Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The classical tradition in the Carolingian Renaissance: Ninth-century encounters with Suetonius

  • Published:
International Journal of the Classical Tradition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This essay looks at the use made of Suetonius’Lives of the Caesars by Einhard in his biography of Charlemagne, written in the early ninth century. Einhard leans upon Suetonius in devising a biographical structure and in the moral qualities which inform his characterisation. He also makes direct citations from Suetonius in describing Charlemagne’s physical appearance. Scholars have previously believed that Einhard’s relationship to Suetonius escaped the notice of contemporaries, and was first appreciated in the Renaissance. But the evidence for Carolingian interest in Suetonius’ work, thoroughly reassessed here, shows that a small circle of Einhard’s peers were moved by their interest in theLife of Charles to read Suetonius. Moreover, a study of reactions to Einhard’s work demonstrates that Carolingian intellectuals were aware of Einhard’s debt to the classics in developing a ‘new biography’. This adds to our understanding of Carolingian classicism, suggesting that the Carolingian renaissance saw an active involvement with, and debate upon, the classical tradition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. I make no attempt to give a full bibliography on the Carolingian renaissance: we are well served by two important recent surveys, both with exhaustive bibliographies of their own, inThe New Cambridge Medieval History II:700–900, ed. R. McKitterick (Cambridge, 1995) andCarolingian Culture: Emulation and Innovation, ed.eadem R. McKitterick (Cambridge, 1993). The two most important monographs, underpinning my introductory remarks, are L. Nees,A Tainted Mantle. Hercules and the classical tradition at the Carolingian court (Philadelphia, 1991), and D. Ganz,Corbie in the Carolingian renaissance, Beihefte der Francia 20 (Sigmaringen, 1990). And, for rebirth, see the still stimulating, if over-schematic, W. Ullmann,The Carolingian renaissance and the idea of kingship (London, 1969).

  2. On the date H. Löwe, “Die Entstehungszeit der Vita Karoli Einhards,”Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 39 (1983), 85–103, reviewing earlier scholarship and producing ingenious arguments for aterminus ante quem ofc. 825. Recently M. Innes & R. McKitterick, “The writing of history,” in:Carolingian Culture, ed. McKitterick, (n. 1 aboveCarolingian Culture: Emulation and Innovation, ed. R. McKitterick (Cambridge, 1993) pp. 195–220, have argued for 817. The standard edition of theV[ita] K[aroli] is that of O. Holder-Egger,Einhards Vita Karoli, M[onumenta] G[ermaniae] H[istorica] Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum 25 (Hannover and Leipzig, 1911). In general on theVK, the best starting points are F. L. Ganshof, “Einhard, biographer of Charlemagne”, in hisThe Carolingians and the Frankish monarchy, trans. J. Sondheimer (London, 1971), pp. 1–14 (an English translation of “Eginhard, biographe de Charlemagne”,Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 13 [1951], 217–30), and W. Berschin,Biographie und Epochenstil III, Quellen und Untersuchungen zur lateinischen Philologie des Mittelalters 10 (Stuttgart, 1991), pp. 199–220. On Einhard’s literary and political career, the starting point must now be the stimulating overview of J. Fleckenstein, “Einhard, seine Gründung und sein Vermächtnis in Seligenstadt”, in:Das Einhardkreuz. Vorträge und Studien der Münsteraner Diskussion zum arcus Einhardi, ed. K. Hauck, Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse 87 (göttingen, 1974), pp. 96–121.

    Google Scholar 

  3. See P. Lehmann, “Das literarische Bild Karls des Großen im lateinischen Schrifttum des Mittelalters”, in hisErforschung des Mittelaters 1 (Stuttgart, 1959), pp. 154–207 at p. 164 (first inSitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philologisch-historische Abteilung, Jahrg. 1934, Heft 9 [Munich, 1934]). But compare now Berschin,Biographie und Epochenstil III (as n. 2), p. 220. For a stimulating treatment of medieval biography in general, see R. Morse,Truth and Convention in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 125–78.

  4. E. Auerbach,Literary Language and its Public in Late Latin Antiquity and in the Middle Ages, trans. R. Manheim (London, 1965; repr. Princeton, 1993 [with Introduction and new Bibliography by J.M. Ziolkowski]), pp. 112–119 (firstLiteratursprache und Publikum in der lateinischen Spätantike und im Mittelater [Bern, 1958], pp. 83–88).

  5. L. Halphen,Études critiques sur l’histoire de Charlemagne (Paris, 1921), esp. pp. 91–98; and L. von Ranke, “Zur Kritik fränkisch-deutscher Reichsannalisten” (1855), in hisSämtliche Werke, vol. 51, ed. A. Dove and T. Weidemann (Leipzig, 1888), pp. 95–121 at p. 97.

  6. S. Hellmann, “Einhards literarische Stellung,”Historische Vierteljahrschrift 27 (1932), 40–110. This article is reprinted in Hellmann’sAusgewählte Abhandlungen zur Historiographie und Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters (Darmstadt, 1961), pp. 159–230: as the reprint also gives the pagination of the original article, all citations will use the original pagination.

    Google Scholar 

  7. VK c. 4, ed. Holder-Egger (as n. 2.Einhards Vita Karoli, M[onumenta] G[ermaniae] H[istorica] Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum 25 (Hannover and Leipzig)), p. 7. My translation is based on L. Thorpe,Two Lives of Charlemagne (London, 1969), whose work should, however, be used with care. On Suetonius and his work see the excellent A. Wallace-Hadrill,Suetonius. The Scholar and his Caesars (London, 1983).

