In the middle of the eighth century two religious men became great rivals. They had so much in common, their ages, upbringing, learning, careers, teachers, and, most of all, their mentor and leader, one of the greatest churchmen of the middle ages, that it drove them apart, as it often does with ambitious men.
First we have to talk about Boniface. You’ll get more in another post, but it is sufficient to know that he was, in the words of Norman Cantor1.One of the few scholars to make truly accessible popular medieval history. “one of the truly outstanding creators of the first Europe, as the apostle of Germany, the reformer of the Frankish church, and the chief fomentor of the alliance between the papacy and the Carolingian family.” Boniface traveled widely and hobnobbed with kings and popes. He was a very big deal.
The first thing to know about Eudo of Aquitaine is that his name is translated several different ways. I’ve seen Odo, Eudes, and Eudo. I like the sound of Odo, but it’s usually Eudo in the books. At least it’s not as bad as some of the transliterations of Arabic names.
Eudo was the ruler of Aquitaine for at least 35 years, a region located between the two great powers in Europe at the beginning of the eighth century, the Franks to the north and the Muslims to the south. It was Eudo’s misfortune to rule just as those two peoples were about to impinge on each other. He spent his career constantly balancing and battling these two forces.
On his father and family, Patrick Geary put it most succinctly when he said, “Nothing is known of his origins or background.”1.Geary, Before France and Germany, p.203. Geary and Fouracre, below, have good overviews of Eudo and his times. It is possible he was Duke of Aquitaine by 700, but no way to know for sure.
“The long-haired kings.” The phrase is familiar, but of all things why would hair be the signifier of kingship? The sources don’t tell us why, but they do tell us that long hair was important.
Seal of Childeric I (5th century)
Gregory of Tours has a couple of examples. While summarizing some of the earliest writings about the Franks, he notes that they came from Pannonia and “set up in each country district and each city long-haired kings.”1.Gregory, History, book II, section 9
Gregory also tells the story of Chararic, a rival king of Clovis I. Clovis defeated the king and sons, then “had their hair cut short.” He did not kill them, but had them imprisoned in a monastery.2.People too important to kill but too troublesome to let loose were commonly sent to a monastery. Later, however, when the sons “were threatening to let their hair grow again and then to kill [Clovis], he had their heads cut off.”3.Gregory, History, book II, section 41
It is easy to say that kings were important and that they ruled kingdoms. Easy but meaningless – we need a working definition. What did it mean to be a king in the 8th century?
The nature of kingship had evolved since the Germanic tribes moved west over the Rhine to displace Roman rule in the first centuries after Christ. Evidence is sparse and sketchy, but the tribes were ruled by war band leaders that the Romans interpreted as kings. The members of the tribe owed personal allegiance to the leader, received protection from him, and shared in the victories and defeats of the tribe.
Tomb of Clovis I, Saint Denis, Paris
These early kings came from powerful families that came to be characterized as “noble.” Gregory of Tours noted that after the Franks crossed the Rhine they “set up in each country district and city long-haired kings chosen from the foremost and most noble family of their race.”1.Gregory, History of the Franks, book 2, chapter 7 Thus the Merovingian line was founded, and Clovis became their first great king.
The king also functioned as a lawgiver and judge. While the kings would discuss and debate matters at the yearly general assembly of the Franks, the resulting capitularieswere issued over the king’s signature. As the maker of the laws, the king was also the ultimate judge. The nobility had the privilege and access to take their disputes to the king for resolution.
It is not solely with temporal responsibilities that a king is known. The early Germanic leaders were believed to possess a special connection to the supranatural world. The king was not a god, like the pharaohs, or deified after death like the Roman emperors, but a liaison to the gods. That special connection persisted through the bloodline, and so rule descended through families. This religious and spiritual element devolved easily to Christianity as the faith spread through Europe. The king was still a war leader, and it was in the fulfillment of this duty that his hold on power rested. But he had also become God’s representative, His chosen vassal on earth.
At this point in history we do not yet see healing powers ascribed to the king. That would come late in the tenth century with Robert II. 2.Fichtenau, Living In The Tenth Century, p162
The king’s religious and spiritual role did not change the fact that the leader of a people must be seen and heard to be effective. The dukes and counts of the realm needed the king’s presence to validate their own rule.3.Bernhardt, Itinerant Kingship, p50 Pepin and Charlemagne spent much of the year traveling, either at the head of their armies, or to the annual assembly, or to various towns and manors. It was a traveling court. When they could not go themselves, they sent personal delegates, missi dominci, in their place.
To all this we must add the non-material but crucial role of symbol of the nation, of the gens, of the people. In our own day western societies continue to maintain the symbolic position of head of state, be it a republican president or monarchical queen. In a non-technocratic age when so much was personal, the king was essential.
Essential but not omnipotent. When Pepin was raised as the first Carolingian king, one near-contemporaneous account notes that, “King Pepin had been raised to the throne of the kingdom by [the pope and ritual] and election by all the Franks.”4.Dutton, Carolingian Civilization, p.13 As early as the first century Tacitus noted that “The power even of the kings is not absolute or arbitrary.”5.Tacitus, Germania, book 7 As noted above, the capitularies issued by the king were written after debate amongst the great men. The king ruled in conjunction with and the approval of the ecclesiastical and secular magnates of the kingdom.
War leader, law giver, judge, symbol of the tribe, and bridge between god and man, the early medieval king filled many roles. No mere Mayor of the Palace or duke would do.
The next source you should know about is a biography of Charlemagne, the Vita Karoli, written not long after his death. But like all sources from this time (or any time), you have to approach it with caution.
A noble and learned man named Einhard, born around 770 of a noble family from the eastern part of the realm, wrote the biography in his retirement, about a decade after Charlemagne’s death. Einhard came to the king’s court in 791 after an extensive monastic education, a group of scholars that Charlemagne had been gathering around him. He was a tiny man with a busy mind – Lewis Thorpe, translator of a popular edition of , notes that the Bishop of Orleans compared him to a busy ant. Einhard was apparently one of the brightest stars in the firmament, and it fell to him to write the great man’s biography after his death in 814.
