 and 1106.109 The idea that this miniature might present Henrys royal rather than his imperial coronation is an intriguing one, as it suggests that the designer of the manuscript considered it more important to stress Henrys just succession, than to stress his imperial status. Before the two short continuations of the Imperial Chronicle from mid-1113 to mid1114, which also saw the addition of the second illustration depicting Henry V, this time with his bride, this miniature would have stood at the end of a pictorial sequence running from Pippin through fifteen other rulers to Henry V. In this sequence, it was Pippin and Henry V who were deemed to merit full-page representations. Pippin earned his fullpage depiction through his usurpation of the throne from the Merovingians to initiate the rule of the Carolingian dynasty, to which our author also implied Henry V belonged. Claudia Meier has suggested that Pippins outstretched left hand can be interpreted as a sign of the founder of the dynasty pointing towards the achievements of his successors.110 At the end of this sequence stands Henry V with archbishop Ruthart as the contemporary embodiment of the imperial line and the ruler on whom the hope of the continuation of the dynasty lay. As a consequence, the Imperial Chronicle stressed the just succession of Henry V in both word and image and attempted to minimize any sense of discontinuity that might have been suggested by Henry Vs rebellion. Indeed Henry Vs father, Henry IV, is depicted on the bottom half of folio 60r, crowned, enthroned and holding royal regalia in the same manner as his predecessors. The sequence in the Imperial Chronicle can perhaps be considered the most developed visual representation of Salian dynastic ideology, which is forcefully set out both in the Salian family tree contained within the Berlin Ekkehard and in a miniature from the Evangelary of Saint Emmeram in Regensburg, in which Henry IV is flanked by his two sons, Henry V and Conrad. The extension of the Salian dynasty to include seventeen rulers, as implied in the Imperial Chronicle, both through visual representation and textual manipulation, must surely be seen as the zenith of Salian dynastic ideology as expounded by Henry V in his attempt to justify his rule historically in the face of hostility from the papacy.
107 Schramm, Die Deutschen Kaiser und Knige, vol. 1, p. 145. 108 K. Schmid, Die Salier als Kaiserdynastie: Zugleich ein Beitrag der Chroniken Frutolfs und Ekkehards, in H. Keller and N. Staubach (eds), Iconologia Sacra: Mythos, Bildkunst und Dichtung in der Religions- und Sozialgeschichte Alteuropas (Berlin, 1994), pp. 46195, pp. 4878. 109 Schmid, Die Salier als Kaiserdynastie, pp. 4878. 110 Meier, Chronicon Pictum, p. 41.
V: Matilda of England
The Imperial Chronicle contains a final illustration, which depicts Henry V and his bride Matilda at their wedding feast (Figure 29.27). This appears on the same folio as the only direct reference to Matilda herself. Her name is written in red, the only such case of a name being thus highlighted in the manuscript.
Figure 29.27:The Wedding Feast (f. 95v) With the kind permission of the Master and Fellows of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.
580 Johanna Dale
The bulk of the Imperial Chronicle was concerned with providing a historical legitimacy for Henry V, to cement his present position; his marriage and the possibility of the birth of an heir to inherit his throne led to an attempt to use this historical legitimacy to ensure a possible future succession. The new queen is presented as proof of the splendour and glory both of the Roman empire and the English kingdom:
Desponsaverat enim ante triennium Matildem filiam Henrici regis Anglorum, virginem moribus nobilem, venustam quoque et decoram facie, qu habebatur decus et gloria tam Romani imperii quam Anglici regni.111 Downloaded from http://gh.oxfordjournals.org/ at Central University Library of Bucharest on November 25, 2011
Matildas father King Henry of England is mentioned and the author also highlighted her illustrious birth, claiming that, erat enim progenita ex utraque parte ex longa linea magnific nobilitatis et regalis prosapi.112 The author is thus aware that Matilda was of Norman blood and royal ancestry.113 The continuation of the chronicle to include the wedding of Matilda and Henry indicates the wish to point to the provision of a future heir for the Salian dynasty within the context of this chronicle, in which the succession of rulers from Pippin to Henry V is clearly delineated. The inclusion of information about the Normans and emphasis on the worthy ancestry of Matilda heightens the impression that the author of the chronicle was aware of the need for a legitimate male heir to continue the dynasty and to justify the position of Matilda as a suitable candidate, romani imperii heredis mater fore.114 The author thus recognizes that Matilda is great by birth, greater by marriage, and hopes that she will be greatest in her offspring.115 The importance of the role of the wife of a king or emperor as the provider of an heir to continue the succession in the early medieval period has been the subject of much scholarship.116 It has been suggested that, while relationships within the royal family continued to be important in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the nature of these relationships began to change in the face of stricter rules for succession and more rigid Christian views of marriage.117 However, given that the kingship of the German kingdom was elective, the importance of the rulers wife as the producer of a viable heir remained paramount.118 There was no guarantee that the throne would remain in the
