Richard Matthew POLLARD

CHARLEMAGNES POSTHUMOUS REPUTATION

AND THE VISIO WETTINI, 825-1851

The papers in this collection commemorate the 1200th anniversary of Charlemagnes death in
814. This also means it is the 1190th anniversary of the Visio Wettini, the Vision of Wetti .
Wetti was a monk at the monastery of Reichenau, who experienced an elaborate and
terrifying vision of the afterlife before his death in early November, 824. Led by an angel,
Wetti saw monks, abbots, priests, and even one prominent secular figure suffering terrible
punishments, and also saw the saints enjoying the rewards of heaven. These saints interceded
for Wetti, trying to spare him from punishment in the afterlife. Finally, Wettis angelic guide
passed along many forceful warnings that Wetti was to make known upon his return. Wetti
awoke from his vision, and before he died, blathered what he had seen to Heito, the former
abbot of Reichenau. Heito soon after wrote up an account of the vision in prose, probably in
late 824 or early 8251. This prose version was the basis for a rendering in Latin hexameters,
composed by the young Walafrid Strabo no later than 8262. Currently I am working to
complete a book which will include a new edition and translation (and commentary, and
analysis) of these two texts, but which will also consider the Visio Wettinis reception in the
Middle Ages and beyond. This paper will consider one particular element of that reception,
namely the fate of the Visio Wettinis mention of Charlemagne.
Of course, most will know the Visio Wettini primarily (or exclusively) because of its
inclusion of the Frankish emperor. In chapter 10 of the prose version (ll. 446465 in the
verse), the angel shows Wetti Charlemagne suffering an ignominious punishment. In
Walafrids version the account runs :

1
Progress on my new edition, translation, and commentary (to be completed this year) is detailed here :
<http://sites.google.com/site/visiowettini/> (16.12.2015). Previous editions include H. Knittel, Visio Wettini, 3rd
ed., Heidelberg, 2009, p. 34-63 (includes German translation) ; ed. E. Dmmler, Heitonis Visio Wettini , in
MGH. Poetae, vol. 2, Berlin, 1884, p. 267-275 ; J. Mabillon, Acta Sanctorum Ordinis S. Benedicti, vol. 4/1,
Paris, 1677, p. 263-271 [= Migne, PL , vol. 105, col. 769-780]. Only Dmmler presents a critical text, based on
a handful of manuscripts. Serviceable English translation in E. Gardiner, Visions of Heaven and Hell before
Dante, New York, 1989, p. 65-79.
2
On my new edition, translation, and commentary, see the note above. Previous editions include F. Stella,
Valafrido Strabone : la visione di Vetti, Pisa, 2009, with Italian translation ; Knittel, Visio Wettini, as n. 1, p. 66-
124, with German translation ; D. Traill, Walafrid Strabos Visio Wettini, Frankfurt am Main, 1974, with
English translation ; ed. E. Dmmler, Visio Wettini Walahfridi , in MGH. Poetae, vol. 2, as n. 1, p. 301-333 ;
Migne, PL, vol 114, col. 1063-1082. Only Dmmler presents a critical text, though Traills is based on a new
critical edition prepared for the authors doctoral dissertation (UC Berkeley, 1971).

1
 Next, looking over the fields, [Wetti] spied someone
who once ruled over Ausonia and the lofty
Roman people upright on planted feet,
and an animal set upon him, tearing at his manhood as he stood.
The parts of the rest of his body fortunately were spared this punishment.
[]
Wettis angelic guide said : In these tortures
he stands because he tainted his good deeds with
foul lust : thinking that a his indiscretions would be covered up
by a mountain of good [deeds], he wished to finish his life in his familiar
sins. Nonetheless he will seize lifes spoils,
and happily occupy the honour prepared by the Lord 3.

Nearly a thousand years afterwards, in the 1780s, Gibbon included a reference to the Visio
Wettini in his great History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, in chapter 49.
Gibbon writes, in describing Charlemagne, that

Without injustice to [Charlemagnes] fame, I may discern some blemishes in the sanctity and greatness of
the restorer of the Western empire. Of his moral virtues, chastity is not the most conspicuous. [Footnote :]
The vision of Weltin [sic], composed by a monk, eleven years after the death of Charlemagne, shows him in
purgatory, with a vulture, who is perpetually gnawing the guilty member, while the rest of his body, the
emblem of his virtues, is sound and perfect4.

Gibbon, for reasons I will explain later, has clearly distorted the Visio Wettini, for example
specifying a vulture where the animal was unnamed. More importantly, Gibbons use of the
Visio Wettinis Charlemagne passage seems to confirm what we might already think : that the
Visio Wettinis censure of Charlemagnes licentiousness was a blot on Charlemagnes
memory that was enduring and indeed almost permanent5. Indeed, Paul Dutton suggested that

3
My translation, from my forthcoming edition. The Latin text (446-450, 460-465) runs as follows :
Contemplatur item quendam lustrata per arva, / Ausoniae quondam qui regna tenebat et altae / Romanae
gentis, fixo consistere gressu, / Oppositumque animal lacerare virilia stantis / Laetaque per reliquum corpus lue
membra carebant. / [] Tum ductor : In his cruciatibus , inquit / Restat ob hoc, quoniam bona facta
ibidine turpi / Fedavit, ratus inlecebras sub mole bonorum / Absumi et vitam voluit finire suetis / Sordibus : ipse
tamen vitam captabit opinam, / Dispositum a domino gaudens invadet honorem .
4
E. Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 5, London, 1788, c. 49, p. 137, and
n. 96.
5
On the Visio Wettinis place in the larger question of Charlemagnes posthumous reputation, see also B. de
Gaiffier, La Lgende de Charlemagne : le pch de lempereur et son pardon , in Recueil de travaux offert a
M. Clovis Brunel, vol. 1, Paris, 1955 (Mmoires et documents de lcole des chartes, 12), p. 490-503.

2
Einhards Life of Charlemagne was written as a reply to the Visio Wettini above all6. As such,
we might imagine that forever after 824, anyone familiar with the Visio Wettini (whether at
first or second hand) could not help but retain a particularly nasty image of the poor departed
emperors personal failings.
The truth, however, is quite different. In this piece, I will briefly examine how the Visio
Wettini was read over the centuries after its composition, from the ninth century all the way
to the nineteenth, with particular attention to the Charlemagne passage. I will limit myself to
instances of reasonably clear and demonstrable reception, and not enter into debates about
texts that may have been indirectly or subtly influenced by the Visio Wettini, such as
Einhards Vita Karoli. Even with these constraints, what becomes clear is that while the Visio
Wettini became very popular, its discussion of Charlemagne seems to have had far less
impact than we might imagine. This supports a larger argument (that I will make elsewhere)
that we should de-emphasise the Charlemagne passage in the Visio Wettini, as to me it seems
to have become a red herring, distracting us from the larger purpose of the text. Since the
publication of Levisons Die Politik in den Jenseitsvisionen des frhen Mittelalters in
1921, scholars have focused on the political intent of the Visio Wettini7. The result has been
that most modern interpretations of the text centre on Charlemagne, and often the whole
purpose of the text seems reduced to a crude political criticism of the emperor8.

