A NEW PROLOGUE OF WALAFRID STRABO

A NEW PROLOGUE OF WALAFRID STRABO
●
by Courtney M. Booker
Walafrid Strabo was a wonder.1 Born in 808 in southwestern Germany, he was
brought as a child to the monastery of Reichenau and quickly became its most accomplished student.2 By 827 he was ready for more advanced studies and so departed for
the monastery of Fulda in order to train with its great scholar, Hrabanus Maurus.3
Having already honed his skills at versification while at Reichenau, the eighteen-yearold Walafrid completed his first masterwork soon after his arrival, a highly sophisticated and, at 945 lines, greatly expanded poetic version of a dream narrative reported
by Wetti, his former teacher.4 Just two years later, in 829, the young prodigy was summoned from Fulda to the imperial court at Aachen to serve as tutor to Emperor Louis
the Pious’s youngest son, the six-year-old Charles.5 Clearly Walafrid’s reputation had
preceded him—though his equally precocious facility with patronage networks
doubtless played a role in this prestigious appointment.6 For the next nine years, a pe1
This essay is dedicated to the memory of Bengt Löfstedt (1931–2004). Preliminary versions were presented at the 34th annual Medieval Workshop, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, 13 November 2004, and as part of the “Carolingian Studies” special sessions at the 40th annual International Congress on Medieval Studies, Kalamazoo, Michigan, 7 May 2005. I wish to thank Kevin Attell,
Mayke de Jong, Eric Goldberg, Simon MacLean, Janet Nelson, Helmut Reimitz, and Eugene Sheppard for
their assistance and advice.
2
For the most recent biographical literature on Walafrid, see the notes in Irmgard Fees, “War Walahfrid
Strabo der Lehrer und Erzieher Karls des Kahlen?” in M. Thumser, A. Wenz-Haubfleisch, P. Wiegand, eds.,
Studien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters: Jürgen Petersohn zum 65. Geburtstag (Stuttgart 2000) 42–61;
together with Philippe Depreux, Prosopographie de l’entourage de Louis le Pieux (781–840) (Sigmaringen
1997) 393–394, no. 270.
3
On Walafrid’s early years at Reichenau and Fulda, see Fees, “War Walahfrid Strabo der Lehrer” (n. 2
above) 42–47; Alice L. Harting-Correa, Walahfrid Strabo’s Libellus de Exordiis et Incrementis Quarundam
in Observationibus Ecclesiasticis Rerum: A Translation and Liturgical Commentary (Leiden 1996) 6–7;
David A. Traill, Walahfrid Strabo’s Visio Wettini: Text, Translation, and Commentary (Frankfurt am Main
1974) 1–4; Wesley M. Stevens, “Walahfrid Strabo—A Student at Fulda,” in idem, Cycles of Time and Scientific Learning in Medieval Europe (Aldershot 1995) X (13–20); Eleanor S. Duckett, Carolingian Portraits: A Study in the Ninth Century (Ann Arbor 1962) 121–130.
4
This being the famous Visio Wettini. For the Latin text and English translation, see Traill, Walahfrid
Strabo’s Visio Wettini (n. 3 above). For commentary, see Paul E. Dutton, The Politics of Dreaming in the
Carolingian Empire (Lincoln, NE 1994) 63–67; Peter Godman, Poets and Emperors: Frankish Politics and
Carolingian Poetry (Oxford 1987) 130–134; J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Frankish Church (Oxford 1983)
323; Traill, Walahfrid Strabo’s Visio Wettini (n. 3 above); Duckett, Carolingian Portraits (n. 3 above) 126–
129.
5
This appointment as Charles’s tutor, the primary evidence supporting it, and the historiographical tradition resting upon it have all been seriously questioned by Fees, “War Walahfrid Strabo der Lehrer” (n. 2
above).
6
For Walafrid’s skill at obtaining patrons, see Godman, Poets and Emperors (n. 4 above) 129–148. On
his friendship with controversial figures such as Bodo, Gottschalk, and Adalhard the Seneschal, see Frank
Riess, “From Aachen to Al-Andalus: The Journey of Deacon Bodo (823–876)” Early Medieval Europe 13
(2005) 131–157; and Courtney M. Booker, “Imitator daemonum dicor: Adalhard the Seneschal, Mistrans-
84
COURTNEY M. BOOKER
riod, he would later recall, “when the state of the Franks was battered by many disturbances and was faltering in many places,” Walafrid remained steadfastly loyal to
Louis and his queen, the much maligned Judith.7 By 838 the young Prince Charles,
now fifteen, had come of age and no longer needed a tutor. Consequently, as a reward
for his years of service, Walafrid was made the young abbot of his old home, the monastery of Reichenau.8 He would, however, have little time to savor his success: in 840
another of the emperor’s sons, Louis the German, invaded the territory of Reichenau,
driving Walafrid into exile.9 Finding refuge at Speyer, the poet fell back on his extensive network of friends and correspondents, and within two years managed to negotiate his return to Reichenau in exchange for his loyalty and service to Louis the German.10 On the eighteenth of August, 849, during a diplomatic mission for his new
king, Walafrid drowned while crossing the Loire. He was only forty years old. 11
What did Walafrid write? He is known mostly for his remarkable poetry, which includes numerous short works dedicated to friends and patrons, detailed accounts of
visions, the lives of saints, a striking debate with his muse before a statue of Theodoric
the Ostrogoth, and a celebrated description of the herbs in his garden, all composed in
a vivid and highly nuanced style. But he was also an accomplished author of prose,
writing lengthy commentaries on both the Pentateuch and the Psalms, a detailed historical exposition on the liturgy (now available in an English translation), and still
more lives of saints.12 In 1950 Bernhard Bischoff added yet another set of texts to this
lations, and Misrepresentations,” Jahrbuch für internationale Germanistik 33 (2001) 124–126.
7
“cum diversis et multis perturbationibus Francorum res publica fluctuaret et in multis decideret,”
Walafrid Strabo, Prologus to Einhard, Vita Karoli Magni, ed. O. Holder-Egger, MGH SSrG in usum
scholarum (Hanover 1911) XXIX; trans. P. E. Dutton, Charlemagne’s Courtier: The Complete Einhard
(Peterborough 1998) 8. On Walafrid’s relationship with Judith, see Friedrich von Bezold, “Kaiserin Judith
und ihr Dichter Walahfrid Strabo,” Historische Zeitschrift 130 (1924) 377–439; Elizabeth Ward, “Caesar’s
Wife: The Career of the Empress Judith, 819–829,” in P. Godman, R. Collins, eds., Charlemagne’s Heir:
New Perspectives on the Reign of Louis the Pious (814–840) (Oxford 1990) 221–224; and Walafrid Strabo,
Ad eandem de quodam somnio, ed. E. Dümmler, MGH Poetae Latini Aevi Carolini (Berlin 1884) 2.379–
380, no. 24; trans. K. Langosch, Lyrische Anthologie des lateinischen Mittelalters (Darmstadt 1968) 108–
111.
8
Harting-Correa, Walahfrid Strabo’s Libellus (n. 3 above) 8–10; Traill, Walahfrid Strabo’s Visio Wettini (n. 3 above) 5–6; Duckett, Carolingian Portraits (n. 3 above) 136–137.
9
Wilfried Hartmann, Ludwig der Deutsche (Darmstadt 2002) 90; Fees, “War Walahfrid Strabo der
Lehrer” (n. 2 above) 48–49; Martina Wiech, Das Amt des Abtes im Konflikt (Siegburg 1999) 153–155; J. F.
Böhmer, E. Mühlbacher, Regesta Imperii: Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter den Karolingern 751–918
(1908; Hildesheim 1966) 1.570–571. Alf Önnerfors, Mediaevalia: Abhandlungen und Aufsätze (Frankfurt
am Main 1977) 187, claims that Walafrid fled to Speyer in fall or winter of 840. The precise timing of
Walafrid’s flight is uncertain due to the paucity of sources that note it. Many thanks to Eric Goldberg for
help with establishing this chronology.
10
See Boris Bigott, Ludwig der Deutsche und die Reichskirche im ostfränkischen Reich (826–876)
(Husum 2002) 83–84, 97–98, who argues that Walafrid likely returned to Reichenau only in the second half
of 842. Paul von Winterfeld, “Nachrichten 180,” Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche
Geschichtskunde 27 (1902) 527–528, following a conjecture by Hermann Bloch, suggested, on the basis of
its library catalogue, that the monastery of Murbach also served as a haven for Walafrid during his time of
exile.
11
Harting-Correa, Walahfrid Strabo’s Libellus (n. 3 above) 10; Traill, Walahfrid Strabo’s Visio Wettini
(n. 3 above) 6–7; Duckett, Carolingian Portraits (n. 3 above) 142–160.
12
For Walafrid’s oeuvre, see K. Langosch, B. K. Vollmann, “Walahfrid Strabo,” in Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters: Verfasserlexikon, 2nd ed. (Berlin 1999) 10.584–603. For the exposition on the liturgy,
see Harting-Correa, Walahfrid Strabo’s Libellus (n. 3 above). Walafrid was long identified erroneously as
the author of the Glossa Ordinaria; see Karlfried Froehlich, “Walafrid Strabo and the Glossa Ordinaria:
The Making of a Myth,” Studia Patristica 28 (1993) 192–196.
