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...)
29 comments:
From reading the work of Einhard as well as looking at this images, it seems that Charlemagne was the first real leader in medieval Europe to ascend to a level of power and fame that rivaled that of the Roman Emperors. To a have a subjective biographer recording his feats with the aim of promoting his life and endeavours is something that resembles greatly the propagandistic works that the likes of Virgil composed to elevate the status of men such as Augustus in Ancient Rome. Furthermore, images of Charlemagne as being pious as well as forceful shown above (holding a cross and a sword, riding a horse etc) reflect the characteristics that Romans valued in heroes; piety and strength. Despite these recordings being primarily subjective and overtly prejudiced, the portrayal of Charlemagne seems to show a movement away from the modest and relatively weak depictions of leaders such as Jesus Christ and into the lavish, saintly and noble images of European royalty that had not been seen since the fall of Rome.
Einhard’s glorified rendition of Charlemagne seems to coincide with the last few images shown above, in particular the last one. As Einhard illustrates in his biographical account, Charlemagne was a ‘glorious’, pious lord, a ‘great and distinguished man’ and a ‘most powerful King’. This portrayal appears to coalesce with Albrecht Dürer’s painting, in which we view a saintly representation of a seemingly omnipotent Ruler. The disposition of the subject, his stance and the golden garments signify authority and power, while the sword suggests guardianship. Combined with the symbol of the cross, the painting depicts Charlemagne as a guardian to the divine and to Christianity – “the Emperor and defender of the Church of Rome.” To me, it appears that Einhard’s emphasis on Charlemagne’s ‘fervent’ piousness as well as his many conquest, seems to depict him in the same light as Dürer’s painting.
Also noteworthy, is how the artworks appear to follow the development of Charlemagne and his reign as Emperor (pertaining to his conquers and many triumphs.) When we compare Dürer’s portrayal to the denier, we see a vast transition from a traditional Roman king, to an almighty sovereign and defender of the Christian religion.
- Sarah
Great observations, Hugo. I think you are onto something when you note the movement towards adopting Roman symbolism for depicting Charlemagne. Any suggestions as to why? Or to the significance of this at the time?
A very nice, delicate reading of the art, Sarah. I should say that to be representative I probably should have included a lot more images of his coronation by the pope. How would this change your sense of the emphasis of the iconography? Does it tell you something different about why Charlemagne's story was so important to later generations?
Hi Kathleen, I was just re-reading the coronation of Charlemagne and was intrigued by the concept of "oath-giving and the subsequent divine punishment". I was wondering if this practise was often under taken during this period, particularly in Western Europe? Also if these occurances are often documented?
Thanks Louise
I think Charlemagne story was so important for he needed to be an icon to later generations, as his reign solidified a time of great accomplishment both socially and politically, which his successors were unable to maintain. As Kay Slocum put it Charlemagne provided ‘…a unified system that has been called… ‘The First Europe’ (The Carolingian Renaissance.) This period of time was essentially a cultural ‘renovaito’, in which ‘education, literature, art, liturgy, calligraphy and architecture’, were all reformed. Later generations needed to view Charlemagne as an icon, for this revival of antiquity, akin to the Roman Empire before it’s fall, and for his vast contributions to both society and the expansion of Christianity during his reign.
I found the first Charlemagne article really interesting to read. Obviously Charlemagne was a very charismatic leader, a forward thinker, who was aggressive and ambitious, and earned loyalty and respect from those who he ruled.
I found in particular the way he administrated his vast empire was very effective and it is interesting that those who succeeded him struggled to maintain this degree of control - it says a lot about his personality.
Obviously he was very religious, but I was just wondering was it the promotion of Christianity that was his prime motivation in expanding his empire or was it a desire for more power and control that motivated him, or perhaps a combination of both? In the Einhard article I noticed that he wanted power over Italy in the Lombard War, but it was the promotion of Christianity which seemed his primary concern in the Saxon War. Just wondering if these were indepentant motivations or were the two interwoven?
