Early Historiography of Charlemagne [Old School Papers]
As a slight change of pace, I’m not going to write something new here. Instead, I’m going to copy-paste an essay that I wrote in college Note: I just spent the better part of an hour tracking this file down, you had better be happy with it 
.
Let me tell you a bit about this thing, before anything else. Historiography is, put briefly, “the history of history.” A historiographer takes historical events, and looks at how, since it occurred, society’s and historians’ views and descriptions of the event have changed. That may sound rather pointless, if you’re not thinking too hard about it, but I promise it isn’t. Take the last 100 years, and the “Middle Ages” as an example. Up to relatively recent times, all history focused on the “big people” – kings, generals, major nobility and high clergy. The 20th Century saw an increasing focus on “the little people” in every-day life, and this eventually effected what historians researched and reported; many tried to learn what life was like for peasants, rather than just nobles. Woman’s rights came to public attention, and historical women were investigated more, approaching the level of their male counterparts. And minorities: similar story.
History always studies the past through the lens of the present, and other events that have occurred since. It’s not always 100% accurate – so much is taken for granted now, for example, that was not true a thousand years ago. Historiography tries to find what these changes in view are, when they occurred, and maybe even why they occurred.
That being said, I learned about historiography in a history class during my last semester of college. I wrote the below paper on the early historiography of Charlemagne, a Frankish King in the late 700′s and early 800′s AD. The text has been edited slightly, mostly to correct grammar or spelling mistakes.
In other news: today I recorded the below song, using the mic built into my laptop, as well as the booster/preamp pedal I built myself; I figured I’d name it after the kind of trashy sound it has. Then I went for a bike ride, and got two flat tires, and had to walk home.
further edit: next post makes number 50! that’s some kind of milestone or something, right?
Charlemagne, or Charles the Great, or just Charles, was the Carolingian king from 768 to 814, C.E. He is one of the more renowned figures of medieval European history, and thanks to his biographers, one of the more well-known and well understood. He united substantial portions of central Europe, fostered some development of the arts and education, and was partly responsible for the tight integration of the Catholic Church with his administration. He conquered several territories and peoples, and was crowned Roman Emperor by the Pope. However, he is not just some “shadowy figure from the depths of history,” whose deeds are known, but whose personality was lost over the years; instead, he is a real, three-dimensional figure, thanks to the two biographies written by his near-contemporaries.
The first biography was written by his servant Einhard. Einhard was one of the beneficiaries of Charlemagne’s education campaign – he started life in a fairly poor family, but thanks to his hard work in school ended up in Charlemagne’s court (mentioned in Notker’s biography as well, on 3). In his biography, he referred to Charlemagne as “my foster-father,” referring to the way Charlemagne treated students and courtiers similarly to his own children. Einhard’s biography was written between 829 and 836, within about 20 years of Charles’ death. Einhard mentioned the end of the Merovingian and the start of the Carolingian dynasties and the list of Charlemagne’s ancestors (giving the background of the empire Charlemagne came into), listed Charlemagne’s military campaigns (in order). He followed with other details of Charlemagne’s life, and ended with his death. It was organized very well, logically laid out, and was meant to be an overview of Charlemagne’s life, giving an overview of all of his accomplishments in a mostly chronological manner.
The other biography was written by the Monk of Saint Gall, who is believed to be someone known as Notker, sometime around 883, for Charles the Fat (one of Charlemagne’s grandson). Notker was separated from Charlemagne’s time by several generations, and as such he had to acquire his information second or third-hand (19). He also had a much less organized, more anecdotal and rambling style. Besides this, there are several other differences, mostly in content and in the portrayal of Charlemagne as a ruler and a person.
The first noticeable difference, however, is the style of writing. Einhard wrote his “Life of Charlemagne” in imitation of Suetonius’s biography of the Caesar Augustus. It was laid out in a logical fashion, proceeding mostly chronologically. This biography presents all the major events of Charlemagne’s life that the author knew. Notker’s “Life of Charlemagne,” on the other hand, was more of a compilation of anecdotes and legends that grew up surrounding Charles, many of them likely after his death. There were many interesting tales, but they were not arranged at all systematically. The tales were written in whatever order they came to Notker; it begins with a tale of two Scots who traveled to his court, and at at least two points he even acknowledged having “diverted” (18,29). It is certainly an interesting read, but it feels more like “leisure reading” than a serious attempt to record history.
