DOI 10.

1515/bz-2015-0008 BZ 2015; 108(1): 157–168

Predrag Komatina

The “king of Francia” in De cerimoniis

II, 48
Abstract: In what is known as the List of addresses to the foreign rulers of De cer-
imoniis aulae Byzantinae (II, 48) by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (913 – 959),
there is an address to a ruler called “king of Francia”. This paper is devoted to an
attempt to find the answer to the question of who this “king of Francia” might
have been. Judging from the fact that in that address both the Roman emperors
and the ruler it concerns are given very exalted epithets, the address to the “king
of Francia” designates a ruler who was, for various reasons, considered by the
imperial chancery more distinguished and more important than other rulers of
Western Europe. Current opinion holds that the ruler in question was Otto I
and that the address reflects the then prevailing view in Constantinople of
Otto as the most serious candidate for the crown of the Western Empire. Accord-
ing to the research of Constantine Zuckerman, the List of addresses, along with
other “diplomatic chapters” of the Book of Ceremonies, was composed in 946. In
September 944 the marriage was concluded between Romanus II, the son of Con-
stantine VII Porphyrogenitus, and Bertha, natural daughter of Hugh, then king of
Italy. Describing that event, contemporary Byzantine writers refer to Hugh as the
“king of Francia”. This paper examines the possibility of linking this “king of
Francia” with the one in the List of addresses, on the basis of information con-
cerning King Hugh in another work by emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus
– De administrando imperio.

Adresse: Predrag Komatina, Institute for Byzantine Studies of the Serbian Academy of
Sciences, Belgrade; pedjakomatina@gmail.com

In what is known as the List of addresses to foreign rulers of De cerimoniis aulae

Byzantinae (II, 48) by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (913 – 959), there is a pas-
sage which contains addresses to the rulers of those Western European countries

The paper contains part of the results of the work on the Project “Tradition, Innovation and
Identity in the Byzantine World” (no. ), supported by the Ministry of Education, Science
and Technological Development of the Government of the Republic of Serbia. Special thanks to
Prof. Miloš Antonović of the University of Belgrade – Faculty of Philosophy, Department of
History, for his generous help.

Authenticated | pedjakomatina@gmail.com author's copy

Download Date | 7/27/15 5:02 PM
158 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 108/1, 2015: I. Abteilung

that were in the political orbit of the former Frankish Empire. In that passage the
following is stated:

To the king of Saxony, king of Bavaria (that is the country which is called Nemitzoi), king of
Gaul, king of Germania. Inscription to all of them: In the name of the Father and the Son
and the Holy Ghost, the One and the Only True God of ours, Constantine and Romanus,
faithful to the same God Emperors of the Romans, to the most respected spiritual brother,
the most distinguished king (τὸν πεποθημένον πνευματικὸν ἀδελφὸν τὸν περίβλεπτον
ῥῆγα).¹

However, besides that passage which clearly deals with the territory of the Frank-
ish political sphere, the same List of addresses contains another address to a
ruler of the same area, who is explicitly called king of Francia. That address
reads as followes:

To the king of Francia (εἰς τὸν ῥῆγα Φραγγίας). Golden bull. In the name of the Father and
the Son and the Holy Ghost, the One and the Only True God of ours, Constantine and Ro-
manus, faithful to the same God sublime augusti, autocrats, great Emperors of the Romans,
to the beloved, the most respected and spiritual brother of ours (name), the most noble and
the most distinguished king of Francia (τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ, πεποθημένῳ καὶ πνευματικῷ ἡμῶν
ἀδελφῷ ὁ δεῖνα τῷ εὐγενεστάτῳ περιβλέπτῳ ῥηγὶ Φραγγίας).²

We will concentrate our attention on this last address and devote this paper to an
attempt to find the answer to the question of who this king of Francia might have
been. What is clear at first sight is that, judging from the fact that it is detached
from the passage concerning other rulers of the Frankish political orbit and that
in it both the Roman emperors and the ruler it concerns are given far more ex-
alted epithets, the address to the king of Francia designates the ruler who was,
for various reasons, considered by the imperial chancery to be more distinguish-
ed and more important than other rulers of Western Europe.³ Researchers have
tended to identify that ruler, that king of Francia, at first with the duke of the Ger-

 De cerimoniis II,  (Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, De cerimoniis aulae byzantinae, ed. J.J.