111 Anonymi Chronica Imperatorum, p. 262. He had been bethrothed three years before to Matilda, the daughter of Henry, king of the English, a girl of noble character, distinguished and beautiful, who was held to bring glory and honour to both the Roman empire and the English realm. Translation in Chibnall, The Empress Matilda, p. 26. 112 Anonymi Chronica Imperatorum, p. 262. She was born of ancient lineage, most noble and royal on both sides. Translation in Chibnall, The Empress Matilda, p. 26. 113 Matildas mother came from the royal line of Wessex. 114 Anonymi Chronica Imperatorum, p. 262. The mother of an heir to the Roman empire. Translation in Chibnall, The Empress Matilda, p. 26. 115 These words form the first line of the epitaph to Matilda inscribed on her burial stone at Bec. Ortu Magna, viro major, sed maxima partu. Pore, Histoire de lAbbaye du Bec (vreux, 1901), p. 615. Great by birth, greater by marriage, greatest in her offspring. The marriage between Matilda and Henry V remained childless, and it is the offspring from her second marriage to Geoffrey of Anjou that the writer of Matildas epitaph is celebrating following her death in 1167. 116 See especially P. Stafford, Sons and Mothers: Family Politics in the Early Middle Ages, in D. Baker (ed.), Medieval Women, Studies in Church History (SCH), Subsidia 1 (Oxford, 1978), pp. 79101. 117 P. Stafford, Sons and Mothers, p. 100. 118 John Carmi Parsons has succinctly summarized the importance of the production of an heir when he writes, obsessive attention focused on the birth of heirs, guarantee of the integrity and continuity of the realm. J.C. Parsons, Introduction: Family, Sex, and Power: The Rhythms of Medieval Queenship, in J.C. Parsons (ed.), Medieval Queenship (Stroud, 1994), pp. 112, p. 4.
hands of the Salian dynasty and indeed, as has been seen, the election of Rudolf of Rheinfelden was interpreted by both of Henry IVs sons as a clear move by the princes to wrest the kingship from the grasp of their family. In these circumstances, the production of an heir must have taken on an even greater importance. In practice, the reigning ruler could normally ensure the succession of his son, but the lack of an heir could be interpreted as a lack of divine favour and thus the failure of a marriage to produce children could be used by the princes to justify removing their allegiance from the Salians. In the context of the primary duty of the royal or imperial wife to produce an heir it is interesting to consider the iconography of representations of queens and empresses in this period, especially considering the fact that
despite the varying individual circumstances surrounding the production of images which depicted the portraits of early medieval queens and empresses and the different audiences for which they were intended, almost all of the extant representations of these women share a common iconographic feature: they show the figure of the queen or empress in the company of other members of the royal/imperial family, usually husbands or sons.119
This is clearly true of the illustration of the wedding feast in the Imperial Chronicle. The main vehicle for the depiction of rulers consorts in the Ottonian period was, as with traditional ruler portraits, sumptuous liturgical manuscripts, and the most frequent motif was the coronation of the ruler and his wife.120 However, the impact of the Gregorian reform movement on the production of ruler images saw the removal of such illustrations from liturgical manuscripts and a move away from a Christological iconography, in which rulers were associated with Christ and their wives were represented as possessing the attributes of Mary, who reigned as queen in heaven.121 As Henry MayrHarting has identified, the dynastic consideration had begun to oust the sacral, and this sentiment surely explains the decision to portray Henry V and his new wife seated at table for their wedding feast.122 Ruler portraits depicting fathers and sons produced during the Salian period, such as Henry IV handing the insignia over to his son, Henry V, or standing flanked by his two sons Conrad and Henry, have been seen as perpetuating an image of dynastic continuity. In this respect the choice to portray Henry V sitting next to his new bride at their wedding feast is significant, because the main function of the union was the production of an heir. Indeed as Erin Barrett has asserted, the value of the early medieval queen/empress, and indeed often her very survival, was rooted in two fundamental biological functions; the production of male heirs and the infusion of prestigious bloodlines into the ruling house.123 As has been seen, the author of the Imperial Chronicle highlighted Matildas illustrious ancestors and the purpose of her new position as the mother of the heir to the Roman empire. The author further indulged in all the usual topoi for such an occasion,