A NEW PROLOGUE OF WALAFRID STRABO
85
impressive corpus when with his incomparable eye he determined that a ninth-century
manuscript in the library of Saint-Gall is none other than Walafrid’s personal autograph notebook, a vademecum crammed with various jottings and extracts of texts that
caught the young monk’s interest over the course of his short career (much of this
material, as Wesley Stevens has since pointed out, relates to astronomy and medicine).13 Thus, while we do not have an image of Walafrid himself, we do have the next
best thing—words from this notebook written by his own hand (fig. 1).14 As an author
portrait this will have to suffice. Still, it is much more than one can offer for most
other early medieval authors.15
Walafrid was also an author of another sort; that is, he was an avid editor of a number of his contemporaries’ works.16 Not only did he divide into chapters the Life of
Saint Gall, the Vision of Wetti, and the biographies of Charlemagne by Einhard and
Louis the Pious by Thegan, but he also provided descriptive chapter titles for some
and wrote short prologues for others.17 As Walafrid himself explained, he “introduced
titles and chapters ... where they seemed appropriate, so that the reader looking for
13
See Bernhard Bischoff, “Eine Sammelhandschrift Walahfrid Strabos (Cod. Sangall. 878),” in Aus der
Welt des Buches: Festschrift Georg Leyh (Leipzig 1950) 30–48; repr. in B. Bischoff, Mittelalterliche
Studien: Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur Schriftkunde und Literaturgeschichte (Stuttgart 1967) 2.34–51; Wesley
M. Stevens, “Compotistica et astronomica in the Fulda School”; idem, “Walahfrid Strabo—A Student at
Fulda”; idem, “Computus-Handschriften Walafrids Strabo,” all in W. M. Stevens, Cycles of Time and Scientific Learning in Medieval Europe (Aldershot 1995) IX (43–49); X (13–20); XI (363–378). For a critique
of Bischoff’s attribution of this manuscript to Walafrid, see Paul G. Schmidt, “Karolingische Autographen,”
in P. Chiesa, L. Pinelli, eds., Gli autografi medievali: Problemi paleografici e filologici (Spoleto 1994) 137–
148; together with the qualifications by Hartmut Hoffmann, “Autographa des früheren Mittelalters,”
Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 57 (2001) 32–35.
14
For another alleged autograph by Walafrid (Copenhagen, Det Kongelige Bibliotek, GkS 444 2˚), see
Veronika von Büren, “Une édition critique de Solin au IXe siècle,” Scriptorium 50 (1996) 40–42.
15
On autograph manuscripts from the early Middle Ages, see Hoffmann, “Autographa des früheren
Mittelalters” (n. 13 above) 1–62; Paul Lehmann, “Autographe und originale namhafter lateinsicher Schriftsteller des Mittelalters,” in idem, Erforschung des Mittelalters: Ausgewählte Abhandlungen und Aufsätze
(Stuttgart 1959) 1.359–381; David Ganz, “‘Mind in Character’: Ancient and Medieval Ideas about the
Status of the Autograph as an Expression of Personality,” in P. R. Robinson, R. Zim, eds., Of the Making of
Books: Medieval Manuscripts, Their Scribes and Readers (Aldershot 1997) 280–299; P. E. Dutton,
“Eriugena’s Workshop: The Making of the Periphyseon in Rheims 875,” in J. McEvoy, M. Dunne, eds.,
History and Eschatology in John Scottus Eriugena and His Time (Louvain 2002) 141–167; Jason Glenn,
“The Composition of Richer’s Autograph Manuscript,” Revue d’histoire des textes 27 (1997) 151–189; Paul
Meyvaert, “Problems concerning the Autograph Manuscript of Saint Benedict’s Rule,” Revue Bénédictine
70 (1959) 1–21.
16
Walafrid’s editorial work is still in need of much study. To date, it has been examined primarily for
the information it provides for identifying and establishing various recensions in the transmission of texts,
e.g., Matthias M. Tischler, Einharts Vita Karoli: Studien zur Entstehung, Überlieferung und Rezeption
(Hanover 2001) 1.363–436; and Ernst Tremp, Studien zu den Gesta Hludowici imperatoris des Trierer
Chorbischofs Thegan (Hanover 1988) 112–128. For Walafrid’s practice of dividing works into chapters and
assigning them chapter headings, see the brief comments by Harting-Correa, Walahfrid Strabo’s Libellus (n.
3 above) 199–201.
17
For the Vita Sancti Galli, see B. Krusch, ed., MGH SSrM (Hanover 1902) 4.280–337; for the Visio
Wettini, see Traill, Walahfrid Strabo’s Visio Wettini (n. 3 above) and Wallace-Hadrill, The Frankish
Church (n. 4 above) 323; for the Vita Karoli Magni, see Einhard, Vita Karoli Magni, ed. O. Holder-Egger,
MGH SSrG in usum scholarum (Hanover 1911); for the Gesta Hludovici imperatoris, see Thegan, Gesta
Hludovici imperatoris, ed. E. Tremp, MGH SSrG in usum scholarum, separatim editi, 64 (Hanover 1995)
168–175. As Harting-Correa, Walahfrid Strabo’s Libellus (n. 3 above) 200, notes, Walafrid also claimed to
have given chapter titles to Hrabanus Maurus’s commentary on the Pentateuch. On titles and chapter divisions in general (but without reference to Walafrid), see J.-C. Fredouille, M.-O. Goulet-Cazé, P. Hoffmann,
P. Petitmengin, eds., Titres et articulations du texte dans les oeuvres antiques (Paris 1997).
86
COURTNEY M. BOOKER
specific topics might find them more easily.”18 Certainly there are many elements in
these prologues and editorial interventions deserving careful scrutiny. The purpose of
the present discussion, however, is rather to introduce a new prose prologue by
Walafrid, which I uncovered while investigating the history of an entirely different
text—one that requires a few words of explanation.
In the year 833 Charlemagne’s sole surviving son and heir, Emperor Louis the Pious, was abandoned by his men. Forsaken on a plain known soon thereafter as the
campus mentitus, the Field of Lies, Louis was left to the mercy of his rebellious sons
and their coterie of bishops and counts. Three months later, the emperor agreed to undertake a public penance by which he might humble himself, quell the divine anger
provoked by his recent offensive behavior, and achieve reconciliation with God.19
Sometime shortly after this penance, an anonymous ecclesiastic from the rebel party
composed a narrative that details Louis’s many iniquities, justifies the seemingly treasonous actions of the rebellious bishops against him, and formalizes the grave consequences of his penance—namely, the irrevocable forfeiture of the throne.20 Unfortunately for the rebellious bishops, Louis soon managed to regain his command. Rescued from his captors within months, the emperor crushed the rebellion and was reinvested with his regalia by February of 835, less than two years after being deserted
and performing his public penance. Moreover, Louis retained control over the empire
for another five years; only his death by illness in the year 840 would wrest it from
him again.21
Given its damning contents, how then did the rebellious bishops’ narrative of
Louis’s alleged iniquities ever survive? To my knowledge, no one has investigated the
circumstances of this text’s preservation and transmission, despite—or, perhaps, be18
“titulos et incisiones, prout visum est congruum, inserui, ut ad singula facilior quaerenti quod placuerit
elucescat accessus,” Walafrid Strabo, Prologus to Einhard, Vita Karoli Magni, ed. Holder-Egger (n. 7
above) XXIX; trans. Dutton, Charlemagne’s Courtier (n. 7 above) 8. Cf. Walafrid’s similar comments in his
prologue to Thegan’s text: “Huic opusculo ego Strabo quasdam incisiones et capitula inserui ... ut facilius
volentibus scire singula pateant titulorum compendio,” Walafrid, Prologus to Thegan, Gesta Hludovici
imperatoris, ed. E. Tremp (n. 17 above) 168; and in his prologue to his Vita Sancti Galli, “Vitam igitur
sancti confessoris Christi Galli, patroni nostri, cuius corporis thesaurum fidelibus servatis excubiis, sensu
nobilem, scripto degenerem vultis a me lumine rectae locutionis ornari et seriem confusam capitulorum
distingui limitibus,” Walafrid, Vita Sancti Galli, ed. B. Krusch (n. 17 above) 4.281. As Tremp, Studien zu
den Gesta Hludowici imperatoris (n. 16 above) 114, notes, Walafrid is here invoking the tradition of the
“accessus ad auctores”; see Edwin A. Quain, “The Medieval Accessus ad auctores,” Traditio 3 (1945) 215–
264.
19
These events are treated in detail in Courtney M. Booker, “Writing a Wrong: The Divestiture of Louis
the Pious (833) and the Decline of the Carolingians” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles
2002). The inveterate, traditional interpretation of the events was summed up with precision by Louis Halphen in his early essay “La pénitence de Louis le Pieux à Saint Médard de Soissons,” in Bibliothèque de la
Faculté des Lettres de Paris XVIII, Troisièmes Mélanges d’histoire du Moyen Age (Paris 1904) 177–185;
repr. in idem, A travers l’histoire du Moyen Age (Paris 1950) 58–66. For an important reinterpretation, see
Mayke de Jong, “Power and Humility in Carolingian Society: The Public Penance of Louis the Pious,”
Early Medieval Europe 1 (1992) 29–52; and eadem, “Sacrum palatium et ecclesia: L’autorité religieuse
royale sous les Carolingiens (790–840),” Annales: Histoire, Sciences Sociales 58 (2003) 1243–1269.