I think Charlemagne's first goal was to expand his empire and his second was to convert all those lands he conquered to Christianity. He needed to expand first, before converting to Christianity.
Converting such a large region to Christianity would not be an easy task, and by succeeding, he demonstrated just how powerful a leader he really was. So i would say it was both power and Christianity that motivated him to expand his empire.
While reading about Charlemagne, i noted that the majority of things written about him were all positive.
Einhard wrote things about Charlemagne such as "most powerful king," "the others...surrendered without a struggle," "the most lent and most justly renowned King Charles," "the glory of his reign," and "most skillfully planned and successfully fought."
Similarly, Notker wrote things about Charlemagne such as "the unconquered Charlemagne," "the head of the world," and "the glorious Charlemagne."
All these terms display the great respect these writers must of had for Charlemagne. It demonstrated just how passionately they felt that he was a great and powerful leader and man. By reading their strong words, it helped me think of him as a great and powerful leader.
Leah makes a good point considering that most of the leaders/kings during the medieval period were not always seen in this light. really enjoyed this weeks reading was interesting to read about Charlemagne and his achievements.
Charlemage completely ignored the rights of his nephew when his brother died. My question is, what happened to the nephew?
Knowing that Einhard's facts often disagree with events makes me wonder though, how exaggerated his descriptions of Charlemagne were. This weeks reading stated that many recent historians believed that Einhard forged this depiction of Charlemagne "that is merely a figment of unrealistic hero worship". Does the very act of Einhard writing about Charlemagne in a glorified light prove his greatness and influence?...Or, do you think Charlemagne was merely a "product of his age" as some have suggested?
oppps..this was sorta in reply to Leah's comment!
Charlemagne paved the way for the foundation and future of medieval civilisation - the arts and knowledge greatly impacted culture. Einhard's description of Charlemagne presents a glorified representation of a capable and determined emperor. This seems accurate following his creation of the empire and ongoing campaigns and expansions. He seemed very interested in enforcing his control through converting pagans to Christians. Charlemagne becoming holy Roman emperor read to be entirely focused on the religious aspects associated with it, almost neglecting the knowledge and military side of the circumstance..
I noticed at the start of Einhard's readings that he wrote in imitation of Suetonius, especially the life of Augustus. In his work, 'The Twelve Caesars', Suetonius records both good and bad deeds. Not taking anything away from Charlemagne's achievements, in Einhard's work he is so glorified (almost deified) that I actually felt I was reading a piece of propaganda rather than a biography. Maybe this is partly because Einhard was writing during the reign of Charlemagne’s son?
I also wonder if there are any surviving accounts of Charlemagne written by the people he conquered? Slocum writes that he had a lot of problems with defeated Saxons, who would simply rebel once the kings’ troops had left, and that the Saxons would frequently return to their own religion. In the Frankish Royal Annals, Charlemagne is supposed to have executed 4,500 Saxons in a single day, and the Capitulary for Saxony stipulates that people who continued to practice their pagan religion could receive capital sentences. It would have been interesting to read a Saxon account of the wars, although it may have been as biased as Einhard’s seems to be. Does anyone know if Charlemagne is the first king to force religious conversion on the people he conquered?
I find the similarities between the early Emperors and Charlemagne to be typified by the minting of his own coin, with his portrait in profile displayed on it, particularly because of the wreath around his head in the classical style. As such, Einhard's inspiration of his "The Life of Charlemagne" by "Lives of the Caesars" ties in with this portrayal of Charlemange as a leader in the style of the ancient Romans.
Also, in response (kind of) to Charlotte's post, one could also question the validity of other similar biographies and whether or not everything written about leaders is mere hero worship - to write otherwise, in anything other than a glorification of the leader's feats, could result in execution or excommunication.
