MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_01C89E82.878D4A60" This document is a Single File Web Page, also known as a Web Archive file. If you are seeing this message, your browser or editor doesn't support Web Archive files. Please download a browser that supports Web Archive, such as Microsoft Internet Explorer. ------=_NextPart_01C89E82.878D4A60 Content-Location: file:///C:/AE4AAA93/notari33.htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Tamás Nótári
Infidelitas and Harisliz – On the Dethronement of Tasilo III
The
creation of a unified empire by Charlemagne required quite a number of vict=
ims,
one of whom was Tasilo III, the last duke of the Agilolfing dynasty reignin=
g in
The difficulties in reconstructing the history of the dethronement of
the last Bavarian duke and the fall of the Bavarian Dukedom originate from =
the
character of the sources: we can get information about the events of the pe=
riod
only from Frank descriptive sources, and these texts reproduce the events t=
hat
reflect the dethronement in 788, from the viewpoint of its legitimation.[2] We can make a
reconstruction of these events mainly on the ground of two sources: the =
Annales
regni Francorum and the Annales qui dicuntur Einhardi. Nonethele=
ss
others can also help in completing, correcting or contrasting the plot of t=
he
trial. Neither the notes of the Annales regni Francorum, nor those of
the Annales qui dicuntur Einhardi originate from the year of the eve=
nt
under analysis, but from later times. The Annales regni Francorum was
written in two phases: the first lasted from 787 to 795, when the notes of =
the
events of the period between 741 and 795 were added, while during the second
phase, which took place after 795, notes were made year by year. For part o=
ne
(until 795) the author used chronicles that have been partially lost by now=
.[3] The Annales
attributed to Einhard were written approximately between 814 and 817 (as a
reedition of the Annales regni Francorum), and during this working
process the author made stylistic corrections, on the one hand, and substan=
tial
changes in the evaluation of the events and their emphasis, on the other. S=
ince
this source (the Annales qui dicuntur Einhardi) came to being two
decades later than the Annales regni Francorum, it can only be used
secondarily.[4=
]
However, we must take the narrations of the Annales regni Francorum =
only
cum grano salis, since the passages concerning the Bavarian conditio=
ns
before 788 were defined by the events of 788, i.e., the facts were stylized=
and
manipulated so that they would justify the judgement in the trial against
Tasilo.[5] It seems extremely
probable to accept the idea that the quite detailed narration concerning
Bavaria and Tasilo is a reedition of a chronologically divided royal Frank
document, with an almost official language, written in the course of the le=
gal
trial, containing the reasoning of the charge and judgement, and on the who=
le
its justification. Consequently, the source presents the events from the hi=
ghly
subjective point of view of Charlemagne, i.e., the winner of the case.[6]
The present paper first considers Tasilo’s reign and the
historical background of the trial (I.), then it investigates the
Frank–Bavarian conflict and the sacramenta fidelitatis of Tasi=
lo (II.).
In the end, after highlighting the question of infidelitas and of harisliz
it will analyse the show trial itself (III.).
I.
Tasilo was born in 741 as son of the Bavarian duke Odilo, who belonged to t=
he
Alemann branch of the Agilolfing dynasty (the family’s male line died=
out
around 736) and his wife, Hiltrud of Frank origin (Carl Martell’s
daughter, Karlmann’s and Pippin’s sister). After her fatherR=
17;s
death Hiltrud, ignoring her brothers’ opposition and urged by her
step-mother Swanahilt, a relative of the Bavarian Royal Family (whom Carl
Martell brought with him from his 725 Bavarian military campaign and made h=
is
second wife), married Odilo.[7] Still in Odilo’s
life – after the war that had broken out between the brothers-in-law =
in
743, ending with Bavarian defeat – in 745 Pippin put Virgil, who later
turned out to be Tasilo’s greatest supporter, into the episcopal chai=
r of
Salzburg.[8] In 748, the year of
Odilo’s death, the Carantanian Slavs asked for Frank and Bavarian help
against the Avars – just like in 741/42 when the Carantanian duke Bor=
uth
repelled the Avar attack also with Bavarian assistance[9] – and thus the
opportunity of an eastern mission was opened up for the Bishopric of Salzbu=
rg.[10] In 749, Hiltrud’=
;s
half-brother, Grifo attempted to seize power in
Pippin released Tasilo from his guardianship in 757, at the Imperial
Assembly held in Compiègne, although the sources of official Frank
historiography do not refer to it.[13] At the same time they
(the Annales regni Francorum, the Annales qui dicuntur
Einhardi and other chronicles) emphasize Tasilo’s vassal comme=
ndatio,
i.e., they report that Tasilo with the Bavarian nobility in the Saint-Denis
Monastery, over the relics of Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius promised
allegiance not only to Pippin but also to his sons Charlemagne and Karlmann=
. In
addition, he ceremoniously swore an oath over the tombs of St.Martin and
Germanus that he would remain faithful to the Frank monarch and his success=
ors
for the rest of his life.[14] These accounts, howev=
er,
should be trusted only with strong reservations.[15] If the Bavarian duke
accompanied by his nobility had really taken a vassal oath of allegiance be=
fore
his uncle Pippin, the relations of the Bavarian Dukedom with the Frank Empi=
re
would have been placed on a completely new basis of public law, i.e., on st=
rong
dependence, and the self-conscious Bavarian nobility would have been
subordinated to the Franks. Moreover, Tasilo could not have retained his
authority before his subjects.[16] It cannot be ignored =
that
the form of vassal commendation mentioned by the Frank Annales becam=
e a
custom only in the third quarter of the 9th century.[17] The Bavarian law of o=
rder
imposed the obligation of allegiance before the Frank (from 751 Caroling) k=
ing
on the duke, and the oath of allegiance towards Pippin and his sons taken by
Tasilo meant nothing else but the confirmation of the right of inheritance
acknowledged also by the pope. The fact that in those times the duces
defeated by the Franks would have been obliged to take an oath of allegianc=
e,
give hostage and admit the Frank dicio makes the vassal subordinatio=
n of
Tasilo improbable, and so nothing would have motivated Pippin to bring Tasi=
lo,
with whom he had a really good relation, into such a humiliating situation.=
[18] It is worth consideri=
ng
the Annales Mettenses priores that came to existence after Charlemag=
ne