There are an impressive number of surviving manuscripts of the Visio Wettini, something that
would seem to doom poor Charlemagnes reputation for most of the Middle Ages. A few
years ago, I discovered that there were far more manuscript copies of Heitos prose Visio
Wettini than anyone had previously noted9. In total, I have now identified 63 complete or

6
P. E. Dutton, The Politics of Dreaming in the Carolingian Empire, Lincoln, 1994, esp. ch. 3, Charlemagne
and his Dream Critics , p. 50-80, liberally used by Ganz (cit. below, n. 8).
7
W. Levison, Die Politik in den Jenseitsvisionen des frhen Mittelalters , in id., Aus rheinischer und
frnkischer Frhzeit, Dsseldorf, 1948, p. 229-246 (originally published in Festgabe Friedrich von Bezold,
Bonn and Leipzig, 1921, p. 81-100).
8
See, for example, D. Ganz, Charlemagne in Hell , in Florilegium, 17, 2000, p. 175-194 ; R. Collins,
Charlemagne and his Critics , in R. Le Jan (ed.), La royaut et les lites dans lEurope carolingienne,
Villeneuve-dAscq, 1998, p. 193-211 ; R. Kay, Charlemagne in Hell , in K. Pennington and M. Eichbauer
(ed.), Law as Profession and Practice in Medieval Europe, Farnham, 2011, p. 293-325. Dinzelbachers
magisterial treatment of medieval visions seems to reduce the Visio Wettini to a Kritik an Karl dem Groen :
Vision und Visonsliteratur im Mittelalter, Stuttgart, 1981, p. 82. Even very sensitive discussions of the Visio
Wettini, like that of Mayke de Jong, seem inexorably drawn towards discussing Charlemagne : The Penitential
State, Cambridge, 2009, p. 135-141. C. Carozzi, Le voyage de lme dans lau-del daprs la littrature latine,
Rome, 1994 (Collection de lcole Franaise de Rome, 189), p. 324-341 offers perhaps the most balanced
perspective to date, but his account mostly summarises the text.
9
R. M. Pollard, Nonantola and Reichenau : a new manuscript of Heitos Visio Wettini and the foundations for
a new critical edition , in Revue bndictine, 120.2, 2010, p. 243-294, which adds considerably to the earlier
lists in C. Mller, Wettinus Guetinus Uguetinus. Ein Beitrag zur berlieferungsgeschichte von Heitos

3
fragmentary copies of Heitos prose Visio Wettini, from every century between the ninth and
the sixteenth10. Walafrids verse version, once considered the published and official
version of the text, survives in a paltry seven copies11. It is clear that Heitos prose was the
standard text read in the Middle Ages, and perhaps should become the standard version cited
by modern scholars.
The popularity of the text, however, does not mean that Charlemagnes reputation
necessarily suffered commensurably. After all, neither version of the Visio Wettini explicitly
names Charlemagne. In Heitos version, he is referred to only as a prince, who had once
held dominion over Italy and the Roman people , without being named in the text itself12.
Only the capitula to Heitos text make clear that this chapter refers to the emperor
Charles . These capitula, tidily included in the MGH edition, are in fact a later addition with
limited impact. They first appear in two later ninth century copies, but are not found in the
earliest ninth-century manuscripts, and are found only in a select few of all the 63
manuscripts13. In Walafrids considerably less popular version of the Visio Wettini,
Charlemagne is named only in acrostics, and as we will see, acrostics are not immediately
obvious, even to very astute readers. The identification with Charlemagne would have
depended on word-of-mouth and shrewd guesses. Medieval manuscripts did not have
footnotes where an editor helpfully pointed out the identity of mysterious figures, and so we
should not read our knowledge of the text into the medieval perception of it.
There are numerous texts that seem to refer to the Visio Wettini even in the ninth century
(see the appendix). Some of these must be discounted because it is uncertain whether they
postdate the Visio Wettini (e. g. the Visio cuiusdam pauperculae mulieris)14. Others can be

Visio Wettini , in A. Reinle, L. Schmugge and P. Stotz (ed.), Variorum munera florum, Sigmaringen, 1985,
p. 23-36 and E. Dmmler, Die handschriftliche berlieferung der lateinischen Dichtungen aus der Zeit der
Karolinger, II , in Neues Archiv, 4, 1879, p. 283-286.
10
Five addenda to my previous list of 59 : Novara, BC, Cod. LXI (olim 55), saec. X, f. 189r-194r (?) ; Milan,
BA, I 61 inf., f. 199r-203v, saec. XI ; Paris, BNF, nouv. acq. lat. 2389, f. 29 ; Rome, BAV, Vat. Lat. 1869, f. 95-
101 (?), saec. XII ; Paris, BNF, coll. Baluze 379, f. 12r-18v, a. 1671 (Baluzes transcription for Mabillon).
11
Dmmler, Die handschriftliche berlieferung , as n. 9, p. 270-286 ; Traill, Visio Wettini, as n. 2, p. 19-20.
Much to my consternation, I have not been able to find any more manuscript copies of Walafrids version.
12
Ed. Pollard, as n. 1 (= MGH. Poetae, vol. 2, as n. 1, p. 271, l. 9-10) : Illic etiam quendam principem qui
Italiae et populi Romani sceptra quondam rexerat uidisse.
13
Of all the MSS, I have identified only the following few that contain the capitula : Zrich, Zentralbibl., Cod.
Rh. hist. 28 (s. IX3/3) ; St Gall, Stiftsbibl., Cod. 573 (s. IX4/4) ; Brussels, BR, Cod. 10615-10729 (s. XI-XII) ; and
possibly Fulda, Hess. Landesbibl., Aa 96 (saec. XVex). I remain uncertain about the following manuscripts,
which catalogues indicate contain the preface, but without comment on capitula (most manuscripts with the
preface, however, have no capitula) : Rein, Stiftsbibl., Cod. 51 ; Heiligenkreuz, Stiftsbibl., Cod. 11 ; Lilienfeld,
Stiftsbibl., Cod. Camp. 134 ; Melk, Stiftsbibl., Cod. 388 ; Stams, Stiftsbibl., Cod. 19 ; Bruges, Bibl. publique,
Cod. 162 ; Cologne, Kirchenverband der Ev. Gemeinden, Evang. Bibl. Philipps 532 ; Bamberg, SB, Hist. 141.
14
Ed. H. Houben, Visio cuiusdam pauperculae mulieris. berlieferung und Herkunft eines
frhmittelalterlichen Visionstextes (mit Neuedition) , in Zeitschrift fr die Geschichte des Oberrheins, 124,

4
left aside here because they refer to other parts of the Visio Wettini. We are left with two
important references to the Visio Wettinis Charlemagne passage in the ninth century. Neither
of these repeat the Visio Wettinis censure of Charlemagne, nor do they even mention him at
all. Rather, these texts rework parts of the passage to make points about different people. It is
ironic that these bits of the Charlemagne passage should in fact be turned around to impugn
Charlemagnes grandfather and son.
Charles Martel is the first target, in the so-called Vision of Eucherius. Eucherius vision
was included in the conciliar letter of the council of Quierzy in 858, overseen by Hincmar of
Rheims15. It purports to be from the eighth century, but was most likely composed by
Hincmar himself16. The text recounts how bishop Eucherius of Orleans (d. 738 or 743),
occupied in prayer, was taken away to where he saw Charles Martel being tortured in the
afterlife, because of his failure to respect church property. This is convenient, as the supposed
vision is inserted to bolster an argument that church lands must remain inviolate from royal
usurpation. The description of Eucherius encountering Charles mirrors the Charlemagne
scene in Heitos Visio Wettini, whence Hincmar clearly borrows his phrasing17. When
Eucherius wonders at the fate of Charles Martel (much as Wetti wonders at the fate of
Charlemagne), the response is :