20
The text was entitled by its last editors the Episcoporum de poenitentia, quam Hludovicus imperator
professus est, relatio Compendiensis, ed. A. Boretius, V. Krause, MGH Capitularia regum Francorum
(Hanover 1897) 2.51–55. For an examination of this text, see Booker, “Writing a Wrong” (n. 19 above)
339–453.
21
Janet L. Nelson, “The Last Years of Louis the Pious,” in P. Godman, R. Collins, eds., Charlemagne’s
Heir: New Perspectives on the Reign of Louis the Pious (814–840) (Oxford 1990) 147–159.
A NEW PROLOGUE OF WALAFRID STRABO
87
cause of—the great significance laid upon the event it so vividly documents.22 In fact,
Louis’s penance in 833 has nearly always been understood as a ruse or drama, a tragicomic act of self-abasement extorted from Louis by scheming, dissimulating bishops
and foisted upon the fickle, if not entirely credulous, populace.23 In this harsh light, the
bishops’ justificatory narrative has always been seen as a shameful record of an even
more shameful intrigue, and thus deserving of little attention. To take its contents seriously would be to risk being embarrassed by, or complicit with, the actions it justifies
and preserves. Such palpable distaste for the bishops’ text is clearly reflected in its
traditional treatment by its many editors. In most of the twenty “critical” editions and
reprintings of the text, its editors note with indifference that, since there are no longer
any extant manuscript witnesses of it to be found, they simply rely on the editio princeps published by the French jurist Pierre Pithou (1539–1596) in 1588.24 One wonders, however, just how hard they really searched. After all, a contemporary of Pithou,
the historian Claude Fauchet (1530–1602), claimed in 1601 that the bishops’ narrative
could still be found in ancient libraries, and indeed even printed a version of it himself
that differs in an important way from Pithou’s first edition.25 The great philosopher
and humanist Leibniz (1646–1716) could still make the same claim more than a century later.26
22
Cf., for example, the survival of the rebellious bishops’ damning narrative with the disappearance of
the many documents that were produced to record and promulgate the happy news of Louis the Pious’s
official restoration in February 835: J. L. Nelson, The Annals of St-Bertin (Manchester 1991) 32. However,
see Richard Jackson’s argument that one of these latter formal texts—namely, the ordo for Louis’s re-coronation at Metz—served as the model for, and can be detected within, Charles the Bald’s own coronation
ordo of 869: R. A. Jackson, ed., Ordines Coronationis Franciae (Philadelphia 1995) 1.87–109; idem, “Who
Wrote Hincmar’s Ordines?” Viator 25 (1994) 31–52. The only allusion to the rebellious bishops’ narrative
during the Middle Ages can perhaps be discerned in an 11th-c. representation of the events of 833 by Odbert, Passio Friderici episcopi Traiectensis, cap. 9, ed. O. Holder-Egger, MGH Scriptores (Hanover 1887)
15, pt. 1.348. On this text, see Booker, “Writing a Wrong” (n. 19 above) 200–212, 351–353.
23
See C. M. Booker, “The Demanding Drama of Louis the Pious,” Comitatus: A Journal of Medieval
and Renaissance Studies 34 (2003) 170–175; and Booker, “Writing a Wrong” (n. 19 above) 1–338.
24
For a convenient handlist of editions of this text, see Albert Werminghoff, “Verzeichnis der Akten
fränkischer Synoden von 742–843,” Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 24
(1899) 489; and Booker, “Writing a Wrong” (n. 19 above) 584–587. For the editio princeps, see Pierre
Pithou, Annalium et historiae Francorum ab anno Christi DCCVIII ad annum DCCCCXC scriptores
coaetanei XII ... (Paris 1588) bk. 2, pp. 136–148, who printed it in chronological order vis-à-vis the other
texts he included in his book. Note the title that Pithou gave the text in his table of contents under item no.
XIII, “Acta impiae et nefandae exauctorationis eiusdem Ludovici Imperatoris apud Compendium Anno
DCCCXXII [sic].” See Booker, “Writing a Wrong” (n. 19 above) 247–255, 575–587. By neglecting to acknowledge Pithou’s editio princeps at all, the most recent edition of the text, that of 1897 by Boretius and
Krause, follows the earlier MGH edition by G. H. Pertz in 1835. Both editions take their text from the early
17th-c. ed. by Jacques Sirmond, Concilia antiqua Galliae, cum epistolis pontificum, principum constituionibus, et aliis Gallicanae rei ecclesiasticae monumentis (Paris 1629) 2.560–564. See Booker, “Writing a
Wrong” (n. 19 above) 30 n. 7.
25
Claude Fauchet, Fleur de la maison de Charlemaigne, qui est la continuation des Antiquitez françoises, contenant les faits de Pépin et ses successeurs depuis l’an 751 jusques à l’an 840, ... (Paris 1601)
232, (bk. 3, chp. 11) “le proces verbal de sa deposition qui se trouve encores es anciennes libraires.” Fauchet
prints a translation of the text on pp. 232–237, which carries the reading (on p. 233) “sous l’empire du glorieux prince Lothaire.” On the significance of this reading, see n. 45 below. On Fauchet, see Janet G.
Espiner-Scott, Claude Fauchet: Sa vie, son oeuvre (Paris 1938).
26
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Annales imperii occidentis Brunsvicenses, ann. 833, cap. 28; ed. G. H.
Pertz, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Gesammelte Werke, I, 1 (Hanover 1843; repr. Hildesheim 1966) 428,
“Acta exauctorationis (ut vocant) publicavit Petrus Pithoeus, hoc titulo rei congruente in veteribus schedis
superscripto: Quae sequuntur, gesta sunt apud Compendium contra christianissimum imperatorem Ludovi-
88
COURTNEY M. BOOKER
A few years ago, Matthias Tischler and I independently noticed the bishops’ narrative listed in a modern description of an early sixteenth-century manuscript.27 After
conducting additional research on this manuscript (fig. 2), which belongs to the University Library of Wrocław, Poland, Tischler recently determined that it was copied by
the German humanist Konrad Peutinger (1465–1546) in 1508.28 Even more remarkable is Tischler’s determination of Peutinger’s source for his manuscript copy.29 Now,
the Peutinger manuscript currently in Wrocław contains a particularly interesting assemblage of texts. Grouped together are a series of annals running from the beginning
of the world to the year 818 (the Chronicon de sex aetatibus mundi, Annales Laureshamenses 703–770, Annales regni Francorum 771–818), followed by Thegan’s
Gesta Hludowici bearing Walafrid’s chapter divisions, and then the episcopal narrative
of Louis’s penance.30 What Tischler has recognized is that this is the very same assemcum ....” On Leibniz and the events of 833, see Booker, “Writing a Wrong” (n. 19 above) 258 nn. 121–122.
27
See Tremp, Studien zu den Gesta Hludowici imperatoris (n. 16 above) 165–166, no. 15; and Tremp,
MGH SSrG (n. 17 above) 35, 48, who describes the contents of Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka Akc.
1949/397 (olim Steinw. II Fol. 3) dating from 1508, without recognizing that the bishops’ narrative (on fols.
8r–9v) was otherwise extant only in print (i.e., since the 1588 editio princeps by Pithou). On this oversight,
cf. Tischler, Einharts Vita Karoli (n. 16 above) 1.871 n. 927; and Booker, “Writing a Wrong” (n. 19 above)
343 n. 7, 575–587. Over a century and a half earlier, G. A. H. Stenzel, “Erstes Verzeichnis der auf der Central-Bibliothek in Breslau befindlichen ...,” Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 4
(1822) 104, also noted the presence of the bishops’ narrative in the Wrocław manuscript in passing, without
comment or analysis. Likewise, W. von Heyd, Die historischen Handschriften der Königlichen öffentlichen
Bibliothek zu Stuttgart (Stuttgart 1889–1890) 1.112, who observed the text’s presence in Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, Cod. hist. F 243, fols. 17r–21v, without comment. For a new critical edition
and translation of the bishops’ narrative using the Wrocław manuscript, see Booker, “Writing a Wrong” (n.
19 above) 575–606 ; however, in light of the information discussed below, this edition is now in need of
revision.
28
Tischler, Einharts Vita Karoli (n. 16 above) 1.873–883. As Tischler point outs, Peutinger used this
copy as source material for his unrealized Kaiserbuch project; indeed, Peutinger later copied the bishops’
narrative of 833 from this manuscript into his two manuscript compilations of assorted Kaiserbuch material
(Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, Cod. hist. F 243, fols. 17r–21v; Augsburg, Staats- und
Stadtbibliothek, 2˚ Cod. 145, fols. 28r–33r). Paul Joachimsen, Geschichtsauffassung und Geschichtschreibung in Deutschland unter dem Einfluss des Humanismus (Leipzig 1910) 292 n. 46, was the first to
note the significance of the appearance of the bishops’ narrative in Peutinger’s copies. On Peutinger, see R.