had been crowned emperor, more specifically its account of the 757 events: =
it
only mentions the oath of allegiance sworn by Tasilo and his nobility but n=
ot
the vassal commendatio.[19] It is extremely proba=
ble
that after
Tasilo had to express somehow in his oath the relations between the
Bavarian duke and the Frank king which was loose both personally and in ter=
ms
of public law and was by no means of vassal kind and had already been
maintained for decades.[20] We cannot declare with
complete certainty that the Bavarian nobility would really have sworn an oa=
th
to Pippin together with Tasilo. However, it seems probable that the Frank
tradition refers to it in order to testify those who stood by
Charlemagne’s side during Tasilo’s fall, and by doing that broke
the obligatory loyalty to their legal lord, the Bavarian duke. Only another
oath of allegiance, namely the one to the Frank king could be their excuse.=
So
Frank historiography traced the conflict of Tasilo and Charlemagne back to
matters of the past with a view to legitimate the Frank king’s solely
political motivation.[21]
It would be a mistake suggested just by these Frank sources to consi=
der
the Compiègne events to be the reason for the future conflict. The t=
ruly
decisive turn in Frank-Bavarian relations caused by the Frank policy of
expansion came only long after Charlemagne’s accession to the throne,=
and
the confrontation with the Bavarian duke became important only in 781. Duri=
ng
his whole reign, Pippin made efforts to maintain balanced relations with his
sister Hiltrud and his cousin Tasilo, so in this light the Caroling–A=
gilolfing
conflict cannot be considered as one that thematized European politics for
decades. Without Pippin’s help Tasilo could not have obtained his dig=
nity
as Bavarian duke; and also he could not have controlled the tension provoke=
d by
Grifo. In case of serious tension the times of guardianship could not pass =
in
peace for the young duke. Finally, after Charlemagne’s victory
annihilating Langobard self-government, the independent
In order to throw light on Tasilo’s role in the Aquitanian
campaign and his rejection to take part in it, it is expedient to review the
background of the events. After the 757 oath of allegiance, the official Fr=
ank
sources remain silent for a while about the Frank–Bavarian affairs; t=
hey
prefer dealing with Pippin’s home politics and the Saxon conflicts. T=
he
emperor, however, was soon engaged in the Aquitanian conflict: Pippin wante=
d to
force Waifar, the Aquitanian duke, who had long been in alliance with the
Bavarians, to renounce his rights over the church benefices, and to extradi=
te
Frank refugees from his country, but Waifar did not want his principal sphe=
re
of authority to be violated so much, so he could not meet the demand, which
unambiguously meant war. Without much ado, Pippin forced the Duke of Aquita=
nia
down to his knees, who then surrendered but wanted to lay Pippin’s
demands before the Aquitanian placitum – the Frank monarch see=
med
to be satisfied with these conditions at first sight.[23] The abandonment of the
church prerogatives would have certainly shaken the principal power that was
effectively defended by Waifar with all means at his disposal, in its very
basis. Accordingly, the Frank interpretation evaluated his method as
fraudulence, his reign as tyranny. Only shortly before his death, in 768 co=
uld
Pippin achieve that the Aquitanian nobles got rid of the duke by themselves=
.[24] When after his
father’s death he again started a war with
In May 763, at the Frank Imperial Assembly held in Nevers near the <=
st1:place
w:st=3D"on">Loire, they adopted a decision on starting the four=
th
Aquitanian campaign. The Frank army overran
At an Imperial Assembly in
Pippin’s death in 768 precipitated the Caroling power into deep
crisis, the bellum Aquitanicum ending in Charlemagne’s victory
showed the disagreement between Charlemagne and Karlmann. The crisis is also
reflected in the charters of the period, as in order to strengthen the Frank
monarch’s legitimacy the chancellery started using the formula =
220;gratia
Dei”.[3=
5]
Tasilo intended to turn the weakening of the Frank Royal Power to his
dukedom’s advantage. The Bavarian–Langobard alliance had been
presumably established long before this by the marriage of Tasilo and Liutp=
irg,
the daughter of Desiderius. During his travel to
The Bavarian delegation appeared before Pope Adrian I, who had come =
to
the throne in 772. Threatened by Desiderius’ demands of power, the Po=
pe
wanted the Bavarian delegation to act as mediators of his interests towards
Charlemagne. Putting the future alliance into a sacral form, at Pentecost of
772 the Pope baptized and appointed the successor to the Bavarian throne,
Theodo,[39] and thus as the highe=
st
moral authority he approved the latter’s future demands for the Bavar=
ian
Dukedom, which had been made for many centuries (and were accepted also by =
the
Merowings), and elevated him to a king-like status.[40] (The king-like status=
is
also proved by the epitheta “electissimus”,[41] “eminentissi=
mus”,[42] “nobilissimu=
s”,[43] “religiosiss=
imus”,[44] “gloriosus=
8221;,[45] “gloriosissi=
mus”[46] and “inlustr=
issimus”[47] in some contemporary
sources.[4=
8])
Tasilo could obtain Theodo’s baptism only through the alliance previo=
usly
concluded with Charlemagne, but in return he had to distance himself from h=
is
father-in-law, Desiderius: because of the amicitia binding the Bavar=
ian
duke with the Frank monarch and the conpaternitas binding him to the
Pope, he had to observe the destruction of the Langobard state with folded
arms.[49] Having settled his
foreign affairs, Tasilo gained opportunity to focus attention on his own
military aims, namely on the rebelling Carantanians, whom he defeated that
year.
II.
Simultaneously with this, realising the impending danger, Tasilo sent a
delegation (whose members included Alim, the bishop of Säben, counts
Megilo and Machelm and abbot Atto) to
In 781 there came a decisive change in Frank–Bavarian relation=
s:
within the frame of his attempts to subordinate the territory of the former
Merowing Empire, Charlemagne tried to curtail the independence developed by
Tasilo. Through the alliance with the pope and the basileus he isola=
ted
During the 870’s Tasilo’s system of alliance based on
personal relations was shaken by several deaths: on the one hand, important
churchmen, that is Arbeo, the bishop of Freising, Virgil, the bishop of
In 784 a military collision took place in the area of
To prevent the outburst of a nearing discord, Tasilo sent Arn, the b=
ishop
of
From Rome Charlemagne went to Worms, where he gave an account of the
negotiations with Tasilo at the synod of clerical and non-clerical leaders,=
and
through the envoys he called upon the Bavarian Duke to appear before him.