Reading the excerpts of Einhard's life of Charlemagne I was struch by the fact that the emperor demanded loyalty was prepared to offer trust and loyalty even to former enemies. Practically all his reign was taken up with the war against the Saxons. Yet we read that in the Saxons followed his standard as auxiliaries in the war against the Slavs. One of the two of Carlemagne's "chief men" who fell in the 791 war against the Huns. As part of mopping-up operations in he Lombard war,the Franks had subdued Friuli, then ruled by Duke Hruodgaus. The second of the "chief men" was Gerold, Governor of Bavaria, one of the powers he conquered and assimilated early in Charlemagne's program of expansion. But then again loyalty would a good policy to adopt towards an emperor who executed 4500 Saxons in a single day at Verdun.Kay Slocum's reference to his empire as the "Firt Europe" seems apt. Even today it is France and Germany calling the shots, as witnessed in these days of the Greek sovreign debt crisis.
I find it really interesting how Charlemagne was able to uphold high Christian and living standards within society quite easily during his rule. His use of military and church powers to establish his authority within the Frankish territories created a system of order and helped to keep subjects obedient. The achievement of strong bonds with royal ties and Frankish nobles allowed Charlemagne to be able to entrust members of royalty to take on positions of power and know they could be trusted. The creation and enforcement of capitularies demonstrated his resolve of maintaining a high standard of society, due to his restrictions upon drunken soldiers, priests/deacons having females in their chambers and the practice of any other religions.
His advocacy of Christianity is apparent through his actions against pagans, the worst being the Saxons. The execution of 4500 Saxons in a day is quite a lot during those times I imagine. Does anyone else know what kind of punishments were dealt out by Charlemagne to enforce Christianity or was capital punishment the main option?
I agree with what both Leah and Michelle are saying although I have been wondering if Charlemagne would have expanded as far had those areas already been Christainized?
I completely agree Leah!!
I must admit, from reading that article, I really like Charlemagne! I especially like that he was so forward thinking in regards to education, and I loved his interest in art and music. I didn't realise that he (or his people anyway) were responsible for initiating musical notatin.
I did get a little sceptical at times though, because Slocum does say that Einhard does present Charlemagne in 'glowing terms' and that 'many facts presented by Einhard do not agree with events as we now know them.' He goes on to say that these days, some historians think Einhard is responsible for 'creating an impression of Charlemagne that is merely a figment of unrealistic hero worship.'
Maybe he wasn't as great as Einhard portrays him? I guess we'll never really know!
The depictions of Charles certainly differ in the way they emphasise the virtue of his character. Pictures 1 and 2 definitely attribute Charles with the implied strength and masculinity (especially 2) which the Romans appraised. In contrast, pictures 3 and 4 convey a sense of humble obedience to God as illustrated by his comparatively gentle, yet confident, posture in each instance. Pictures 5 and 6 were a little more difficult to evaluate. While I don’t know how the Cardinal Virtues were regarded contextually, it seems they were much exalted. Charles appears less humble, yet more pious in the two later depictions – it’s this consideration which leads me to align him with the four Cardinal Virtues of Justice, Fortitude, Prudence and Temperance as they entail great strength of character; furthermore, this strength of character is less passive and perhaps less humble by nature than that found in the Theological Virtues.
Sorry for posting in two parts – this is related to my previous post. I typed everything up on Word first and forgot about this part….
Einhard’s descriptions and anecdotes of Charles also read as leaning towards the Cardinal Virtues for the aforementioned reasons. I believe Plato wrote of the Cardinal Virtues and I know Einhard’s makes note of the learning’s of Ancient Rome (which was fond of Ancient Greek Philosophy). I really do wonder if there was a rekindling of Roman values, after a great turning away, which was somewhat reconciled via a shift towards emphasising the Cardinal Virtues.