Another difference is the content. Einhard’s “Life” was given a nice table of contents. This may have been added later, but it gives a nice visual to the fact that Einhard’s biography was given a good outline, and covers all of the major portions of his adult life. The sections are written in a generalized way, shortened in order to fit the whole story, without anything unnecessary. Notker’s “Life,” however, was filled with anecdotes about his life, as well as a few about some of his family. On page 28, Notker began talking about King Lewis; on page 34, he talked some more about Lewis, as well as Pippin; from 38 to the end, he talks exclusively about Lewis. The end of the manuscript trails off, uncompleted. Examples of the anecdotal nature of Notker’s account can be found throughout the entire work (pages 1-40).
The most notable difference is the portrayal of the subject, Charlemagne, himself. Einhard actually knew him when he was a child and Charlemagne was an adult, and had tremendous respect for him. As such, he portrayed him as expected for a respected authority figure someone knew as a child: he is larger-than-life (he was described as both tall and tubby); a great leader, a great Christian, and in general a good man; but he does have some human failings, such as an unhealthy fondness for food and family. He was portrayed as being wise, but occasionally not knowing everything. To Notker, though, Charlemagne was more the shadowy figure of legend. Right away, he was described as “not less admirable” than the Roman emperors (1). Notker described many of his brilliant works, such as “bringing down the proud,” and “raising up the humble,” (an often-repeated theme) (10); he always seemed to know what was going on, who to blame, and who to give trust to. He was portrayed as prophetic, knowing that the Northmen would eventually give much more trouble to his descendants than they already were; he also was said to have made prophetic comments about some of his descendants and the future of his people, notably the growing threat of the Northmen (32). Notker’s Charlemagne was “wise,” “careful,” “unconquered,” “energetic,” and many, many other things (8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 21, 31, 36, and likely a few others). Einhard praised him similarly, but in ways that made him seem more human and less divine than Notker. In one anecdote, Notker tells of how all of the various groups of people known to him living in the East lived in constant fear of Charlemagne, more than their own rulers (25); Einhard mentioned foreign policy, saying that Charlemagne had friendly relations with most countries, but did not quite go that far in praising the ruler.
The differences between these two can be partially explained by the context in which each was written. Einhard, as mentioned, personally knew Charlemagne. He lived in his court and was a first-hand witness to some of the events he put into his biography. Having known him, it was impossible for Einhard to deny Charlemagne’s human nature and some of his failings. He also had other primary and secondary sources available, such as documents made in Charlemagne’s court and people who knew him. Notker was writing several decades later. Charlemagne (and, one may assume, all of his contemporaries) had been dead for a long time. Most of the material available to him was third-hand at best, so he did the best he could, and put together a collection of stories about Charlemagne. Even in such a relatively short time, legends around a great figure grow mighty tall, and by the time Notker was putting together his biography, Charlemagne had become a kind of folk hero and one of the shadowy legends of history. In addition, Notker was not writing for historical prosperity; he was writing to please his king Charles the Fat. It is easy to see how a collection of amusing or inspiring anecdotes might be more pleasurable reading to a busy monarch than a monolithic narrative like Notker’s.
Notker and Einhard both wrote biographies about Charlemagne, titled “The Life of Charlemagne.” They both praise him as a great Christian and ruler of the Franks, but they take a different perspective on him. Einhard personally knew Charlemagne, and paints him as a three-dimensional, realistic person, with many accomplishments some failings. Notker sees him as a legend that he learned of from his elders, larger than life and infallible. Einhard laid out his biography logically, as a kind of historical record of Charles’ life, while Notker put together more of a collection of anecdotes. As much as Notker’s biography can be criticized, it is still helpful. It gives another perspective; it shows what people thought of him at the time, and his ascent to the status as a folk hero. It does not give an overall picture of Charles’ life, but does fill in some of the blanks. Overall, the existence of these two different biographies is great for history, since they give such a detailed perspective into Charlemagne’s life.