  8. N. Staubach, “>Cultus divinus< und karolingische Reform,”Frühmittelalterliche Studien 18 (1984), 546–81 at 562–72, arguing against H. Löwe, “Religio Christiana. Rom und das Kaistertum in Einhards Vita Karoli Magni,” in:Storiografia e Storia. Festschrift E. Dupré-Theseider I (Rome, 1974), pp. 1–20. H.-H. anton, “Beobachtungen zum fränkischbyzantinischen Verhältnis in karolingischer Zeit,” in:Beiträge zur Geschichte des Regnum Francorum [Festschrift E. Ewig], ed. R. Schieffer, Beihefte der Francia 22 (Sigmaringen, 1990), pp. 97–119 at pp. 108–13, like Staubach is critical of Einhard’s ability to make his material fit hisdivisio. In any case, thedivisio was a way of dealing with material, not a cast-iron contents list: Walafrid described the work as a description of Charles’svita et gesta (ed. Holder-Egger [as n. 2]Einhards Vita Karoli, M[onumenta] G[ermaniae] H[istorica] Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum 25 (Hannover and Leipzig), p. xxviii).

    Google Scholar 

  9. H. Beumann, “Topos und Gedankengefüge bei Einhard,”Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 33 (1951), 339–50; reprinted in hisIdeengeschichtliche Studien zu Einhard und anderen Geschichtsschreibern des früheren Mittelalters (Darmstadt, 1962), pp. 1–14. I find the criticisms of Beumann voiced by H. Wolter, “Intention und Herrscherbild in Einhards Vita Karoli Magni”,Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 68 (1986), 295–317, in particular 295–302, unconvincing. For an affirmation of the Sulpician subtext, see Berschin,Biographie und Epochenstil III (as n. 2), Quellen und Untersuchungen zur lateinischen Philologie des Mittelalters 10 (Stuttgart, 1991), pp. 206–7.

    Google Scholar 

  10. VK preface, ed. Holder-Egger (as n. 2)Einhards Vita Karoli, M[onumenta] G[ermaniae] H[istorica] Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum 25 (Hannover and Leipzig), p. 1.

  11. M. S. Kempshall, “Some Ciceronian aspects of Einhard’s Life of Charlemagne,”Viator 26 (1995), 11–38. However I cannot agree with his reconstruction of the political subtext, which links to his arguments for a date of around 830: this does not overcome the objections to such a late date raised by Löwe, “Die Entstehungszeit” (as n. 2 above) der Vita Karoli Einhards,Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 39 (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Loup de Ferrières. Correspondance, 2 vols., ed. L. Levillain (Paris, 1929), no. 1, I:2–10; Lupus asked to borrow a copy of Cicero’sDe Inventione. Alternative editions of Lupus’ letters are those of E. Dümmler in MGH Epistolae 6 (Berlin, 1925) and, in the Teubner series, P. K. Marshall,Servatus Lupus Epistulae (Leipzig, 1984).

  13. See Halphen,Études critiques (as n. 5)sur l’histoire de Charlemagne (Paris, 1921), pp. 93–5. J. J. Contreni therefore misses the point when he links Einhard’s Suetonian borrowings to a Carolingian habit of citing verbatim from authorities, writing that “when einhard needed to describe Charlemagne’s physical characteristics he naturally drew from suetonius’ portraits of Roman Emperors” (“The Carolingian renaissance. Education and literary culture,” in:The New Cambridge Medieval History II [as n. 1], Beihefte der Francia 20 (Sigmaringen, 1990). And, for rebirth, see the still stimulating, if over-schematic, (London, 1969), pp. 709–57 at p. 737). It was never natural to draw on a rare text like Suetonius.

  14. The best account is now W. Berschin, “Personenbeschreibung in der Biographie des frühen Mittelalters”, in:Historiographie im frühen Mittelalter, eds. A. Schärer and G. Scheibelreiter, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 32 (Vienna and Munich, 1994), pp. 186–93.

  15. See Morse,Truth and Convention (as n. 3)in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1991), p. 145 and Berschin, “Personenbeschreibung” (as n. 14) in der Biographie des frühen Mittelalters, in:Historiographie im frühen Mittelalter, eds. A. Schärer and G. Scheibelreiter, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 32 (Vienna and Munich, 1994), p. 189. For the importance of Sidonius (and his portrait of Theodoric) in the high middle ages see E. Faral, “Sidoine Apollinaire et la technique littéraire du moyen âge,” in:Miscellanea G. Mercati II, Studi e testi 122 (Vatican, 1956), pp. 567–80.

  16. See Berschin, “Personenbeschreibung” (as n. 14) in der Biographie des frühen Mittelalters,” in:Historiographie im frühen Mittelalter, eds. A. Schärer and G. Scheibelreiter, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 32 (Vienna and Munich, 1994), p. 189 and Berschin,Biographie und Epochenstill III (as n. 2) Quellen und Untersuchungen zur lateinischen Philologie des Mittelalters 10 (Stuttgart, 1991), pp. 214–215. Hilarity of expression appears to be a standard in ruler depiction: for Charlemagne seeKarolus Magnus et Leo Papa, ed. E. Dümmler, MGH Poetae latini aevi Karolini I (Hannover, 1881), pp. 366–379, line 24, p. 367 (vultu hilari). It was also a commonplace of hagiography: see the examples given by Hellmann, “Einhards literarische Stellung” (as n. 6)Historische Vierteljahrschrift 27 (1932), 82 with n. 148. But the prominence given to Sulpicius’ work in Einhard’s preface encourages the assumption that we are dealing with a conscious reference to theVita St. Martini c. 27, ed. J. Fontaine,Sulpice Sévère. Vie de St. Martin 3 vols. (continuous pagination), Sources chrétiennes 133–5 (Paris, 1967), p. 314.

  17. Quotation from Hellmann, “Einhards literarische Stellung,” (as n. 6) p. 52. Berschin, “Personenbeschreibung” (as n. 14), in der Biographie des frühen Mittelalters”, in:Historiographie im frühen Mittelalter, eds. A. Schärer and G. Scheibelreiter, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 32 (Vienna and Munich, 1994), p. 189 similarly laments that no early medieval authors followed Einhard as Casaubon was the first to spot the Suetonian background.