Reiske. Bonnae ) . –  (all translations are mine except where otherwise noted); this
passage is preceded by the one concerning the pope of Rome, ibid. . – ., and followed
by the one with the address to the “prince of Rome”, ibid. . – .
 De cerimoniis II,  (ed. Reiske) . – ; this passage is preceded by the one with the
addresses to the rulers of the South Slavs, ibid. . – , and followed by the addresses to
the “supreme lord of India” and the “lord of Arabia Felix”, ibid. . – ., with which
the List of addresses ends.
 Cf. J.-M. Martin, L’Occident chrétien dans le Livre des cérémonies, II, , in G. Dagron (ed.),
Byzance et ses voisins. Études sur certains passages du Livre des cérémonies, II,  et  – .
TM  ()  – .

Authenticated | pedjakomatina@gmail.com author's copy

Download Date | 7/27/15 5:02 PM
 P. Komatina, The “king of Francia” … 159

man province of Franconia,⁴ then with the king of Western Francia (later
France),⁵ or the king of Eastern Francia (later Germany), in this particular case
Otto I the Great (936 – 973, emperor from 962).⁶ Current opinion holds that the
ruler in question was Otto I and that the address reflects the then prevailing
view in Constantinople of Otto, the king of Eastern Francia from 936 and of
Italy from 951, as the potential and most serious candidate for the crown of
the Western Empire, that is, “the true, but still uncrowned emperor”, and that
it most probably dates from 952 or a bit later.⁷
Since the address was composed in the name of the emperors Constantine
and Romanus, who can only be Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus and his son Ro-
manus II, it is quite clear that it must have been composed after Romanus II was
crowned co-emperor with his father on March 22, 946. According to the reliable
research of Constantine Zuckerman, which was part of the work of a group of
researchers in Paris dealing with the “diplomatic chapters” of the Book of Cere-
monies (chapters II, 15, 46 – 48), the List of addresses, along with other “diplo-
matic chapters”, was composed in 946, precisely during several months between
the coronation of Romanus II on March 22, and the reception of the envoys of the
caliph of Cordoba Abd-ar-Rahman III (912– 961) in Constantinople on October 24
of the same year.⁸ That time frame may also help us to determine the identity of
the enigmatic king of Francia of the List of addresses.

As is well known, in September 944, at the initiative of the emperor Romanus I

Lacapenus (920 – 944), Porphyrogenitus’ father-in-law, the marriage was con-
cluded between Porphyrogenitus’ son and Lacapenus’ grandson, Romanus (II)
the Younger, and Bertha, natural daughter of Hugh (926 – 947), then king of

 A. Rambaud, L’empire grec au dixième siècle. Constiantin Porphyrogénète. Paris , .
 O. Meyer, Εἰς τὸν ῥῆγα Σαζωνίας, in: Festschrift Albert Brackmann. Weimar ,  – ;
F. Dölger, Otto Meyer, Εἰς τὸν ῥῆγα Σαζωνίας, Brackmann-Festschrift ()  –  (bibliog-
raphische Notiz). BZ  () .
 W. Ohnsorge, Drei Deperdita der byzantinischen Kaiserkanzlei und die Frankenadressen im
Zeremonienbuch des Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos, in W. Ohnsorge (ed.), Abendland und By-
zanz. Darmstadt ,  – .
 Martin (as footnote  above)  – .
 C. Zuckerman, La voyage d’Olga et la première ambassade espagnole à Constantinople en
, in Dagron, Byzance et ses voisins (as footnote  above)  – . On older opinions on
the character and dating of the List of addresses, cf. G. Ostrogorsky, Die byzantinische Staaten-
hierarchie. Seminarium Kondakovianum  ()  – ; F. Dölger, Die “Familie der Könige”
im Mittelalter. Historisches Jahrbuch  ()  – ; J. Ferluga, Lista adresa za strane vla-
dare iz Knjige o ceremonijama. ZRVI  ()  – .

