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...)
22 comments:
Hi All,
Einhards view as seen through the eyes of a friend,loyal and devoted records events and conquering wars with a personal almost intimate recall, but events like his birth early child hood he has nothing to say a non event. As he was writing this a couple of years after his death and would have had eye witness access to Charlemagne every thought and his history. Seems strange it wasn't recored. Einhard talks of the trip to Rome to save Pope Leo as a set in order the confused affairs of the church and stayed all winter doing it. He makes no mention of what Notker the Stammerer writes about 70 years later that the roman people went into hiding at Charlemagne name and that he only stayed a few days. Determination to his vision of a christian empire, shows up strong with the war of the Saxons I guess killing 4500 faithless in one day is enough to give up the practice of pagan religion and adopt christianity, or just go underground.
looking forward to reading your views
Ross
Hey guys,
Can I first just say that I am a huge fan of Renaissance and Medieval Artwork, and I love how you have presented the transforming pictures of Charlemagne in such a juxtaposable way! I think it is fascinating to see his likeness transform from what we could identify as a very "Julius Caesar" image on a coin, into that of almost what could be perceived as a portrait of a Pope-like figure.
This is probably worth noting as the mythos of Charlemagne obviously became exacerbated over time, but I still think that artwork is reflective of historical beliefs and values of the time. So this may be quite a significant factor!
I also like the picture where he is seen to be instructing construction of a building, don't you think that is very metaphorical as well as a literal interpretation of a real event!
Like lauren, I think its interesting to see the progression of images of Charlemagne from the simple and very roman depiction on his coin and modest clothing on his horse in the statue, to that of the adourned and very oppulant clothing and crown in the last image. These images and the differences in them give light the shifting imagery of what greatness (as a leader) entails and looks like over time, which I find very interesting.
-Tom Crowe
Hi everyone,
After looking at the images above, I was really interested to discover the change that came about following Charlemagne's conquest of Italy. After being crowned the emperor of the romans or "Charles, Emperor Augustus" as depicted on the denier, it appears that a heavy religous influence occured and a new importance was placed on documenting events.
This seems to be evident in the artwork and similarly the content of art. This noteably refers to the symbols of piety that are portrayed in many of the above images.
Additionally the manuscript featured above also defines a revival of literature and the importance of documenting events in history which adopts a more humanistic vision. This translated well with the type of thinking that began in Italy which eventually lead into the period known as the Renaissance.
The photos are very interesting! I love seeing the progression of Charlemagne. The pictures present a timeline from the start of his reign where he is seen as a classic Roman Emperor but as time goes on he is presented as a more relgious figure. I think this shows what a large influence the catholic church was. This could explain how even after the fall of the Roman Empire the Catholic religion has still remained strong in scoiety.
Stephanie Dumble
I think it's really interesting to see how the progression of the pictures reflect the progression of his life (not just by what is show in the pictures) but in the sense that after all that he had accomplished in his life, he seems to live on in the hearts and minds of future generations and his legend continues to grow after his death. As the years go by it seems that his icon status increases and this increase seems to be depicted from the first picture to the last one which was made well after his death.
- Roman
Hey everyone
I couldn't agree with Lauren more about the change in the portray of Charlemagne. The coin really does show him as a caesar like figure probably still reflecting the importance of Rome or the idea of Rome had on these people's lives. Yet The later portrayal is so different as you can really see the move away from Roman influence.
Mathew Gashi
Hey everyone
I Just thought i would throw a topic out there for discussion. In the readings, on page 89, it is said or at least implied that Charlemagne's decision to allow the different cultures to retain their own languages and customs contributed to the break up of the empire after his death. I am interested in whether people agree with this. I would argue that allowing different cultures to retain some of their customs would make it easier for them to be part of an empire than if they were forced to conform to a different uniform culture. Would people not be more inclined to rebel or break away if they were forced to abandon their long standing traditions? Or another argument could be a view that an empire might ultimately be doomed if it does or doomed if it doesn't.
Having read through Einhards account of Charlegmade's life, I am bait skeptical about how accurate it is. As you point out he writes as a friend and might be slightly biased in his writings. interested to see what other people think
Mathew Gashi
This is an interesting point to pick up on, Matthew. The opposite explanation has been offered, for example, for the success of Gregory I's mission to convert the Anglo-Saxons. In that case he was praised for seeing that conversion would be easier if the people were allowed to retain some of their accustomed symbols as long as they were 'repurposed' for Christian use. Do we think that this is only true of religious ideas, but doesn't work for political ones? Or is one explanation right and one wrong? Or are they both inadequate?
So to put this together with Ross' point about Notker vs. Einhard, above, and some of the discussion of art, below, the image of Charlemagne's religious behaviour could be one of the points which has been especially open to manipulation. Does anyone want to throw in a suggestion as to why this might have been important?
Nice point, Perin. Although you can't see it very clearly in the above image, there is a picture in the readings that shows very nicely the difference between the (earlier) Merovingian style of writing and the Caorlingian one. There seems to have been a definite improvement in how clear and easy it was to read. Whether you want to attribute this all to the influence of one man or not, you could still hypothesise that it was a technological advance that benefited literacy and education - just one of the changes in these fields around this time. Do you agree that we should call this period a 'Carolingian Renaissance'?
Hi everyone,
I too find the depictions of Charlemagne very interesting. They allow us to see how the image/vision of a ruler, even just one ruler, can change over a period of time.
