In week 3 we're going to be talking about a famous text known as the Life of Charlemagne by Einhard. There are some leading questions in the reading guide which we'll be trying to answer. In order to kick us off, I've selected (what I hope are) some thought-provoking images gathered from the webosphere to show the different ways in which Charlemagne and the idea of Empire have been linked. I hope these will help you to think about the kinds of messages of cultural and political superiority that are being sent in the text, as well as in these visual representations. Note that these images also come from different periods. Does the image of Charlemagne's power seem to have changed much over time? How?
 |
| Einhard, as scribe. (14th century; BnF, Fr 2813). Wikimedia commons. |
Other contemporaries wrote about Charlemagne too. You can check out the Life of Charlemagne by the fabulously-named Notker the Stammerer here. Both Notker and Einhard's lives are available together in a Penguin edition, Two Lives of Charlegmagne, which is in the library if you want to know more.
PS. While we're talking Carolingians, I can't resist showing you this photo of me meeting Rosamond McKitterick - one of the world's foremost scholars of this period - at a conference in the UK in 2010. There's more to this than me showing off; I think it's important to realise that the historians whose work we are reading are actually real people! A number of Rosamond's wonderful works on this period are on the extended reading list and come very highly recommended! (No wonder I'm looking pretty pleased with myself...)
13 comments:
I found it interesting how Charlemagne managed to maintain such an incredible extent of control over the people but that it crumbled almost inevitably after his death. The loyalty to one individual rather than the position of power shows that the fealty pledges were extremely influential. His outline of what we see today in many administrative systems (with the introduction of hierarchical positions and divisional control) really emphasises how influential the Middle Ages have been in modern day society. While the fall of the Carolingian Empire is interesting I really agree with the point that it was, to some extent, inevitable. The division of land between the sons of Louis the Pious shatters the power system established by Charlemagne; but I found it interesting that Charlemagne allowed ethnic groups to keep their own customs, and it worked for him, but it didn't work at all for his successors.
And I had a bit of a chuckle at the sibling rivalry. So true.
To sum it all up, I decided to employ the fine works of 'History Teachers' on Youtube and all I can hear now "Charlemagne! Charlemagne! That's his name!" going around in my head...
Whilst Charlemagne, being drunk on Christian devotion, thoroughly enforced his belief in a united Christian Kingdom on the pagan civilisations he conquered, as Emily mentions above he certainly maintained a firm grasp on the "standardisation" of the Empire..so it's difficult to fault him. He got s**t done! There were expectations of all citizens, of all "free men" and, interestingly enough, Charlemagne appears to have held some power over the Church (see, the reference to capitularies "to the priests alone". I may have interpreted wrongly, of course, but I suppose the King would have required all citizens to follow at least the laws of their social standing.
I was amused by p. 74. I was initially startled at the role of women portrayed in the era of the Carolingians. Rights to land and inheritance? Egads! Then, of course, arises sexism within the institution of marriage, wherein only the wife is culpable of wrongdoing, be it by infertility or adultery. From then, it seems, they only regressed...How could it be both ways? "You are intelligent, and can pass on your wisdom to our children; you can manage lands and financial affairs...but if you can't provide a son, we're through! That, and I can sleep with whomever I please, whilst you must remain virtuous and faithful!" Que???
I found myself thoroughly amused by the way Einhard depicted Charlemagne. I feel his writing is a perfect example of the need to practice 'scholarly reading’ (or whatever the term is for what we started practicing in the tute), as I felt that perhaps Einhart was just a little biased towards Charlemagne, or, maybe I should say a LOT. Hero-worshipping at its greatest? Could Charlemagne do any wrong in the eyes of Einhard? I particularly like the line “all the rest of his life he was regarded by everyone with the utmost love and affection, so much so that not the least accusation of unjust rigor was ever made against him”. Really??
This is, of course, not to say that I don’t believe that Charlemagne was a great and successful ruler, as it is more than obvious that the accomplishments of his lifetime dramatically altered the lives of people all across his kingdom, and influenced many aspects of life in the future High Middle Ages. I just agree with Kay Slocum in that the “glowing terms” Einard used in his biography of the great King should definitely be taken with a grain of salt, or, maybe a handful!
