One of the most well-known kings of the Franconia Empire was Charlemagne. Charlemagne’s popularity stems from the fact that he founded the Carolingian Empire, which revived education, implemented religious reforms, and established civil policy (Sherman 210-211). Charlemagne exhibited great signs of becoming a ruler and, eventually, an emperor. The biographies collected here provide a rich and diverse portrait of the king from two angles. The young intellectual and mentor Einhard and the monastic scholar Notker each offered two similar but different biographies of Charlemagne in their two Charlemagne lives. The intellectual and wisdom disparity between Einhard and Notker, both the good guy and the mastermind, contributes to the historical image of Charlemagne that persists to this day. Although both authors explain similar positive interpretations of Charlemagne, their relationship and unblemished views of the king call into question how their interpretations had such a strong influence on future historians.
Einhard’s biography had minimal information to support his wisdom and intellect. For example, Einhard explained Charlemagne’s tactics related to the proclamation of war. Charlemagne was unwavering in his resolve but wary of battle, but he learned to submit and endure everyone by his nature (24). Charlemagne was not a rash ruler. Regardless of whether the battle was bloody or not, he fought in accordance with his kingdom’s reputation and that of his opponent. The Frankish view of the Saxons is justified, according to Einhard, because they were “essentially devoted to worshiping the devil… they were always very quick to break their promises” (23). In contrast to Notker’s interpretation, Einhard’s perspective on wisdom and intellect was primarily focused on Charlemagne.
Unlike Einhard, Notker’s understanding of wisdom during Charlemagne’s reign was centered on the bishops and clergy in his immediate vicinity. Notker acted as if he thought Charlemagne’s intelligence was spreading among the group’s members. Anecdotal references to those who worked and lived during Charlemagne’s reign account for about one-quarter or one-third of Notker’s biography. In the second book of the biography of Notker, the foreign ambassador, who had already met Charlemagne, escaped the death penalty and betrayed the King of Constantinople. The king willingly granted his wish before being subjected to a sentence. This led those who claimed to have seen him deny that they have seen him commit a crime. Notker’s constant appeals to the bishops, priests, and other staff members seemed to imply that Charlemagne’s reign was one of intelligence and reason.
Is there any evidence that Charlemagne ever acted rashly? In terms of the answer, Einhard and Notker had nearly identical responses. In none of their biographies were there any indications or cases of Charlemagne’s malice. He was a generous man who gave to the poor, the church, and everyone else who deserved or needed it. Charlemagne’s generosity to the poor, particularly the church, was well-known to Einhard. Until Einhard mentioned Charlemagne’s death, Charlemagne’s charity had been so well planned that he did not intend to keep all of his valuables solely for the sake of his pedigree. According to Charlemagne’s will, he divides the majority of the treasure into three parts, two of which go to the sanctuary, and the third goes to servants, the poor of the kingdom, and his family.
When comparing to the interpretation of the nature of Einhard Charlemagne, Notker declines from referring to Einhard’s Charlemagne will and instead illustrates his generous nature through a series of small conflicts and experiences. Charlemagne’s generosity varied according to the people he met, according to a Notker. It was given to the poor by Charlemagne, but it was also given to the ignorant. Charlemagne attended a wandering priest of the church, who did not know how to sing with the choir. He tried to imitate the singer with humorous yet shameful stupidity. Charlemagne thought about his attempt, “Thank you, a good priest for your song and effort,” and he ordered him to give him a silver pound to alleviate his poverty” (61). In his opinion, Charlemagne also rewarded those who worked hard. He bestowed upon the parish the benefit of keeping everything clean at all times (65). True, he accomplished great so much but there were still king oppressors plotting against him despite this. Pippin the hunchback, Charlemagne’s son, was one of the conspirators.
The conspiracy of Pippin the Hunchback was perhaps the most exciting point and subject mentioned in these biographies. This betrayal was mentioned in the references by both Einhard and Notker. They were both mentioned in their biographies, but there was a clear difference in their interpretations of the case in this particular case. Einhard’s perspective is a bit condensed, but the big picture is that Pippin the hunchback, along with a group of Frankish leaders, plotted to dethrone Charlemagne but was eventually discovered and shaved. He was punished for living in the St. Gall Monastery (33). The event was presented by Einhard as if it were a different topic that Charlemagne was suppressing. Notker’s take on Pippin’s betrayal was a little more in-depth. Notker’s version claims Pippin was defrauded before being deported to St. Gall and was temporarily exiled to the monastery. Notker depicts the case’s aftermath with Charlemagne, who does not want to put the Frankish conspirators to death right away. In this depiction, Charlemagne showed signs of mercy. Not only did Charlemagne not put Pippin to death, but he also left the decision to him, stating that he was far from the country in which he lived, there is room for growth and expansion.
Einhard’s biography, when briefly compared with Notker’s, depicts Charlemagne as a noble and just leader, emphasizing historical victories, family, and political achievements. Einhard considered Charlemagne his highly regarded father and teacher. Einhard’s biography presents most aspects of birth, achievement, family, and death. He claims to have tested with the purest truth. However, the fact that someone is addressed in such high regard without acknowledging possible flaws is a question of whether his views should be respected or not. Despite the direct and constant contact with the man Einhard saw as a mentor, it is difficult to make such a statement. Still, Einhard’s biography says, “Our Charlemagne paintings shaped it, and we can unknowingly recognize Charlemagne as Einhard: in honor” (5). Notker’s biography was doubly long but incomplete, focusing on the influence of surroundings on the legacy of Charlemagne. It shows how his reign benefited the empire, its members, and those who may have not necessarily been involved with Charlemagne. On the other hand, Notker’s biography deviates slightly from Einhard’s as if he were written freely. Either way, their two goals of remembering the great emperor through wisdom, good deeds, and conspiracy remained the same.
Works Cited
Notker, et al. Two Lives of Charlemagne. Harmondsworth, Penguin, 2008.
Contreni, John J., and Dennis Sherman. “Western Civilization: Images and Interpretations.” The History Teacher, vol. 18, 1985, p. 278.