Authenticated | pedjakomatina@gmail.com author's copy

Download Date | 7/27/15 5:02 PM
160 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 108/1, 2015: I. Abteilung

Italy.⁹ Describing that event, contemporary writers, such as Symeon Magister

and Logothete and the so-called Continuator of Theophanes and Continuator of
George the Monk, refer to Hugh as the King of Francia: “On the second indiction
the emperor Romanus (I) sent Paschalius, protospatharius and strategos of Lan-
gobardia, to Hugh, the king of Francia (πρὸς τὸν ῥῆγα Φραγγίας Οὔγωνα), asking
for his daughter as bride to Romanus, the son of Constantine, his son-in-law. The
same Paschalius, having taken her, conducted her to Constantinople with great
wealth. The marriage was concluded in September of the third indiction. Having
lived with her husband for five years, she passed away during the days of self-
rule of Constantine, her father-in-law.”¹⁰
Is there any possibility to link this king of Francia to the one in the List of
addresses?
Certain arguments supporting this thesis can be found in another famous
work of emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus – De administrando imperio.
First, we should consider the epithets used by Porphyrogenitus for King Hugh
in that work. Chapter 26 of the DAI is titled The genealogy of the most distinguish-
ed King Hugh (Ἡ γενεαλογία τοῦ περιβλέπτου ῥηγὸς Οὔγωνος), and at the begin-
ning of that chapter, as well as further on in the chapter, he is also called “the
most distinguished King Hugh (τοῦ περιβλέπτου ῥηγὸς Οὔγωνος).”¹¹ At one
point in the chapter it says: “Hugh, son of Taliafern and Boso and Hugh, the
brother of Boso, the aforementioned most noble king (ὁ προρρηθεὶς εὐγενέστα-
τος ῥήξ).”¹² As can be seen, the epithets that Porphyrogenitus uses for King Hugh
at those places, “the most distinguished” (περίβλεπτος) and “the most noble”
(εὐγενέστατος), are exactly those that, according to the List of addresses, should
accompany the name of the king of Francia in letters that are destined to him: “to

 On the marriage of Romanus II and Bertha, cf. Liutprandi Antapodosis (Liutprand von Cremo-
na, Die Werke, ed. J. Becker. MGH SS rer. Germ., . Hannover/Leipzig ) . – ,
. – ; DAI (Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, ed. G. Moravcsik
/ R.J. H. Jenkins. CFHB, .Washington, DC ) c. . – ; Symeon Magister (Symeonis
Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon, ed. S. Wahlgren. CFHB, /. Berolini / Novi Eboraci
) c. .; Theophanes Continuatus (Theophanes Continuatus, Ioannes Cameniata, Sy-
meon Magister, Georgius Monachus, ed. I. Bekker. Bonnae ) . – ; Georgius Mona-
chus (ibid.) . – ; S. Runciman, The Emperor Romanus Lacapenus and his reign. Cam-
bridge ,  – ; R. Hiestand, Byzanz und das Regnum Italicum im . Jahrhundert.
Zürich ,  – ; J. Shepard, Byzantium and the West, in T. Reuter (ed.), The New Cam-
bridge Medieval History III (c.  – c. ). Cambridge ,  – .
 Symeon Magister, c. .; Theophanes Continuatus, . – ; Georgius Monachus,
. – .
 DAI, c. ., ,  – .
 DAI, c. . – .

Authenticated | pedjakomatina@gmail.com author's copy

Download Date | 7/27/15 5:02 PM
 P. Komatina, The “king of Francia” … 161

the most noble and the most distinguished king of Francia (τῷ εὐγενεστάτῳ
περιβλέπτῳ ῥηγὶ Φραγγίας)”.
Another thing that we should note in the DAI would be those places at which
Porphyrogenitus mentions the marriages between the Romans and the Franks.
The above-mentioned marriage between his son Romanus II and Hugh’s daugh-
ter Bertha, renamed Eudocia in Constantinople, is described by Porphyrogenitus
at the end of the same Chapter 26.¹³ However, before that, in Chapter 13, titled On
the nations bordering the Turks (i. e. Hungarians), there is a story according to
which the first Christian emperor, Constantine the Great, issued a law “that
never shall an emperor of the Romans ally himself in marriage with a nation
of customs differing from and alien to those of the Roman order, especially
with one that is infidel and unbaptized.” The only exception to that rule were
the Franks, “for there is much relationship and converse between Franks and Ro-
mans. And why did he order that with them alone could the emperors of the Ro-
mans intermarry? Because of the traditional fame and nobility of those lands
and races …”¹⁴ Keeping in mind the marriage between his son Romanus and
Hugh’s daughter Bertha in 944, one gets the impression from the passage just
cited from Chapter 13 of the DAI, composed between 948 and 952¹⁵ – that the
Franks alone of the foreign peoples are worthy of the honor of allying themselves
in marriage with the emperors of the Romans – that he is trying to justify the
marriage of his son before the Constantinopolitan public, unaccustomed to
their emperors establishing bonds of kinship with foreign rulers. In any case,
those lines surely testify that Porphyrogenitus and his Roman subjects consid-
ered Hugh, the king of Italy, a Frank and a Frankish king.
But why would Porphyrogenitus and his contemporaries call Hugh, the king
of Italy, king of Francia? There is no doubt that they were well aware that he
ruled over Italy. In another chapter of the Book of Ceremonies there is informa-
tion on the alliance in 935 between the emperor Romanus I Lacapenus and
the king of Italy (τὸν ῥῆγα Ἰταλίας), at that time Hugh, against the Lombard prin-
ces of Benevento, Capua and Salerno in South Italy,¹⁶ while Porphyrogenitus ex-