Aulinger, “Konrad Peutinger,” in P. G. Bietenholz, T. B. Deutscher, eds., Contemporaries of Erasmus: A
Biographical Register of the Renaissance and Reformation (Toronto 1987) 3.74–76; Erich König,
Peutingerstudien (Freiburg im Breisgau 1914); and Joachimsen, Geschichtsauffassung und Geschichtschreibung, 205–209. For a catalogue of Peutinger’s library and the presence of this manuscript within it,
see H.-J. Künast, H. Zäh, eds., Die Bibliothek Konrad Peutingers: Edition der historischen Kataloge und
Rekonstruktion der Bestände, vol. 1, Die autographen Kataloge Peutingers: Der nicht-juristische Bibliotheksteil (Tübingen 2003) 396–399.
29
Tischler, Einharts Vita Karoli (n. 16 above) 1.428–429, 431 n. 603, 874–877.
30
While there are several other texts in the manuscript (see parts B and C in the list below) Tischler,
Einharts Vita Karoli (n. 16 above) 1.870–883, shows, on codicological and paleographical grounds, that
they derive from a different source. Moreover, the Divisio regnorum of 806 appearing at the end of part A
was an addition made during an earlier stage in the transmission of the texts in parts A and D, texts that
were once copied together but are now clustered separately through rebinding. For details on the complete
contents of Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka Akc. 1949/397, and their rearrangement through rebinding,
see Tischler, Einharts Vita Karoli (n. 16 above) 1.870–872. A basic list of the manuscript’s contents is supplied below. The majority of these textual witnesses have not been considered in the critical editions of the
texts:
A
fols. 3r–8r:
Thegan, Gesta Hludowici imperatoris
fols. 8r–9v:
Episcoporum de poenitentia ... relatio Compendiensis (833)
fols. 9v–11r:
Divisio regnorum (806)
A NEW PROLOGUE OF WALAFRID STRABO
89
blage of texts that was once found in a book preserved in the monastery of Reichenau
and catalogued sometime between late 840 and 842 by that monastery’s famous librarian Reginbert.31 Book number 36 of his personal collection contained, according
to Reginbert, a record of events spanning the six ages, from creation to the time of
Charlemagne and his son Louis, and then concluded with “certain opposing decrees”
(quaedam decreta adversantia).32 Thanks to another, more detailed library catalogue,
we know that Reginbert’s codex 36 was likely still extant at the end of the seventeenth
century, but residing 100 kilometers to the south in the monastery of Engelberg.33 According to this Engelberg catalogue, the Reginbert codex specifically contained a
number of annals reaching to the reign of Louis the Pious, followed by Thegan’s
Gesta Hludowici, and then “certain decrees of crooked bishops” (decreta quaedam
episcoporum contract[orum]).34 It concluded with Reginbert’s ex-libris verse coloB
fols.13r–24r:
Marsilius of Padua, De translatione imperii
C
fols. 25r–42v:
Einhard, Vita Karoli
fols. 42v–56v:
Notker Balbulus, Gesta Karoli imperatoris (Bk. I, 1–33)
fols. 56v–61v:
Johannes Presbyter, Epistola ad Manuelem
fols. 61v–141v: Robert of Saint-Remi, Historia Hierosolymitana
fols. 141v–142r: Epistola patriarchae Hierosolymitani
D
fols. 144r–145v: Chronicon de sex aetatibus mundi
fols. 145v–146r: Annales Laureshamenses (703–770)
fols. 146r–157r: Annales regni Francorum (771–818)
31
Tischler, Einharts Vita Karoli (n. 16 above) 1.428–429, 875–877. On Reginbert and the library of Reichenau, see F. J. Worstbrock, “Reginbert von Reichenau,” in Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters: Verfasserlexikon (Berlin 1989) 7.1112–1114; Rosamond McKitterick, The Carolingians and the Written Word
(Cambridge 1989) 179–182; Karl Preisendanz, “Reginbert von der Reichenau: Aus Bibliothek und Skriptorium des Inselklosters,” Neue Heidelberger Jahrbücher N.F. (1952–1953) 1–49; idem, “Aus Bücherei und
Schreibstube der Reichenau,” in Die Kultur der Abtei Reichenau (Munich 1925) 2.657–683; Paul Lehmann,
“Die mittelalterliche Bibliothek,” in Die Kultur der Abtei Reichenau (Munich 1925) 2.647–648. The determination of the cataloguing date to the period between 840–842 is more precise than that previously established. The terminus ante quem of 842 is commonly accepted, since Reginbert claims in the title to his
catalogue that he collected its contents up through the abbacy of Ruadhelm (838–842, after which Walafrid
succeeded him as abbot) “Incipit brevis librorum, quos ego Reginbertus, indignus monachus atque scriba, in
insula coenobio vocabulo Sindleozes Avva sub dominatu Waldonis, Heitonis, Erlebaldi et Ruadhelmi
abbatum eorum permissu de meo gradu scripsi aut scribere feci vel donatione amicorum suscepi.” See Paul
Lehmann, ed., Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge: Deutschlands und der Schweiz (Munich 1918) 1.257–
258. However, the terminus post quem of 20 June 840 can be established through the contents of the book in
question. Since it contained the Gesta Hludowici imperatoris by Thegan with Walafrid’s prologue (Tischler,
Einharts Vita Karoli [n. 16 above] 1.429, 877) a prologue which refers to Louis the Pious as deceased, the
book itself must have been assembled some time shortly after Louis’s death (20 June 840) and subsequently
catalogued by Reginbert while Ruadhelm was still abbot of Reichenau, i.e., before Walafrid regained his
abbacy in 842.
32
See Lehmann, Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge (n. 31 above) 1.261, “In XXXVI. libro continentur
sex a mundi principio aetates usque hactenus; postea Karoli, maioris domus Francorum, Pippini senioris ac
filii eius Karoli et Pippini et Karle, filiorum Karoli, deinde, postquam Pippinus ad regem elevatus est, postea
Karoli regis, deinceps gesta Hludovici regis ac imperatoris; ad extremum quaedam decreta adversantia.” On
the “personal” collection of books that Reginbert lists (“Incipit brevis librorum, quos ego Reginbertus ...
scripsi aut scribere feci vel donatione amicorum suscepi”), see McKitterick, The Carolingians and the Written Word (n. 31 above) 181–182; and Preisendanz, “Reginbert von der Reichenau” (n. 31 above) 33–46.
33
Tischler, Einharts Vita Karoli (n. 16 above) 1.429, 876–877; Albert Bruckner, Scriptoria medii aevi
helvetica: Denkmäler schweizerischer Schreibkunst des Mittelalters (Genf 1950) 8.99; and above all, J.
Werner, “Die Reichenauer Reginberthandschrift XXXVI war in Engelberg,” Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen 37 (1920) 84, who made the discovery.
34
“Crooked” for contractus is used here in a pejorative sense to suggest something at once both de-
COURTNEY M. BOOKER
90
phon.35
Although the fate of this manuscript after its appearance in the late seventeenthcentury Engelberg catalogue remains unknown, we do know that Konrad Peutinger in
1508 and Pierre Pithou in 1588 used as their source a late medieval paper copy of it—
what Pithou called a chartaceum exemplar—that has, like the Reginbert codex itself,
also since disappeared.36 Thus, what we are left with in the Wrocław Peutinger manuscript and the collection of texts printed by Pithou may be copies of a copy of a book
from Reginbert’s personal library in Reichenau.
This is as far as Tischler goes with the identification and history of Reginbert’s
formed and perverse. According to J. F. Niermeyer, Mediae latinitatis lexicon minus (Leiden 1997) 267 s.v.
contrahere, it can also be used to connote usurpation.
35
See Bruckner, Scriptoria medii aevi helvetica (n. 33 above) 8.99, who provides the following catalogue entry:
Chronicon in quo continentur (Perg. 4).
Sex a principio mundi aetates usque in praesens.
Annales Pipini senioris ac ducis.
Annales Karoli filii Pipini ac ducis.
Annales Karolomanni et Pipini filiorum Karoli qui et ipsi duces.
Annales Pipini regis usque ad Karolum.
Annales Karoli regis et imperatoris usque ad Ludovicum regem et imperatorem.
Gesta Ludovici regis ac imperatoris.
Decreta quaedam episcoporum contract.
Metrum heroicum hexametrum:
Magno in honore domini genitricis alme
Sanctorum quoque multorum _____
Condidit hoc corpus _____ adiuta priorum
Cura Reginbertus scriptor _____
Hoc fratrum durare diu salvumque manere.
Etne forte labor pereat confectus ab illo,
Adiurat cunctos domini per amabile nomen
Hoc ut nullus opus cuiquam concesserit extra
Ni prius ille fidem dederit vel denique pignus
Donec ad has sedes quae accepit salva remittat
Dulcis amice gravem scribendi _____ laborem
Tolle, aperi, recita, ne ledas, claude, repone.