C u i [sc. Eucherio] interroganti a b a n g e l o C u i a b a n g e l o d u c t o r e suo

18
eius d u c t o r e r e s p o n s u m e s t . protinus r e s p o n s u m e s t 19.
Hincmar, Visio Eucherii Heito, Visio Wettini, c. 11

This parallel with verbal collocations not found anywhere else becomes all the more
convincing when we remember that Hincmar explicitly knew the Visio Wettini. He says as

1976, p. 31-42. There we find a number of remarkable verbal parallels with the Visio Wettini, e. g. p. 42, l. 1 :
Cumque inde pergerent, ostendit ei ductor...( Visio Wettinis, c. 6 : In qua dum pergerent, ostendit ei montes
inmensae) ; p. 41, l. 7 : Ibi etiam videbat quendam principem Italiae... ( Visio Wettini, c. 11 : Illic etiam
quendam principem, qui Italiae) ; p. 41, l. 8 : quosdam in poena, quosdam in gloria ( Visio Wettini, c. 14 :
...aliquos in gloria, quosdam eorum in poena depressos).
15
For the text, see the conciliar letter of Quierzy, ed. W. Hartmann, MGH. Concilia, vol 3, Hannover, 1984, c.
7, p. 414, l. 21-416, l. 2.
16
On the vision of Eucherius, see de Gaiffier, La lgende de Charlemagne , as n. 5, p. 493-494, n. 4 ; Dutton,
The Politics of Dreaming, as n. 6, p. 173-176 ; P. Fouracre, Carolingian Justice : the Rhetoric of Improvement
and Contexts of Abuse , in La giustizia nellalto medioevo, secoli V-VIII, Spoleto, 1995 (Settimane di studio
del Centro italiano di studi sullalto medioevo, 42), p. 771-803, at 775-776 ; Carozzi, Le voyage de lme, as n.
8, p. 354-355.
17
This seems to have been first noted by Paul Dutton : The Politics of Dreaming, as n. 6, p. 176 and n. 84, p.
306.
18
Concilium Quierzy, ed. Hartmann, as n. 15, c. 7, p. 415, l. 4.
19
Ed. Pollard, as n. 1 (= MGH. Poetae, vol. 2, as n. 1, p. 271, l. 14). Cf. also Visio Wettini, c. 8, ed. Pollard (=
MGH. Poetae, p. 270, l. 17) : Cui interroganti, quid esset, responsum est ab angelo

5
much in his Visio Bernoldi20, where he also paraphrases the Visio Wettini21. So the
description of Charlemagnes punishment in the Visio Wettini seems to have inspired
Hincmars depiction of Charles Martel, even if the great emperor goes completely unnamed
in this adaptation.
More interestingly, the Annals of Fulda use the Visio Wettinis Charlemagne passage to
criticise Louis the Pious. These annals were probably composed in the circle of bishop
Liutbert of Mainz22. In the entry for year 874, they describe Louis the German as seeing a
vision of his father (Louis the Pious), who asks his son to help him escape punishment in the
afterlife. Louis the German is said to have sent letters all throughout his kingdom, asking for
prayers for his father. The annalist then editorialises, saying that although the emperor Louis
the Pious had done many wondrous and praiseworthy things that were agreeable to God,
nevertheless he allowed many things to be done in his kingdom contrary to Gods law. This
editorialising, however, borrows words and phrases from the Visio Wettini that originally
criticised Charlemagne :

Unde datur intellegi, q u o d , q u a m v i s Cui ab angelo ductore suo protinus

memoratus imperator [Hludowicus] m u l t a
l a u d a b i l i a e t D e o placita f e c i s s e t ,
plurima t a m e n legi Dei contraria in regno
23
suo fieri permisit .
Annales Fuldenses, a. 874
responsum est, q u o d q u a m v i s m u l t a
miranda et l a u d a b i l i a e t D e o accepta
[Carolus magnus] f e c i s s e t , quorum
mercede privandus non est, t a m e n 24.
Heito, Visio Wettini, c. 11

So in the clear and identifiable instances where the Visio Wettinis Charlemagne passage is
quoted or alluded to during the ninth century, it is not as a way of criticising Charlemagne or
indeed saying anything about Charlemagne at all. Rather, authors seem to have adapted the
text to suit more pragmatic and immediate goals.

20
Hincmar of Rheims, De uisione Bernoldi (ed. M. Van Der Lugt, Tradition and Revision. The Textual
Tradition of Hincmar of Reims Visio Bernoldi with a Critical Edition , in Archivum latinitatis medii aevi, 52,
1994, p. 147, also Migne, PL, vol. 125, col. 1118C) : Ego per quosdam diuulgari haec audiens, quia ille
rediuiuus ad me uenire non potuit, praefatum presbyterum bonae intelligentiae ac bonae vitae, cui haec retulit,
ad me accersitum quae scripta sunt mihi ex ordine feci narrare. Vera illa esse credens, quia huiusmodi, et in
Libro Dialogorum sancti Gregorii et in Historia Anglorum, et in scriptis sancti Bonifacii episcopi et martyris,
sed et tempore domni Hludouuici imperatoris aetate nostra cuidam Witino uiro religioso reuelata relegi.
21
Compare Visio Wettini, c. 10, ed. Pollard, as n. 1 (= MGH. Poetae, vol. 2, as n. 1, p. 270, l. 41-42) : Vade ,
ait, ad episcopum et dic ei, quod... to Visio Bernoldi, ed. Van der Lugt, as. n. 20, p. 140, l. 23-25 (Migne, PL,
vol. 125, col. 1116D) : Vade ad Hincmarum episcopum, et dic ei, quia...
22
See Timothy Reuter, The Annals of Fulda : Ninth-century Histories, Manchester, 1992, p. 8-9.
23
Annales Fuldenses, ed. F. Kurze, Hannover, 1891 (MGH. SS rer. Germ., 7), p. 82, l. 14-17.
24
Visio Wettini, ed. Pollard, as n. 1, c. 11 (= MGH. Poetae, vol. 2, as n. 1, p. 271, l. 14-16).

6
 Hincmar and the annalist still would have recognised that the Visio Wettini was talking
about Charlemagne, in all likelihood, given their use of the passage to critique his ancestor
and progeny. This is more than can be said for later readers of the Visio Wettini, it seems. The
last reader who caught the reference to Charlemagne seems to have been Folcuin of Lobbes
(d. 990). Folcuin wrote a chronicle in about 962, and refers explicitly to the Visio Wettini
when writing about Charlemagne, noting the circumstances of his punishment in the afterlife.
He says :

I remember reading about this [Emperor Charles] in a book titled The Visions of Wetti, namely that this same
Wetti, gripped in ecstasy, was lead about by an angel. And amongst other things that were shown to him, he
saw this same king Charles standing there, healthy and most handsome in body. Only he [also] saw an
animal set upon him, tearing at his manhood as he stood there. [Wetti] was then told by the angel that
[Charles] suffered these things because of his over-eager libido on Earth, but because of his other virtuous
works, he would be soon rescued from this suffering 25.