 DAI, c. . – .

 DAI, c. . – , transl. by R. J. H. Jenkins,  – . See also D. Nicol, The Byzantine
view of western Europe. GRBS  ()  – .
 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio. Commentary, ed. R. J. H. Jenkins.
London ,  – , .
 De cerimoniis, II,  (ed. Reiske) ; J. Haldon, Theory and practice in tenth-century mili-
tary administration: Chapters II,  and  of the Book of Ceremonies. TM  () , ;
Hiestand, Byzanz (as footnote  above)  – .

Authenticated | pedjakomatina@gmail.com author's copy

Download Date | 7/27/15 5:02 PM
162 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 108/1, 2015: I. Abteilung

plicitly says that Hugh’s son Lothair II (946 – 950) “is now (i. e. at the time of writ-
ing Chapter 26 of the DAI) king of Italy”.¹⁷

For Porphyrogenitus himself, as can be seen from his writings, above all the De
administrando imperio, Francia (Φραγγία) was a term denoting the entire territo-
ry under the former political domination of the Carolingians.¹⁸ Firstly, Francia
was a country situated on the western borders of the ancient northern homeland
of the Serbs and Croats,¹⁹ and of the country populated in the mid-10th century by
the Hungarians.²⁰ Then, it was the country situated “between Croatia and Ven-
etia (μεταξὺ Χρωβατίας καὶ Βενετίας),”²¹ and in which Aquileia and other cities
were situated, whose inhabitants were Franks (… Φράγγοι ἀπὸ ᾿Aκουϊλεγίας καὶ
ἀπὸ τῶν ἑτέρων τόπων τῆς Φραγγίας, … πάντες οἱ Φράγγοι ἀπὸ ᾿Aκουϊλεγίας
καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἑτέρων τῆς Φραγγίας κάστρων).²² Thus, it is clear that for Porphyr-
ogenitus Italy was also a part of Francia. ²³
Porphyrogenitus was, however, also aware of the political pluralism which
characterized the Franks. At one place he writes that “Attila, the emperor of
the Avars, came and utterly devastated all the Francias (πάσας τὰς Φραγγίας
καταληϊσαμένου),” and a bit further that “king Pippin, who was at that time rul-
ing over Pavia and other rhegata,” that is kingdoms, “had three brothers who
ruled over all the Francias and Sklavenias (Πιπῖνος ὁ ῥήξ, ὃς ἦρχε τότε τῆς τε
Παπίας καὶ ἑτέρων ῥηγάτων; Εἶχεν γὰρ οὗτος ὁ Πιπῖνος ἀδελφοὺς τρεῖς, οἵτινες

 DAI, c. . – . It has long been noticed that an address to the king of Italy is missing in
the List of addresses of the Book of Ceremonies, see Rambaud (as footnote  above) ; Meyer
(as footnote  above) . Dölger, Otto Meyer (as footnote  above)  – , tried to explain
the fact by assuming that the phrase “εἰς τὸν ῥῆγα Γαλλίας” from the first group of the addresses
to the rulers of Western Europe, De cerimoniis, II,  (ed. Reiske) ., was in fact a corruption
of “εἰς τὸν ῥῆγα Ἰταλίας”, caused by a scribal error.
 Cf. De administrando imperio. Commentary (as footnote  above) .
 DAI, c. ., , , ., ..
 DAI, c. ., ..
 DAI, c. . – .
 DAI, c. . – ,  – .
 Ohnsorge, Drei Deperdita (as footnote  above)  – , neglected places at which Por-
phyrogenitus uses the term Francia for the areas outside Italy, thus reaching the incorrect con-
clusion that Porphyrogenitus’ Francia was in fact Italy. On the other hand, another of his con-
clusions (ibid.  – ) is certainly right – that Porphyrogenitus’ phrase Μεγάλη Φραγγία,
DAI, c. . – ,  – , . – , which, in my opinion, should be translated rather as
Old Francia then as Great Francia, correspond to what was considered Francia in the West of
that time – the area north and west of the Alps, cf. Notker Balbulus, Gesta Karoli Magni imper-
atoris, c. ., ed. H. Haefele. MGH SS rer. Germ. N. S., . Berolini , .

