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.

Living with the Dead in the Middle Ages

 

​According to the introduction of Living with the Dead in the Middle Ages, Patrick J. Geary sets out to examine the similarities between how the people of the Middle Ages dealt with the dying and death and how our modern-day society manages the same. Geary somehow mostly misses this mark, and instead through a collection of essays, provides an in-depth appraisal of the reverence of the lives of saints, their burials, and the subsequent respect given to the relics of saints.

​Geary’s essays are divided into the following sections: Reading, Representing, Negotiating, and Living. These chapters highlight the challenges that have been faced by early medieval specialists in terms of the sources available to them. Reading the sources is perhaps the most challenging task as seen by Geary. Geary advocates for a triple process of evaluation: a traditional interpretation of written sources; an examination of how objects and actions are read in texts; and a consultation with the growing literature on these issues.

​Geary is quick to point out that we must not forget that hagiography is consciously propaganda. It is not to be taken as a transparent window into everyday Medieval life or that of the saints. According to Geary, historically researchers have forgotten what a hagiographic text really is, what an author is, and what the society was. Geary observes four recent trends in the interpretation of hagiographic texts: a tendency to move from the study of saints to that of the society as a whole; shifting the focus of hagiography from one saint to several saints and their respective dossiers; a movement beyond sacred biographies to include evaluation of other texts; and a recognition that these texts are not transparent windows into the saints’ lives, their society, or even the spirituality of the age. Geary goes on to list several problems with the collaboration methods by previous researchers, including separating the texts from the contexts that they were written in, and a broad examination of the texts during the periods they are not normally associated with. One of the most significant problems Geary has uncovered is the copying, excerpting, and rearranging of old texts by contemporary Medieval authors and biographers. Geary asserts that these methods of authorship are the same as composing a completely new hagiography.

​More than just pointing out the problems associated with hagiography, Geary provides solutions for extending our research. He advocates for an analysis of hagiographic texts extending beyond the internal life of religious communities and an examination of the relationships among communities and lay society. “By concentrating on a specific locale, by examining the codicological tradition, by going beyond classic hagiographic texts to look at liturgy, miracle collections, devotional literature, and even the evidence of archives, they avoid artificial constructs of author and ideal.” Geary asserts that we need dozens of micro studies of the lives of individual saints, that we need to be informed of the relationships between ordinary laity and their local saints, and that we need models of comportment and ideals of human existence that saints seemed to offer. In short, researchers should further cultivate the study of texts, objects, and gestures to examine the underlying structures uniting them, to bring us an understanding of their place in early Medieval society.

​In the essays grouped as “Representing,” Geary explains what good the dead saints were to the living. The dead saints during the Middle Ages formed an important category in the representation of reality in the construction of a world in which the living and the dead were still a community. Living with the Dead in the Middle Ages pays particular attention to the relationships between this world and the next, especially between the living and relics in the eighth and ninth centuries.

​Swords enjoyed a unique place in Medieval society. In the early Middle Ages, swords occasioned a symbolic importance as a symbol of legitimacy. The swords of relics and other dead were coveted, and it was common for swords to be stolen from tombs.  

​Geary goes on to explain the relationship of gift-giving between relics and the living. The most fundamental object of exchange was wealth. When land was gifted, three generations were united: the living, the dead, and the future. Another element of gift-giving was the preservation of personal identity through names. By using certain name elements or entire names from generation to generation, families or individuals were consciously preserving their own names and those of their ancestors. A name is a form of immaterial inheritance, and might possibly indicate the possibility of or likelihood of aninheritance. The act of giving continued into death and articulated bonds created during life, reaffirmed relationships beyond death, and made those relationships more explicit.