Folcuin clearly knew that the Visio Wettini was referring to Charlemagne. It is also clear from
this passage that Folcuin knew Walafrids version specifically. For example, the phrase
lacerare animalia stantis found in his summary comes verbatim from Walafrids Visio
Wettini26. Perhaps Folcuin was clever enough to make out the acrostics present in the poem.
After this reference to the Charlemagne passage, however, there was (so far as I can tell) no
other reader who connected the Visio Wettini to Charlemagne until the late seventeenth
century. That is to say, for 700 years the Visio Wettinis Charlemagne passage was merely a
story about quendam principem and nothing more.
In my extensive search for allusions to the Visio Wettini, I have turned up 14 different
instances of it being used between 962 and 1513, the date of the editio princeps. But none of
these quotations, references, or allusions are made in connexion with Charlemagne. Most
refer to entirely different parts of the Visio Wettini, for example the texts reference to
Gerold, prefect of Bavaria, who is shown equalled to the martyrs in the afterlife for his
death fighting the Godless Avars in 79927. The only reference to the Charlemagne passage, in

25
Folcuin of Lobbes, Gesta Abbatum Sithiensium, c. 46, ed. O. Holder-Egger, in MGH. SS, vol. 13, Hannover,
1881, p. 614 : De quo [Carolo imperatore] in libro quodam qui pretitulatur Visiones Wettini legisse me
memini, quod isdem Wettinus, dum in extasi ab angelo duceretur, inter reliqua quae sibi ostendebantur, vidit
eundem regem Carolum stantem toto corpore sanum atque pulcherrimum ; solum animal quoddam oppositum
vidit lacerare virilia stantis ; dictumque est illi ab angelo, quod haec ideo pateretur, quia nimis impatiens
libidinis fuerat in saeculo ; sed, pro aliorum eius opera virtutum, cito ab hoc esset eripiendus periculo.
26
Walafrid Strabo, Visio Wettini (= MGH Poetae, vol. 2, as n. 1, p. 318, l. 449) : Oppositumque animal lacerare
virilia stantis.
27
See Sigbert of Gemblac, Chronicon and John of Viktring, Liber certarum historiarum, listed in the appendix.

7
fact, is by Guibert of Nogents On the Saints and their Relics (c. 1125), where the passage is
paraphrased, but without any indication whatsoever that Guibert knows the figure in question
is Charlemagne28.
The Visio Wettini was printed relatively early, and in several different editions, meaning
that it was even more easily available from the sixteenth century onwards. But this did not
mean that the Charlemagne passage became any less opaque to readers. The prose Visio
Wettini was first printed in Paris in 1513, by Jacques Lefvre dtaples29. Dtaples, a priest,
humanist, and theologian, included Heitos Visio Wettini in a volume of visions that included
the Shepherd of Hermas and Hildegards Scivias30. This edition contained no hint that the
Visio Wettini was referring to Charlemagne : first, it does not contain the capitula to the
work, where Charlemagne is named, nor do the (sparse) marginal notes identify the emperor.
The Visio Wettini is discussed in at least one of dtaples dedicatory epistles to the volume,
but he says nothing that would indicate he recognised the quendam principem as
Charlemagne31.
Dtaples 1513 prose text was reprinted numerous times at the end of the sixteenth and
the beginning of the seventeenth centuries, in successive editions of the Sacrae Collationes.
This was a collection of mirabilia to strengthen the Catholic faith and possibly convert
Protestants, edited by the anti-Protestant theologian Tilman Bredenbach32. But none of
Bredenbachs printings editions identifies Charlemagne in the Visio Wettini33. Twenty years

28
Guibert of Nogent, De sanctis et eorum pigneribus, 4, ed. R. B. C. Huygens, Turnhout, 1993 (Corpus
Christianorum. Continuatio mediaevalis, 127), p. 161 : Illic enim et montes et castella, inclementias aerum et
plumbeas damnatorum arcas, laceras in penis positorum tibias, quaedam loca putoribus exalantia supplicio
punitorum apparata, principis cuiusdam virilia cotidiano animalis nescio cuius morsu corrosa, pecuniarum
quoque montes, pallia et oloserica, pannos opipare textos, multifidam supellectilem iis in illo examine ad suae
perversitatis argumentum opponenda, qui libenter accipiunt munera, ut scilicet pervertant iudicia. This is a
clear summary of Heitos Visio Wettini, c. 6-11, but the principis cuiusdam goes unnamed by Guibert.
29
On dtaples see J.-F. Pernot (ed.), Jacques Lefvre Dtaples, Paris, 1995 ; S. Porrer, Jacques Lefevre
dtaples and the three Maries debates, Genve, 2009, p. 19-22 ; E. F. Rice, The Prefatory Epistles of Jacques
Lefvre dtaples, New York and London, 1972, p. XI-XXV.
30
J. L. dtaples (ed.), Liber trium virorum et trium spiritualium virginum, Paris, 1513.
31
Jacques Lefvre dtaples to Markwert von Hatstein, Kilian Westhausen, and Wolfgang von Matt, ed. Rice,
Prefatory Epistles, as n. 29, p. 315-320, at 316 : Uguetinus [= Wettinus] legitur primum canonicus
observationis regulae beati Augustini transisse ad arctiorem vitam monachorum Metensium ubi et visionem
illam terrificam et maxime a vitiis contra naturam deterentem, aedificatoriam tamen, vidit. Nec quicquam aliud
de eo legi.
32
See the preface to T. Bredenbach, Sacrae Collationes, Cologne, 1584, p. [13-14], especially [13] : Videmus
igitur eiusmodi admiranda Dei opera, esse quasdam illustres diuinae uirtutis et gloriae patefactiones sanaeque
doctrina testimonia siue obsignationes, quibus non solum increduli ad Christianam fidem amplectendam
commoueantur, uerum etiam credentes in possessione Catholicae ueritatis aduersus prophanos, impios et
haereticos magis magisque corroborentur (and see the following story about the conversion of a quasi-
Protestant to Catholicism, p. [13-14]).
33
The Charlemagne passage occurs in the first edition of the Sacrae Collationes, Cologne, 1584, p. 814-815 ;
even the marginal notes included in this edition fail to identify Charlemagne. For the other editions see the
appendix.

8
after the first edition of Bredenbachs Sacrae Collationes, Canisius printed Walafrids Visio
Wettini for the first time. Here, too, Charlemagne remains unnoticed. Walafrids acrostics
seem to have gone unremarked : there is no hint, whether in the text, notes, or elsewhere, that
the editor was aware that there were acrostics identifying the emperor and other characters in
the poem34.
The Charlemagne passage in the Visio Wettini was so divorced from its subject by the
seventeenth century that one scholar even wondered if the passage applied to pope
Innocent III. Theophile Raynaud, a noted French theologian, discussed the Visio Wettinis
Charlemagne passage in some detail in his Miscella sacra35. In defending Innocent III (1198-
1216) against the accusations of Thomas of Cantimpr, Theophile pre-empted the damaging
suggestion that the Visio Wettinis prince, who had once held dominion over Italy and the
Roman people was in fact the famous pope. Raynaud argues on various grounds that the
figure could not be Innocent III, but declines to offer any other possible identification. Since
this discussion was part of a defence of Innocents character, all that was necessary for
Raynaud was to refute the possible charge against the pope, not to positively identify the
figure in the Visio Wettini.
Certainly, long before Theophile there had been histories of France that had censured
Charlemagnes moral failings. But even in these works there is no mention of the Visio
Wettinis Charlemagne passage, even though this witness would have been invaluable (and,
as I will explore below, later would become invaluable). Estienne Pasquiers sixteenth-
century Recherches de la France is a case in point36. This history, written in a time when the
French monarchy was unstable and impotent, understandably tried to minimise the
importance of the monarchy in French history37. Pasquier attacks and undermines the mythos
surrounding the great king Charlemagne, in particular casting aspersions on his moral
character and that of his family38. He goes so far as to repeat outrageous stories that
Charlemagne engaged in necrophilia and incest. Even though Charlemagnes fate in the Visio

