07-01-2011, 02:23 AM
Hello,
the official intitulatio was, in toto, Karolus serenissimus Augustus a Deo coronatus magnus pacificus imperator Romanum gubernans imperium, qui et per misericordiam dei rex Francorum atque Langobardorum (Karl, the most serene Emperor, crowned by God, the great peace-bringing imperator, who is by the grace of God the King of the Franks and Lombards).
This is for the most part as official Roman imperial intitulatio as there was anno 801, as far as Latin goes. The only genuinely new part was the misericordiam dei added to the King’s title. All the other parts were contemporarily applied to the Roman emperor in (Latin speaking) Italy. Moreover, most of them originate from Ravenna, and are probably derived from contemporary Greek usage.
The point often missed is that basileus Romaion ( =imperator Romanorum; btw I am not going for a transcription of βασιλεύς reflecting modern Greek!) is hardly used in the Eastern Roman Empire before Charlemagne’s ascension. Less than a handful bits and bytes can be found… It was not a part of the official intitulatio at that time. The liber pontificales thus referred to Charlemagne as imperator Romanorum in a most broad, general meaning, without provoking any trouble. Or so they thought back then:
Just after Charlemagne used the traditional Roman titles, and just after he was accepted to do so by the Eastern Roman Emperor, the latter choose to emphazise the Romaion/Romanorum part. The reasons should be obvious… However I should add that they also may have been reacting to the pope’s habit of calling the Frankish Kings patricius Romanorum
Later Western Roman Emperors had little worries using the imperator Romanorum title when they were in opposition to the East, Otto I e.g. did that. Pope John XIII went even further by calling Nikephorus imperator Graecorum, emperor of the Greeks. It seems the WRE were perfectly comfortable with that from the late 10th century onward.
Imo, it does not. Even if we are to ignore that it is a highly awkward face-saving ploy by the impotent ER Emperor, who would have loved to smack down the usurper hard but could not, the important part is the imperium.
Charlemagne made one problem Byzantium had more than obvious; the universal claim of the emperor was nothing but a farce. Playing in-group/out-group by suddenly monopolizing Roman-ness served masking the withdrawal from the universal claim. The WRE had no such problems, their imperium continued to include many nations, as it was with the old empire.
What I am asking myself is why one should care about what the ERE is doing… Since when did the eastern Emperor had the right to appoint the Western one? I for one cannot but to smile about a big irony: in the years between 535 and 800 the eastern Empire had first ravaged the west and then effectively abandoned it - both of which directly led to the steep rise of the Franks. What goes around comes around.
the official intitulatio was, in toto, Karolus serenissimus Augustus a Deo coronatus magnus pacificus imperator Romanum gubernans imperium, qui et per misericordiam dei rex Francorum atque Langobardorum (Karl, the most serene Emperor, crowned by God, the great peace-bringing imperator, who is by the grace of God the King of the Franks and Lombards).
This is for the most part as official Roman imperial intitulatio as there was anno 801, as far as Latin goes. The only genuinely new part was the misericordiam dei added to the King’s title. All the other parts were contemporarily applied to the Roman emperor in (Latin speaking) Italy. Moreover, most of them originate from Ravenna, and are probably derived from contemporary Greek usage.
The point often missed is that basileus Romaion ( =imperator Romanorum; btw I am not going for a transcription of βασιλεύς reflecting modern Greek!) is hardly used in the Eastern Roman Empire before Charlemagne’s ascension. Less than a handful bits and bytes can be found… It was not a part of the official intitulatio at that time. The liber pontificales thus referred to Charlemagne as imperator Romanorum in a most broad, general meaning, without provoking any trouble. Or so they thought back then:
Just after Charlemagne used the traditional Roman titles, and just after he was accepted to do so by the Eastern Roman Emperor, the latter choose to emphazise the Romaion/Romanorum part. The reasons should be obvious… However I should add that they also may have been reacting to the pope’s habit of calling the Frankish Kings patricius Romanorum
Later Western Roman Emperors had little worries using the imperator Romanorum title when they were in opposition to the East, Otto I e.g. did that. Pope John XIII went even further by calling Nikephorus imperator Graecorum, emperor of the Greeks. It seems the WRE were perfectly comfortable with that from the late 10th century onward.
Quote:This is interesting. If he was recognised as Emperor, but not Emperor of the Romans, this seems to imply a divorce between the title and the Roman res publica.
Imo, it does not. Even if we are to ignore that it is a highly awkward face-saving ploy by the impotent ER Emperor, who would have loved to smack down the usurper hard but could not, the important part is the imperium.
Charlemagne made one problem Byzantium had more than obvious; the universal claim of the emperor was nothing but a farce. Playing in-group/out-group by suddenly monopolizing Roman-ness served masking the withdrawal from the universal claim. The WRE had no such problems, their imperium continued to include many nations, as it was with the old empire.
What I am asking myself is why one should care about what the ERE is doing… Since when did the eastern Emperor had the right to appoint the Western one? I for one cannot but to smile about a big irony: in the years between 535 and 800 the eastern Empire had first ravaged the west and then effectively abandoned it - both of which directly led to the steep rise of the Franks. What goes around comes around.
------------
![[Image: regnumhesperium.png]](http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/3673/regnumhesperium.png)