Tasilo, however, just like his brother-in-law, Arichis, rejected it; instea=
d he
gave hostages and gifts to the Frank monarch.[72] Charlemagne decided to
end this discord having lasted for years between him and Tasilo by force, a=
nd
marched with his army against
The oaths taken by Tasilo to Charlemagne may be summarized as follow=
s:
he more or less probably swore an oath of allegiance in 757, and certainly =
in
781; then in 787 he subjected himself as a vassal to Charlemagne. The autho=
rs
of the sources traced back to and explained the 757 oath on the basis of the
787 vassal oath, or to be more precise, they consciously misinterpreted it.=
[78] Let us review what the
substance of the oaths of allegiance could be. The essence of the oath of
allegiance was without doubt fidelitas, although it is fairly diffic=
ult
to reconstruct the content of this notion. It can mean relations between two
people that bind them to assist each other with Rat und Tat, facilit=
ate one
another’s advantage, and prevent any harm to any of them.[79] One cannot, however,
formulate a static definition as the content of the oaths depended on the
person and position of the subjects concerned.[80] In the 8th
century different kinds of allegiance oaths may appear in the sources: after
786 or 792 – the dating is disputable – the subject’s oat=
hs
became customary again because at that time the participants of a conspiracy
tried to excuse themselves by claiming that they had not taken an allegiance
oath to Charlemagne.[81] It gave reason for
obliging every subject older than twelve to take an oath.[82] The texts of the oath=
are
not known; in the Legationis Edictum of 789, in the sacramentum
fidelitatis to be taken to the king and his sons, the juror promises to
remain faithful for the rest of his life (fidelis sum[83]) but the details are =
not
expressed. A capitulare originating from 802 contains some enumerati=
on
that was binding on the jurors of the sacramentum fidelitatis;[84] however, the differen=
ce
between the subject and (vassal) allegiance oaths cannot be defined more
precisely.[8=
5]
The sources inform about a number of oaths that can be interpreted as that =
of
allegiance. Thus, for example, the Annales Mettenses priores relates
when describing the events of 755 that the Langobard king Aistulf broke the=
fides
promised to Pippin when he broke into Rome contrary to law and his oath, so=
as
a conciliation he had to yield a part of his treasure to the Frank monarch,=
and
while giving hostages he had to repeat his oath to remain faithful to the F=
rank
power forever (semper esse fidelem) and promise that he would=
pay
tax annually.[8=
6]
The Annales regni Francorum concerning 775 also gives an account of =
the
Langobards breaking their oath, whereas regarding 777 it informs us of simi=
lar
events concerning the Saxons.[87] The wordings of the
different Annales are very similar, so one can conclude that after t=
he
settlement of the armed conflicts with the given tribe or state those who h=
ad subjected
themselves to the Frank monarch promised sometimes taxes, often hostages, b=
ut
in each case – fidelitas.[88]
The texts of Tasilo’s oaths are not known to us. They can be
inferred most easily from the cases of their breaches: including the reject=
ion
of paying taxes and contumacia, the attempt of getting out of Frank
power (dicione abstrahere) either by revolts or by military acts. At=
the
same time, the breaking of the prohibition of arbitrary military actions al=
so
meant a breach of promissiones, sacramenta and fidelitas=
i>,
since nobody was allowed to start an attack without the Frank king’s
permission. On the grounds of the above, it may be stated in all probability
that the juror (taking the oath of allegiance) was usually obliged to
acknowledge the Frank chief power, and he had to abstain from everything th=
at
would cause its breaking. Nevertheless, it cannot be concluded that as a ma=
in
rule he would have been obliged to provide an army; furthermore, his autono=
my
in home and foreign policy was not affected either.[89] The rebellion against
Frank dominance, i.e., the breaking of the allegiance oath brought about
different sanctions, and eventually resulted in annexing the given state
– kingdom, dukedom – into the Frank Empire. Consequently, the
obligation of fidelitas appeared among other things to be an importa=
nt
means of relations between the states. However, it is only one of the field=
s of
its application; none the least significant was it for proving the
subjects’ loyalty and creating vassal relations within the country
– yet a common element of all these was the promise of semper fide=
lis
esse.[9=
0]
III.
The show trial against Tasilo took place in Ingelheim in 788: at the meetin=
g of
the Franks and nationes subordinated to them[91] similarly to other vassi
according to the Annales regni Francorum,[92] or, together with the
rest of the Bavarian principes according to the Annales Mettenses
priores[9=
3]
Tasilo had to appear, too.[94] According to the A=
nnales
Nazariani after Tasilo appeared in Ingelheim, Charlemagne had duchess L=
iutpirg,
the children and the treasures taken away from
The narration of the different Annales seems to be too harmon=
ic
and complete to reflect reality: Tasilo’s defence is totally missing =
and
his confession makes an implausibly remorseful impression as well.[105] Following Matthias
Becher’s train of thought, let us take a closer look at the different
versions of some Annals about the plot of the trial. When re=
ading
the narration of the Annales regni Francorum on the process of the
trial, it becomes remarkable that it is free from any gaps: the conduct of
those present seems too composed, the charges are flooding as it were by
themselves, the accusers are obscured, the king sinks into passivity, the o=
nly
action he takes is to obtain mercy for the accused, and the duke moves to
monastery voluntarily, on its own initiative and not on the king’s or=
der.
This rightly arouses suspicion that the author did not want to document act=
ual
events but to enhance Charlemagne’s nimbu=
s: to
stylise the king, who brought
Both the legal establishment of his children’s locking into
monasteries and Bavaria’s annexing into the Caroling Empire are extre=
mely
dubious, since after Tasilo’s tonsuratio his sons should have
taken over the dukedom pursuant to the Lex Baiuvariorum, which assur=
es
the Agilolfing right of inheritance.[109] The demand made by
Tasilo’s children and wife for the Bavarian Dukedom was not disputed,=
but
their personal status was altered so that de iure they were not enti=
tled
to realize their demand.[110] Charlemagne, of cour=
se,
would have had the opportunity to sentence the rest of the family like Tasi=
lo
to death, but he must have been deterred from this drastic method, so he
contented with the Klostertod. Locking Tasilo up in a monastery,
however, created a rather dubious situation of public law in Bavaria, which=
is
clearly shown by some units of the Traditio Frisigensis as well: =
it
occurred that on 20 February 789, in the presence of bishops Atto and Oadal=
hart,
a traditio was dated pursuant to Tasilo’s reign,[111] whereas in another o=
ne
they mention Charlemagne’s conquest over Bavaria and Tasilo’s
turning cleric as an event that had happened two years before.[112] The rearrangement of=
the
Bavarian government may give the impression that Charlemagne might still ha=
ve
taken some rights of the Agilolfing dynasty into consideration, since he
nominated his brother-in-law, Gerold of Agilolfing origin praefectus=
of
After organizing the Bavarian possessions and suppressing the rebell=
ion
in Regensburg,[116] Charlemagne made an
attempt to give the liquidation of the Agilolfing dominance a final and leg=
al
form: in 794 Tasilo was taken from his monastery to a council in Frankfurt,
where in the presence of clerical and non-clerical nobles, and the PopeR=
17;s
envoys he had to renounce his dukedom on his and his successors’ beha=
lf.[117] (The sources do not =
make
any further mention of Tasilo, the only thing they inform us about is that =
the
once Bavarian Duke died as an ordinary monk on 11 December of a year unknow=
n to
us.[118]) The question may ar=
ise,
why the traces of the last event cannot be found either in the Annales r=
egni
Francorum, or in the Annales qui dicuntur Einhardi. The fact that
after six years Charlemagne still needed for Tasilo to entirely give up all=
his
own and his family’s demands would have impugned the lawfulness of the
sentence made in 788; namely, the dethronement of the whole Agilolfing dyna=
sty.
