A summary of the figure of the great emperor allows a renewed reading of his reign. However, the Carolingians did not invent everything: much of what is attributed to them actually dates back much further.
Although the author denies it from the introduction, it is indeed a convenient synthesis, in a classic style, which is available to the reader of the Charlemagne by Bruno Dumézil. After a presentation of the available documentation and the many biases it contains – since there are only texts favorable to the Carolingians – the chapters attempt to tell the story in a fairly linear manner, following the chronology.
Charlemagne, a new David
It is first a question of showing that Charles is above all an heir (chap. 1), born as the son of a mayor of the palace, therefore before the seizure of royal power by his father Pepin the Short in 751 (chap. 2). He built most of his power as a charismatic warlord (chap. 3), until obtaining the imperial crown in Rome in 800 (chap. 4). The last three chapters, more thematic, evoke the Christian foundation of the Carolingian empire (chap. 5), the question of the place of knowledge and “ Carolingian Renaissance » (chap. 6), finally the legendary character that Charlemagne has become, who has been used since the Middle Ages and until our time in diverse and sometimes contradictory perspectives (chap. 7).
Very well informed, the whole only suffers from unfortunate typos in two places: Gisèle, abbess of Chelles, is not the daughter, but the sister of Charlemagne (p. 129), which the author rightly mentions (p. 160) ; there Song of Roland was not put in writing at the end of the IXebut at the end of XIe century (p. 195). Completed by a map, a genealogy, a chronology and a bibliography, the small volume presents itself as a substantial sum of what we can know about Charlemagne today: but beyond the synthesis, Bruno Dumézil emphasizes certain points which deserve discussion.
Faithful to his predilection for the Merovingians, of whom he is one of the most eminent specialists, Bruno Dumézil rightly points out that the Carolingians did not invent everything, but that a large part of what is attributed to Charlemagne actually goes back much further. This is true first of all of the sacred character of royalty.
Certainly, the Merovingians did not benefit from the anointing of the coronation as it was imposed ritually from Pepin the Short, who conceived it as the foundation of his new dynasty. On the other hand, numerous elements show the development of an eminently religious character of Merovingian royalty from the VIIe century. Less and less warlords, the Merovingians compensated for their absence on the battlefield with a solid alliance with the Church. So Clothaire II (584-629) did he call himself “ David », just like Charlemagne in his correspondence (p. 23), while his son Dagobert was frequently compared to King Solomon.
L'” palace school »
The Merovingian king named bishops and convened councils, in line with Emperor Constantine, as Charlemagne would do. But if there is no innovation there, there is certainly a form of recovery ; because, past the middle of VIIe century, most episcopal seats were filled not by the king, but by the play of the great families of the aristocracy, to the point that some of them passed on a double office, count and episcopal.
Charles Martel continues to fight against these local potentates, and Charlemagne definitively prohibits the accumulation of offices. If the Merovingian heritage does exist, it does not develop in a linear manner. Another element to look for in this heritage is that of the “ palace school “. Charlemagne is known for having made the royal palace a place for training elites, in particular thanks to the scholars he had gathered around him.
Here again, Bruno Dumézil emphasizes that it is an institution of the Frankish court which dates back at least to the beginning of the VIIe century (p. 164). As under Charlemagne, the court of Clothaire II and de Dagobert was a melting pot where the sons of the aristocracy from across the kingdom met, where they trained in administration and where they established solid friendships, thus forming a network that they could activate throughout their careers.
Finally, we are in the presence of societies where elites use the royal court as a point of connection – as long as the king has the means to operate it and the offices to distribute.
Corrupted ?
Talking about Charlemagne also means questioning the mechanisms that allowed an empire of a million square kilometers to function in the absence of a tax system and a bureaucracy comparable to those of the Roman Empire and its direct heir, the Byzantine Empire. Much of the discussion therefore focuses on the resources Charlemagne had and how he used them.
While there is no doubt that conquest and pillage were determining elements in Charlemagne’s success, “ in a game of mutual predation where (he) often managed to take more than was taken from him » (p. 89), it seems questionable to designate this system as a “ kleptocracy “. Because this term, often translated by “ government of thieves ”, refers to a form of power based on corruption.
However, the debate on what characterizes corruption in ancient societies has clearly highlighted the difficulty in evaluating what would amount to a misappropriation of public goods for the benefit of a small elite, in a system where the distinction between public and private is almost impossible to perceive. The Carolingian aristocracy, which largely reaped the profits of the conquest, cannot be described as an oligarchy freed from any feeling of duty towards the common good: it forged its legitimacy to command in the service of the king.
Which does not mean that corruption did not exist. We know Charlemagne’s permanent concern to fight against embezzlement, particularly in the case of court decisions, through the famous institution of missi dominici. Should we therefore consider that “ corruption (had) become so ordinary that many should no longer perceive it as such » (p. 122) ? Régine Le Jan showed that the fact, for the judge, of receiving gifts from all parties emphasized a form of arbitral justice, a justice which aimed more at restoring peace and social balance than at punishing by inflicting sentences.
It was therefore above all a question of modifying the place and role of the judge, who should no longer be considered as a peacemaker, but as one who applies the king’s law, in a tradition of repressive justice inspired by Roman law. All these judicial mechanisms served the powerful well to establish their domination over the whole of society, without the whole falling under what we call “the corruption “.
“ Adhocracy »
Finally, we can discuss the qualifier chosen by Bruno Dumézil to appreciate the royal palace, the heart of Carolingian power: “ Under Charlemagne, the palace was less a bureaucracy than an adhocracy. » (p. 109). The emperor’s direct entourage was in fact made up of various personalities, chosen ad hoc for their skills and some of whom, like one of his main advisors (the Anglo-Saxon Alcuin), had no particular title or official function.
The use of this neologism, originating from management sciences, emphasizes a form of organization which is based on project groups benefiting from a fairly large margin of autonomy and whose essential aim is to promote innovation. Can we not agree that the scholars who surrounded Charlemagne engaged in creative efforts that made it possible to arrive at new solutions? ? It is certainly a new way of considering the contribution of Charlemagne and the Carolingians to the history of the Middle Ages.