    Google Scholar 

  18. See S. J. T[ibbetts], “Suetonius,” in:Texts and Transmission. A survey of the Latin classics, ed. L. D. Reynolds (Oxford, 1983), pp. 399–405, with a full bibliography; for William and John see nn. 54, 62 below. On John’s use of the classics see the penetrating comments of R. M. Thomson, “John of Salisbury and William of Malmesbury: currents in twelfth-century humanism,” in:The World of John of Salisbury, ed. M. Wilks, Studies in Church History, Subsidia 3 (Oxford, 1984), pp. 117–26. On William, R. M. Thomson,William of Malmesbury (Woodbridge, 1987) is fundamental, discussing the Frankish collection including Suetonius and Einhard at pp. 139–57. On Suetonius’ influence see M. Schütt, “The Literary Form of William of Malmesbury’sGesta Regum,” English Historical Review 46, (1931), 255–260, and G. B. Townend, “Suetonius and his influence,” in:Latin Biography, ed. T. A. Dorey (London, 1967), pp. 96–108 at p. 107. On Einhard’s, D. H. Farmer, “Two Biographies by William of Malmesbury,” in:Latin Biography, pp. 157–76, but the case of William underlines the need for a full treatment of Einhard’sNachleben. For Carolingian interest in Suetonius’ writings on grammar, see B. Bischoff, “Das benediktinische Mönchtum und die Überlieferung der klassischen Literatur,”Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte der Benediktiner-Ordens und seiner Zweige 92 (1981), 164–90 at 181—interestingly from a circle linked to that of Lupus and Einhard. On the importance of the Carolingian period in the transmission of Suetonius’ grammatical writing, see R. Kaster (ed. and trans.),C. Suetonius Tranquillus, De grammaticis et rhetoribus (Oxford, 1995) and Kaster’sStudies on the Text of Suetonius’ De Grammaticis et Rhetoribus, American Classical Studies 28 (Atlanta, 1992).

  19. On Lupus and the classics see B. Bischoff, “Paläographie und frühmittlelalterliche Klassikerüberlieferung,” in hisMittelalterliche Studien. Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur Schriftkunde und Literaturgeschichte, vol. 3 (Stuttgart, 1981), pp. 55–72 at pp. 63–8 with bibliography. Bischoff, at pp. 66–7, demonstrates that it was Heiric of Auxerre who compiled Lupus’s letter-collection. On Lupus’s learning see E. von Severus,Lupus von Ferrières. Gestalt und Werk eines Vermittlers antiken Geistesgutes an das Mittelalter im 9. Jahrhundert, Beiträge zur Geschichte des alten Mönchtums und des Benediktinerordens (Münster, 1940); E. Pellegrin, “Les manuscrits de Loup de Ferrière,”Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Chartes 115 (1957), 5–31, and P. K. Marshall, “The learning of Servatus Lupus. Some additions,”Mediaeval Studies 41 (1979), 514–23.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Levillain (as n. 12)Loup de Ferrières. Correspondance, (Paris, 1929), no.35 I:154–8. The date is supplied by Lupus’s reference to his recent escape from captivity in Aquitaine.

  21. Levillain (as n. 12)Loup de Ferrières. Correspondance, (Paris, 1929) no.37, I: 160–4. For the date see Levillain’s comments p. 161 n. 3.

  22. Levillain in his edition (as n. 12)Loup de Ferrières. Correspondance, (Paris, 1929) p. 165 n. 4, makes the link with Lupus’s interest in Suetonius, but identifies the work sent to Charles as (Pseudo-) Aurelius Victor’sEpitome de Caesaribus. This is hypothetical. The collection of excerpts from Lupus’s teaching recorded by his pupil, Heiric of Auxerre, includes a section on Roman Emperors which is largely based on Suetonius but also includes comments on Trajan, derived from Orosius. See R. Quadri,I Collectanea di Eirico di Auxerre, Spicilegium Friburgense 11 (Freiburg, 1966), esp. p. 113 for Trajan. This gives the best insight into the type of work which was sent Charles the Bald in 844.

  23. See Innes & McKitterick, “The writing of history” (as n. 2) in:Carolingian Culture, ed. McKitterick pp. 209–214 for introductory comments. Michael Allen’s forthcoming critical edition of Freculf should be a welcome addition; in the meantime one must consultPatrologia Latima, ed. J.-P. Migne, vol. 106, cols. 957–1258. Charles now has a splendid biography: J. L. Nelson,Charles the Bald (London, 1992).

  24. Levillain (as n. 12),Loup de Ferrières. Correspondance, (Paris, 1929) no. 33, I:150–2. Levillain, pp. 150–1 n. 1 gives strong reasons for a date in 842 following Lupus’s election as abbot of Ferrières. For Eigil’s involvement in other book-hunts at a later date seeEpistolarum Fuldensium fragmenta, ed. E. Dümmler, MGH Epistolarum 5 (Berlin, 1899), pp. 517–33, at p. 532. We do not know if Lupus succeeded in finding Josephus, the other work he sought in 842. The only evidence for his acquaintance with either theWars or theAntiquities comes in an earlier (837) letter (ed. Levillain [as n. 12]Loup de Ferrières. Correspondance, (Paris, 1929. no. 8, pp. 61–73 at p. 68; see Severus,Lupus [as n.19]von Ferrières. Gestalt und Werk eines Vermittlers antiken Geistesgutes an das Mittelalter im 9. Jahrhundert, Beiträge zur Geschichte des alten Mönchtums und des Benediktineronrdens (Münster, 1940) pp. 49–51 on Lupus and Josephus) where he alludes to the former work; as he was not writing from Ferrières in 837 this does not preclude a search for this text in 842. Significantly, however, we know that Prüm had a copy of Josephus (see von Severus, p. 51 n. 60) which would make the most economical interpretation of the 842 letter one which made, it a request for texts from Prüm, implying that Lupus thought one could read Suetonius at Prüm.

