SUMMARY TRADITION AND POWER THE KINGDOM OF ITALY UNDER CAROLINGIAN RULE 774-875 In 774 Charlemagne seized power over a state whose political system was not only in no way inferior to the model created by the Franks in Gaul, but in many respects was superior to it. Cultural models created by Lombard intellectual and political elites gathered around the court of Pavia spread far beyond the Alpine passes. Never before and never again did the Carolingians meet during their conquests with an opponent equally worthy of them. The Lombard legacy simply could not be ignored. Therefore, the Frankish conquest of the Lombard Italy can be interpreted as a clash of equal organisational and political models and social standards. The relations between the Frankish and the Lombard states can be viewed not as subordination but as a personal union of two formally equal partners. Due to profound differences dividing two politically dominant ethnic groups in the Kingdom, differences with respect to law, customs and political tradition, integration of the society could only take place around the monarch. In order to win over the local elite, the new monarchs made a number of symbolic gestures: they appropriated and maintained the functions of the Lombard royal seats as well as royal titles; they minted a golden coin based on a Lombard model, looked after Lombard royal monasteries, and tried to make the Carolingian rule part of the history of the Lombards and to incorporate the fate of these people and their new rulers into God’s salvation plan (Historia Langobardorum Codicis Gothani and, perhaps, Paul the Deacon’s Historia Langobardorum). These actions were also part of propaganda polemic with Arechi II, the Lombard duke of Benevento, who made claims to the Lombard throne. The ideological programme of Charlemagne's and Pippin's rule combined the Lombard concept of the monarchy that stressed the separate ethnic identity of the community of free Lombards with the Carolingian model of the state based on co-existence of various ethnic groups united by one ruler. At the same time Charlemagne clearly drew on the Frankish tradition by, for instance, changing the name of his son designated to be the king of the Lombards from Carloman to Pippin. Thus the young king of the Lombards received the name of his grandfather who had become famous by his victories over the Lombard king, Aistulf, and at the same time remained in symbolic kinship (established through the ritual cutting of hair) with the great Lombard ruler, Liutprand. The special bond between the Carolingians and the papacy was emphasised: Hadrian I established a spiritual kinship between himself and Pippin as his godfather. In addition, in Rome the pope anointed Carloman-Pippin king of the Lombards. This had a huge significance for the legitimisation of Pippin’s rule. What changed at that moment was the concept of the ethnic Lombard monarchy in which the monarch could ascend the throne only if such was the will of the community of free Lombards expressed during an assembly. At the same time, the emphasis on supernatural, universal origins of Pippin’s power allowed the Franks, the Alemanns or the Burgundians settling in Italy and gathering around the court to identify with the Pavian monarchy. Pippin became a unifying force that held together a new, ethnically mixed political elite. The Carolingians appear to us primarily as law-makers. By establishing new legal norms, designed especially for the Lombard Kingdom (later Kingdom of Italy), and confirming old laws, the monarchs not only developed a tool for introducing changes but also gave a clear sign of continuity. The capitularies promulgated by Charlemagne and his successors contain numerous references to Lombard laws from the times of the independent kingdom. The Carolingians presented themselves as continuators of the legislative work of their Lombard predecessors. At the same time they guarded the Lombard legal tradition which was one of the most important elements of the collective identity and historical memory of these people. The link between the capitularies and the edicts of the Lombard kings manifests itself not only in references to specific provisions of the old law, but is also on the linguistic level (legal terminology). The awareness of the continuity between the Lombard and the Carolingian legislations was reflected in 9th century legal codes that contained collections of Lombard laws, collections in which edicts issued by Lombard kings were accompanied by Carolingian capitularies. Before the year 800 the system of governance in the Lombard Kingdom (two rulers with the right to establish laws and freedom in internal policy) drew on the Lombard monarchs’ practice of making their sons and successors their co-rulers (this was the relationship between the last independent king of the Lombards, Desiderius, and his son, Adelhis). After Charlemagne was crowned emperor, the ideological foundations of his rule were changed and the Regnum Langobardorum lost its privileged position among the Carolingian kingdoms. However, the principle of respecting the ethnic and political identity of the Lombard Kingdom was upheld, a fact that was reflected primarily in a separate legislation. During Pippin’s minority the real power rested with Charlemagne represented by some of his trusted advisers. The situation changed as Pippin grew up and began to take over full power. This is corroborated by an analysis of Pippin's policy in the last years of his reign (especially his policy towards the papacy as well as Venice and Byzantium). Pippin carried out independent actions, sometimes even against his father’s will, and his political goals drew on the policies of his Lombard predecessors. The considerable autonomy the Lombard Kingdom enjoyed under Pippin's rule was confirmed by Charlemagne’s Act of Succession of 806 (Divisio regnorum). However, if we analyse the reception of general capitularies in the Lombard Kingdom, we can see that despite some resistance laws established by suzerain rulers for the whole empire