34
H. Canisius, Antiquae Lectionis, vol. 6, Ingolstadt, 1604, p. 588-589. Unlike in Mabillons later edition, where
the acrostics are marked typographically and also annotated with the names of the figures in question, Canisius
prints the text without highlighting the acrostics or making any mention of them.
35
T. Raynaud, Miscella Sacra, vol. 12 : Mala e bonis ecclesiae, male sive captatis sive dispensatis, Lyons,
1665, III.v.17, p. 219.
36
E. Pasquier, Recherches de la France, Paris, 1596. The first book of this work was published in 1560, and it
does not seem to have been printed in its final, revised form until 1665. See M.-M. Fragonard and F. Roudaut
(ed.), Les recherches de la France, 3 vol., Paris, 1996. On Pasquier, see esp. G. Huppert, Lide de lhistoire
parfaite, Paris, 1972, p. 31-76.
37
See R. Morrissey, Charlemagne and France, trans. C. Tiyani, Notre Dame, 2003, p. 126-132.
38
Pasquier, Recherches de la France, as n. 36, V.xvi, p. 277-278, and cf. the longer and more vituperative
section in the final revised edition of 1665 : Les recherches de la France dEstienne Pasquier (Paris),
V.xxix, p. 447-449.

9
Wettini would have supported such claims, it is not mentioned by Pasquier. Clearly Pasquier
either did not know the Visio Wettini, or did not know that the figure depicted there was
Charlemagne.
It was Jean Mabillon, who cast light into so many areas near and dear to the hearts of
medievalists, who reintroduced the world to Charlemagnes ignominious punishment in
Wettis vision39. In the fourth volume of his Acta Sanctorum Ordinis S. Benedicti (1677),
Mabillon included a new edition of the prose Visio Wettini, based on two manuscripts, and a
revised version of Canisius edition of Walafrids Visio Wettini40. In the latter, he marks out
typographically the acrostic messages left in Walafrids poem, and (in both a footnote and a
marginal note) points out to the reader that the prince being mauled on his genitals is none
other than Charlemagne41. A further footnote in the prose text affirms this identification of
the quendam principem42. Charlemagnes ignominy, long forgotten, was made public once
again : one can only sympathise with the poor emperor who seems never, ever to be left to
rest in peace.
Mabillons edition, however, was not ubiquitous after its publication, and so neither was
his identification of the emperor. A number of scholars who refer to the Visio Wettini in the
years afterward still do so through dtaples 1513 edition : for example, Zwinger in 1696,
Bessel in 1711, Fabricius in 1746, or even as late as 1837 by Delepierre43. But Mabillons re-
identification of Charlemagne did find an eager audience. The 1680s onward were a time
when French historians were turning to Charlemagne to provide a precedent for the vast
autocratic power of king Louis XIV44. As such, it is not surprising that discussions of
Charlemagne during this period try to minimise his faults. Charlemagnes reputation for
sexual immorality could not be ignored it was too well-known from earlier histories like
Pasquier but it could be condensed and explained away. The Visio Wettini, in fact, became
a shorthand for dealing with it. Where earlier histories, like that of Estienne Pasquier, had
dealt with all manner of later and apocryphal rumours in discussing Charlemagnes personal
behaviour, post-Mabillon historians could simply deal with the assertions of the Visio Wettini,

39
On Mabillon generally, see B. Barret-Kriegel, Jean Mabillon 1632-1717, Paris, 1988.
40
J. Mabillon, Acta Sanctorum Ordinis S. Benedicti, vol. 4/1, as n. 1, p. 265-271 (prose) ; p. 272-291 (verse).
41
Ibid., p. 281-282, esp. 282 note a. I have as yet found no evidence amongst surviving correspondence (etc.) as
to whether it was Mabillon or perhaps Baluze who first identified the acrostics, though it was of course Mabillon
who first published the identification.
42
Mabillon, Acta Sanctorum Ordinis S. Benedicti, vol. 4/1, as n. 1, p. 267, note a.
43
J. Zwinger, Tractatus historico-theologicus de festo corporis Christi, Basel, 1696, p. 90 ; J. Bessel, J. Bolland,
M. Goldast and J. Schminck (ed.), Eginhardus De vita et gestis Caroli Magni, Utrecht, 1711, p. 69 n. ;
J. Fabricius, Bibliotheca latina mediae et infimae aetatis, vol. 6, Hamburg, 1746, p. 809 ; O. Delepierre, Vision
de Tondalus : rcit mystique du douzime sicle, Mons, 1737 recte 1837, p. XI-XII.
44
Again, see Morrissey, Charlemagne and France, as n. 37, ch. 5, p. 152-162.

10
which was quite close in time to Charlemagne himself. Geraud de Cordemoy, in his 1685
Histoire de France, doubts the reliability of a vision seen by someone so sick, and argues that
even if it were completely true, it proves that Charlemagnes incontinence was not too
serious, because he would eventually be saved from it. Any truly serious fault would have
resulted in eternal damnation45. Fleury, in his Histoire ecclsiastique of 1704, makes a similar
argument, seeing the Visio Wettini as proof that Charlemagnes sexual sins were not
unnatural as sometimes reputed (for example, adultery or necrophilia), but rather of a slight
nature that required only purgation46. Michel Flibiens 1706 Histoire de labbaye royale de
Saint-Denys goes even further, and attacks the Visio Wettini wholesale as la prtendu
vision de Gutin 47. Perhaps prompted by such criticisms, Mabillon in 1704 defended the
authenticity of the Visio Wettini in his Annales Ordinis S. Benedicti48. The desire to defend
Charlemagne in this period may also have led to the omission of the passage from summaries
of the Visio Wettini. Louis Bulteaus Abrg de lhistoire de lOrdre de S. Benoist (1684), for
example, offers a very detailed two-page description of the vision, culled explicitly from
Mabillons edition. Charlemagnes appearance, however, is conspicuously omitted49.
The French historians of the eighteenth century were ambivalent toward Charlemagne :
amidst the bitter politics of the pre-Revolutionary period, some saw him as a symbol of
everything wrong with the monarchy, while others defended him as an example to be
imitated50. In the former case, the witness of the Visio Wettini could be used to once again
undermine the poor emperors reputation. De La Brure in his 1745 Histoire du rgne de
Charlemagne, mocks those (like de Cordemoy) who would try to explain away the Visio
Wettini to justify Charlemagnes incontinence. He still admits, however, that the
emperors misbehaviour was not considered particularly important by his contemporaries,
given Einhards more staid account of Charlemagnes private life51. Later eighteenth-century
discussions of Charlemagne also mention the Visio Wettini, but this was often only at second
or third hand. Gaillard was one of Charlemagnes defenders, and cites the Visio Wettini as

45
G. de Cordemoy, Histoire de France, vol. 1, Paris, 1685, p. 655-657.
46
C. Fleury, Histoire ecclsiastique, vol. 10, Paris, 1704, p. 255-257.
47
M. Felibien, Histoire de labbaye royale de Saint-Denys en France, Paris, 1706, p. 65-66.
48
J. Mabillon, Annales Ordinis S. Benedicti, vol. 2, Paris, 1704, esp. p. 492-493 : Omnes eiusmodi visiones, ut
verbo usitato loquar, conscriptae videntur ad mores hominum componendos. Quasdam veras esse, nec omnino
confictas haud dubito, qualis fuit haec Wetini, ab Hettone, viro gravi, primum mandata litteris.
49
L. Bulteau, Abreg de lhistoire de lordre de S. Benoist, vol. 2, Paris, 1684, p. 726-729, where the
Charlemagne passage is completely skipped over at p. 728, l. 6.
50
See Morrissey, Charlemagne and France, as n. 37, ch. 6, p. 188-249.
51
C.-A. L. de La Brure, Histoire du rgne de Charlemagne, vol. 2, Paris, 1745, p. 245-247.