  25. Tibbetts, “Suetonius” (as n. 18), in:Texts and Transmission. A survey of the latin classics, ed. L. D. Reynolds (oxford, 1983), p. 400 supplies the date as “circa 820”. The co-authors ofTexts and Transmission acknowledge the aid of the late Professor Bischoff on matters palaeographical, but the date is derived from E. K. Rand,Studies in the script of Tours I.A survey of the manuscripts of Tours (Cambridge, MA, 1929), esp. p. 50, 51, 54, 55. Rand establishes the place of the manuscript, Paris Bibliothèque Nationale lat. 6115 (often called theMemmianus after an early modern owner), in the relative chronology of Tours scripts. Rand’s absolute chronology would supply a date of 820 or slightly later, but his reconstruction here has receid criticism, and the date might be a little later. Thus B. Bischoff, “Das benediktinische Mönchtum” (as n. 18), und die Überlieferung der klassischen Literatur,”Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte der Genediktiner-Ordens und seiner Zweige 92 (1981), 164–94, 175 dates the manuscript “before the middle of the [ninth] century” (apparently feeling that it might post-date Lupus’ successful search, but see n. 29 below). A date in the second quarter of the ninth century cannot be far wrong.

  26. Tibbetts, “Suetonius” (as n. 18), in:Texts and Transmission. A survey of the Latin classics, ed. L. D. Reynolds (oxford, 1983), p. 400. The key work on the textual history of Suetonius is theedition maior by. M. Ihm,C. Suetonii Tranquilli Opera I.De vita caesarum libri viii (Leipzig, 1907).

  27. Ed. Quadri (as n. 22),I Collectanea di Eirico di Auxerre, Spicilegium Friburgense 11 (Freiburg, 1966), and see B. M. Olsen, “Les classiques latins dans les florilèges médiévaux antérieurs au XIIIe siècle,”Revue d’histoire des textes 9 (1979), 47–121 at 99–104. At p. 61 Quadri accepts the view of Traube that Lupus’s and Heiric’s exemplar came from Fulda, but does not add to the discussion.

  28. The view that Heiric (and thus Lupus) used the Fulda manuscript won wide acceptance through its espousal by Traube: see L. Traube, “Palaeographische Anzeigen III,”Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde, 27, (1901), 264–285 at 266–7 (also in hisVorlesungen und Abhandlungen III.Kleine Schriften, ed. S. Brandt [Munich, 1920, reprint, 1965], pp. 229–246) where Suetonius is appended to a list of classical texts which can be shown on palaeographical grounds to have been transmitted via Fulda. On close inspection, Traube’s argument for the role of Fulda in the transmission of Suetonius is, however, not based on palaeography or text criticism but the assertion made in his article “O Roma nobilis. Philologische Untersuchungen aus dem Mittelalter” in:Abhandlungen der königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Philologische Classe 19,2 (Munich, 1891), pp. 297–395 at p. 372, which in turn rests on the evidence of Lupus’s letter of 844 for the existence of a Fulda manuscript and the fact that Einhard was educated at Fulda. Suetonius’ editor, Ihm, relies on Traube’s reading of the letter evidence in his discussion: M. Ihm, “Beiträge zur Textgeschichte des Sueton,”Hermes. Zeitschrift für classische Philologie 36 (1901), 343–363, especially 344. Both Traube and Quadri (as n. 22),I Collectanea di Eirico di Auxerre, Spicilegium Friburgense 11 (Freiburg, 1966), have reservations about the detail of Ihm’s argument. The sole dissenting voice is that of E. K. Rand, “On the history of theDe Vita Caesarum of Suetonius in the early middle ages,”Harvard Studies in Classical Philogy 37 (1926), 1–48 at 20–37, whose argument against Traube’s, interpretation of the letters runs along similar lines to mine. Rand’s article was coolly received by eminent critics such as Lehmann and Hellmann. But neither Ihm nor Traube based their argument firmly upon palaeographical or textual grounds.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Rand, “On the history” (as n. 28),--omE. K. Rand, “On the history of theDe Vita Caesarum of Suetonius in the early middle ages,”Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 37 (1926), pp. 25–34 argues on textual grounds that Lupus did use the Tours manuscript. As this manuscript remained at St-Martin’s at Tours throughout the middle ages it would be astounding if Lupus, for whom Tours was a favourite hunting ground for the classics, never saw it. Unlike other Tours manuscripts, however, it has no annotations in Lupus’s hands. Clearly more work is needed on the Tours manuscript, especially as it contains marginalia some of which Ihm dated to the ninth century: see Ihm, “Beiträge” (as n. 28), zur Textgeschichte des Sueton,”Hermes. ZZeitschrift für classische Philologie 36 (1901), pp. 356–63. See also Traube, “Palaeographische Anzeigen III” (as n. 28), “Palaeographische Anzeigen III,”Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 27 (1901), p. 267. As both Traube and Ihm believed that the origins of the medieval Suetonius tradition lay with Lupus and Fulda, they never felt it necessary to delineate the exact relationship between the Tours manuscript and the mainstream of the tradition. But if there is no direct textual link between the Tours copy and Heiric, the Tours manuscript cannot be a direct result of Lupus’s interest in Suetonius (compare n. 25 above). I adopt an historical rather than an editorial viewpoint: I am concerned with manuscripts and citations as evidence for Carolingian interest in the test rather than as evidence for the textual transmission.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. It is worth noting that in 847 Lupus wrote to Marcward, explaining how Ratleig, Einhard’s sometime notary and successor as abbot of Seligenstadt, was copying for Lupus part of a book, which he would give to Lupus if Marcward sent Seligenstadt some painted panels. Lupus begs Marcward to hurry in meeting his part of the deal, and to send Ratleig’s book to Lupus (Levillain [as n. 12],Loup de Ferrières. Correspondence, (Paris, 1929), no, 65, I:238–242). The complex three-way exchange resembles that envisaged in 844 with Fulda. What was the book which Lupus so urgently required? Seligenstadt as Einhard’s foundation presumably inherited his famous library which Lupus had been anxious to use already in the 830s. Seligenstadt is not usually seen as playing a role in the transmission of any book he sought, must be Suetonius. Indeed, given the lack of any direct evidence for a Fulda orgin for Lupus’s Suetonius exemplar, this is distinctly possible. The partial nature of Ratleig’s copy would then explain the fact that Heiric’s did not include excerpts from all twelve lives. The most plausible alternative explanation for the book request in 847 would be that Lupus was seeking an Einhardian work such as theTranslatio, or the famous (and lost) pamphlet which had urged reform on Louis the Pious in 828.