Consequently, the applicable passages of law ensuring the right of inherita=
nce
for the Agilolfings lost their validity as well.[119] In order to legitima=
te
his method, probably between 788 and 794 Charlemagne entered a passage into=
the
Lex Baiuvariorum ordering that should the duke, whom he nominated he=
ad
of the dominion, be so reckless, defiant, unconsidered, arrogant and rebell=
ing
that he would disobey the king’s order, then he should lose the grant=
of
dukedom, be deprived of the hope of heavenly joy, and lose even his salvati=
on.[120] The reference made to
the loss of salvation is not likely to allude to the threat of the 787 papal
excommunication,[121] but much rather to t=
he
final punishment of Tasilo locked up in the monastery. This interpretation =
is
even more probable, because in the light of the trial of 788, the accumulat=
ion
of insulting attributes that describe the duke (contumax, elatus, superb=
us,
levitate stimulatus, rebellis) seems quite plausible.[122]
It is beyond any doubt that setting aside the dynasty of Agilolfings=
was
not legally established. How legal Tasilo’s conviction can be regarde=
d,
and how the charges brought against him can be grouped and evaluated is,
however, worth analyzing. Opinions differ as to whether the sentence was ba=
sed
primarily on the allegedly committed harisliz[123] – meaning poss=
ibly
crimen maiestatis – or whether harisliz, like the other
charges brought against the duke, belonged to the category of infidelita=
s,
constituting together the reasons of the case.[124] In the early Middle
Ages, the notion of crimen maiestatis occurs last in the Etymolog=
iae
of Isidorus Hispalensis, the last summarizer of the antique inheritance;[125] then it is out of use
for a longer period of time, and only the Annales regni Francorum us=
es
it concerning the conspirators against the pope after Charlemagne was crown=
ed
Emperor.[1=
26]
This usage, however, seems to be related to the Caroling Renaissance that
attempted to renew the antique tradition, especially in Italy.[127] The Annales qui
dicuntur Einhardi, originating also from the period following the crown=
ing,
names Tasilo maiestatis reus,[128] but it is this very
important idiom that is missing from the relevant part of the Annales re=
gni
Francorum written earlier. Consequently, with much certainty it is the
result of some later additions.[129] The 801 entry of the=
Capitulare
Italicum also defines harisliz as crimen maiestatis,[130] but this capitula=
re
served for filling in the gaps between the Roman and Langobard law. This wa=
y,
it created a special mixtum compositum, a state of facts mixing the
elements of the Roman crimen maiestatis and German harisliz,
resulting in beheading and forfeiture of property.
The 810 Capitulare Aquisgranense[131] and the 811 Capit=
ulare
Bononiense[132] refer to harisliz=
as a state of fact but do not use crimen (laesae) maiestat=
is
in this respect.[133] On the basis of all =
this
one may agree that in 788 Tasilo was not convicted of high treason. The sou=
rces
of the time do not support this hypothesis: German law does not contain the
fact of harisliz. One may come across such notion first in 788, and =
only
later does it occur more frequently in the texts – Roman law is used =
only
after 800 and mainly in the area beyond the Alps. Moreover, if Tasilo had b=
een
sentenced to death as reus maiestatis, the 794 declaration of abdica=
tion
would not have been necessary.[134] Although Bavarian pe=
ople
were bound by the provisions of the Lex Baiuvariorum,[135] the nobility was
exempted from it, and no punishment was applicable to the duke either ̵=
1;
except for the above-mentioned passage[136] entered between 788 =
and
794. At the same time, Bavarian law, contrary to the Frank legal sources, d=
id
not contain any paragraphs sanctioning infidelitas and the breaking =
of
the oath, but calling the enemy into the territory of the country was
considered a major sin; and it cannot be excluded that this fact was also t=
aken
as a basis for convicting the Bavarian Duke, who was already in vassal
relations with the king.[137] The sources emphasize
many times Tasilo’s breaking of the oath of allegiance, it being i=
nfidelitas.[138] This charge is suppo=
rted
by Tasilo’s foreign affairs, namely his negotiations with the Avars,
which violated Frank interests.[139] Although we cannot s=
tate
that harisliz was deemed as crimen maiestatis, since every le=
gal testimonium
concerning it originates from the times after 801. The charge of harisli=
z
had been created by Charlemagne and put on the stage as an act of infide=
litas;
therefore, the imperial council sentenced Tasilo to death as fraudator f=
idei.[140]
By the vassal commendatio taken in Lechfeld, which helped Tas=
ilo
to make the Frank military action against Bavaria illegitimate, he was able,
albeit at the expense of grave humiliation, to retain his dukedom and by th=
at
to upset Charlemagne’s plans to fully integrate Bavaria. Infidelit=
as
brought up as a charge in the trial in Ingelheim would not have stood by
itself; therefore, Charlemagne was forced to produce another count of the
indictment: and that was harisliz equal to treason. On the other han=
d,
as we have seen, neither the Annales regni Francorum contain any ear=
lier
references to this state of facts (either concerning Tasilo or in any
other context), nor the sources independent of the official version allude =
to
this term or action in any form, not even in relation to the events of 788.=
For
this reason, harisliz, i.e., desertion
allegedly committed in 763, is nothing else but fiction; and it was =
to
legitimate infidelitas, which called for harisliz and =
feudal
subordination, actually realised only in 787, as prerequisites, that Frank
propaganda distorted the events of earlier decades, the memory and especial=
ly
legal classification of which were anyway fading away among the increasingly
less contemporaries. Looking at the events from another aspect, however, we=
can
presume that the charge of infidelitas would have been enough to con=
demn
Tasilo – this is what the very nature of show trial’s suggests.=
By
stressing harisliz Frank propaganda most probably wanted to lay spec=
ial
emphasis on the subordinate position of the nobility now subjected to the k=
ing,
and on their obligation to wage war arising from that.[141]
In
the end of our analysis it became clear, what kind of processes led to this
final show trial. The Frank monarch’s power politics was not necessar=
ily
in need of a military conflict for the sake of annexing Bavaria into his em=
pire
after he had finished with his enemies and competitors. It seemed enough to
isolate the dukedom with cunning diplomatic means, and win over a group of
Bavarians to his support in the coming trial. During the proceedings Tasilo=
was
not only charged with harisliz, but he was accused of serious
unfaithfulness (infidelitas) – repeated breaking of the oath of
allegiance in 757 and 781, in addition to the vassal oath in 787. Executing=
the
death sentence would not have brought the desired result for Charlemagne si=
nce
through Tasilo’s execution he would not have been able to annex Bavar=
ia ipso
iure. At the same time, by locking up Tasilo and his family in monaster=
ies,
the Frank monarch had the opportunity to deal with the masterless dukedom a=
s he
wished. The unclarified state of the legal situation and Charlemagne’s
not completely legitimate dominance over Bavaria are clearly shown by the d=
eclaration
taken from Tasilo at the 794 Council in Frankfurt, which sets forth that he
renounces all demands in relation to Bavaria on his own and his family̵=
7;s
behalf.