11
proof that Charlemagnes sins were limited to incontinence52. Gaillards knowledge of the
Visio Wettini, however, seems to be indirect, based only on De La Brures earlier discussion.
Note the many parallels between the two :

L a v i s i o n d e We t i n est une pice L a Vi s i o n d e We t i n , Ouvrage

compose en 825, onze ans aprs
l a m o r t d e Charles, et quoiquil ne faille
pas prendre la lettre tout ce qui y est, elle
prouve au moins q u e l l e i d e o n a v o i t
d e ce Prince : au reste ce nest point une
satyre, o n y r e n d j u s t i c e a u x v e r t u s
et aux grandes qualits de Charles, on ne lui
reproche que l i n c o n t i n e n c e .
De La Brure, p. 246
compos en 825, onze ans
a p r s l a m o r t d e ce Prince, fait voir
q u e l l e i d e o n en a v o i t d e son
temps. O n y r e n d j u s t i c e a u x
grandes v e r t u s de Charlemagne, on y
rend hommage sa gloire, on y vante son
zle pour la Religion ; on ne lattaque
enfin que sur un seul point,
lincontinence.
Gaillard, p. 347

Gibbons own lukewarm section on Charlemagne includes his strange mutation of the Visio
Wettini that I mentioned above. The inaccuracies and distortions in it are due to Gibbons
reliance on Gaillard for knowledge of the Visio Wettini (and many other Carolingian things
besides)53. Gaillard was in turn relying on De La Brure meaning that Gibbons version of
the Visio Wettinis Charlemagne passage had to come from Latin, to French, then to another
French author, before being converted into English. But at least Gibbon mentions it. Voltaire,
one of Charlemagnes most vigorous detractors, again accuses the emperor of incest with his
daughters. He fails, however, to make any specific reference to the Visio Wettini54.
So the Visio Wettinis Charlemagne passage was frequently cited, but less often read in the
eighteenth century. It was also far from only section of the Visio Wettini that was read and
used in the (early) modern period. Like in the later part of the Middle Ages, the Visio
Wettinis description of Gerolds eternal rewards seems to have been at least as popular in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. This is particularly so in regional histories such as
Mark Velsers Rerum Boicarum, where a detailed discussion of Gerold includes a complete

52
G.-H. Gaillard, Histoire de Charlemagne, vol. 2, Paris, 1782, p. 346-348.
53
Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 5, as n. 4, p. 137, n. 96, who after his
mention of the so-called Vision of Weltin cites Gaillard, tom. ii, p. 317-360 . On Gibbons treatment of
the Carolingians, and his use of Gaillard (including for the Visio Wettini), see R. McKitterick, Gibbon and the
early Middle Ages in eighteenth-century Europe , in ead. and R. Quinault (ed.), Edward Gibbon and Empire,
Cambridge, 1997, p. 162-189, esp. 167-169.
54
Voltaire, Abrg de lhistoire universelle depuis Charlemagne, vol. 1, The Hague and Berlin, 1754, p. 85-86.

12
quotation of the prose Visio Wettinis chapter on the Bavarian prefect55. Ironically, a major
1711 edition of Einhards Vita Karoli (by Bessel, Bolland, Goldast and Schminck) where
we would expect to find the Charlemagne passage above all mentions the Visio Wettini only
once in its commentary : to explain the reference to Gerold in c. 13 of the Vita Karoli56. Other
writers who used the Visio Wettini in this period focused on its abundant ecclesiastical
content, the main concern of the text : it provided, for example, a strong witness to the
efficacy of prayers for the dead, or about the behaviour of the clergy in the Carolingian
period57.
In the nineteenth century, the story of the Charlemagne passage becomes far more difficult
to follow. Mabillons less than influential edition was reprinted in Mignes Patrologia Latina
in 1851, and from there found its way into innumerable publications. In that same year,
however, was published one of the most lively discussions of the Visio Wettini to date, by the
esteemed English Francis Palgrave58. In his History of Normandy and England, Palgrave
included the Visio Wettini in his discussion of Charlemagnes personal behaviour, as many
others before him had. Unlike others, however, he also used it to craft a detailed exposition
on larger questions of intercessory prayer, visions of the afterlife, and the concept of
purgation. He also, unlike his eighteenth-century predecessors, actually read the Visio
Wettini, in both versions, and provides an excellent summary of the contents (not just of the
Charlemagne passage). In concluding, he quotes Walafrids version of the infamous section,
with a pleasing preface : Consider it as an impression from an ancient block-engraving, the
very reality itself, and therefore essentially better than the best facsimile59.
My brief history of how the Visio Wettinis Charlemagne passage was read for a thousand
years should serve as a warning that we should not assume that readers focused on the
Charlemagne passage as we do, nor understood that passage as we do. In the beginning, it
was not quoted to talk about or demean Charlemagne, but rather mutated to criticise other
figures. After the tenth century, it became entirely dissociated from Charlemagne until the

55
M. Velser, Rerum Boicarum, ed. J. Lippert, book 6, Augsburg, 1777, p. 396, and see the preface for
explanation of how this work was written c. 1605, but not published until 1777. Velser seems to quote c. 27 of
the Visio Wettini from a manuscript : he offers De Geroldo etiam (= nearly all MSS) rather than De Geroldo
vero found in both the 1513 and 1677 editions. Velser also has the end of the chapter as aeternae vitae particeps
est factus, a reading found in the 1513 edition, but amongst the manuscripts this matches only Dsseldorf ULB
B49 (s. XII, Altenberg), f. 133r. But Velser probably did not use this manuscript : it lacks chapter numbers,
while Velser knew that the Gerold appeared in the 27th chapter of the Visio Wettini.
56
Bessel, Bolland, Goldast and Schminck (ed.), Eginhardus, as n. 43, p. 69 n. This is probably because Bolland
was only aware of the 1513 edition ; see above, at n. 43.
57
See the works listed in the appendix.
58
F. Palgrave, The history of Normandy and of England till 1101, vol. 1, London, 1851, p. 159-166, 725.
Palgrave uses the Visio Wettini in both Latin versions from Mabillons 1677 edition.
59
Palgrave, The history of Normandy, as n. 58, p. 166.

13
late seventeenth century. And thereafter, while it found its way into many histories of the
great man, its witness was rarely read directly, or sensitively understood, and its popularity
was eclipsed by other sections of the Visio Wettini. After all, the Charlemagne passage takes
up less than four percent of the text of the Visio Wettini60, and it is easy to make an argument
that the text originally had much bigger priorities than just criticising Charles61. Indeed, if
that was its intention, then the text failed miserably for most of its existence.