Authenticated | pedjakomatina@gmail.com author's copy

Download Date | 7/27/15 5:02 PM
 P. Komatina, The “king of Francia” … 163

ἦρχον πασῶν τῶν Φραγγιῶν καὶ Σκλαβηνιῶν).”²⁴ While Pippin was said to have
ruled “over Pavia and other rhegata,”²⁵ Charlemagne, who “became emperor in
Old Francia, was the sole ruler over all the rhegata (Οὗτος οὖν ὁ Κάρουλος ἦν
μονοκράτωρ πάντων τῶν ῥηγάτων),” and in his days “none of the subordinated
kings dared call himself a king (οὐδεὶς τῶν ὑπολοίπων ῥηγῶν ἐτόλμησε ῥῆγα
ἑαυτὸν καλέσαι), but they all were his vassals.”²⁶ So, the Francia that Porphyro-
genitus knew was not a single political entity, but was composed of several
parts, which he called rhegata, that is kingdoms (τὰ ῥηγᾶτα), and that explains
why he at certain points in his text used the plural form Francias (αἱ Φραγγίαι),
similar to the term Sklavenias (αἱ Σκλαβηνίαι). One of those rhegata was Italy,
often mentioned by Porphyrogenitus as the rhegaton of Italy or the rhegaton of
Pavia (after the royal capital), or the rhegaton of Italy, that is, of Pavia (τὸ ῥηγᾶ-
τον Ἰταλίας, ἤτοι Παπίας).²⁷
Nevertheless, it is evident from his narrative that Porphyrogenitus also knew
of the existence of some kind of supreme authority on the level of Francia as a
whole, above the individual rhegata. According to his words, Charlemagne “was
the sole ruler over all the rhegata” and “none of the subordinated kings dared
call himself a king, but they all were his vassals.”²⁸ After him, the Elder Lothair,
according to Porphyrogenitus “grandfather of the most distinguished king
Hugh”, who was “from the family of Charlemagne”, was a king of Italy,²⁹ that
is, the ruler of the rhegaton of Italy, but he also got to Rome, where he “was
crowned by the then pope (καὶ ἐστέφθη παρὰ τοῦ τότε πάπα),” after which he
went back “to his dominion, that is, to Pavia (εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἐξουσίαν, ἤγουν
εἰς Παπίαν),” but died on his way in Piacenza.³⁰ After him, “Louis, kinsman of
Louis,” came from Old Francia and assumed rule in Papia, but he “was not
crowned.”³¹ After he had been blinded, power was seized by Berengar, “who en-
tered Rome and was crowned.”³²

 DAI, c. . – ,  – .

 DAI, c. . – .
 DAI, c. . – .
 DAI, c. .,  – , ,  – ,  – ,  – ,  – , . – ,  – , , .,
.
Another rhegaton, or another Francia that Porphyrogenitus mentions would certainly be Burgun-
dy (Βεργώνια), DAI, c. 26.24– 26, 42, 57– 64.
 DAI, c. . – .
 DAI, c. . – .
 DAI, c. . – .
 DAI, c. . – .
 DAI, c. . – .

Authenticated | pedjakomatina@gmail.com author's copy

Download Date | 7/27/15 5:02 PM
164 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 108/1, 2015: I. Abteilung

We can conclude from these passages that for Porphyrogenitus what made
someone an heir to Charlemagne in supreme authority, that is, sole rulership
(μονοκρατία) over all the rhegata of Francia and gave him legitimacy, was the cor-
onation in Rome. It is quite clear that the coronation in question was the corona-
tion with the imperial crown, with which popes in Rome, starting with the coro-
nation of Charlmagne in the year 800, used to crown his heirs and descendants
emperors of the Romans. There were among them indeed all those mentioned by
Porphyrogenitus – Lothair I (840 – 855),³³ Louis II (855 – 875), Berengar I (915 –
924), even Louis III (901– 905), who Porphyrogenitus erronously states was not
crowned.³⁴ Thus, Porphyrogenitus in these passages relates the history of the
western emperors of the Romans. However, he, who was the emperor of the Ro-
mans himself, could not recognize that title of the Frankish rulers.³⁵ He recogniz-
es the fact of their coronation in Rome, but despite that, for him they were just