On Reginbert’s colophon (in heroic hexameter) and its manuscript witnesses, see E. Dümmler, ed.,
MGH Poetae Latini Aevi Carolini (Berlin 1884) 2.424; and M. M. Tischler, “Reginbert-Handschriften: Mit
einem Neufund in Klostern Einsiedeln,” Scriptorium 50 (1996) 175–183. For an English translation of the
colophon, see Duckett, Carolingian Portraits (n. 3 above) 123–124.
36
Werner, “Die Reichenauer Reginberthandschrift” (n. 33 above) 84, notes that the Reginbert codex
does not appear in an Engelberg library catalogue from 1891. On the copy, which Peutinger discovered in
the monastery of Petershausen near Constance (as he notes at the end of his copy of Thegan’s text in both
Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, Cod. hist. F 243, fol. 17r; and Augsburg, Staats- und
Stadtbibliothek, 2˚ Cod. 145, fol. 28r: “Ex Historia Thegani Corepiscopi Treverensis apud Monasterium
Domus Sancti Petri prope Constanciam comperta”), and its resemblance to the mysterious “chartaceum
exemplar” later used by Pithou (Pithou, Annalium et historiae Francorum [n. 24 above] praefatio—a preface which, according to Louis de Rosanbo, “Pierre Pithou,” Revue du seizième siècle 16 [1929] 306, was
written in 1581, seven years earlier than its publication date), see Tischler, Einharts Vita Karoli (n. 16
above) 1.874–877. Tischler makes a convincing argument that Peutinger’s Petershausen codex and Pithou’s
“chartaceum exemplar” were indeed the same late medieval manuscript, but is careful to note that this identification cannot be determined with absolute certainty (although he ignores his own caveat on p. 431 n.
603). The fate of this lost Petershausen codex is unknown.
A NEW PROLOGUE OF WALAFRID STRABO
91
book and the presence of the episcopal narrative within it. Yet it is possible to go still
a few steps further, steps that will lead us back to Walafrid. To begin with, at the top
of folio 8r of the Wrocław Peutinger manuscript (fig. 2), there is a short, anonymous
prologue to the episcopal narrative. Appearing just prior to—and set clearly apart
from—the narrative’s opening words, the prologue offers didactic remarks that establish for the reader how the rebellious bishops’ account should be understood:
Quae sequuntur gesta sunt apud Compendium palatium contra Christianissimum imperatorem Ludouicum, postquam regno ad tempus privatus est. Acta sunt [autem] studio non
imitandae deiectionis eius ab Hebone auctore eiusdem mali, et caeteris episcopis, vel errore
annitentibus, vel timore consentientibus. Non sunt autem haec ut salubris concilii decreta
amplectenda, sed ut exitialis commenti molimina [respuenda].37
[What follows are the things that were done against the most Christian emperor Louis at the
palace of Compiègne when he was deprived of the kingdom for a time. These things were
done from a partisan zeal for his overthrow, which should not be imitated, by Ebbo, the author of this evil, and by the other bishops who were either working in error or acquiescing
out of fear. These things, however, should not be embraced as the decrees of a healthy council, but rejected as the work of a deadly contrivance.]
Now, this prologue has been seen elsewhere. In fact, it appears as the preface to the
editio princeps of the rebellious bishops’ narrative printed in 1588 by Pierre Pithou
(fig. 3).38 Because scholars could not find any manuscript witnesses that would lead
them to think otherwise, they have always assumed that this editorial prologue was
written by Pithou himself.39 The earlier appearance of this same prologue in Peutinger’s manuscript from 1508, however, proves this assumption wrong. It was not
written by Pithou, but copied by him together with the bishops’ narrative from a common source. What is more, thanks to a fortunate survival, Pithou even tells us who the
author of this didactic prologue was.
Remarkably, Pithou’s personal copy of his book of early medieval Frankish texts
published in 1588 still exists, a unique volume containing Pithou’s own addenda and
corrigenda in manuscript to the texts he collected and printed.40 In its table of contents,
37
Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka Akc. 1949/397, fol. 8r. The words in brackets are supplied
through collation with the other witness of the text, cited in the following note.
38
Pithou, Annalium et historiae Francorum (n. 24 above) bk. 2, p. 136.
39
This is usually a tacit assumption, but for an explicit attribution see Martin Bouquet, Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France (Paris 1749) 6.XIV, cap. XXXV.
40
Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Réserve des livres rares, Res. L45-1: Pierre Pithou, Annalium
et historiae Francorum ab anno Christi DCCVIII ad annum DCCCCXC scriptores coaetanei XII ... (Paris
1588). The book was later owned in succession by Charles Labbe, Étienne Baluze, and D. de Targny, according to a note on the title page; see also the remarks in Stephanus Baluzius, Capitularia regum Francorum (Paris 1780) 1.78, regarding volume CII in Baluze’s library. Among the marginalia left by these
various later owners of the book, Pithou’s hand is clearly identifiable; cf. the independent observations of
Léon Pigeotte, Manuscrit autografe du commentaire de Pierre Pithou sur La Coutume de Troyes (Troyes
1872) 7; and Rosanbo, “Pierre Pithou” (n. 36 above) 308, on the recognizably “fine écriture” of Pithou. For
a convenient sample of his hand, see M.-M. Fragonard, P.-E. Leroy, eds., Les Pithou: Les lettres et la paix
du royaume: Actes du colloque de Troyes, 13–15 avril 1998 (Paris 2003) 304. A handlist of extant witnesses
of such personal copies by early modern authors unfortunately remains a desideratum, but see Robin C.
Alston, Books with Manuscript: A Short Title Catalogue of Books with Manuscript Notes in the British
Library (London 1993) 656–663. For an excellent introduction to the historical value of annotated books,
see Helen J. Jackson, Marginalia: Readers Writing in Books (New Haven 2001).
COURTNEY M. BOOKER
92
as item number 12, Pithou lists Thegan’s Gesta Hludowici with Walafrid Strabo’s
prologue, followed by item number 13, the “Proceedings of the same Emperor Louis
the Pious’s shameful and impious deposition.”41 At the end of the latter entry, one
finds the following postscript, added in Pithou’s own hand: “with a preface by the
same Walafrid” (cum praefatione eiusdem Walafridi) (fig. 4).42 Similarly, if we turn to
the page containing the preface itself, we see that Pithou simply noted across its top,
“Walafridus Strabo” (fig. 5).43 In short, it appears that Pithou (or perhaps his printer)
failed to specify in the book’s original printing that Walafrid, the author of the prologue to Thegan’s text, was also the author of the prologue to the text immediately
following. Luckily for us, Pithou later made a note to himself of this unfortunate slip.44
There are indeed many, many things of interest in Pithou’s personal copy, or Handexemplar, of his book. For the sake of example, however, just two will be described
here: a corrigendum and an addendum. First, Pithou corrected a misprint in the
bishop’s narrative, emending the erroneous “super imperio” to read “sub imperio”
(fig. 6).45 If we turn to the witness of this text in the Wrocław Peutinger manuscript,
we find the same correct reading, “sub imperio” (fig. 7).46 Regrettably, due to the general indifference of editors toward this text, coupled with the fact that Pithou’s erroneous printed edition was until now the only known source for it, the reading super imperio—despite its faulty grammar—has been uncritically adopted by some historians
as demonstrative of a revolutionary moment in ecclesiastical political ideology—that
41
“Acta impiae et nefandae exauctorationis eiusdem Ludovici Imperatoris apud Compendium Anno
DCCCXXII [sic].” Note that whereas Pithou calls the text “acta,” Walafrid in his prologue refers to it as
“decreta,” as do Reginbert and the author of the Engelberg catalogue (both likely following Walafrid’s designation in his prologue).
42
Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Réserve des livres rares, Res. L45-1 (n. 40 above) table of
contents.
43
Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Réserve des livres rares, Res. L45-1 (n. 40 above) bk. 2, p.
136.
44
That this lacuna was not corrected in the second edition of Pithou’s book (Frankfurt 1594) may suggest—depending on the extent of his involvement in the publication of the second edition—that Pithou
recorded this corrigendum in his Handexemplar sometime between 1594 and his death on 1 November
1596. On early modern book publication and its myriad processes, see David McKitterick, Print, Manuscript and the Search for Order, 1450–1830 (Cambridge 2003) 97–165; and Percy Simpson, Proof-Reading
in the Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth Centuries (London 1935). In 1601, Fauchet, Fleur de la maison de Charlemaigne (n. 25 above) 232, printed the prologue and the narrative, but believed that both were
written by Thegan: “le proces verbal de sa deposition qui se trouve encores es anciennes librairies, recueilly
par Tegan corevesque (c’est comme evesque rural) de Treves: qui fut present à l’affaire .... l’edict Tegan
commence donc ainsi.” However, following his reproduction of the narrative (in which he again names
Thegan as its author, p. 237) Fauchet is suddenly less certain, now curiously naming Walafrid as a possible
author of the text (p. 237) “Et voila le proces verbal de la deposition de ce grand empereur, tel que nous la
laissé Tegan, ou Uvallafrid Strabon, autheurs du temps: et qu’il m’a semblé necessaire d’estre incorporé en
ces antiquitez, pour les causes que le mesme Tegan à dit au commencement d’iceluy: et advertir les rois de
n’estre tant superstitieux, que fut ce bon prince.” Clearly Fauchet had before him a manuscript witness of
the text that in some way led him to believe that Thegan or Walafrid was its author. Similarly, in two manuscript copies made by Konrad Peutinger (Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, Cod. hist. F 243,
fols. 17r, 21v; Augsburg, Staats- und Stadtbibliothek, 2˚ Cod. 145, fols. 28r, 33r) Peutinger associates
Thegan with the text; in this instance the association is likely due to the fact that the bishops’ narrative followed directly after Thegan’s text in Peutinger’s source (as attested by the order of the two texts in Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka Akc. 1949/397, Peutinger’s copy of his now-lost Petershausen exemplar).