It was immensely interesting to note the elements that helped to fuel Charlemagne's establishment of a structured, standardised empire, as his level of control over such a vast region, particularly in comparison to the vague kingdoms and indistinct boundaries established by the earlier Gothic Tribes, is quite incredible. His dedication to the spread of both literacy and Christianity, coupled with his issued capitularies, seem not only to have contributed to this structured kingdom, but also to have formed the foundation upon which the later Medieval Ages was built. Furthermore, Charlemagne's commitment to learning appears to have provided documents still extant and extremely important to historical study today. Perhaps most interesting, in my opinion, however, was the obsequious tone adopted throughout the entirety of Einhard's 'The Life of Charlemagne'. His clearly biased opinions towards both the Saxon's who 'worship ... devils' and the 'most glorious life' of his king ring unreliable even to someone who, like me, knew little more than Charlemagne's name prior to this week's readings. I found it fascinating to consider his readers at the time of his writing and the manner in which they may have influenced his words, whilst also speculating upon how his account of Charlemagne may have fuelled later depictions of the king.
Its kind of sad to think that the predecessor to modern Europe (Charlmagnes empire) began to collapse within 30 years of Charlmagnes death in 814 is largely due to the greed of his grandsons. Seems like they held 'titles' in high esteem.
In saying that it appears that the fall of this empire was inevitable as ethnic groups were allowed to continue practicing the laws of their culture and other than the spread of Christianity I am unaware of any other attempts that were made at bringing about uniformity between these ethnic groups.
Although Einhards portrayal of Charlmagne may be somewhat bias I think that it is apparent that he was in fact an intelligent and determined individual that achieved many awe-inspiring feats.
Nevertheless the Carolingian 'renaissance' seems to be of greatest significance during this time as without the labor of the priest class manually copying all sorts of documents and actively forming schools to educate children of different classes there would have been little other attempt at preserving knowledge of this time.
What struck me as interesting is the fact that there was a biographical document, such as the one Einhard dedicated to the triumphs of Charlemagne at all! While it is quite evident that Einhard felt he owed Charlemagne some sort of debt, to say the least and painted the leader in an unbelievably flattering light. It seemed to me, to be quite a modern phenomenon to be granted an indside and personal look into the life of a Monarch in the form of a written biography, biased as it may be. It is clear that this document would not have been for general consumption, given literacy rate...so who stood to benefit from this? The vassals? The clergy? Could it have been a vein attempt at holding together a crumbling empire with the memory of a great and valiant 'hero', who created a great and fast kingdom...to promote the ideals that were at risk of being forgotten in the wake of his death?
I can't argue with you there. What might be interesting is to consider his motives in producing such a biased text. Any ideas?
Yes - good points Sam. We should ask ourselves who was reading this at the time; and who read it later on! This must have influenced how much Einhard's 'rosy' picture could affect Charlemagne's reputation at the time and later in history.
Great suggestions Victoria! Who do we suppose might have been the intended audience if he was trying to promote ideals in the next generation?
I couldn’t agree more! Einhard definitely placed Charlemagne on a pedestal and this is what I’ve found to be the most curious aspect of the text. What were his motives to present Charlemagne in such a biased way? Was he merely a loyal servant who truly believed Charlemagne to be this great, or did he do so to gain popularity amongst the influential – thus gaining power for himself?
Although, to me, the latter seems unlikely, due to the passionate nature of the biography.
I found it very intriguing that Einhard reports Charlemagne as being a very devout Christian, and then proceeds to describe an extensive list of wives, concubines and the numerous children he begat by them! It seems that the criterion used to assess Charlemagne's devotion included regular Church attendance, increasing the political power of the Church, and nothing else. This seems a bit hypocritical to me.
I was surprised to see that Charlemagne kept his children under his almost constant supervision yet when it came to his daughters he didn't allow them to marry 'a man of their own nation or a foreigner'. I found this strange as many rulers used the bethrothal of their children to gain potential allies therefore giving them more strength against their enemies. I also wondered why Einhard's portrayal of Charlemagne was so obviously favourable and like other members of this group wonder what possible reasons could have led this biographers work to be so partial towards Charlemagne.
Post a Comment