 When he speaks of the Elder Lothair, the grandfather of King Hugh, Porphyrogenitus com-
bines into one person two different persons called Lothair, a father and a son, Lothair I
( – ), who was the king of Italy and who was crowned emperor by the pope in Rome,
and Lothar ΙΙ ( – ), who was not king of Italy, but of Middle Francia (Lotharingia), and
who was never crowned emperor in Rome, but who was the grandfather of King Hugh and
who did die in Piacenza, on August , , on his way back from Rome, where he had gone,
not for political reasons, but seeking a solution for the issue of his marriages, cf. De adminis-
trando imperio. Commentary (as footnote  above)  – ; J. Fried, The Frankish kingdoms,
 – : the East and Middle kingdoms, in: The New Cambridge Medieval History II (c. 
– c. ), ed. R. McKitterick. Cambridge ,  – .
 General survey of the history of the Carolingians and western emperors from the coronation
of Charlemagne to Berengar I, cf. The New Cambridge Medieval History II (as footnote  above)
 – ,  – ; ibid. III (as footnote  above)  – . On the rulers of Italy, their impe-
rial pretensions and relations with Byzantium after the death of Louis II in , cf. Hiestand,
Byzanz (as footnote  above).
 According to the Treaty of Aachen of , the then emperor Michael I ( – ) recognized
the title of emperor by Charlemagne, though not that of the emperor of the Romans, but instead
that of the emperor of the Franks (βασιλεὺς τῶν Φράγγων): Theophanis Chronographia, ed. C. de
Boor. Lipsiae , . – . However, already emperor Michael II ( – ) in his letter
from  calls Charles’ son Louis I the Pious ( – ) the “king of the Franks and Lombards,
the so-called emperor of theirs”: Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, ed. J. D.
Mansi. Florentiae/Venetiis  – , XIV,  AB. Nevertheless, the prevailing scholarly
view has been that the Byzantine emperors recognized the title of the emperor of the Franks
by the Western emperors until  and an ideological clash between Basil I and Louis II,
and afterwards only the title of king, cf. W. Ohnsorge, Das Zweikaiserproblem im früheren Mit-
telalter. Hildesheim ,  – ; De administrando imperio. Commentary (as footnote 
above) , ; Hiestand, Byzanz (as footnote  above)  – ; Nicol, Byzantine view (as foot-
note  above)  – .

Authenticated | pedjakomatina@gmail.com author's copy

Download Date | 7/27/15 5:02 PM
 P. Komatina, The “king of Francia” … 165

kings,³⁶ different from other kings of the individual Frankish rhegata and elevated
above them only by the fact that they had been crowned in Rome.
However, when he speaks of those crowned kings of the Franks, Porphyroge-
nitus never once uses the title of king of Francia for them. The only ruler referred
to by Porphyrogenitus explicitly as the king of Francia (ῥὴξ Φραγγίας) in the De
administrando imperio, although at another place, in Chapter 29, was Louis II
(855 – 875),³⁷ whom he mentions in the cited passage about the heirs to Charle-
magne in connection with “Louis who came from Old Francia,” that is, Louis
III, who was his grandson. Louis II, who ruled directly only over Italy, was
crowned and for the Westerners undisputed emperor of the Romans. ³⁸ Yet for Por-
phyrogenitus he was equally undoubtedly the king of Francia. ³⁹ Given Porphyr-
ogenitus’ view of Francia as the entire area under the former political domina-
tion of the Carolingians and his understanding that the Frankish ruler who
was crowned in Rome, as was Louis II, was the supreme ruler of all of that
area, it is quite clear that in the case of Louis II Pophyrogenitus’ phrase king
of Francia wholly corresponds to the title of the emperor of the Romans, attribut-
ed to Louis II in the West.⁴⁰

Could it be that Constantine Porphyrogenitus also considered Hugh of Arles king

of Francia in this manner? Like Louis II, Hugh ruled only over Italy. Nevertheless,