  31. For theVK as courtly historiography see Innes & McKitterich, “The writing of history” (as n. 2), in:Carolingian Culture, ed. McKitterich, pp. 203–8.

  32. References n. 12 above and see the discussion of Löwe, “Entstehungszeit”, (as n. 2),, on the letter’s date and context.

    Google Scholar 

  33. See J. Fleckenstein,Die Hofkapelle der deutschen Könige I.Grundlegung. Die karolingische Hofkapelle, Schriften der MGH 16,1 (Hannover, 1959), pp. 81–3: the key figures are Fridugis, abbot of St-Martin’s, who had been a member of Charlemagne’s court circle and served as chancellor from 819–832, and themagister Hirminmaris, who was close enough to Einhard to draw up the charter which gave Einhard’s church at Michelstadt to the royal abbey of Lorsch (seeCodex Laureshamensis, ed. K. Glöckner, 3 vols. [Darmstadt, 1929–1936] vol. I no. 20). On Tours’ links to the court in terms of text transmission see Bischoff, “Das benediktinische Mönchtum” (as n. 18), und die Überlieferung der klassischen literatur,Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte der Benediktiner. Ordens und seiner Zweige 92 1981, pp. 173–4.

  34. Hincmar and Suetonius: see J. Devisse,Hincmar, archevêque de Reims 845–882, 3 vols. (Geneva, 1975), III:1507 and below n. 56 for a full discussion. On Hincmar’s historical interests see J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, “History in the mind of Archbishop Hincmar,” in:The Writing of History in the Middle Ages: Essays presented to Sir Richard William Southern, eds. J. M. Wallace-Hadrill and R. H. C. Davis (Oxford, 1981), pp. 43–70. Surprisingly, it has never been established whether Hincmar knew Einhard’sVK: there are no direct citations of or allusions to the work in his writings. The manuscript evidence is difficult: Paris Bibliothèque Nationale lat. 10758 (which I have not seen) is a Rheims manuscript associated with Hincmar into which the work was copied in the late ninth century; see Holder-Egger (as n. 2),Einhards Vita Karoli, M[onumental] g[ermaniae] H[istorica] Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum 25 (Hannover and Leipzig, p. xxiii, L. Halphen,Eginhard. Vie de Charlemagne (Paris, 1923), p. xviii, and. R. McKitterick,The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751–987 (London, 1983), p. 331. Whatever the case, it seems likely to me that, in view of his time at both Louis the Pious’s and Charles the Bald’s court, Hincmar knew of Einhard’s work; hence perhaps his allusion to Suetonius.

  35. For (ultimately inconclusive) discussion of Einhard’s exemplar based upon the textual borrowings in theVK, see M. Ihm, “Die sogenante ‘Villa Iouis’ des Tiberius auf Capri und andere Suetoniana,”Hermes 36 (1901), 287–304 at 298–9.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Compare, however, the case of Aulus Gellius, copied at Fulda from Einhard’s exemplar: Bischoff, “Das benediktinische Mönchtum und die Überlieferung der klassischen Literatur,” (as n. 18),, 181, also noting the presence of a catalogue of Einhard’s library at Fulda. On the other hand Vitruvius’s work on architecture was revived by the mature Einhard from a Fulda manuscript: see Traube, “Palaeographische Anzeigen III” (as n. 28),Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde, p. 266 (cf. L. Callebat, “La tradition vitruvienne au Moyen Âge et à la Renaissance. Eléments d’interprétation,”International Journal of the Classical Tradition 1,2 [Fall 1994], 3–14).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lack of an insular thread: Tibbetts, “Suetonius” (as n. 18), in:Texts and Transmission. A Survey of the Latin classics, ed. L. D. Reynolds (Oxford, 1983), p. 400.

  38. Annales regni Francorum s.a.811, edited by F. Kurze, MGH Scriptores rerum Germanicarum 6 (Hannover and Leipzig, 1895) p. 135, and Suetonius, ed. Ihm, p. 181. Rand, “On the history” (as n. 28), On the history of theDe Vita Caesarum of Suetonius in the early middle ages,”Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 37 (1926), pp. 40–47, drew attention to the lighthouse passage whilst arguing that Charlemagne modelled his behaviour on Suetonius’ Augustus (his arguments in general do not inspire confidence). See also K. J. Leyser, “Theophanu Divina Gratia Imperatrix Augusta. Western and Eastern Emperorship in the later tenth century,” in his (posthumous) collected essays, ed. T. Reuter,Communication and Power in Medieval Europe I.The Carolingian and Ottonian centuries (London, 1994), pp. 143–164 at pp. 150–1 with n. 34. Note that the anonymous author ofKarolus Magnus et Leo Papa twice refers to Charlemagne as “the lighthouse of Europe”: lines 12 & 169, ed. Dümmler (as n. 16), MGH Poetae latini aevi Karolini I (Hannover, 1881), pp. 366, 370. On Charlemagne and Suetonius compare also P. Wormald, “Lex Scripta andVerbum Regis. Legislation and Germanic kingship, from Euric to Cnut,” in:Early Medieval Kingship, ed. P. H. Sawyer and I. Wood (Leeds, 1977), pp. 105–138 at p. 128.