60
Using figures from the MGH edition, the Charlemagne passage is 125 of about 3345 words in the prose
(3.7%), or 191 of about 6300 words in the verse (3%).
61
For my much longer arguments on this, see the introduction to my forthcoming edition of the Visio Wettini.
An early version of my arguments was presented at the UBC Department of History, Sept. 19 th 2013, and at
Memorial University of Newfoundland, Feb. 25th 2014.

14
 Appendix
Incomplete List of the Visio Wettinis Reception, c. 825-1851 (omitting manuscript
witnesses or library catalogues)

Date Source Comment

c. 825 ? Visio cuiusdam pauperculae mulieris, ed. Houben, as n. Heito, Visio Wettini
14, p. 41, l. 7-8 ; p. 42, l. 1. (HVW), c. 6, 11, 14.
c. 840 Astronomer, Vita Hludovici, ed. E. Tremp, Hannover, (?) HVW, c. 7.
1995 (MGH. SS rer. Germ., 64), p. 538, l. 7.
c. 858 Hincmar, Visio Eucherii , ed. W. Hartmann, in MGH. HVW, c. 11 (cf.
Conc., vol. 3, Hannover, 1984, cap. 7, p. 415, l. 4. c. 8).
c. 870 Rimbert, Vita Anskarii, ed. G. Waitz, Hannover, 1884, (?) HVW, c. 11 ;
(MGH. SS rer. Germ., 55), p. 21, l. 20 ; p. 24, l. 33. c. 5.
c. 875 Annales Fuldenses, a. 874, ed. Kurze, as n. 23, p. 82, l. HVW, c. 11.
14-17.
c. 877 Hincmar, Visio Bernoldi , ed. Van der Lugt, as n. 20, HVW, c. 10.
p. 140, l. 23 ; p. 147.
c. 906 Regino of Prm, Chronicon, a. 799, ed. F. Kurze, HVW, c. 27.
Hannover, 1890 (MGH. SS rer. Germ., 50), p. 61.
c. 962 Folcuin, Gesta Abbatum Sithiensium , c. 46, ed. Walafrid, Visio
Holder-Egger, as n. 25, p. 614. Wettini (WVW), 446-
465.
c. 1020 Collectio canonum in V libris (BAV Lat. 1339), II.74, ed. HVW, c. 19.
M. Fornasari, Turnhout, 1970 (Corpus Christianorum.
Continuatio Mediaevalis, 6), p. 223.
c. 1050 Hermann of Reichenau, Chronicon , a. 824, ed. G. H. HVW / WVW.
Pertz, in MGH. SS, vol. 5, Hannover, 1844, p. 103.
c. 1065 Othlo of St Emmeram, Libellus proverbiorum, ed. G. C. HVW, c. 21.
Korfmacher, Loyola, 1936, c. 3, n. 44, p. 13.
1111 Sigbert of Gemblac, Chronicon , a. 800, ed. L. HVW, c. 27.
Bethmann, in MGH. SS, vol. 6, Hannover, 1844, p. 336.
c. 1125 Guibert of Nogent, De sanctis et eorum pigneribus, ed. HVW, c. 6-11.
R. B. C. Huygens, Turnhout, 1993 (Corpus

15
 Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis, 127), p. 161.
1140 Chronicle of St. Maixent, ed. J. Verdon, Paris, 1979, p. Includes all of HVW.
12-38.
c. 1145 Peter the Venerable, De Miraculis, I.8, ed. Migne, PL, HVW, c. 2.
vol. 178, col. 869C-70A.
pre 1147 Gerric of Igny, Sermo in natiuitate sancti Iohannis HVW, c. 22.
Baptistae, IV, ed. J. Morson and H. Costello, Paris, 1973
(Sources Chrtiennes, 202), p. 358.
c. 1150 Hildegard of Bingen, Scivias, III.iv, ed. A. Fhrktter HVW, c. 15.
and A. Carlevaris, Turnhout, 1978 (Corpus
Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis, 43 A), p. 390,
l. 47-53.
c. 1170 Hildegard of Bingen, Liber divinorum operum, II.i.6, ed. HVW, c. 10.
A. Derolez and P. Dronke, Turnhout, 1996 (Corpus
Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis, 92), p. 272,
l. 30-34.
c. 1209 Arnold of Lbeck, Chronica Slavorum, a. 1209, ed. M. HVW, c. 28.
Lappenberg, Hannover, 1868 (MGH. SS rer. Germ., 14),
p. 290.
c. 1215 Conrad of Eberbach, Exordium Magnum Cisterciense, HVW c. 4, 7, 2.
II.22-28, III.11, V.6, ed. B. Griesser, Turnhout, 1994
(Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis, 138).
c. 1230 Caesarius of Heisterbach, Dialogus miraculorum, II.19, HVW, c. 10, etc.
V.44, VII.4, XII.12, ed. J. Strange, Cologne, Bonn and
Brussels, 1851, vol. 1, p. 89, 330, vol. 2, p. 5, 325 ; ed.
N. Nsges and H. Schneider, 5 vol., Turnhout, 2009
(Fontes Christiani, 86), vol. 1, p. 436-438, vol. 3, p.
1104-1108, 1288, vol. 5, p. 2204.
c. 1343 John of Viktring, Liber certarum historiarum, c. 4, ed. F. HVW, c. 27.
Schneider, vol. 1, Hannover and Leipzig, 1909 (MGH.
SS rer. Germ., 36), p. 14.
1513 J. Lefvre dtaples, Liber trium virorum et trium Editio princeps of
spiritualium virginum, Paris, 1513, f. 17-19. HVW.

16
1562 Antoine de Mouchy, De observanda missarum HVW, c. 10.
celebratione, Paris, 1562, f. 85r.
1584 T. Bredenbach, Collationum Sacrarum Libri VIII, Reprints dtaples
Cologne, 1584, p. 807-824. (1513).
15912 Ibid., Cologne, 1591, p. 258-275. 1584
15923 Ibid., Cologne, 1592, p. 970-988. 1584
1595 A. Wion, Lignum Vitae, vol. 2, Venice, 1595, p. 468. Brief notice of
HVW ; no
Charlemagne.
4
1599 T. Bredenbach, Collationum Sacrarum, Cologne, 1599, 1584
p. 861-876.
16005 Ibid., Cologne, 1600, p. 861-876. 1584
1604 M. Rader, Viridarium Sanctorum, Augsburg, 1604, p. 43. Reference to HVW ;
no Charlemagne.
1604 H. Canisius, Antiquae Lectionis, vol. 6, Ingolstadt, 1604, Editio princeps of
p. 575-604. WVW.
1605 (c.) M. Velser, Rerum Boicarum, Bk. 6, ed. J. K. von Lippert, Cites HVW, c. 27
Augsburg, 1777, p. 396. from manuscript (?).
1608 A. Possevinus, Apparatus Sacri, vol. 2, Cologne, 1608, Brief notice of
p. 520. HVW ; no
Charlemagne.
16096 T. Bredenbach, Collationum Sacrarum, Cologne, 1609, 1584
p. 861-876.
1615 M. Rader, Bavaria Sancta, vol. 1, Munich, 1615, f. 76v. HVW, c. 27, via
Velser.
1630 (c.) J. Egon, De Viris Illustribus monasterii Augiae maioris, Biography of Wetti,
ed. K. L. R. Preisendanz, Die Handschriften der cites WVW.
Landesbibliothek Karlsruhe, vol. 7/3, Wiesbaden, 1973,
p. 220-222.
1657 K. von Barth, Gulielmi Britonis Aremorici Philippidos WVW, 453-454,
libri duodecim, Zwickau, 1657, p. 595. i. e. the Charlemagne
section (who goes
unnoticed).