 Although he calls Charlemagne “the sole ruler over all the rhegata,” Porphyrogenitus then
adds that in his days “none of the subordinated kings dared call himself a king, but they all
were his vassals,” DAI, c. . – . From these lines it is clear that for Porphyrogenitus Charle-
magne, even as the supreme lord over all the Frankish kings, only carried the title of king (ῥήξ).
On the problem of the meaning of terms ῥήξ and ῥηγᾶτα in Porphyrogenitus’ work, see also
Ohnsorge, Drei Deperdita (as footnote  above)  – .
 DAI, c. . sq.
 On the emperor Louis II in general, cf. P. Delogu, Lombard and Carolingian Italy, in: The
New Cambridge Medieval History II (as footnote  above)  – .
 Louis II is called king of Francia also in other works of Porphyrogenitus – the Vita Basilii and
De Thematibus, cf. Chronographiae quae Theophanis Continuati nomine fertur liber quo Vita Ba-
silii imperatoris amplectitur, ed. I. Ševčenko. CFHB, . Berolini , c. . sq; Costantino
Porfirogenito, De thematibus, ed. A. Pertusi. Roma , c. . sq. – It is well known that
Porphyrogenitus’ grandfather, emperor Basil I ( – ), in his letter concerning the joint mili-
tary expedition in South Italy and against the then Muslim city of Bari in , fiercely disputed
the claim of Louis II to the imperial title, which Louis II then vigorously defended in his answer
to that letter from the Summer of , cf. Epistola Ludovici imperatoris ad Basilium, in: Chron-
icon Salernitanum, ed. G. H. Pertz. MGH SS, . Hannoverae , . – .; Ohnsorge,
Zweikaiserproblem (as footnote  above)  – .
 According to Ohnsorge, Drei Deperdita (as footnote  above)  – , “Der König von Ita-
lien ist als Inhaber des abendländischen Kaisertums der ῥὴξ Φραγγίας.”

Authenticated | pedjakomatina@gmail.com author's copy

Download Date | 7/27/15 5:02 PM
166 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 108/1, 2015: I. Abteilung

between the two there was a crucial difference – unlike Louis II, who was
crowned emperor, Hugh was never crowned in Rome with the imperial
crown.⁴¹ According to Porphyrogenitus, King Hugh was the direct descendant
of Charlemagne through the male line – he was, allegedly, son of Adalbert,
the son of the Elder Lothair, who “came from the family of Charlemagne.”⁴²
Chapter 26 of the De administrando imperio, titled The Genealogy of the most dis-
tinguished King Hugh, begins with praise for his ancestors Charles and Lothair,⁴³
and ends with a report about how Hugh took over power in the rhegaton of
Italy,⁴⁴ which is presented by Porphyrogenitus as the return of the lawful heir
to the possession of his forefathers, after the reign of a series of kings, some
of which were even crowned in Rome, as stated above, but whose right to rule,
according to Porphyrogenitus, was not based on as a solid foundation as
Hugh’s.⁴⁵ At the very end of the chapter, Porphyrogenitus highlights the fact of
the marriage between Hugh’s daughter Bertha and his son and heir Romanus
II.⁴⁶

 Although he was king of Italy and in that respect somehow destined to claim the imperial
crown, his most serious effort at accomplishing that ended in  without success. He managed
to enter Rome and marry Marozia, a representative of the most powerfull patrcian family of
Rome of that time, the Theophylacti, that dominated the political life of the Eternal City in
the th century, but, nevertheless, he was forced to leave the city when he faced the opposition
of Alberic, Marozia’s son from her first marriage. Alberic then established his own rule in Rome
and ruled it independently for the next twenty-two years ( – ), as the prince of the Romans
(princeps Romanorum). However, Hugh never totally abandoned his aspirations towards the im-
perial crown, and his political influence always exceeded the narrow boundaries of the Kingdom
of Italy. His influence was especially felt in Provence, which he had ruled before he became king
of Italy in , and for a certain period of time also in Upper Burgundy, when he, after the death
of King Rudolf II in , married his widow Bertha, betrothed Rudolf’s daughter Adelaide to his
own son Lothair and became tutor of Rudolf’s infant son, King Conrad ( – ). On King
Hugh, his politics and ideology and the conditions in Italy during his reign, cf. C.W. Previté
Orton, Italy and Provence,  – . English Historical Review / ()  – ; Hie-
stand, Byzanz (as footnote  above)  – ; C. B. Bouchard, Burgundy and Provence,  –
, in: The New Cambridge Medieval History III (as footnote  above)  – ; G. Sergi, The
Kingdom of Italy, ibid.  – ; Martin (as footnote  above)  – . For the most recent
review of Hugh’s internal policy, cf. G.Vignodelli, Berta e Adelaide: la politica di consolidamen-
to del potere regio di Ugo di Arles, in T. Lazzari (a cura di), Il patrimonio delle regine: beni del
fisco e politica regia tra IX e X secolo. Reti Medievali Rivista / ()  – .
 DAI, c. . – ,  – .
 DAI, c. . – .
 DAI, c. . – .
 DAI, c. . – .
 DAI, c. . – .