  39. H. Hemgesberg, “Gab es zu Karls des Großen Grabtitulus eine Vorlage?” in:Arbor amoena comis. 25 Jahre Mittellateinisches Seminar zu Bonn, ed. E. Könsgen (Stuttgart, 1990), pp. 75–80 (a reference I owe to Prof. W. Haase): Hemgesberg argues convincingly that inscription evidence which had previously been thought to show the currency ofconditorium in Merovingian funerary inscriptions actually post-dates, and thus draws upon, Charlemagne’s inscription. For the inscription,VK c. 31, pp. 35–6; it is also transmitted independently of Einhard in two manuscripts (see H. Beumann, “Grab und Thron Karls des Großen zu Aachen,” in:Karl der Große IV.Das Nachleben, ed. H. Beumann & P. E. Schramm [Düsseldorf, 1967], pp. 9–38 at p. 13 n. 33). The only other Carolingian use ofconditorium which I can find is in a description of the grave of King Pippin at St-Denis, in a letter from Louis the Pious to Abbot Hilduin (MGH Epistolarum 5 [as n. 24] (Berlin, 1899), pp. 325–6 [no. 19] at p. 326): as Beumann, p. 30, argues, this draws upon Charlemagne’stitulus. Thus, as Hemgesberg (p. 75) suggests, Suetonius (“Augustus” 18 [ed. Ihm, p.56] and “Caligula” 52 [ed. Ihm, p. 194]) is the probable source for the word (the Carolingians were interested in Alexander, whose tomb is referred to in both passages). There are, however, possible, if less likely, alternative sources: Sidonius Apollinaris,Epistolae 5.17.4 (ed. W. B. Anderson,Sidonius. Poems and letters, 2 vols. [Cambridge, 1965], II∶228), might have been known to Charlemagne, as the earliest manuscript was copied at the court of Louis the Pious (see R. McKitterick,The Carolingians and the Written Word [Cambridge, 1989], p. 154); or the younger Pliny,Epistolae, 6.10.5 (ed. M. Schuster [Leipzig, 1952], p. 179), which was known at Charlemagne’s court (see L. D. Reynolds inTexts and Transmission [as n. 18] in:Texts and Transmission. A survey of the Latin classics, ed. L. D. Reynolds (Oxford, 1983), pp. 316–22, esp. pp. 321–2, and note Einhard’s quotation in his letters, MGH Epistolarum 5 [as n. 24] (Berlin, 1899), pp. 10, no. 3), but is unlikely to be the source asconditorium is included in a quoted funerary inscription which has no influence on Charlemagne’stitulus. Nor should we totally exclude the possibility of a (lost) inscription source, given Charlemagne’s interest in Romanspolia.

  40. Gregory of Tours,Historiae V. 44, eds. B. Krusch and W. Levison, MGH Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum 1 (Hannover, 1951), p. 254 and P. Riché,Education and Culture in the Barbarian West, translated by J. J. Contreni (Columbia, 1976), pp. 224–5 (translation of Riché,Education et culture dans l’Occident barbare, VIe-VIIe siècles [Paris 1962], pp. 269–70). I do not cite here the huge bibliography on the possible significance of Chilperic’s new letters for the historian of the relation between written and spoken late Latin, and its evolution into proto-Romance.

  41. D. Geuenich, “Die volkssprachige Überlieferung der Karolingerzeit aus der Sicht des Historikers,”Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 39 (1983), 104–130 at 124–5, who views theVK’s account of Charlemagne’sKulturpolitik in this light.

    Google Scholar 

  42. B. Bischoff, “Die Hofbibliothek Karls des Grossen,” in hisMittelalterliche Studien 3 (as n. 19)Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur Schriftkunde und Literaturgeschichte, vol. 3 (Stuttgart, 1981), pp. 149–169. Suetonius is not among the authors listed in the “catalogue” of the court library identified by Bischoff, as noted already by Wormald, “Lex Scripta” (as n. 39), p. 128 with n. 132. But this was probably the list of an interested browser, not a catalogue in the strict sense of the word. On the other hand, a classicist as avid as the compiler of the “catalogue” evidently was might not have omitted Suetonius. In this context, it is worth noting Bischoff’s convincing argument that Charlemagne sent a circular letter around his realm requesting any rate texts (p. 162): we might expect that, wherever the original exemplar of Suetonius was, the court would have been at least aware of its existence.

  43. Morse,Truth and Convention (as n. 3)in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1991), p. 159.

  44. Thegan,Gesta Hludovici imperatoris, a new edition by E. Tremp, MGH Scriptores rerum Germanicarum 64 is forthcoming shortly. The old (1829) standard edition is that of G. H. Pertz, MGH Scriptores 2. See E. Tremp,Studien zu den Gesta Hludovici imperatoris des Trierer Chorbischofs Thegan, Schriften der MGH 32 (Hannover, 1988).

  45. Vita Hludovici imperatoris, details of editions in previous note. See E. Tremp,Die Überlieferung der Vita Hludovici imperatoris des Astronomus, MGH Studien und Texte 1 (Hannover, 1991).

  46. For example B. Smalley,Historians of the middle ages (London, 1974), pp. 67–70. For balanced treatments of both works see now Berschin,Biographie und Epochenstil III (as n. 2) Quellen und Untersuchungen zur lateinischen Philologie des Mittelalters 10 (Stuttgart, 1991), pp 220–227 (Thegan), 227–236 (Astronomer).