119 E.G. Barrett, Art and the Construction of Early Medieval Queenship: The Iconography of the Joint Royal/Imperial Portrait and the Visual Representation of the Rulers Consort (PhD thesis, Courtauld Institute, The University of London, 1997), p. 12. 120 Barrett, Art and the Construction of Early Medieval Queenship, p. 210. 121 R. Deshman, Christus rex et magi reges: Kingship and Christology in Ottonian and Anglo-Saxon Art, FS, 10 (1976), pp. 367450, p. 397. 122 Mayr-Harting, Ottonian Book Illumination, Vol. 2, p. 175. 123 Barrett, Art and the Construction of Early Medieval Queenship, p. 113.
582 Johanna Dale
describing the giving and receiving of a multitude of gifts and the presence of a magnitude of princes and ecclesiastics.
Ad ipsas quoque nuptias tanta convenit multitudo archiepiscoporum, episcoporum, ducum atque comitum, abbatum quoque et prepositorum atque eruditissimorum clericorum, ut nullus senex illius evi posset reminisci vel aliquo modo adtestari se vidisse vel saltem audivisse tantam multitudinem tantorum primatuum in uno conventu convenisse. In ipsis enim nuptiis convenerant archiepiscopi V, episcopi XXX, duces V, de quibus dux Boemi summus pincerna fuit. Comitum vero et abbatum atque prepositorum numerus a nullo presenti licet multum sagaci potuit comprehendi.124
This list of five archbishops, thirty bishops, five dukes and a plethora of counts, abbots and provosts can certainly be considered a topos, but the inclusion of this precise information also perhaps indicates why it was the wedding feast that was depicted in the Imperial Chronicle. The wedding feast was an opportunity for Henry V to display his new wife, with her illustrious bloodlines, to the princes of his realm, both lay and ecclesiastic, and to introduce them to the woman who would hopefully be the mother of his heir. In addition to Duke Wladislaw of Bohemia, Dukes Fredrick of Swabia, Welf of Bavaria, Henry of Carinthia and Lothar of Saxony were present.125 The wedding feast can thus be considered an opportunity for Henry V to elevate himself and his wife above his subjects through the use of largesse, and to impress upon the princes of the realm his dynastic ambitions for the hoped-for offspring of the union.
VI: Conclusion
It is thus clear that the anonymous author of the Imperial Chronicle wrote with a significantly different agenda to that of Ekkehard of Aura. No doubt this was partly a result of the time at which he wrote. Where Ekkehard had dedicated a version of his chronicle to Henry V in 1105, with high hopes that he would be a more God-fearing ruler than his father, our author wrote in 1113, when Henry was unpopular with the nobles and in opposition to the ecclesiastical princes. Of more significance however, is the relationship between the author and his intended audience. Ekkehard dedicated his universal chronicle to Henry V, as historians in search of patronage often did, whereas the author of the Imperial Chronicle wrote for the imperial family, quite possibly at the request of Henry V himself. As a result, the work of our anonymous author is demonstrative of Salian self-image, and displays a consistent rejection of ecclesiastical affairs and the Ottonian vocabulary of Christological kingship. The author sought to present a dynasty of officeholders rather than a familial dynasty, and he only introduced biological information into the chronicle with the marriage of Henry V and Matilda, at which point her illustrious bloodlines were stressed to support the future succession of an heir. The Imperial Chronicle thus provides a clear indication of the way in which the Salian
124 Anonymi Chronica Imperatorum, p. 262. The nuptials were attended by such a great concourse of archbishops and bishops, dukes and counts, abbots and provosts and learned clergy, that not even the oldest man present could remember ever having seen or even heard of such a huge assembly of such great persons. For the marriage was attended by five archbishops, thirty bishops and five dukes, one of whom, the duke of Bohemia, acted as chief butler. As for the counts and abbots and provosts, no one present could tell their numbers, though many observant men were there. Translation in Chibnall, The Empress Matilda, p. 26. 125 Anonymi Chronica Imperatorum, p. 263, n. 4.
dynasty manipulated existing historical sources to provide themselves with historical legitimacy, in the face of growing opposition within Germany and from the popes.
Abstract
Until Irene Schmale-Ott argued that the Imperial Chronicle contained within Cambridge, Corpus Christi College MS 373 should be seen as a distinct work, it was considered to be an inferior version of the universal chronicle of Ekkehard of Aura. This article comprises a close reading of the manuscript to demonstrate that the subtle changes made to Ekkehards text by the anonymous author do constitute a cohesive editorial strategy in which Henry V is presented as the legitimate successor of the Carolingians and Ottonians. That the author minimises the role of the church and glosses over difficulties with the German magnates is also indicative of the positive depiction of Henry V contained within the chronicle. In addition to textual evidence, the manuscript layout, its rubrication and images are also examined. Keywords:dynastic historiography, historical writing, self-representation, Salian, Henry V, manuscript
University of East Anglia j.dale@uea.ac.uk