[1= ] Erler, A. Herzog Tassilo vo= r dem Königsgericht in Ingelheim. in Beiträge zur Ingelheimer Geschi= chte 27, 1978. 27sqq.; Schieffer, R. Ein politischer Prozeß des 8. Jahrhunderts im Vexierspiel der Quellen. in Das Frankfurter Konzil von 7= 94. Kristallisationspunkt karolingischer Kultur I. Politik und Kirche. Quel= len und Abhandlungen zur mittelrheinischen Kirchengeschichte 80. Mainz, 1997. 167sqq.; Airlie, S. Narratives of triumph and rituals of submission: Charlemagne’s mastering of Bavaria. in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th series 9, 1999. 93sqq.
[2= ] Classen, P. Bayern und die politischen Mächte im Zeitalter Karls des Großen und Tassilos II= I. in Ausgewählte Aufsätze. Vorträge und Forschungen 28. Sigmaringen, 1983. 235; Krawinkel, H. Untersuchungen zum fränkischen Benefizialrecht. Forschungen zum deutschen Recht II/2. Weimar, 1937. 47sqq.; Becher, M. Eid und Herrschaft. Untersuchungen zum Herrescherethos Karls des Großen. Vorträge und Forschungen, Sonderband 39. Sigmaringen, 1993. 21–87; Becher, M. Zwischen Macht und Recht. Der St= urz Tassilos III. von Bayern 788. in Tassilo III. von Bayern. Großmacht und Ohnmacht im 8. Jahrhundert. Hrsg. v. Kolmer, L.–Rohr, Chr. Regensburg, 2005. 39.
[3= ] Löwe, H. Die Reichsann= alen. in Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter. Vorzeit und Karoli= nger II. Weimar, 1953. 245sqq.; Kolmer, L. Zur Kommendation und Absetzung Tassilos III. Zeitschrift für bayerische Landesgeschichte 43, 1= 980. 293; Hoffmann, H. Untersuchungen zur karolingischen Annalistik. Bonn, 1958. 38sqq.
[4= ] Löwe 1953. 253; Rob-Sa= nter, C. Die Darstellung des Feindes in der karolingischen Geschichtsschreibung. Historie zwischen Tradition und Innovation. in Tassilo III. von Bayern. Großmacht und Ohnmacht im 8. Jahrhundert. Regensburg, 2005. 108.<= /span>
[5= ] Classen 1983. 235; Kol= mer 1980. 293; Rosenstock, E. Unser Volksname Deutsch und die Aufhebung des Herzogtums Bayern. Mitteilungen der schlesischen Gesellschaft für Volkskunde 29, 1928. 1sqq.; Kolmer, L. Tassilo überschreiben. in <= i>Tassilo III. von Bayern. Großmacht und Ohnmacht im 8. Jahrhundert. Regensburg, 2005. 17.
[6= ] Classen 1983. 235sq., Kolme= r 1980. 294; Kolmer 2005. 9sqq.; Pohl, W. Bayern und seine Nachbarn im 8. Jahrhunde= rt. in Tassilo III. von Bayern. Großmacht und Ohnmacht im 8. Jahrhunde= rt. Regensburg, 2005. 59.
[7= ] Reindel, K. Das Zeitalter d= er Agilolfinger. in Handbuch der Bayerischen Geschichte I. Hrsg.= v. Spindler, M. München, 1967. 124; Erkens, F.-R. Summus princeps und dux quem rex ordinavit. Tassilo III. im Spannungsfeld von fürstlichem Selbstverständnis und königlichem Auftrag. in Tassilo III. von Bayern. Großmacht und Ohnmacht im 8. Jahrhundert. Hrsg. v. Kolmer, L.–Rohr, Chr. Regensburg, 2005. 22.
[8= ] Wolfram, H. Das Fürste= ntum Tassilos III., Herzogs der Bayern. Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Salzburger Landeskunde 108, 1968. 159. About Virgil see Virgil von Salzburg. Missionar und Gelehrter. Hrsg. v. Dopsch, H.–Juffinger,= R. Salzburg, 1985; Löwe, H. Ein literarischer Widersacher des Bonifati= us, Virgil von Salzburg und die Kosmographie des Aethicus Ister. Akademie d= er Wissenschaften und Literatur in Mainz. Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 11. 1951.
[9= ] Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum 4. (Ed. Lošek, F. MGH Studien und Texte 15. Hannover, 1997.) Cf. Szádeczky-Kardoss, S. Az avar történelem forrásai 557-től 806-ig. (The sources of the Avar history f= rom 557 to 806) Budapest, 1998. 266sqq.
[10] Löwe, H. Die karolingische Reichsgründung und der Südosten. Studien zum Werden des Deutschtu= ms und seiner Auseinandersetzung mit Rom. Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Gei= stesgeschichte 13. Stuttgart, 1937. 17sq.; Becher 2005. 41.
[11] Annales regni Francorum a.= 748 (Ed. Kurze, F. MGH SS rer. Germ. in usum scholarum 6. Hannover, 1895.); = Annales qui dicuntur Einhardi a. 748 (Ed. Kurze, F. MGH SS rer. Germ. in usum scholarum 6. Hannover, 1895.); Annales Mettenses priores a.<= /i> 749 (Ed. Simson, B. MGH SS rer. Germ. in usum scholarum 10. Hannover–Leipzig, 1905.)
[12] Wolfram 1968. 160.
[13] Klebel, E. Bayern und der fränkisch= e Adel im 8. und 9. Jahrhundert. in Grundfragen der alemannischen Geschichte.= i> Mainvorträge 1952. Vorträge und Forschungen 1. 1955. 193sqq.; Kienast, W. Die fränkische Vasallität. Von den Hausmeiern bis = zu Ludwig dem Kinde und Karl dem Einfältigen. Frankfurt am Main, 1990. 80sqq.