  47. Thegan and Einhard: Tremp,Studien zu...Thegan (as n. 44) MGH Scriptores 2.den Gesta Hludovici imperatoris des Trierer Chorbischofs Thegan, pp. 55–62. “The Astronomer” and Einhard: Tremp,Die Überlieferung... (as n. 45)der Vita Hludovici imperatoris des Astronomus, MGH Studien und Texte 1 (Hannover, 1991). p. 3 (Maßstab und Vorbild) and also the observation of J. L. Nelson, “The last years of Louis the Pious,” in:Charlemagne’s Heir. New perspectives on the reign of Louis the Pious (814–840) eds. P. Godman and R. Collins (Oxford, 1990), pp. 147–159 at pp. 148–9 with n. 11.

  48. As noted by Innes & McKitterick, “The writing of history” (as n. 2), der Vita Karoli Einhards,”Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 39 (1983), p. 210. For full treatment of the transmission see the works by Tremp cited in nn. 44, 45 above. E. Tremp,Studien zu den Gesta Hludovici imperatoris des Trierer Chorbischofs Thegan, Schriften der MGH 32 (Hannover, 1988). E. Tremp,Die Überlieferung der Vita Hludovici imperatoris des Astronomus, MGH Studien und Texte 1 (Hannover, 1991).

  49. See E. Tremp, “Die Letzten Wort des frommen Kaisers Ludwig. Von Sinn und Unsinn heutiger Textedition,”Deutsches Archiv für die Erforschung des Mittelalters 48 (1992), 17–36, especially 29–36. Relevant passages are Astronomer cc. 62–4, pp. 646–8 (Pertz edition [as n. 44] The old (1829) standard edition is that of G. H. Pertz, MGH Scriptores 2. See E. Tremp,Studien zu den Gesta Hludovici imperatoris des Trierer Chorbischofs Thegan, Schriften der MGH 32 (Hannover, 1988).); Thegan c. 7 (Pertz [as n. 44], The old (1829) standard edition is that of G. H. Pertz, MGH Scriptores 2. See E. Tremp,Studien zu den Gesta Hludovici imperatoris des Trierer Chorbischofs Thegan, Schriften der MGH 32 (Hannover, 1988). p. 592); Sulpicius SeverusEpistola III.15–17 (Fontaine [as n. 16], ed. J. Fontaine,Sulpice Sévère. Vie de St. Martin 3 vols. (continuous pagination), Sources chrétiennes 133–5 (Paris, 1967), p. 342) and compareVK, ed. Holder-Egger (as n. 2), O. Holder-Egger,Einhards Vita Karoli, M[onumenta] G[ermaniae] H[istorica] Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum 25 (Hannover and Leipzig, 1911). cc. 30–33, which is ultimately Suetonian.

    Google Scholar 

  50. VK, preface, ed. Holder-Egger (as n. 2)Einhards Vita Karoli, M[onumenta] G[ermaniae] H[istorica] Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum 25 (Hannover and Leipzig), p. 2.

  51. H. F. Haefele,Notker der Stammler, Taten Kaiser Karls des Grossen, MGH Scriptores rerum Germanicarum n. s. 12 (Berlin, 1962). I make no attempt to give a full Notker bibliography: the key article for my treatment here is D. Ganz, “Humour as history in Notker’sGesta Karoli Magni,” in:Monks, Friars and Nuns in Medieval Society, ed. E. B. King (Sewanee, 1988), pp. 171–183.

  52. Thegan c. 19, pp. 594–5 in Pertz’s edition (as n. 44), MGH Scriptores 2.Studien zu den Gesta Hludovici imperatoris des Trierer Chorbischofs Thegan.

  53. In addition to Quadri’s edition (n. 22 above) p. 51.

    Google Scholar 

  54. On John’s use of the classics see the penetrating comments of R. M. Thomson, “John of Salisbury and William of Malmesbury: currents in twelfth-century humanism,” in:The World of John of Salisbury, ed. M. Wilks, Studies in Church History, Subsidia 3 (Oxford, 1984), pp. 117–26. R. W. Hunt, “The Deposit of Latin Classics in the Twelfth-Century Renaissance,” in:Classical Influence on European Culture A.D. 500–1500, ed. R. R. Bolgar (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 51–5 demonstrated his reliance on Heiric, but see now J. Martin, “John of Salisbury as classical scholar,” in:The world of John of Salisbury, pp. 179–201 at pp. 184–5, confirming John’s general reliance on Heiric but showing that he also had access to the full text of Suetonius.

  55. References n. 23 above. See Innes & McKitterick, “The writing of history”, in:Carolingian Culture, ed. McKitterick, Beihefte der Francia 20 (Sigmaringen, 1990). And, for rebirth, see the still stimulating, if over-schematic, pp. 209–214 for introductory comments. Michael Allen’s forthcoming critical edition of Freculf should be a welcome addition; in the meantime one must consultPatrologia Latina, ed. J.-P. Mignes, vol. 106, cols. 957–1258. Charles now has a splendid biography: J. L. Nelson,Charles the Bald (London, 1992).