were binding and were implemented also in this region. This confirms the close relationship between the Transalpine centre and the Italian Kingdom. The beginnings of a crisis in this sort of organisation in the Lombard Kingdom were visible already in its fundamental principles. The system created in 781 could function efficiently only if there was a harmonious cooperation between the king occupying the throne of Pavia and the suzerain ruler. Following the deaths of Pippin, the king of the Lombards, and his elder brother, Charles the Younger, groomed to become the future suzerain ruler (810/811), Charlemagne again tried to regulate the status of the Lombard Kingdom within the Carolingian rule. The sources are vague on the subject but nevertheless allow us to conclude that various aristocratic factions gathered around the emperor and Louis the Pious argued over the future of this part of the empire. We may conjecture that a plan had already been worked out at the time to prevent Bernard, Pippin’s son, from inheriting the throne (locking him up in a monastery?) and have the Lombard Kingdom ruled directly by Louis the Pious. It was probably because of resistance on the part of some noblemen (including Adalard of Corbie and his brother Wala) that the concept of maintaining the kingdom’s autonomy under Bernard as king of the Lombards prevailed and was endorsed at the council of Aachen in 814. The attempts to introduce Louis the Pious’ unifying political programme based on ideological principles expressed in Ordinalio imperii of 817 and later also in Admonitio ad omnes regni ordines (823-825) upset the existing order and led to a conflict within the ruling group. Pippin’s son, Bernard, fell victim to the strife among aristocratic factions. The substantial freedom he enjoyed as king of the Lombards made him a dangerous rival in the fight for power within the dynasty; for Louis the Pious his hereditary rights to the throne of Pavia and magnates’ support became an obstacle to his plans to centralise power in the empire and strengthen imperial control over peripheral provinces. Bernard’s revolt and his subsequent tragic death meant an end to the Lombard monarchy in the form it had developed for over two centuries. The reigns of Louis the Pious and Lothar I saw a decline of the idea of an ethnic monarchy drawing in its ideology on the Lombard legacy. The rejection of the Lombard monarchy’s ideological legacy and a thorough restructuring of the foundations of royal authority in Italy were responsible for the fact that from 820s on there were very few references to the past in the rulers’ policies and propaganda. In that period Lombard traditions were present only as a tool occasionally employed to improve the relations with local elites; they never became - for they, could not anymore become - an element of the monarchs' political entourage. From the 820s none of the rulers would assume the title of king of the Lombards; the ethnic term Regnum Langobardorum was replaced in the sources by the territorial notion of Regnum Italiae; neither Louis nor Lothar resided permanently in the kingdom, a fact which contributed to the decline of the Pavian court. Faced with a crisis of governance structures in the Lombard Kingdom following Bernard’s death, Louis the Pious was forced to give the power over Italy to Lothar I. though he limited the scope of his independence in comparison with his predecessors. Lothar would come to Italy only occasionally, if there was a need for him to intervene (either in connection with a threat of war or with affairs of the papacy) and his visits would be planned and controlled by Louis. During the fight between Louis the Pious and his sons Louis tried to restrict Lothar’s influence to Italy in order to marginalise his stature in the political conflict over power. Yet for Lothar the Kingdom of Italy became first of all a stronghold from which he would venture beyond the Alps to make repeated attempts to take over the imperial throne and where he would find safe refuge after his defeats. It was to this end that Lothar I subordinated his internal policy. An analysis of capitularies promulgated by this ruler reveals how Lothar tried to win support of various groups in the society, from aristocratic officials, through the clearly favouritised group of royal vassals, to small landowners on whom the kingdom’s military system was based. His reign was also marked by an inflow of wealthy Lothar supporters from beyond the Alps, supporters who sought refuge in Italy from Louis the Pious’ anger and who were rewarded for their loyalty to Lothar with land from reorganised treasury estates. The kingdom’s marginalisation is also indirectly confirmed by the little interest Lothar showed in Italian affairs once Louis the Pious’ death opened to him the prospect of achieving his dream of universal power. When Lothar I’s son. Louis, was crowned king of the Lombards, only seemingly did it mean a return to the concept of the Italian monarchy championed by Charlemagne and Pippin, and a manifestation of the kingdom’s separate legal and political identity. In fact the old title was merely an instrument used at the time in a political game to achieve specific goals. When Louis II was crowned emperor, the Lombard legacy became an unnecessary burden in his claims to universal rule. The second and the third parts of the book focus on issues related to the organisation of the foundations of Carolingian rule outside the central territory of the Lombard Kingdom, and on the significance of solutions inherited from the independent kingdom. An analysis of the changes in the functions of territorial governance offices of Lombard origin (gastald, sculdahis) suggests that the administrative structures developed during the times of the independent kingdom survived not only the first years after the conquest but also throughout the whole period in question. This continuity, though, did not mean petrification of solutions inherited from the Lombard monarchy. The administrative system underwent considerable changes