45
Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Réserve des livres rares, Res. L45-1 (n. 40 above) bk. 2, p.
138. See n. 25 above for an independent correct reading by Claude Fauchet in 1601.
46
Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka Akc. 1949/397, fol. 8r.
A NEW PROLOGUE OF WALAFRID STRABO
93
the haughty bishops in 833 were proclaiming themselves to be set up over the authority of the emperor himself.47 Second, on a rear flyleaf of his Handexemplar, Pithou
copied as an addendum a text that purports to be the actual ordination sermon proclaimed by Archbishop Boniface of Mainz to Charlemagne’s father, Pepin the Short,
in the year 751, a sermon that confirms the replacement of the Merovingian royal dynasty with Pepin and his (Carolingian) heirs at the request of the Gallic people.48 This
text, if authentic, would be a truly remarkable find. Unfortunately, several incongruities, such as its Latinity, suggest it is spurious. That Pithou provided an illegible marginal reference to its source only adds to the mystique of this admittedly seductive
text.49
Given the fundamental importance of Pithou for our knowledge of numerous early
medieval texts, it is extremely regrettable that there are no detailed modern studies of
him.50 With only a little effort, one can find truly remarkable things from his pen, such
as a meticulous, heavily annotated copy of the famous text by the ninth-century historian Nithard, a text that contains the earliest appearance of the French language (the
Oaths of Strasbourg), which has long been known through only one manuscript.51
Returning to the prologue preserved in Reginbert’s book, Pithou’s attribution of it
to Walafrid Strabo makes even more sense if we look at the relationships among the
particular texts assembled in the book. The last two works in the volume, Thegan’s
Gesta Hludowici and the bishops’ narrative, both had prologues, and Walafrid identifies himself within the former.52 Moreover, both prologues are similar in form and
47
Walter Ullmann, The Carolingian Renaissance and the Idea of Kingship (London 1969) 67. The
foundation for this interpretation was already clearly established in Ullmann’s article “The Bible and Principles of Government in the Middle Ages,” in Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo (Spoleto 1963) 10.196–200. It is significant to note that G. H. Pertz was the first and only editor of the
text to emend the erroneous “super” to “sub”; see MGH Scriptores (Hanover 1835) 1.366 (though J.-P.
Migne preserved this emendation in his reprint of Pertz’s text in PL 97.660D). Equally significant is the fact
that Boretius and Krause chose to retract Pertz’s emendation in their edition of 1897; see MGH Capitularia
regum Francorum (n. 20 above) 2.52.
48
Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Réserve des livres rares, Res. L45-1 (n. 40 above) rear flyleaf.
49
I am currently preparing a study of this text, “The Alleged Oratio of Boniface to Pepin in 751.” It has
been ignored or overlooked by all modern analysts of the events of 751.
50
The best study is Pierre-Jean Grosley, Vie de Pierre Pithou avec quelques memoires sur son pere et
ses freres (Paris 1756). Modern biographies begin with Louis de Rosanbo, “Pierre Pithou,” Revue du
seizième siècle 15 (1928) 279–305; 16 (1929) 301–330; Donald R. Kelley, Foundations of Modern Scholarship: Language, Law, and History in the French Renaissance (New York 1970) 241–270; R. McKitterick,
“The Study of Frankish History in France and Germany in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” Francia 8 (1980) 559–561; Françoise Bibolet, “Bibliotheca Pithoeana: Les manuscrits des Pithou: Une histoire
de fraternité et d’amitié,” in D. Nebbiai-Dalla Guarda, J.-F. Genest, eds., Du copiste au collectionneur:
Mélanges d’histoire des textes et des bibliothèques en l’honneur d’André Vernet (Turnhout 1998) 497–521;
and M.-M. Fragonard, P.-E. Leroy, eds., Les Pithou: Les lettres et la paix du royaume: Actes du colloque de
Troyes, 13–15 avril 1998 (Paris 2003).
51
Troyes, Bibliothèque municipale, 3203. See the Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques
publiques de France, vol. 63, Suppléments Dijon, Pau, Troyes (Paris 1984) 134; and Rosanbo, “Pierre
Pithou” (n. 36 above) 308 n. 4. I am currently preparing a study of this manuscript, “Per fas et nefas: The
Strange History of Nithard’s Historiae.” Nithard’s text otherwise survives in Paris, BNF Lat. 9768 (saec. X)
and in an incomplete copy (lacking the Strasbourg Oaths) made in the 15th c., BNF Lat. 14663. On the
fundamental importance of Nithard’s text, see R. Howard Bloch, “The First Document and the Birth of
Medieval Studies,” in D. Holler, ed., A New History of French Literature (Cambridge, MA 1989) 6–13.
52
Walafrid, Prologus to Thegan, Gesta Hludovici imperatoris, ed. E. Tremp (n. 17 above) 168, “Huic
opusculo ego Strabo ....” Although Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka Akc. 1949/397, does not contain
Walafrid’s prologue to Thegan’s text, it does include his chapter divisions. Walafrid’s prologue to Thegan’s
94
COURTNEY M. BOOKER
content: each describes Louis as “the most Christian emperor” (Christianissimus imperator); each speaks of the zeal possessed by the author of the text or actions that
follow53; and each is emphatic that the intention behind a work is more important than
its form, and that an elegant style can often be used to conceal the truth.54 If we turn to
the chapter titles that Walafrid assigned to Thegan’s text, the subtle similarities in
syntax, vocabulary, and orthography they bear to the new prologue only strengthen its
attribution to Walafrid.55
Indeed, so strong are the ties between the “editions” of the bishops’ narrative and
Thegan’s text that I submit that Walafrid himself, as editor, had initially grouped them
for a common didactic purpose.56 When the two texts are read together as a single unit,
it becomes rather plausible that Thegan’s text serves as a loyalist answer or rebuttal to
the numerous charges in the bishops’ narrative of Louis’s iniquity. As Thegan has
Louis explain, using vivid, direct speech, he did not assemble his people together on
the Field of Lies for the purpose of their mutual destruction—an act which the bishops
themselves had claimed was the emperor’s greatest sin (cumulus miseriarum)—but
rather sent his own faithful men away out of concern that they not lose their lives or
limbs on his account.57 Another commonality between the two texts is their choice of
text only survives in two witnesses: Copenhagen, Universitätsbibliothek, AM 830 4˚, fol. 97r (dating from
1496); and Pithou’s printed collection of sources, Annalium et historiae Francorum (n. 24 above) bk. 2, pp.
93–94 (published in 1588). See Tremp, Studien zu den Gesta Hludowici imperatoris (n. 16 above) 114, 164,
172. For a partial English translation, see Duckett, Carolingian Portraits (n. 3 above) 149. Given the fact
that Pithou provides Walafrid’s prologue, it is reasonable to assume that his exemplar—the late medieval
paper manuscript believed also to be Peutinger’s exemplar (the “Petershausen codex”) for Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka Akc. 1949/397—contained the prologue as well, and that Peutinger neglected to copy
it (but did note the chapter divisions). See n. 36 above.
53
Prologus to the bishops’ narrative: “Acta sunt autem studio non imitandae deiectionis eius ab Hebone
auctore eiusdem mali, et caeteris episcopis”; Walafrid, Prologus to Thegan, Gesta Hludovici imperatoris,
ed. E. Tremp (n. 17 above) 168, “Praeterea nimius amor iustitiae et executoris eius, christianissimi imperatoris, zeli naturalis exaggeravit ardorem.”
54
Prologus to the bishops’ narrative: “Acta sunt autem studio non imitandae deiectionis eius ab Hebone
auctore eiusdem mali, et caeteris episcopis, vel errore annitentibus, vel timore consentientibus. Non sunt
autem haec ut salubris concilii decreta amplectenda, sed ut exitialis commenti molimina respuenda”;
Walafrid, Prologus to Thegan, Gesta Hludovici imperatoris, ed. E. Tremp (n. 17 above) 168, “Hoc opusculum in morem annalium Thegan, natione Francus, Treverensis ecclesiae chorepiscopus, breviter quidem et
vere potius quam lepide composuit .... Unde gratum sit opus eius pro bona voluntate, non fastidiendum pro
quantulacumque rusticitate.”
55
Cf. the prologue to the bishops’ narrative with the following chapter titles by Walafrid:
Quae sequuntur gesta sunt apud Compendium palatium contra Christianissimum imperatorem Ludouicum, postquam regno ad tempus privatus est. Acta sunt autem studio non imitandae deiectionis eius ab Hebone auctore eiusdem mali, et caeteris episcopis, vel errore annitentibus, vel timore consentientibus. Non
sunt autem haec ut salubris concilii decreta amplectenda, sed ut exitialis commenti molimina respuenda.