17
1662 J. Adlzreitter, Boicae Gentis Annalium, vol. 1, Munich, HVW, c. 27, via
1662, p. 202. Rader ?
1665 Th. Raynaudus, Miscella sacra, vol. 12, Lyons, 1665, HVW, c. 11 ; no
p. 219. Charlemagne.
1676 Ch. Lecointe, Annales ecclesiastici Francorum, vol. 6, HVW, c. 27, via
Paris, 1676, p. 698. Adlzreitter / Velser.
1677 Mabillon, Acta Sanctorum Ordinis S. Benedicti, vol. 4/1, First identification of
as n. 1, Paris, 1677, p. 265-271 (HVW) ; p. 272-291 Charlemagne in VW
(WVW). since Folcuin.
1677 Maxima bibliotheca veterum patrum, vol. 15, Lyons, Reprints Canisius ed.
1677, p. 212-218. of WVW.
1678 Ch. Lecointe, Annales ecclesiastici Francorum, vol. 7, Discussion of VW
Paris, 1678, p. 733-735. (incl. Charlemagne)
using Mabillon.
1680 . Baluze, Capitularia regum Francorum, vol. 2, Paris, HVW, c. 7, 25, 19.
1680, col. 1244.
1681 J.-L. Schnleben, Carniolia antiqua et nova, sive inclyti HVW, c. 27, via
ducatus Carnioliae annales sacro, vol. 1, Ljubljana, Rader.
1681, p. 392.
1684 L. Bulteau, Abrg de lhistoire de lOrdre de S. Benoist, Summary of VW,
vol. 2, Paris,1684, p. 726-729. using Mabillon ; no
Charlemagne.
1685 G. de Cordemoy, Histoire de France, vol. 1, Paris, 1685, HVW, c. 11, and
p. 655-657. WVW.
1696 J. Zwinger, Tractatus historico-theologicus de festo HVW, c. 6-7, from
corporis Christi, Basel, 1696, p. 90. 1513 edition.
1704 Mabillon, Annales Ordinis S. Benedicti, vol. 2, as n. 2, Summary of VW,
esp. p. 492-493. with brief note of
Charlemagne.
1704 Fleury, Histoire ecclsiastique, as n. 46, p. 255-257. Discussion of VW
(incl. Charlemagne)
using Mabillon.
1706 Michel Flibien, Histoire de labbaye royale de Saint- Discussion of

18
 Denys en France, Paris, 1706, p. 65-66. Charlemagne
passage.
1706 N.-J. Poisson, Delectus actorum ecclesiae universalis, HVW, c. 25.
Lyons, 1706, p. 480.
1711 Bessel, Bolland, Goldast and Schminck, Eginhardus, as HVW, c. 27, using
n. 43, p. 69 n. 1513 edition.
1725 J. Basnage, Thesaurus monumentorum ecclesiasticorum WVW, reprints
sive Henrici Canisii lectiones antiquae, vol. 2/2, Mabillon.
Amsterdam and Antwerp, 1725, p. 204-220 : Walafrid.
1726 P. Rival, Dissertations historiques et critiques sur divers Discussion of
sujets, vol. 2, Amsterdam, 1726, p. 51-60. Charlemagne
passage, via Fleury.
17352 Mabillon, Acta Sanctorum Ordinis S. Benedicti, vol. 4/1,
as n. 1, Venice, 1735, p. 249-257 (HVW) ; p. 257-276
(WVW).
1736 K. L. von Pllnitz, Amusemens des eaux dAix-la- Strange discussion of
Chapelle, Amsterdam, 1736, p. 238. Charlemagne
passage, via Fleury.
1741 A. Calmet, Histoire universelle, sacre et profane depuis Discussion of VW
le commencement du monde, vol. 7, Strasbourg, 1741, p. (incl. Charlemagne)
381. using Mabillon.
1744 M. Bouquet, Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la WVW, 446-465.
France, vol. 5, Paris, 1744, p. 399-400. (Charlemagne) ; 802-
826 (Gerold).
1745 De La Brure, Histoire du rgne de Charlemagne, vol. 2, Discussion of
as n. 51, p. 245-247. Charlemagne
passage.
1746 J. A. Fabricius, Bibliotheca latina mediae et infimae Discussion of Wettis
aetatis, vol. 6, Hamburg, 1746, p. 809. biography and vision,
using 1513 edition.
1752 R. Ceillier, Histoire gnrale des auteurs sacrs et Discussion of VW
ecclsiastiques, vol. 18, Paris, 1752, p. 459-460. (incl. Charlemagne).
1757 S. Calles, Annales ecclesiastici Germaniae, vol. 3, Discussion of VW

19
 Vienna, 1757, p. 169-170. (no Charlemagne).
1770 (c.) Histoire de lAcadmie Royale des Inscriptions et Belles- Discussion of VW
Lettres ..., vol. 36, Paris, c. 1770, p. 207-208. (incl. Charlemagne).
1776 M. Gerbert, Vetus liturgia alemannica, part 3, Freiburg, HVW, c. 9.
1776, p. 1029.
1781 H. Venema, Institutiones historiae ecclesiae Veteris et Cites HVW and
Novi Testamenti, vol. 5, Leiden, 1781, p. 484. WVW on clerical
corruption (no
Charlemagne).
1782 G. H. Gaillard, Histoire de Charlemagne, vol. 2, Paris, Discussion of
1782, p. 346-348. Charlemagne
passage, via de La
Brure.
1788 E. Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Discussion of
Roman Empire, vol. 5, London, 1788, c. 49, p. 137, and Charlemagne
n. 96. passage, via Gaillard.
1804 Ch.-J. Panckoucke, Encyclopdie mthodique : Histoire. Discussion of
Supplment, vol. 6, Paris, 1804, p. 23. Charlemagne
passage.
1806 Ij. van Hamelsveld, Algemeene kerkelijke Geschiedenis Discussion of VW
der Christenen, vol. 13, Haarlem, 1806, p. 76. (incl. Charlemagne).
1806 J. von Mller, Der Geschichten schweizerischer Discussion of Heito
Eidgenossenschaft Erstes Buch, Leipzig, 1806, p. 194. includes note of VW
(incl. Charlemagne).
1807 H. Card, The Reign of Charlemagne, London, 1807, p. Discussion of
36-38. Charlemagne
passage, via Gaillard
/ Fleury.
1837 (not O. Delepierre, Vision de Tondalus , Mons, 1837, p. XI- Discussion of VW
1737) XII. (no Charlemagne).
1839 J. L. Ideler, Leben und Wandel Karls des Groen, Discussion of
Hamburg and Gotha, 1839, p. 220-221. Charlemagne
passage.

20
1851 L. Clouet, Histoire ecclsiastique de la province de Discussion of
Trves, vol. 2, Verdun, 1851, p. 451-452. Charlemagne
passage.
1851 F. Palgrave, The history of Normandy and of England till Excellent discussion
1101, vol. 1, London, 1851, p. 159-166. of Charlemagne
passage.
1851 Migne, PL, vol. 105, col. 769-780 (HVW) ; vol. 114, col. Reprints Basnage and
1852 10631082 (WVW). Mabillon.

21