which, however, did not lead to the replacement of existing Lombard institutions by their Frankish equivalents imposed by a ruler’s decision, but incorporation of new elements into local structures (this applies first of all to the office of count). At the same time there were marked differences between regions with respect to the scope and the speed of those changes. They depended on the strategic importance of particular centres of power and the ethnic composition of particular societies: the presence of the settlers from beyond the Alps made it easier to transplant solutions that were foreign to the Lombard practice. The changes in the Carolingian Kingdom of Italy affected primarily the highest echelons of power. As the new monarch ascended the throne, Italy saw an inflow of a group of aristocrats siding with the Carolingians; these men built their position within the ruling class and its hierarchy on the basis of their relations with the ruling family. This was a group from which came court dignitaries and counts - highest officials in territorial administration. The criterion of ethnicity was not, however, crucial for establishing those relations with the monarch: loyalty to the ruler, confirmed by words and actions, opened the career door to the Lombards as well. At the same time, inconstancy that characterised the aristocrats who were in the monarchs’ closest circle caused the changes in the highest offices to be relatively frequent, a fact that had a significant impact especially on the effectiveness of counts’ rule in the kingdom’s remote provinces. Unlike the central government bodies, the lower echelons of governance displayed a clear institutional and personal continuity. Gastalds and sculdahis were subordinated to counts but their authority came, just like it had during the independent Lombard Kingdom, from the ruler’s delegation. The Carolingian capitularies demonstrate that the scope of powers of those officials was limited, also because some powers were taken over by the bishops. They did, however, retained considerable judiciary, military and regulatory powers, according to the principles set already in the edicts issued by Lombard kings. Gastalds and sculdahis were often recruited from provincial Lombard families that had held various offices for many generations. Rooted in local communities and hierarchies, bound to the local elites by a network of family or property connections and relations, they were a link between the central authorities and local communities. On the one hand, they represented the monarch and carried out his will, and on the other they were predestined to be those who would represent and protect the subjects’ interests in dealing with the central authority. Such a system guaranteed the stability of governance structures even during political crises when the throne was passing to a different ruler or when the monarch was absent from the country. At the same time it prevented an uncontrollable rise of the counts and their influence. Over the first decades following the Frankish conquest Italy developed a unique system of territorial governance that combined Lombard and Frankish institutions in one whole with the two parts complementing one another. The combination of those two elements became a characteristic feature of the Kingdom of Italy. The overlapping of powers and hence rivalry between various officials in the local administration system made it possible to maintain balance and prevented a small group of families from monopolising the highest offices. This natural control system, supported by the missi delegated by the monarch functioned quite effectively during the reign of the Frankish dynasty. The counts, bishops and gastalds made sure that whoever they shared power with did not rise too high. The counts were also unable to gain control over local administration by filling lower-level offices with their own clients. The system began to crumble only as the central administration broke up following Louis II’s death. The fight for the throne of Pavia tearing the Kingdom apart at the turn of the 9th and 10th centuries inevitably destroyed the close relation between the ruler and his representatives in various provinces. The disappearance of a centre around which the political elites consolidated accelerated the feudalisation of local administration structures. Gastalds, locoposili, sculdahis, lower-level officials who until that moment had had the monarch's support were now recruited from the clientage of bishops and counts providing protection and measurable benefits that the weakening monarchy could not guarantee. The Carolingians’ ascension to the throne led to an inflow of immigrants from north of the Alps and also a transfer into Italy of vassalage combined with benefices. This process was in fact deliberately supported by Charlemagne who turned it into one of the many instruments he used to build the foundations of monarchial authority in a foreign and often hostile environment. However, the appearance of vassals and military benefices did not bring about any significant social breakthrough, nor did these institutions become a basis for the ruler-subjects relations. There was simply no need to employ them on a larger scale as there were plenty of other, less expensive and more effective methods of consolidating and expanding the scope of royal authority, methods inherited from the Lombard monarchy. We can. therefore, confidently state that in the first decades following the conquest vassalage had a limited impact on the structures of the Lombard-Italian society. It became one of the forms of interdependence covering all social classes and groups with a network of relationships. At the same time we have to stress that vassalage we encounter when analysing 9th century Italian sources differs substantially from the ideal type developed by older and newer historiography. The adaptation of the Frankish institution to Italian conditions was influenced by a complex set of local factors and needs, which led to the emergence of a unique form