X. Quomodo decreta patrum suorum roboraverit (ed. E. Tremp [n. 17 above] 170); XLII. Quae gesta
sunt apud Campum-Mendacii; XLIII. Quam gravia sustinuit piissimus imperator maxime apud Compendium; XLIIII. Invectio in Hebonem et consimiles; LVI. Hebo a gradu episcopali deiectus (ed. E. Tremp [n.
17 above] 174).
56
Unaware of the prologue to the bishops’ narrative, Tischler, Einharts Vita Karoli (n. 16 above) 1.877,
claims that Walafrid appended the bishops’ narrative to Thegan’s text simply to provide additional biographical material on Louis the Pious. I can find no evidence to support the enticing claim made by Léon
Levillain, in F. Grat, ed., Annales de Saint-Bertin (Paris 1964) 18 “n” in apparatus, that Walafrid was the
anonymous continuator of Thegan’s text to 838. On this continuation, see Tremp, Studien zu den Gesta
Hludowici imperatoris (n. 16 above) 100–112; and Thegan, Gesta Hludovici imperatoris, ed. E. Tremp (n.
17 above) 254–259.
57
Cf. Episcoporum de poenitentia ... relatio Compendiensis, ed. Boretius, Krause (n. 20 above) 2.55,
“sed insuper ad cumulum miseriarum novissime omnem populum suae potestatis ad communem interitum
A NEW PROLOGUE OF WALAFRID STRABO
95
antagonist. It has long been observed that the great villain of Thegan’s work is
Archbishop Ebbo of Reims, a former slave who for the biographer not only served as
the rebellion’s figurehead but also epitomized the disastrous consequences of an ageold practice—of allowing the low-born to ascend to positions of power within the
church.58 Certainly if there is a message to Thegan’s cautionary tale, it is that Louis
should abolish this pernicious custom. But his tale was equally an ad hominem attack
on Ebbo; near the end of his account Thegan clamors that, although Ebbo had been
punished for his leading role in the events of 833, his sentence was far too light and
that justice has yet to be done.59 As Thegan’s editor in late 840, Walafrid supported
this strident claim and actually supplied the evidence of Ebbo’s villainy. By appending
the bishops’ narrative—what he calls the “work of a deadly contrivance”—to
Thegan’s text and providing it with a prologue of its own, Walafrid reminds the reader
that Ebbo was the “author of this evil.”60 That Ebbo was released from penitential confinement and reinstated as archbishop of Reims by Louis’s eldest son, Lothar, in August of 840, just two months after Louis’s death, only serves to support the timing of
this pointed editorial collection and commentary by Walafrid.61 An urgent statement
was needed against Ebbo’s recent return, for Walafrid knew the archbishop’s shrewdness and facility at concealing the truth. After all, it was the low-born Ebbo’s renowned acumen that had allowed him to attain such a lofty office in the first place.62
contraxerit, cum debuisset esse eidem populo dux salutis et pacis, cum divina pietas, inaudito et invisibili
modo ac nostris seculis praedicando, populo suo misereri decrevisset”; and Thegan, Gesta Hludovici imperatoris, cap. 42, ed. E. Tremp (n. 17 above) 228–230, “tentoria eorum relinquentes pervenerunt ad filios.
In crastinum aliqui, qui remanserant, venerunt ad imperatorem; quibus praecepit dicens: ‘Ite,’ ait, ‘ad filios
meos. Nolo ut ullus propter me vitam aut membra dimittat.’ At illi infusi lacrimis recedebant ab eo.” On
Thegan’s careful use of direct speech, see Booker, “Writing a Wrong” (n. 19 above) 61–63.
58
See Matthew Innes, “‘He never even allowed his white teeth to be bared in laughter’: The Politics of
Humour in the Carolingian Renaissance,” in G. Halsall, ed., Humour, History and Politics in Late Antiquity
and the Early Middle Ages (Cambridge 2002) 133–136; Stuart Airlie, “Bonds of Power and Bonds of Association in the Court Circle of Louis the Pious,” in P. Godman, R. Collins, eds., Charlemagne’s Heir: New
Perspectives on the Reign of Louis the Pious (814–840) (Oxford 1990) 200–204; Wallace-Hadrill, The
Frankish Church (n. 4 above) 237.
59
Thegan, Gesta Hludovici imperatoris, cap. 56, ed. E. Tremp (n. 17 above) 252; and Booker, “Writing
a Wrong” (n. 19 above) 115–116.
60
Prologus to the bishops’ narrative: “Acta sunt autem studio non imitandae deiectionis eius ab Hebone
auctore eiusdem mali ....” It is important to note, however, that Walafrid is clear that Ebbo only authored
(i.e., masterminded) the scheme of Louis’s deposition (deiectio). He says nothing about the identity of the
author of the text describing the act.
61
On Ebbo’s release and reinstatement, see Booker, “Writing a Wrong” (n. 19 above) 123–159; Wilfried
Hartmann, “Fälschungsverdacht und Fälschungsnachweis im früheren Mittelalter,” in Fälschungen im Mittelalter (Hanover 1988) 2.111–127; and Peter R. McKeon, “Archbishop Ebbo of Reims (816–835) A Study
in the Carolingian Empire and Church,” Church History 43 (1974) 443–447.
62
On Walafrid’s relationship with Ebbo and Thegan, see the poems he wrote to each in E. Dümmler,
ed., MGH Poetae Latini Aevi Carolini (Berlin 1884) 2.350–353. On Ebbo’s famed intelligence, see Charles
the Bald’s letter to Pope Nicholas I (867), ed. W. Hartmann, MGH Concilia (Hanover 1998) 4.239–240. I
disagree with Martin Brooke, “The Prose and Verse Hagiography of Walahfrid Strabo,” in P. Godman, R.
Collins, eds., Charlemagne’s Heir: New Perspectives on the Reign of Louis the Pious (814–840) (Oxford
1990) 562–563, who claims that Walafrid, by pointing out in his prologue to Thegan’s work that the author’s style was “crude” (rusticitas), was making a barbed, ironic comment (ironic, since Thegan himself
condemns Ebbo several times in the work for his rusticitas). Apart from the traditional use of rusticitas as a
term of stylistic depreciation—a usage Walafrid applies to himself in the Visio Wettini (see Traill, Walahfrid
Strabo’s Visio Wettini [n. 3 above] 37, 80–81)—Walafrid makes it clear in the prologue that Thegan was so
busy with other, more important matters, such as preaching and correction, and loved the emperor so much
that the work contains nothing more than his raw feelings (the implication being that, had Thegan had the
96
COURTNEY M. BOOKER
Perhaps this urgency was why Walafrid, in his preface to Thegan’s text, underscored
his desire “to hear more frequently the deeds, or proclaim the praises, of Emperor
Louis of holy memory,” a desire his addition of chapter divisions and titles to the text
was meant to help satisfy.63 Given the current state of affairs, the more Thegan’s text
(with the bishops’ “appendix”) was read, the better.
Walafrid’s expressed desire also tells us something about the audience he expected
his editorial collection to have. When he says that he wanted (cupio) to proclaim it or
hear it more frequently, Walafrid is doubtless speaking of the reading and listening
community of his brethren at Reichenau, and of his own place within it as teacher and
guide. With this pedagogic context in mind, it is understandable that the version of the
bishops’ narrative from 833 that has come down to us is lacking its list of episcopal
signatories, a list that, as the narrative itself states, should appear at the end.64 To
Walafrid, the didactic goal was not just to expose Ebbo’s “authorship” of the evil
events, but also, or perhaps especially, to reveal and thus demonstrate the general duplicitous nature of the text that justified them—the seemingly “healthy” language,
style, and form that such a “deadly contrivance” could assume. Specifics such as the
identities of its attestors were immaterial to this end.65 Walafrid could only hope that
his brethren, with the aid of his collection, would learn to recognize any like fictions,
and thus be equipped to forestall any future attempts by Ebbo or his kind.66
In conclusion, while it is thanks to Walafrid’s didactic prologue and collection that
the narrative by the rebellious bishops was preserved at all, it is thanks to Reginbert,
the librarian of Reichenau, that this small compilation by Walafrid was itself preserved. During Walafrid’s exile in Speyer between 841 and 842, Reginbert apparently
collected the two texts edited by his old friend and incorporated this initial compilation
into his own larger book, one that contained the history of the world from creation to
the later years of Louis’s reign.67 If Thegan’s biography was, as Walafrid had said in
time, he would undoubtedly have polished the work). Moreover, Walafrid begins his prologue by noting that
Thegan’s unadorned style has its own virtue—a closer accordance with the truth: “Hoc opusculum in
morem annalium Thegan, natione Francus, Treverensis ecclesiae chorepiscopus, breviter quidem et vere
potius quam lepide composuit ....”
63
“Huic opusculo ego Strabo quasdam incisiones et capitula inserui, quia sanctae memoriae Lodeuuici
imperatoris gesta et laudes saepius audire cupio vel proferre, ut facilius volentibus scire singula pateant
titulorum compendio,” Walafrid, Prologus to Thegan, Gesta Hludovici imperatoris, ed. E. Tremp (n. 17
above) 168.