[14] Annales regni Francorum a.= 757; Annales qui dicuntur Einhardi a. 757; Annales Lobienses a.= 756 (!) (Ed. Waitz, G. MGH SS 13. Hannover, 1881.); Chronicon Vedastinum= a. 757 (Ed. Waitz, G. MGH SS 13. Hannover, 1881.)
[15] Becher 1993. 35sqq.
[16] Wolfram, H. Grenze und Mission. Salzburg= vom heiligen Rupert zum heiligen Virgil. Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft f&uum= l;r Salzburger Landeskunde 115, 1975. 72; Jahn, J. Ducatus Baiuvariorum.= Das bairische Herzogtum der Agilolfinger. Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 35. Stuttgart, 1991. 336.
[17] Krawinkel 1937. 47sqq.
[18] Kolmer 1980. 297sqq.; Erkens 2005. 28.= span>
[19] Annales Mettenses priores a.= i> 757; about the Annales Mettenses see Hoffmann 1958. 42.
[20] Classen 1983. 235; Kolmer 1980. 298; Jahn 1991. 338.
[21] Jahn 1991. 339sqq.; Becher 1993. 40sqq.<= /span>
[22] Jahn 1991. 341; Becher 1993. 42sqq.; Kra= winkel 1937. 51.
[23] Continuationes Fredegarii 41. (Ed. Krusch, B. MGH SS 2. Hannover, 1888.); Annales Mettenses priores = a. 760; Annales regni Francorum a. 760
[24] Continuationes Fredegarii 42sqq.<= /span>
[25] Einhardus, Vita Karoli magni 5. (= Ed. Holder-Egger, O. MGH SS in usum scholarum 25. Hannover, 1991.)
[26] Wolfram 1968. 162; Jahn 1991. 371.
[27] Continuationes Fredegarii 47.
[28] Jahn 1991. 372.
[29] Annales regni Francorum a.= 763; Chronicon Vedastinum a. 763
[30] Annales Mettenses priores a.= i> 763; Annales Maximiani Continuatio a. 764 (!) (Ed. Waitz, G. MGH SS 13. Hannover, 1881.)
[31] Kolmer 1980. 305; Becher 1993. 45–= 51.
[32] Annales Iuvavenses maiores a.<= /i> 763 (Ed. Bresslau, H. MGH SS 30/2. Hannover, 1934.); Annales Iuvavenses minores a. 763 (Ed. Pertz, G. H. MGH SS 1. Hannover, 1826.) About the Annales Iuvavenses see Bresslau, H. Die ältere Salzburger Annalistik. Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Jahrgang 1923. Phil.-Hist. Klasse Nr. 2. Berlin, 1923.
[33] Annales regni Francorum a.= 764; Annales qui dicuntur Einhardi a. 764; Wolfram 1968. 163; Oelsner, L. Jahrb&u= uml;cher des fränkischen Reiches unter König Pippin. Berlin, 1975. 383= .
[34] Jahn 1991. 373sq.; Löwe 1937. 47; C= lassen 1983. 236; Reindel, K. Bayern im Karolingerreich. in Karl der Groß= e. Lebenswerk und Nachleben I. Düsseldorf, 1967. 221; Becher 1993. 49= sqq.
[35] Erkens 2005. 37; Erkens, F.-R. Der Herrs= cher als gotes drút. Zur Salralität des ungesalbten ostfränkisc= hen Königs. Hist. Jb. 118, 1998. 24sqq.; Wolfram, H. Intitulatio= 1. Lateinische Königs- und Fürstentitel bis zum Ende des 8. Jahrhunderts. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung, Ergänzungsband 21. Graz–Wien–Köl= n, 1967. 215sqq.
[36] Jarnut, J. Geschichte der Langobarden= . Stuttgart–Berlin–Köln–Mainz, 1982. 119.
[37] Jahn 1991. 392.
[38] Annales regni Francorum a.= 769; Annales qui dicuntur Einhardi a. 769; Annales Mettenses priores <= i>a. 769; Einhardus, Vita Karoli magni 5.
[39] Annales Admuntenses a. 772= (Ed. Wattenbach, W. MGH SS 9. Hannover, 1851.)
[40] Erkens 2005. 33sq.; Freund 2005. 75; Bec= her 2005. 41.
[41] Traditio Frisingensis Nr. 7. (Bitterauf, Th. Die Traditionen des Hochstifts Freising I–II. = Quellen und Erörterungen zur bayerischen und deutschen Geschichte. Neue Folge 4–5. München, 1905–1909.)
[42] Traditio Frisingensis Nr. 39.
[43] Traditio Frisingensis Nr. 100; 10= 6.
[44] Traditio Frisingensis Nr. 102.
[45] Traditio Frisingensis Nr. 31; 121= b
[46] Traditio Frisingensis Nr. 32; 55;= 75.
[47] Traditio Frisingensis Nr. 13; 19;= 20; 24a; 24b; 28; 33; 38; 39; 41; 44; 46; 47; 48; 49; 50; 52; 56; 59; 60; 61; 62; 63; 64; 65; 66; 70; 74; 84; 86; 90; 95; 96; 97; 98; 118.
[48] Wolfram 1967. 162; 169sqq. Cf. Erkens 20= 05. 30.
[49] Reindel 1967. 131; Wolfram 1968. 166; Ja= hn 1991. 470sq.; Freund 2005. 77; Becher 2005. 41.
[50] Abel–Simson 1969. I. 383sq.=
[51] Jahn 1991. 525.
[52] Abel–Simson 1969. I. 394sqq.
[53] Annales Petaviani a. 781 (= Ed. Pertz, G. H. MGH SS 1. Hannover, 1826.); Annales Mosellani a.= 781
[54] Annales regni Francorum a.= 781; Löwe 1937. 61sq.
[55] Annales Mettenses priores a.= i> 781
[56] Wolfram 1968. 168; Abel–Simson 196= 9. I. 397.
[57] Annales Petaviani a. 781= span>
[58] Abel–Simson 1969. I. 397.= p>
[59] Annales qui dicuntur Einhardi = a. 781
[60] Jahn 1991. 527; Becher 1993. 51–58= .
[61] Annales regni Francorum a.= 782; Annales qui dicuntur Einhardi a. 782; Szádeczky-Kardoss 1998. 269; Pohl 2005. 64.
[62] Freund 2005. 84; Becher 2005. 42.=
[63] Freund 2005. 81.
[64] Abel–Simson 1969. I. 449sqq.; Jahn= 1991. 528. (This hypothesis about the role of Arn was recently rejected by Freund 2005. 88.)
