Einhard can also be on occasion mildly implicitly critical of his late lord, such as when he wrote that Charlemagne tended to dote on and be over-protective of his daughters. He covers all the great events of Charlemagne's reign, including Charlemagne's military expeditions and exploits such as the bloody 32-year war against the Saxons. Even allowing for the fact that he was writing about his late lord and may have indulged in a little licence in praising the Frankish emperor-king, the reader does get some genuine and valuable insights into Charlemagne as a man and ruler and the times in which he lived. Einhard, who was a monk and in effect Charlemagne's private secretary and thus close to the Frankish king, gives a lucid, fairly-detailed, and down-to-earth description of Charlemagne as man, ruler, and father.
When I first read Lewis Thorpe's translations of Charlemagne's biographies by Einhard and Notker the Stammerer, I realised that these were of differing value in assessing the man, king, and emperor. If you want to understand the mind of the medieval era, and some facts besides, these two accounts are great places to start.Įinhard gives some real insight into the man. If you want his illusiveness to disapear, you will be very dissapointed. It is dissapointing to have these two "lives" of Charlemagne without being able to understand him. There are some entertaining tales and tidbits, but often they wonder into obscurity. The story also lacks a thread to tie it together. I do not think a bad word is spoken of him. He is described as tireless, fearless, pious, unconquerable, etc. Charlemagne seems more human and vivid in this account, but he still lacks complex, three-dimensional qualities. Notker's story is a series of tales, digressions, and fantasies all written with an overly verbose, confusing style. Compared to Notker, however, it is the more reliable source. The cardboard picture of Charles we get from his narrative is lacking illumination. Only problem is, he is biased from the outset. These two sources do much to help us in this regard.Įinhardt's narrative is terse, well written, and fast paced. One problem is the lack of reliable source material. Understanding the Franks during this historical period is vital to understanding the dynamics of the middle ages. His rule was contemporaneous with Harun al-Rashid, the greatest Abbasid Caliph, and he presided over the great Carolingian revival-led by Alcuin and other learned monks. Charlemagne occupies a position of central historical importance in the west.
0 kommentar(er)