The Roman influence is greatly noticed in the coin, where Charlemagne is wearing a wreath for his crown, which changes to a greater Christian influence, where he is surrounded by members of the church. Then he becomes this fierce, regal, strong presence in the last image showing that he is in power and that no one should oppose him.
I also found it interesting how in 3 of the pictures he seems to be carrying a scepter, whilst in the last he appears to be holding a sword. This too, I believe, shows how the Medieval way of life is starting to unfold and leads to the ideas of knights and valor.
-Erika Hill
hi guys,
to continue on this thread of Einhard's 'friendship' with Charlemagne, i agree with Matthew above that his interpretation of his actions and his life seem somewhat biased and possibly glossed over. after all, he is keen to mention in the preface this "most glorious life of this most glorious king."
Also, in admitting that he is "a Barbarian," he presents his own 'political' view, one which becomes apparent when he speaks of the Franks being "thrown into the cloister" by a Roman.
Does this present a prejudice here??
what do you guys think?
Levi King.
I also found the portrayal of his image was really interesting, in the sense of his apparent age in most of the images and what kind of role/action he was doing at the time. As in, the first few pictures he looks really young (Well, younger), and it seems that a lot of the influences on his image are roman. Yet as he gets older he seems to reflect a more religious/powerful demeanour.
Hello everyone,
Reading Einhard did make me wonder about Charlemagne as a man of avarice. There are a couple of passages in particular that hint that going to war over religion and territory may not have been his only important objectives. Charlemagne’s suddenly merciful attitude to Aragis of the Beneventans in 787 when he coughed up a vast sum of money and the viciousness/thoroughness of the campaign against the Huns in 791 that netted him “so much silver and gold…found in the Kahn’s Palace.” Wealth apparently suspected by no one earlier. Is avarice also reflected in the way he is portrayed in the art of his time and later?
Kellie
After reading about Charlemagne and seeing these images of him, I am left wondering what affect he would have had on later Kings of the Medieval period (and possibly even later). Einhards retelling of his life makes him appear to be a noble King/Emperor and a highly devout Christian. Even more so, would Charlemagnes military and governing success appeal to later Kings who may desire to emulate his achievements? Also would these contribute to our modern idea of a King who is governing, fair and a good leader (so in other words, is our perception of a 'good' King based of Charlemagne)?
Hi everyone,
My favourite image is the last one due to the way it presents Charles as being saintly and regal. I find the transformation quite ironic, as he becomes more realistic as time goes on (obviously part of that is simply the style of the times).
On the point about the break up of his empire, I noticed how East Franka followed the same cultural custom of dividing the inheritance between multiple sons, thus forming the many states that became Germany. Whilst West Franka adopted the custom of the eldest son inheriting. I was wondering this was due to the Romano-Gallic presence in France or was it random?
Steph Kelly adds:
"I also thought this was a really interesting question. I was surprised that people from different cultures who spoke different languages were so readily integrated into a new Empire, but I suppose that can be put down to Charlemagne's personality and strength as a leader. I tend to agree with the last suggestion. That is, that by allowing his Empire to remain linguistically and culturally diverse, he made his large Empire difficult to unite under weak leadership because of the social division it caused. However, had he enforced cultural and linguistic unity on his people, it is likely he would have faced much more resistance and destabalised the new Empire."
If the orb in his hand from picture 3 is a religious symbol then he has been depicted in art as a religious figure since the 9th century although he seems to be depicted also as a warlord in picture 3 whilst he seems more humble in the later images especially pictures 4 and 6.
Georgia says:
'The information about the Carolignian Empire is really fascinating, but what's also interesting about it all is the amount of discussion surrounding the historical validity of the sources from the time, particularly regarding Charlemagne and his biographer. An interesting example is also when Charlemagne is pronounced Emporer and Defender of the Church of Rome and Notker describes his modesty in accepting the position. Slocum then talks about the "generations of scholars [who] have devoted much energy to research and debate concerning this incident" and discusses all the various viewpoints that people have regarding it. Another thing that I found interesting in the reading is the position of women in society, and while the Carolingian society was very patriarchal, women did still hold a small amount of legal and economic rights, and were partly responsible for the education of their children. And a final point I would like to bring up is Charlemagne's sort-of confusing personality. I found it really strange how he was so dedicated to his 'Christian Mission' and creating a 'vast Christian realm' while also being "aggressive and ambitious, and determined to achieve his own ends, even when ruthless action was required".'
While all scholars do agree that Charlemagne was great and undeniably very smart to have created such a vast empire as well as becoming "defender of the Church of Rome". There doesn't seem to be much mention of his ruthlessness and unrelenting determination apart from brutal behaviour towards the saxons and the "4,500 saxons" that he executed on a single day.
In relation to the equestrian sculpture of Charlemagne, i thought it was interesting to note that on page 105 it said that this sculpture could possible portray Charlemagne successor.
I also found it very interesting, especially for this period in time that Charlemagne saw to expand women's opportunities including more economic independence where they could now be eligible to inherit immovables (property). But at the same time, women involved in the church such as nuns and abbesses power and rights were decreasing with laws stating "the weakness of her sex".
Though that proved ironic when nuns were forbidden to teach boys, whereas girls received good education in literacy and writing of the classical era, the boys received very little education at all.
Claire L.
Post a Comment