[65] Annales regni Francorum a.= 784; Abel–Simson 1969. I. 477sq.; Becher 2005. 42.
[66] Löwe 1937. 63; Classen 1983. 239; J= ahn 1991. 531.
[67] Annales Maximiani Continuatio = a. 787; Chronicon Vedastinum a. 787; Abel–Simson 1969. I. 572sqq.; Löwe 1937. 64sqq.; Wolfram 1968. 169; Wolfram, H. Arn von Salzburg und Karl der Große. in 1200 Jahre Erzbistum Salzburg. Die älteste Metropole im deutschen Sprachraum. Hrsg. v. Dopsch, H.–Kramml, P. F.–Weiß, A. S. Salzburg, 1999. 21; Freund 2= 005. 86.
[68] Annales qui dicuntur Einhardi = a. 787
[69] Annalium Tilianorum pars altera <= i>a. 787 (Ed. Pertz, G. H. MGH SS 1. Hannover, 1826.)
[70] Pohl 2005. 63sq.; Freund 2005. 86sq.
[71] Annales regni Francorum a.= 787; cf. Jahn 1991. 537.
[72] Einhardus, Vita Karoli magni 10; Abel–Simson 1969. I. 595sqq.; Bund, K. Thronsturz und Herrscherabsetzung im Frühmittelalter. Bonner Historische Forschun= gen 44. Bonn, 1979. 388sqq.
[73] Annales Laurissenses a.= i> 787 (Ed. Pertz, G. H. MGH SS 1. Hannover, 1826.); Einhardus, Vita Karoli mag= ni 11.
[74] Annales regni Francorum a.= 787
[75] Jahn 1991. 538.
[76] Annales regni Francorum a. 787 Tunc praespiciens se Tassilo ex omni parte esse circumdatum et videns, quod omnes Baioarii plus essent fideles domno rege Carolo quam ei et cognovissent iustitiam iamdicti domni regis et magis voluissent iustitiam consentire quam contrarii esse, undique constrictus Tassilo venit per semetipsum, tradens s= e in manibus domni regis Caroli in vassaticum et reddens ducatum sibi commissum a domno Pippino rege, et recredidit se in omnibus peccasse et male egisse. Tu= nc denuo renovans sacramenta et dedit obsides electos XII et tertium decimum filium suum Theodonem.; Annales Iuvavenses minores, maximi a. 78= 7; Annales Maximiani Continuatio a. 787; Abel–Simson 1969. I. 600; Wolfram 1968. 171; Kolmer 1980. 296sqq.; Jahn 1991. 538; Szádeczky-Kardoss 1998. 274; Becher 2005. 42.
[77] Wolfram 1968. 170sq.; Gauert, A. Das Zep= ter Herzog Tassilos III. Deutsches Archiv 18, 1962. 214sqq.
[78] Classen 1983. 245.
[79] Ehrenberg, V. Commendation und Huldig= ung. Weimar, 1877. 111sq.
[80] Kolmer 1980. 299; Becher 1993. 78sqq.
[81] Capitulare Missorum a. 792= vel 786 Nr. 25. 1. (Ed. Boretius, A.–Krause, V. MGH Capit. 1–2. Hannover, 1883–1897.)
[82] Capitulare Missorum a. 792= vel 786 Nr. 25. 4; Kolmer 1980. 300.
[83] Duplex Legationis Edictum a. 789 ... quia fidelis sum et ero diebus vitae meae sine fraude et malo ingenio
[84] Capitulare Missorum Generale a= . 802 Nr. 33. 2sqq.
[85] Kolmer 1980. 300; Becher 1993. 87.
[86] Annales Mettenses priores a.= i> 755
[87] Annales regni Francorum a.= 775; a. 777
[88] Kolmer 1980. 301. About the different as= pects of sacramenta see Becher 1993. 94sqq.
[89] Mitteis, H. Lehnrecht und Staatsgewal= t. Darmstadt, 1958. 48sq.; 57.
[90] Kolmer 1980. 302.
[91] Chronicon Moissiacense a. = 788 (Ed. Pertz, G. H. MGH SS 1. Hannover, 1826.)
[92] Annales regni Francorum a.= 788; cf. Krawinkel 1937. 48sq.
[93] Annales Mettenses priores a.= i> 788
[94] Abel–Simson 1969. I. 620sqq.; L&ou= ml;we 1937. 63sqq.; Kolmer 1980. 311; Wolfram 1968. 173; Wolfram 1987. 187sqq.
[95] Annales Nazariani a. 788 (= Ed. Pertz, G. H. MGH SS rer. Germ. 1. Hannover, 1826.); Jahn 1991. 541.
[96] Annales Mettenses priores a.= i> 788
[97] Einhardus, Vita Karoli magni 11; = Annales Laureshamenses a. 788 (Ed. Pertz, G. H. MGH SS 1. Hannover, 1826= .); Szádeczky-Kardoss 1998. 274sq.; Pohl, W. Die Awaren. Ein Steppenv= olk in Mitteleuropa 567–822 n. Chr. München, 1988. 314sq.; Wolfr= am 1968. 173.
[98] Löwe 1937. 67; Wolfram 1968. 172.= span>
[99] Jahn 1991. 542.
[100] Kolmer 1980. 318sq.
[101] Kolmer 1980. 325; Jahn 1991. 542.=
[102] Annales Laureshamenses a. = 788; Annales regni Francorum a. 788 Tunc domnus rex Carolus congregans syn= odum ad iamdictam villam Ingilenhaim, ibique veniens Tassilo ex iussione domni regis, sicut et ceteri vassi eius; et coeperunt fideles Baioarii dicere, qu= od Tassilo fidem suam salvam non haberet, nisi postea fraudulens apparuit, postquam filium suum dedit cum aliis obsidibus et sacramenta, suadente uxore sua Liutbergane. Quod et Tassilo denegare non potuit, sed confessus est pos= tea ad Avaros transmisisse, vassos supradicti domni regis ad se adortasse et in vitam eorum consiliasse; et homines suos, quando iurabant, iubebat, ut alit= er in mente retinerent et sub dolo iurarent; et quid magis, confessus est se dixisse, etiamsi decem filios haberet, omnes voluisset perdere, antequam placita sic manerent vel stabile permitteret, sicut iuratum habuit; et etiam dixit, melius se mortuum esse quam ita vivere. Et de haec omnia conprobatus, Franci et Baioarii, Langobardi et Saxones, vel ex omnibus provinciis, qui ad eundem synodum congregati fuerunt, reminiscentes priorum malorum eius, et quomodo domnum Pippinum regem in exercitu derelinquens et ibi, quod theodis= ca lingua harisliz dicitur, visi sunt iudicasse eundem Tassilonem ad mortem. S= ed dum omnes una voce adclamarent capitale eum ferire sententiam, iamdictus do= mnus Carolus piissimus rex motus misericordia ab amorem Dei, et quia consanguine= us eius erat, contenuit ab ipsis Dei ac suis fidelibus, ut non moriretur. Et interrogatus a iamfato clementissimo domno rege praedictus Tassilo, quid ag= ere voluisset; ille vero postolavit, ut licentiam haberet sibi tonsorandi et in monasterio introeundi et pro tantis peccatis paenitentiam agendi et ut suam salvaret animam.