Hi Louise,
A good point to raise! Oaths were extremely important to the whole of medieval society; a way of thinking about them might be like a legal contract overseen by God who was the ultimate judge of all human activities. Signs like the death and madness mentioned by Notker were taken - and reported - as serious indicators of divine judgement. For example, Anglo-Saxon law used a similar system for testing really difficult cases: trial by ordeal. This meant swearing a solemn oath about the matter, and then undertaking an 'ordeal' which put the decision in the hands of God, e.g. touching hot iron and then seeing if the skin blistered. It often seems outrageously corrupt to us, because we think scientifically: it seems impossible that anyone would ever pass such a test, because all bad burns blister, so we assume that this system was a 'set up' to find people guilty and torture them. Thinking 'medieval', however, the test had to be terrifying and tough: on the one hand if it was easy to pass, it wouldn't be a good test of divine decision; on the other, people didn't want to go through it unless there were no other options, so it was a way of encouraging them to be a bit more reasonable to begin with. Just threatening to test by oath in this way probably made some of the wrong-doers in the story of Leo own up! If you're interested, there's a lot more about oaths and trial by ordeal in this book by Paul Hyams in the library.
In practice, oaths were an important and legal way of making almost any kind of agreement, including buying and selling property. Sometimes the exact retribution was even specified as a kind of threat to keep people in line. An example from 10th century Catalonia described to me recently by Jonathan Jarrett, an Oxford academic, goes like this:
"If, however, anyone among religious clerics or any count or any prince or any secular power... should wish to disrupt or break this act of ours or ... to steal or alienate or fraudulently acquire or usurp all those same above-written things from omnipotent God and Holy Mary, by the authority of omnipotent God and Saint Peter prince of the Apostles and the other apostles and by the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers let him be excommunicated and abominated and alien to the thresholds of the holy Church of God, and abject and submerged in the Inferno with Judas betrayer of the Lord, and let him not succeed in justifying this and let him compound these same aforesaid things twofold..."
Ouch! Glad it wasn't me on the receiving end of that one!
Interesting question, Stacey! It certainly would have required very different justifications... Was the 'paganism' of the other areas maybe one of the factors that gave him a kind of authority to invade? Did Einhard talk about Charlemagne's reasons, or just describe the results?
I guess you had two options if you wanted to remove the possibility of someone or their offspring becoming a threat to your kingship: kill them, or force them into a monastery. Let's hope it was the latter - but I don't know if or where history has recorded it! He probably did this to some of his other enemies, although Einhard tends to gloss over it by saying they 'suddenly decided to enter a monastery - of their own free will - for no apparent reason'... Sinister, but better than murder, I guess!
Oh, good idea Amy - I should try typing up on Word too, to avoid that irritation when the web crashes half way through a beautifully phrased thought and I have to start again. (It's a law of physics that this never happens when you are typing garbage...)
I found the parallels between Charlemagne and the Roman Emperors really quite noticeable, particularly in the way they were portrayed by their chroniclers and contemporaries. For instance, to me, the first picture above, of the coin, is reminiscent of the Roman coins which depicted their emperors with the same grandiose style. Also, Einhard’s titling of his biography ‘The Life of Charlemagne’ after the Suetonius’ work on the Roman Emperor ‘The Life of Augustus’ underscores this.
It seems to me, that most of these contemporary portrayals of Charlemagne all glorify him to some extent – not just the images showing him as the golden king, but Einhard’s biography which lists, in detail, Charlemagne’s successes to the point where it seems his mere name and presence are seem to ensure victory for him, as is particularly evident in the story of Tassilo who ‘did not think it was for his own or his people’s good to persist’ in opposing him.
To me, it seems that Charlemagne was a very competent leader, succeeding in uniting so many factions and creating a Christian empire with a law system, providing education and inspiring great art & architecture in a tumultuous time as the early medieval period, when others had failed. However, it does remain that Charlemagne did only succeed with a great deal of war or intimidation of every region he added to his empire which, for me, detracts from his achievements because of the cruelty of such action.
Just one of those things that are conveniently omitted from the record and thus forgotten, eh.
Thanks for sharing such a great blog Keep posting.
relationship management
hr contacts database
Post a Comment