Authenticated | pedjakomatina@gmail.com author's copy

Download Date | 7/27/15 5:02 PM
 P. Komatina, The “king of Francia” … 167

Porphyrogenitus was well aware that Hugh was not crowned in Rome and
that he thus didn’t meet that formal requirement to be recognized as the supreme
ruler over the Franks as had other rulers he mentions in the first part of his story
on Hugh. However, Porphyrogenitus obviously considered Hugh the rightful heir
to the authority of Charlemagne and Lothair I, not only in the rhegaton of Italy,
but also as the supreme power over all the Franks. The fact that he was wrong in
presenting Hugh as the direct descendant of Charlemagne and Lothair I in the
male line,⁴⁷ in my opionion is not due to a mistake in his interpretation of his
sources, but to his intention to exalt as far as possible the origins of his daugh-
ter-in-law’s father.⁴⁸ Thus, although he was not crowned in Rome, King Hugh,
according to Porphyrogenitus, possessed all the preconditions to be considered
king of Francia in Constantinople, and Porphyrogenitus himself had additional
political and personal motives to treat him as such.

Considering all the arguments set out so far:

1. that the same epithets used for the king of Francia in the List of addresses
(the most noble, the most distinguished) are used by Porphyrogenitus in Chap-
ter 26 of the De administrando imperio for Hugh, the king of Italy;
2. that Porphyrogenitus’ insistance in Chapter 13 of the DAI that of all nations
only the Franks are worthy of intermarriage with the emperors of the Romans is a
clear allusion to the marriage of his son Romanus II and Hugh’s daughter Bertha,
concluded in September 944;
3. that for Porphyrogenitus Italy, which was directly ruled by Hugh, was also
part of Francia;
4. that in Chapter 26 of the DAI he presents King Hugh as the direct descend-
ant through the male line and the true heir to the power and authority of Char-
lemagne and Lothair I,
it can be concluded that the formulation “… to the most noble and the most
distinguished king of Francia (τῷ εὐγενεστάτῳ περιβλέπτῳ ῥηγὶ Φραγγίας)” in
the List of addresses from 946, composed in the imperial chancery of Constantine

 Hugh was a descendant of Charlemagne through the female line – his mother Bertha († ),
whose first husband was Hugh’s father, count Theobald of Arles († ), and second husband,
thus Hugh’s stepfather, margrave Adalbert II of Tuscany († ), was a daughter of Lothair II
( – ), king of Middle Francia (Lotharingia), who in turn was the son of the emperor Loth-
air I ( – ), grandson of Louis I the Pious ( – ) and great-grandson of Charlemagne
( – ), cf. inter alia, Previté Orton, Italy (as footnote  above)  sq, and genealogical
tables in De administrando imperio. Commentary (as footnote  above) ; Hiestand (as foot-
note  above)  – ; The New Cambridge Medieval History III (as footnote ) .
 For both views, cf. De administrando imperio. Commentary (as footnote  above)  – .

Authenticated | pedjakomatina@gmail.com author's copy

Download Date | 7/27/15 5:02 PM
168 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 108/1, 2015: I. Abteilung

VII Porphyrogenitus and Romanus II, refers to the then king of Italy Hugh (926 –
947). The fact that he was forced to leave Italy that same year, leaving the throne
to his son Lothair II (946 – 950), and retreat to Provence, does not diminish the
validity of this conclusion, for Hugh formally kept his title and authority up until
his death on April 10, 947.⁴⁹ This conclusion could also explain in the best way
the omission of the address to the king of Italy in the List of addresses.

 Liutprandi Antapodosis, . – ; Hiestand, Byzanz (as footnote  above)  – ;
Sergi, Kingdom (as footnote  above)  – .

Authenticated | pedjakomatina@gmail.com author's copy

Download Date | 7/27/15 5:02 PM