64
See the Episcoporum de poenitentia ... relatio Compendiensis, ed. Boretius, Krause (n. 20 above)
2.55, “Ad extremum omnibus nobis qui interfuimus visum est, omnium cartularum immo tanti negotii
summam in unum breviter strictimque congerere, et congesta propriis manuum nostrarum subscriptionibus
roborare, sicut sequentia factum esse demonstrant.”
65
Of course, it is also entirely possible that the list of signatories was omitted from the text at some later
point during its manuscript transmission.
66
Ebbo did indeed try his hand at falsification, writing a letter ca. 845 in the name of Pope Gregory IV
in an attempt to reclaim the see of Reims. Unfortunately, this desperate measure seems to have done him
little good; an anonymous hand of the 9th c. noted in the margin of the single manuscript preserving the text
(Laon, Bibliothèque municipale, 407, fol. 161) that the papal letter was manifestly “false” (mendax). See K.
Hampe, ed., MGH Epistolae (Berlin 1898–1899) 5.81–84, and 81 n. 8; idem, “Zum Streite Hincmars von
Reims mit seinem Vorgänger Ebo und dessen Anhängern,” Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere
deutsche Geschichtskunde 24 (1898) 180–195; and Booker, “Writing a Wrong” (n. 19 above) 138–140.
67
Tischler, Einharts Vita Karoli (n. 16 above) 1.876 n. 946, “Schon Reginbert verband sie mit annalistischen Werken.” It is unlikely that Walafrid was responsible for the compilation of the entire book, since
Reginbert carefully noted those books in his personal collection that had come from, or were otherwise
A NEW PROLOGUE OF WALAFRID STRABO
97
his preface to it, written “in the manner of annals” (in morem annalium), then it fit that
much better with the numerous historical annals that Reginbert selected to precede it.
For whom was this history book intended? Karl Preisendanz once argued that it served
the needs of the monastery for deciding legal questions, but given its contents this use
is difficult to imagine.68 The most one can say is that, with the recent shift in political
winds during the early 840s, a compilation of texts sympathetic not only to Louis the
Pious but also to Louis the German would presumably have found favor with the latter, Reichenau’s new overlord.69 Whether Louis, like his father a ruler with a deep
interest in history, ever saw Reginbert’s compilation is yet to be determined.70
***
This essay began by offering a sample of Walafrid’s handwriting in place of an author
portrait. It concludes with another portrait of Walafrid—or, rather, a double portrait of
Walafrid and Reginbert. For as Walter Benjamin famously observed regarding the
collector of books, books do not come alive in him; it is he who lives in them.71 The
same can be said of collectors or compilers of texts.72 I think we can still see someassociated with, Walafrid or other monks in the monastery: e.g., book 4 was given to him by “Wano, frater
meus”; book 5 contained the Visio Wettini, which Bishop Heito had recorded and which “Walafridus, frater
noster” adorned in verse; book 18 was given to him by Engilram; books 20 and 23 were given by Tatto and
Crimolt; book 30 was given by “Walafrid, frater noster”; book 31 was given by Coldvinus; book 38 was
given by Udalricus; and book 41 contained the “Walafridi libellus” on the “ordo ecclesiasticus.” See Lehmann, Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge (n. 31 above) 1.259–262. On Reginbert’s collecting activity, see
the remarks of Dutton, The Politics of Dreaming (n. 4 above) 75; McKitterick, The Carolingians and the
Written Word (n. 31 above) 181–182, and, above all, Preisendanz, “Reginbert von der Reichenau” (n. 31
above) 33–46.
68
Preisendanz, “Reginbert von der Reichenau” (n. 31 above) 36, but see also 44–45.
69
Note, for instance, the favorable treatment Thegan gives to Louis the German throughout his work,
observing again and again that the young Louis was his father’s “beloved namesake” and faithful supporter:
Thegan, Gesta Hludovici imperatoris, ed. E. Tremp (n. 17 above) cap. 36–37, 39, 45–48, 54–55, 57. See
Tremp, Studien zu den Gesta Hludowici imperatoris (n. 16 above) 79–81.
70
The historical interests of Louis the German have not been studied to the same degree as those of his
father or brothers: Janet L. Nelson, “History-writing at the Courts of Louis the Pious and Charles the Bald,”
in A. Scharer, G. Scheibelreiter, eds., Historiographie im frühen Mittelalter (Vienna 1994) 435–442; Mayke
de Jong, “The Emperor Lothar and His Biblioteca Historiarum,” in R. I. A. Nip, ed., Media Latinitas: A
Collection of Essays to Mark the Occasion of the Retirement of L. J. Engels (Turnhout 1996) 229–235;
eadem, “The Empire as Ecclesia: Hrabanus Maurus and Biblical Historia for Rulers,” in Y. Hen, M. Innes,
eds., The Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages (Cambridge 2000) 191–226. But see B. Bischoff,
“Bücher am Hofe Ludwigs des Deutschen und die Privatbibliothek des Kanzlers Grimalt,” in idem, Mittelalterliche Studien (Stuttgart 1981) 3.187–212; Hartmann, Ludwig der Deutsche (n. 9 above); idem, ed.,
Ludwig der Deutsche und seine Zeit (Darmstadt 2004); and the forthcoming study by Eric J. Goldberg,
Struggle for Empire: Kingship and Conflict under Louis the German, 817–876 (Ithaca 2006). Tischler,
Einharts Vita Karoli (n. 16 above) 1.877 n. 951, notes that the author of the work De pretioso sanguine
Domini nostri, written at Reichenau during the abbacy of Alawich (934–958), demonstrates a knowledge of
the Royal Frankish Annals, and thus may have known them from Reginbert’s codex 36.
71
Walter Benjamin, “Unpacking My Library: A Talk about Collecting,” trans. H. Zohn, in M. W.
Jennings, H. Eiland, G. Smith, eds., Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings (1931; Cambridge, MA 1999)
2.492.
72
This notion of “editorial authorship” is in need of additional study. Fundamental as a point of departure are Patrick J. Geary, “Auctor et auctoritas dans les cartulaires du haut moyen age,” in M. Zimmerman,
ed., Auctor et Auctoritas: Invention et conformisme dans l’écriture médiévale (Paris 2001) 61–71; Malcolm
B. Parkes, “The Influence of the Concepts of Ordinatio and Compilatio on the Development of the Book,”
in idem, Scribes, Scripts and Readers: Studies in the Communication, Presentation and Dissemination of
Medieval Texts (1976; London 1991) 58–69; together with a work well ahead of its time, Ernst P. Goldschmidt, Medieval Texts and Their First Appearance in Print (London 1943) 86–121. On other such Caro-
98
COURTNEY M. BOOKER
thing of both Walafrid and Reginbert in this meaningful collection.
Department of History
University of British Columbia
1297–1873 East Mall
Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z1
lingian history books, see Rosamond McKitterick, “Constructing the Past in the Early Middle Ages: The
Case of the Royal Frankish Annals,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, sixth series, 7 (1997)
125–126; Helmut Reimitz, “Ein karolingisches Geschichtsbuch aus Saint-Amand: Der Codex Vindobonensis palat. 473,” in C. Egger, H. Weigel, eds., Text–Schrift–Codex: Quellenkundliche Arbeiten aus dem Institut für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung (Vienna 2000) 34–90; R. McKitterick, “Political Ideology in
Carolingian Historiography,” in Y. Hen, M. Innes, eds., The Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages
(Cambridge 2000) 162–174; and R. McKitterick, History and Memory in the Carolingian World (Cambridge 2004).
A NEW PROLOGUE OF WALAFRID STRABO
99
FIG. 1. Detail of Walafrid Strabo’s later hand, St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 878, p. 291
(the manuscript is paginated).
100
COURTNEY M. BOOKER
FIG. 2. Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka Akc. 1949/397, fol. 8r.
A NEW PROLOGUE OF WALAFRID STRABO
101
FIG. 3. Pierre Pithou, Annalium et historiae Francorum ab anno Christi DCCVIII ad
annum DCCCCXC scriptores coaetanei XII … (Paris 1588), bk. 2, p. 136.
102
COURTNEY M. BOOKER
FIG. 4. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Réserve des livres rares, Res. L45-1:
Pierre Pithou, Annalium et historiae Francorum ab anno Christi DCCVIII ad annum
DCCCCXC scriptores coaetanei XII … (Paris 1588), table of contents (detail).
A NEW PROLOGUE OF WALAFRID STRABO
103
FIG. 5. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Réserve des livres rares, Res. L45-1:
Pierre Pithou, Annalium et historiae Francorum ab anno Christi DCCVIII ad annum
DCCCCXC scriptores coaetanei XII ... (Paris 1588), bk. 2, p. 136.
104
COURTNEY M. BOOKER
FIG. 6. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Réserve des livres rares, Res. L45-1:
Pierre Pithou, Annalium et historiae Francorum ab anno Christi DCCVIII ad annum
DCCCCXC scriptores coaetanei XII ... (Paris 1588), bk. 2, p. 138 (detail).
A NEW PROLOGUE OF WALAFRID STRABO
105
FIG. 7. Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka Akc. 1949/397, fol. 8r (detail).