​Moving on to the chapters associated with“Negotiating,” Geary answers the question as to why the living would have ever wanted to humiliate, punish, and coerce the dead, especially saints. Geary shows how the clamor and humiliation of saints were an important aspect of the spiritual arsenal that people and communities commanded. In Medieval society, it was the saints jobs to protect citizens and society. Humiliation and the clamor were used as a means of dispute settlement within the community. The clamor was usually a cry to the Lord for help. As a public act, humiliation represented an injustice done to the community. Unlike damnation, which had no degrees of severity, clamor and humiliation were not final.Geary lists several reasons why humiliation was successful: it restored the proper hierarchic relationship between humans and the divine, it helped shape public opinion, it was helpful in gaining support or sympathy, and it would elicit concern from third parties who could pressure an offender to negotiate. Humiliation also served as excellent propaganda for the ecclesiastics’ cause because it created a work stoppage for monks or canons.

​At times, humiliation continued beyond the liturgy. Geary describes how this form of humiliation became an act of coercion and of punishment directed against the saint himself for allowing the offense to happen. Humiliation could be seen as a justifiable representation of the saint joining the monks or canons in the cry to the Lord for help. Most interestingly, Geary states that humiliation was a form of self-help to the monks and canons: they could go straight to the supernatural powers to beg or bully for help in their communities.

​Relics constituted coveted property in Medieval society. Living with the Dead in the Middles Ages explains why relics were such hot commodities in the earlyMedieval period. Despite having no obvious value apart from a very specific set of shared beliefs, relics had no practical use when removed from their elaborate reliquaries or containers. Relics were not able to be used as decorative pieces. Relics were understood to be important sources of personal supernatural power and formed the primary focus of religious devotion. Relics were bought, stolen, and divided like other commodities.

​The most eagerly sought after relics were the bodies or parts of bodies of the most revered saints. Superficially, relics were similar to other corpses and skeletons readily available anywhere in Medieval society. Relics, however, held a distinct meaning from average corpses. In order to establish the esteem of relics, Geary asserts that there was a requirement of communal acceptance of three beliefs: the saint should have been during their life and especially in death, a special friend of God; the remains of the saint were to be prized and treated in a special way (so much so that it was not unheard of for an aging holy man to be murdered for someone to acquire his relics); and most importantly that the corpse or portion thereof were of the actual saint being honored.

​For many centuries relics were prized for their thaumaturgic power and ability to substitute for public authority. Relics protected and secured the community, determined the relative status of individuals and churches, and provided for the community’s economic prosperity.However, over time the comparable significance of relics’services lessened. As reasons behind this change, Geary points to political, social, religious, and economic changes.Astutely, Geary elaborates on the alternative solutions to Medieval peoples’ dependance upon relics. With changes in politics, churches attacked by laymen could appeal to the king for protection. Religious and social changes allowed monasteries to be able to rationalize budgets and exploit agricultural holdings. This exploitation allowed monasteries to be less dependent on pilgrims’ income. Far from being forgotten, relics continued to be a valuable source of supernatural power. Simply put, relics were supplanted by new and more effective forms of power and authority.

​One would be unable to examine death, burial practices, and the reverence for relics in the Middle Ages without giving a nod to the Church. Living with the Dead in the Middle Ages answers important questions about the Church’s role during this time period. Did the Church bully its way into the picture, or did the Church have a more benign disposition?

​Geary depicts the Church as playing a strong role in the affairs of early medieval death and burial practices. With respect to gift-giving, Geary shows how the Church was able to play the part of middle-man. The act of giving continued and articulated bonds created during life, reaffirmed relationships beyond death, and made them more explicit afterwards. With most gifts, the Church oversaw the affairs of the community, not as a disinterested third party, but as an element of the giving that had a serious stake in each gift. Geary describes several situations in which citizens bequeathed gifts straight to the Church itself in order to have a higher acclaim and more prayers after death.

​Overall, the title, Living with the Dead in the Middle Ages, does not accurately depict the book’s contents. Geary does depict the relationships between the living and dead, but the relationships are specifically between the living and saints. This collection of essays is mostly a veneration of saints, their related burial practices, and the relationships of the people with relics.