of allegiance that continued to be described with a term brought by the Franks. Just as it was the case with administrative structures, the Frankish conquest did not cause the disappearance of the Lombard forms of building cliental relations. Charlemagne and his successors used various Lombard institutions, including the gasindii, when developing their relations with the Lombard elite. These institutions turned out to be as effective (or maybe even more effective) as vassaticum, which was an alien institution in the Kingdom and. just like other legal solutions derived from a foreign tradition, was accepted with much resistance. The adoption of vassalage and forms of land-holding associated with them was, at least initially, relatively slow. This was a result not only of a different, Lombard model of subjects-king relations but also of a limited need to promote vassal relations as one of the pillars of the monarch’s authority, because the local aristocracy was weak and the administrative structures inherited from the Lombards were relatively efficient. On the other hand, vassalage remained a basis of the relations between the Franks, the Alemanns or the Burgundians coming to Italy. The difference between the Frankish vassals and the Lombard gasindii quickly got blurred - which was an obvious consequence of the similarity between the two institutions both with respect to legal effects and advantages resulting from the establishment of such a type of relations. However, the awareness of different origins of both institutions remained strong until the very end of the period analysed here. It was not until the crisis of the Lombard state in the 820s that one could observe the rise of the vassal clientage as an instrument of the king’s policy towards the Kingdom’s political elites and as a tool used by the noblemen to strengthen their position. At that time royal vassals began to be treated as a particularly privileged group. It was no coincidence that the period saw an increasing number of Lombards being included among royal vassals. The slow spread of the Frankish forms of personal relations does not seem to have been caused by discrimination of the Lombards, but was a result of the local socio-political conditions. A change in those conditions made the Frankish model more attractive to all social groups - including those that, because of their different traditions, were reluctant to adopt foreign legal solutions. More and more often joining royal vassals was considered by the political elites to be an alternative career path, together with holding a public office or choosing a career in the church. During the times of the independent Kingdom the assumption of the status of a royal gasindius was treated in a similar manner. However, in the period I have analysed in the book vassal ties in Italy were not as significant as they were north of the Alps. Despite the fact that capitularies credit royal vassals with obligations similar to those they had in Francia, diplomatic sources do not confirm that they performed any regular public functions. Just like the gasindii in the independent Lombard Kingdom, vassals were used by the rulers to carry out special missions: at such moments, however, they were given ad-hoc powers delegated by the monarch. Those special missions aside, vassals did not encroach on the jurisdiction of local officials. The sources do not demonstrate an unequivocal link between the establishment of vassalage and granting of land as benefice. Even if we take into account the fact that granting of benefices usually left no trace on paper, this silence seems significant. What hampered the spread of benefice as an institution was probably local customs in which a personal relation was associated with granting of hereditary property rather than various forms of temporary grants. Another characteristic feature of the Carolingian Italy was the minor military significance of vassal clientage. The appearance of vassals associated with the kings, the aristocracy or the clergy did not undermine one of the most important elements that guaranteed the stability of the state, namely, the organisation of the Kingdom’s armed forces. Just like in the independent Kingdom, the core of the army was constituted by a levy in mass of free men who had certain public duties as well as king’s, counts’ and bishops’ vassals. This resembles the situation in the independent Kingdom in which the gasindii did not have any specific military obligations. Interestingly, there are almost no testimonies suggesting feudalisation of governance structures under Carolingian rule. The presence of vassals holding various administrative offices would become more marked at the turn of the 9th and 10th centuries. The break-up of the structures of the Lombard-Carolingian state following Louis Il’s death and the chaos of the subsequent decades of fighting for the throne of Pavia led to an increased presence of vassals in various social and political groups and functions. The Carolingian conquest undoubtedly meant a political breakthrough in the history of the Kingdom - it did not, however, cause either an institutional or a major social breakthrough, though it undoubtedly contributed to the intensification of processes that were already visible in the late Lombard period. The attractiveness of the local model of state organisation, a model that gave the ruler a very strong position vis-a-vis the aristocracy was not lost on the Carolingians who were able to adapt it quickly to their own needs. At the same time, the local social and organisational relations, strengthened by their 200-year-old tradition and a sense of identity among the elites, were reluctant to give in to the pressure of foreign models. A combination of those factors was responsible for the fact that Italy - unlike other regions recently incorporated into the Carolingian rule - did not experience a quick transplantation of examples and models of the state characteristic for the territories located between the Rhein and the Loire. Translated by Anna Kijak