German History 2011 Dale 557 83

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

German History 2011 Dale 557 83

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

German History Vol. 29, No. 4, pp.

558 Johanna Dale

Imperial Self-Representation and the Manipulation of History in Twelfth-Century Germany 559

560 Johanna Dale

Imperial Self-Representation and the Manipulation of History in Twelfth-Century Germany 561

I: The Origins of the Franks

562 Johanna Dale

Imperial Self-Representation and the Manipulation of History in Twelfth-Century Germany 563

564 Johanna Dale

II: The Carolingian Inheritance

Imperial Self-Representation and the Manipulation of History in Twelfth-Century Germany 565

566 Johanna Dale

Imperial Self-Representation and the Manipulation of History in Twelfth-Century Germany 567

568 Johanna Dale

Imperial Self-Representation and the Manipulation of History in Twelfth-Century Germany 569

III: Dynastic Continuity

570 Johanna Dale

Imperial Self-Representation and the Manipulation of History in Twelfth-Century Germany 571

572 Johanna Dale

Imperial Self-Representation and the Manipulation of History in Twelfth-Century Germany 573

IV: Henry V and the German Kingdom

Imperial Self-Representation and the Manipulation of History in Twelfth-Century Germany 575

576 Johanna Dale

Imperial Self-Representation and the Manipulation of History in Twelfth-Century Germany 577

578 Johanna Dale

Imperial Self-Representation and the Manipulation of History in Twelfth-Century Germany 579

580 Johanna Dale

Imperial Self-Representation and the Manipulation of History in Twelfth-Century Germany 581

582 Johanna Dale

Imperial Self-Representation and the Manipulation of History in Twelfth-Century Germany 583

University of East Anglia j.dale@uea.ac.uk

You might also like