Charlemagne

Charlemagne: The Formation of a European Identity

More than a simple biography of a Frankish king, Charlemagne: The Formation of a European Identitytargets centuries-old assumptions and accumulated arguments about the great king and sheds new light on the formation of a single, more cohesive Europe as a result of his rule. Rosamond McKitterick charts the formation of Frankish political identity during the reign of Charlemagne, studying the development of the Carolingian empire from its beginnings.McKitterick advances the research of Charlemagne to leave readers with a fresh perspective on a man whose legacy lives on today. 

Any scholar of the Carolingian era is faced with the many assumptions-turned-facts concerning Charlemagne and his reign. Charlemagne is remembered in history books as a great warrior, a mighty conqueror, a patron of learning, champion of Christianity, and maybe more broadly, “The Father of Europe.” McKitterick does not deny these accolades but starts from the beginning to separate fact from popular myth. She takes a fresh look at Charlemagne because the stereotype of the “veritable demi-god” is so dominant and his role in relation to the sense of European identity is so pervasive, that from our standpoint in history, our beliefs are skewed. 

To correct misconceptions and combat conjecture, McKitterick reexamines the primary evidence anew by taking a look at three samples of written narrative accounts of the life and times of Charlemagne. The first, the Vita Karoli, was written by Einhard between the years 814 and 823. He was a courtier who personally knew Charlemagne. TheVita was written just a few years after the death of the emperor, and McKitterick places great emphasis on this narrative account. Einhard’s purpose in writing the Vita was to celebrate Charlemagne’s life, his way of life, his accomplishments, good deeds, and habits. Einhard also wrote to express his gratitude to Charlemagne. In addition, the Vitawas written with several political purposes, including underscoring Louis the Pious’s legitimacy, and explaining Charlemagne’s imperial rule and the regularity of succession. Of the three texts McKitterick examines, Einhard’s Vita held a special significance to its immediate audience: the text addressed a subject that they knew well. As a result of this ‘audience familiarity’ and context, McKitterick points out that Einhard could have left details out of his narrative that may have seemed inconsequential at the time. She cautions that although the Vita Karoliis an extraordinarily influential representation of Charlemagne, it should be approached with careful attention to this bias. 

The next contemporary example cited by McKitterick is The Astronomer’s Life of Louis the Pious from the 840s. Interestingly, Charlemagne is not the central figure of the work; instead his son Louis the Pious is the focus with Charlemagne being referred to only incidentally. Its overall purpose is to remember the good and bad deeds of the ancients, especially princes, and to benefit, edify, and to warn future generations. The Astronomer’s perspective is not without stereotype and Charlemagne is again portrayed as a wise king and father. As a source, the Astronomer’s narrative provides insightful details into the educational arrangements Charlemagne made for his son Louis. 

Finally, McKitterick evaluates the poetry of the Poeta Saxo. McKitterick believes that the Poeta Saxo was probably a Corvey monk writing between the years 888 and 891. In this version of Charlemagne’s life, he is portrayed as an apostle bringing the Christian faith to the gentiles.

McKitterick contends that each of the three authors all probably relied on information provided in the Annales regni francorum, with each author also supplying “local and individual memories or a personal selection of documentary material to his narrative.” In this section ofCharlemagne, McKittierick tries to establish which texts were written when, by whom, and for what purposes. Through a seemingly line-by-line investigation the author is able to condense these three versions of Charlemagne’s history into a cohesive chronicle. Biases are exposed and compensated for. Conclusions are reached and explained. Charlemagneprovides the best composite of the founding of the Carolingian period and the celebrated king. 

It is important to mention thatCharlemagne: The Formation of a European Identity is not a chronological account of Charlemagne or the Carolingian period. Instead, McKitterick organizes her masterwork thematically. This type of organization can be off-putting to some readers, but taken as a whole, most should be able to recognize the need for this type of structure of such a complex subject.For instance, it would be difficult for many authors to concisely explain the ways in which political power was exercised and expressed during the Carolingian era in any way other than thematically. It is in this section ofCharlemagne that McKitterick reaches her apex.

McKitterick beings her explanation of political power not with the Carolingians, but with the Merovingians as they were losing power. According to McKitterick Pippinid mayors, not Merovingian kings set the social order to rights. These mayors won the support and acquiescence of Frankish nobles for their inspired leadership, and gained what McKitterick terms the “consensus and support of the Franks.” Through this leadership, the Pippinids earned respect during their office that belied an external perception of power that they exercised, while maintaining the traditions of late Merovingian government. McKitterick also argues that there was a steady build-up of wealth and connections on the part of the Pippinid mayors and other members of the family. The production of coinage reflects the real power held by the Pippinids. On the whole, the “evidence supports an understanding of the power of the mayors as equivalent to that enjoyed by the kings.” The Pippinids ruled as Merovingian kings, modeled after the kings they served. For a time, the mayors were in charge of the royal households, all aspects of royal administration, justice, the treasury, and the army. Just as Merovingian kings did, Pippinid mayors ruled with bishops and secular magnates.

Another indication of the power exerted in the developing Carolingian period is the joint rule of Charlemagne and Carloman mentioned by McKitterick. This joint rule poses an interesting dynamic between two kings. As well, Charlemagne and Carloman were known to intervene in Italian political matters as indicated by the presence of Frankish soldiers in Lombardy.

During the Carolingian era, there is evidence that indicates a female royal presence and power, namely that of Charlemagne’s sister Gisela. As eventual abbess of the convent of Chelles, Gisela presided during a time of prolific writing of court practices during the Carolingian period.

Without question, McKitterick sheds fresh light on Charlemagne’s communication network as his empire expanded under his reign. She points to regional centers of power, a plurality of political and administrative centers, and a necessary maintenance of communication between these centers and the surrounding regions. McKitterick gives a detailed discussion of Charlemagne’s itinerary, and makes the argument that he was not an itinerant ruler. Instead she charges, Charlemagne used royal charters, capitularies, and missi to administrate throughout his kingdom. Thus, order, royal control, peace, and stability were ensured. According to McKitterick the extensive network of communications underlay Charlemagne’s military success. 

As compared to Gregory of Tours’ work, the notion of society in the Carolingian period was quite different. McKitterick argues for a gradual transition between Merovingian and Carolingian rule, with a steady assumption of royal power by the Pippinid mayors that allowed the replacement of the Merovingian kings.With gradual change comes continuities, and the same is indicated between the Merovingian king and Carolingian royalty. McKitterick points to the burial of Pippin III next to St. Denis as a link between Merovingian kings and the Pippinids. In addition, she asserts that Charlemagne’s will resembles Merovingian wills from the seventh century.

The most insightful and meaningful indication of a gradual transition of power is the Frankish relationship with Bavaria. Relations between the Franks and Bavarians during the Merovingian period are difficult to understand according to McKitterick, but Bavarian politics sustained direct political interference from the Franks and Pippinids. The disagreement between Charlemagne and his Bavarian cousin, Tassilo, is indicative of great political interference. Eventually, due to papal intervention, Tassilo and Bavaria would be conquered by Charlemagne, but it was not without a “prolonged effort.”

Charlemagne: The Formation of a European Identity goes to great lengths to implicate the Carolingian period and Charlemagne as the core of European identity formation. Charlemagne was able to harness an incredibly large area of land filled with peoples of relatively different cultures. In The Making of Europe, author Christopher Dawson advocates for a modern European consciousness and a sense of historic and organic unity. Under the rule of Charlemagne, Medieval Europeans were united together under one kingdom and the formation of a European identity was set into motion.