[103] Abel–Simson 1969. I. 627sq.; Jahn = 1991. 543; Kolmer 1980. 314.
[104] Annales regni Francorum a.= 788; Einhardus, Vita Karoli magni 11; cf. Jahn 1991. 543.
[105] Kolmer 1980. 313.
[106] Becher 1993. 64sqq.; Becher 2005. 43sq.<= /span>
[107] Becher 1993. 66sq.; Becher 2005. 44sq.= span>
[108] Becher 1993. 67sqq.; Becher 2005. 46sqq.=
[109] Erkens 2005. 24; Lex Baiuvariorum= 3, 1. (Ed. Schwind, E. v. MGH LL nat. Germ. 5, 2. Hannover, 1926.) Dux vero praeest in populo, ille semper de genere Agilolfingarum fuit et debet esse, quia sic regni antecessores nostri concesserunt eis; qui de genere illorum fideles regi erant et prudens ipsum constituebant ducem ad regendum populum illum.
[110] Kolmer 1980. 314.
[111] Traditio Frisingensis Nr. 12= 5.
[112] Traditio Frisingensis Nr. 127 a; = Jahn 1991. 546.
[113] Einhardus, Vita Karoli magni 13; Mitterauer 8sqq.; Becher 2005. 39; Jarnut, J. Genealogie und politische Bed= eutung der agilolfingischen Herzöge. MIÖG 99, 1991. 17sq.<= /p>
[114] Lošek, F. Notitia Arnonis und Breves Notitiae. Die Salzburger Güterverzeichnisse um 800. MGSL 130, 1= 990. 80sqq.; Lošek, F. Sieben Fragen zu sieben ausgewählten lateinisch= en Denkmälern des Salzburger Frühmittelalters: Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede. in Tassilo III. von Bayern. Großmacht und Ohnmacht i= m 8. Jahrhundert. Regensburg, 2005. 126sq.; Lošek, F. Notitia Arnonis u= nd Breves Notitiae. in Quellen zur Salzburger Frühgeschichte. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 44; Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Salzburger Landeskunde, Ergänzungsband 22. Hrsg. v. Wolfram, H. Wien–München, 2006. 72sqq.
[115] Annales Iuvavenses maximi a.= i> 793; Wolfram 1987. 190; Jahn 1991. 548sq.
[116] Annales qui dicuntur Einhardi = a. 792; Annales Mosellani a. 792
[117] Concilium Francofurtense a. 794 (Ed. Werminghoff, A. MGH Conc. aevi Karolini 1. Hannover–Leipzig, 190= 6. Nr. 19.); Abel–Simson 1969. II. 63sqq.; Kolmer 1980. 326sq.; Wolfram 1987. 192; Jahn 1991. 550.
[118] Necrologium Tegernseense 156. (Ed. Baumann, F. L. MGH Necrologia 3. Berlin, 1905.); Necrologium Weltenburge= nse 382. (Ed. Baumann, F. L. MGH Necrologia 3. Berlin, 1905.) Cf. Jahn 1991. 55= 0.
[119] Lex Baiuvariorum 3, 1; cf. Kolmer 1980. 316.
[120] Lex Baiuvariorum 2, 8a Si quis= autem dux de provincia illa quem rex ordinaverit tam audax aut contumax aut levit= ate stimulatus seu protervus et elatus vel superbus atque rebellus fuerit, qui decretum regis contempserit, donatum dignitatis ipsius ducati careat, etiam insuper spe supernae contemplationis sciat se esse condempnatum et vim salu= tis amittat.
[121] Rosenstock 1928. 26sqq.
[122] Kolmer 1980. 317.
[123] Rosenstock 1928. 39.
[124] Dahn, F. Die Könige der Germanen= IX. 2. Die Baiern. Hildesheim, 1977. 55.
[125] Isidorus Hispalensis, Etymologiae sive origines 5, 26, 25. (Ed. Lindsay, W. M. Oxford, 1911.) Maiestatis re= atus tenentur hi, qui regiam maiestatem laeserunt vel violaverunt, vel qui rem publicam prodiderunt vel cum hostibus consenserunt.
[126] Annales regni Francorum a.= 801 Post paucos ... dies iussit eos, qui pontificem anno superiore deposuerunt, exhiberi; et habita de eis questione secundum legem Romanam ut maiestatis r= ei capitis dampnati sunt.
[127] Rosenstock 1928. 38sq.
[128] Annales qui dicuntur Einhardi = a. 788 Tassilo ut maiestatis reus capitali sententia damnatus est
[129] Rosenstock 1928. 39.
[130] Capitulare Italicum a. 801= Nr. 98. 3. De desertoribus. Si quis adeo contumax aut superbus extiterit, ut dimisso exercitu absque iussione vel licentia regis domum revertatur, et qu= od nos teudisca lingua dicimus herisliz fecerit, ipse ut reus maiestatis vitae periculum incurrat et res eius in fisco nostro socientur.
[131] Capitulare Missorum Aquisgranense= I. a. 810 Nr. 64. 13.
[132] Capitulare Bononiense a. 8= 11 Nr. 74. 4.
[133] Kolmer 1980. 320.
[134] Kolmer 1980. 321.
[135] Cf. Capitulare Aquitanicum a.<= /i> 768 Nr. 18. 10. Ut homines eorum legis habeant, tam Romani quam et Salic= i, et si de alia provincia advenerit, secundum legem ipsius patriae vivat.=
[136] Lex Baiuvariorum 2, 8a
[137] Kolmer 1980. 322sqq.
[138] Annales regni Francorum a.= 788 Tassilo fidem suam salvam non haberet ... postea fraudulens apparuit; Concil= ium Francofurtense a. 794 Nr. 28. 3. fraudator fidei
[139] Annales regni Francorum a.= 788; Einhardus, Vita Karoli magni 11; Annales Laureshamenses a.= 788; Szádeczky-Kardoss 1998. 274sq.; Pohl 1988. 314sq.; Wolfram 1968. 173.
[140] Kolmer 1980. 325.
[141] Becher 2005. 48sqq.
1 |