Charles I (Charlemagne) crowned (first) Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire by Pope Leo III.
Previously, we discussed how the the scriptorium at the Abbey of St. Gall may have been used to compose part of the (fraudulent, Christian) textual tradition:
The Carolingian-era monastery has existed since 719 and became an independent principality between 9th and 13th centuries...When I first began to check early scriptoria for monks working under special projects with imperial authority, I found a number of other, suitable examples, so I suggest that this could be the Christendom-wide fraud taking place. As I suggested in the previous post, there are numerous historians with deep knowledge of this period, as well as monasticism, who are qualified better than me to delve deeper into this.
The abbey gave hospitality to numerous Anglo-Saxon and Irish monks who came to copy manuscripts for their own monasteries.
In short, historical study needs to know who penned the various histories claimed - always with evidence - to be copies of earlier works (by people outside the historical record, whom I term 'ghosts').
I have discussed this with a number of academic specialists in this field and not one had considered this question: they accepted at face value, with no evidence at all, the claim made by these numerous and anonymous monkish scribes, to be copyists rather than authors. This is not good enough.
Today, I will just raise the issue of a monastic principality, as we see with the above abbey. What is such a thing?
The title Prince of the Holy Roman Empire (German: Reichsfürst, Latin: princeps imperii) was attributed to a hereditary ruler, noble or prelate recognised as such by the Holy Roman Emperors. Originally, possessors of the princely title bore it as immediate vassals of the Empire, secular or ecclesiastical, who held a fief that had no suzerain except the Emperor.Thus, there were two principal types of princes; those who exercised Landhoheit (sovereignty within one's territory) as well as an individual or shared vote in the College of Princes; and those whose title was honorary, the possessor lacking an immediate Imperial fief and/or a vote in the Imperial Diet.The Princes of the Empire ranked below the seven Prince-electors designated by the Golden Bull of 1356 (and later electors), but above the Reichsgrafen (Counts), Freiherren (barons) and Imperial prelates, who formed with them the Imperial Diet assemblies, but held only collective votes.Ecclesiastical Princes were the Prince-Bishops (including the Prince-Archbishops of Besançon, Bremen, Magdeburg and Salzburg) as well as the actual Prince-abbots. They comprised a number of political entities which were secularized and mediatized after the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, resp. fell to France or the independent Swiss Confederacy.The early Holy Roman Emperors received their authority through coronation by the Bishop of Rome, the Pontiff:
The Coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor refers to a ceremony in which the ruler of Europe's then largest political entity received the Imperial Regalia at the hands of the Pope, symbolizing the pope's alleged right to crown Christian sovereigns, and the emperor's role as protector of the Roman Catholic Church. The Holy Roman Empresses were crowned as well.Charlemagne was crowned as Emperor by Pope Leo III on 25 December 800...Successors of Charlemagne were crowned in Rome for several centuries, where they received the imperial crown in St. Peter's from the pope.This describes some of the formality, the empire and its aristocracy. It does not describe Christendom, which included the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium), nor - for example - the position of England. Readers of English history will know how popes regularly interfered in English matters. Also, there are the Northern Crusades. A state thus need not have been a part of the Holy Roman Empire in order to be under its dominion.
Damnatio memoriae of 'Commodus' on an inscription in the Museum of Roman History Osterburken. The abbreviation ‘CO’ was later restored with paint.
Well, I am guessing that the composition of the textual tradition was held within what became princely scriptora. The Roman Empire contained many imperial estates and some of the early monasteries grew out of Roman villas.
This may be in just my imagination, but I reckon there could be a direct line between (some) imperial estates and princely monasteries composing these texts, if only because the textual tradition claims imperial Roman history as its own. A part of damnatio memoriae was to remake history and in usurping imperial Roman history, this tradition may well have been revived.