  56. Hincmar,De Divortio Lotharii et Tetbergae, Patrologia Latina, ed. J.-P. Migne, vol. 125, cols. 620–773 at 758. M. Sot,Un historien et son église au X siècle. Flodoard de Reims (Paris, 1993), pp. 70–1 feels that the sole reference to Suetonius in the vast Hincmarian oeuvre should be treated with care: the allusion cannot support the conclusion that Hincmar had seen a Suetonius manuscript, let alone possessed one. In 984 Gerbert of Rheims, on behalf of Archbishop Adalbero, sent to Rome asking for Suetonius, Symmachus “and others” (Die Briefsammlung Gerberts von Reims, ed. F. Weigle, MGH Die Briefe der Deutschen Kaiserszeit II [Berlin-Zürich-Dublin, 1966], no. 40, pp. 68–9). From Gerbert’s letter it is clear that Rheims claimed to own some of these books, which might supply us with a Suetonius manuscript at Rheims in the mid-tenth century and so explain Hincmar’s knowledge. (A later letter thanking Gerbert’s contact in Rome for “books copied for us through your efforts” is clearly related to this original request [Die Briefsammlung Gerberts, no. 71, p. 102] but does not negate the inference from the first letter that Rheims claimed ownership of the manuscripts). In any case, the fact that both Hincmar and Gerbert, a hundred years apart, knew of Suetonius, and referred to the work in similar words, is significant in itself for knowledge of the work at Rheims, regardless of whether the library there possessed a copy.

  57. See R. McKitterick, “The audience for Latin historiography in the early middle ages: text transmission and manuscript dissemination,” in:Historiographie im frühen Mittelalter, eds. Schärer and Scheibelreiter (as n. 14), Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Österreichsche Geschichtsforschung 32 (Vienna and Munich, 1994), pp. 96–114.

  58. See D. Ganz, “The Epitaphium Arsenii and the opposition to Louis the Pious” in:Charlemagne’s Heir (as n. 47),New perspectives on the reign of Louis the Pious (814–840), eds. P. Godman and R. Collins (Oxford, 1990), pp. 537–550, and hisCorbie in the Carolingian Renaissance (as n. 1), Beihefte der Francia 20 (Sigmaringen, 1990). And, for rebirth, see the still stimulating, if over-schematic, pp. 103–120.

  59. H. Löwe, “Regino von Prüm und das historische Weltbild der Karolingerzeit,” in:Rheinische Vierteiljahrsblätter 17 (1952), 151–179 (revised repr. in:Geschichtsdenkens und Geschichtsbild im Mittelalter. Ausgewählte Aufsätze aus den Jahren 1933–1959 ed. W. Lammers, Wege der Forschung 21 [Darmstadt, 1961], pp. 91–134, and in Löwe,von Cassiodor zu Dante. Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur Geschichtschreibung und politischen Ideenwelt des Mittelalters [Berlin and New York, 1973], pp. 149–179) and see now H.-H. Körtum, “Weltgeschichte am Ausgang der Karolingerzeit: Regino von Prüm,” in:Historiographie im frühen Mittelalter (as n. 14), eds: A. Schärer and G. Scheibelreiter, Veröffentlichungens des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 32 (Vienna and Munich, 1994) pp. 499–513.

  60. R. W. Southern, “Aspects of the European tradition of historical writing I. The classical tradition from Einhard to Geoffrey of Monmouth,” presidential address to the Royal Historical Society inTransactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th series, 20 (1970), 173–196. See also Morse,Truth and Convention (as n. 3)Truth and Convention in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 158–64.

  61. W. H. Stevenson,Asser’s Life of King Alfred (Oxford, 1904, reprint 1959) and see M. Schütt, “The literary form of Asser’s Vita Alfredi,”English Historical Review 62 (1957), 209–20.

    Google Scholar 

  62. On William, R. M. Thomson,William of Malmesbury (Woodbridge, 1987) is fundamental, discussing the Frankish collection including Suetonius and Einhard at pp. 139–57. On Suetonius’ influence see M. Schütt, “The Literary Form of William of Malmesbury’sGesta Regum,” English Historical Review 46, (1931), 255–260, and G. B. Townend, “Suetonius and his influence,” in:Latin Biography, ed. T. A. Dorey (London, 1967), pp. 96–108 at p. 107. On Einhard’s, D. H. Farmer, “Two Biographies by William of Malmesbury,” in:Latin Biography, pp. 157–76, but the case of William underlines the need for a full treatment of Einhard’sNachleben.

  63. Einhard,Translatio Ss. Marcellini et Petri, ed. G. Waitz, MGH Scriptores 15,1 (Hannover, 1887), pp. 228–264. For comments see M. Bondois,La translation des saints Marcellin et Pierre. Étude sur Einhard et sa vie politique de 827 à 834 Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études 160 (Paris, 1907) and Fleckenstein, “Einhard” (as n. 2), seine Gründung und sein Vermächtnis in Seligenstadt,” in:Das Einhardkreuz. Vorträge und Studien der Münsteraner Diskussion zum arcus Einhardi, ed. K. Hauck, Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse 87 (Göttingen, 1974). Puzzlement is shown by Wolter, “Intention und Herrscherbild” (as n. 9) “Intention und Herrscherbild in Einhards Vita Karoli Magni”,Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 68 (1986), pp. 296–7: compare Hellman, “Einhards literarische Stellung” (as n. 6),Historische Vierteljahrschrift 27 (1932), pp. 96–101.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Peterhouse, Cambridge University, CB2 1RD, Cambridge, UK

    Matthew Innes

Authors
  1. Matthew Innes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This essay is based on a paper given at the Third Meeting of the ISCT held at Boston University, 8–12 March 1995, and at a one-day seminar on Carolingian Culture held jointly by the Faculties of History and Music, University of Cambridge, 25 May 1995. I should like to thank the organisers of these two events for their hospitality, the Master and Fellows of Peterhouse, Cambridge, for financial support allowing my attendance at the former, and my audiences on both occasions. Both David Ganz and Rosamond McKitterick kindly read and commented upon earlier versions of this essay; all errors, of fact or judgement, remain of course my own. I must also thank Wolfgang Haase, the editor of this journal, for helpful suggestions which have strengthened my argument.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Innes, M. The classical tradition in the Carolingian Renaissance: Ninth-century encounters with Suetonius. Int class trad 3, 265–282 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686391

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686391

Keywords

Search

Navigation