Charlemagne

Trent Shell

History H206

Janine Peterson

September 20, 2004

After reading two versions of "The Life of Charlemagne", one written by a person who lived with Charlemagne, and one who didn't, it is evident that Charlemagne is portrayed in a negative way by the author, the Monk of St. Gall, and in a positive way by Einhard. Einhard was very close to Charlemagne. He lived at the same time and with Charlemagne himself. His version of "The Life of Charlemagne" was writing right after his death. The Monk of St. Gall wrote his version more than 70 years after Charlemagne's death. He did not live with or even at the same time as Charlemagne. This is probably one of the reasons the view on the ruler are completely different.

The reason Einhard wrote his biography of Charlemagne was to explain to the world how this man, who was also his personal friend, was a great leader. Einhard begins by telling some history of Charlemagne's family and ancestry. Einhard then goes on to tell about every war Charlemagne was ever involved in. Einhard's main reason for writing this description of Charlemagne's reign is just to inform people of what he believe to be the reign of the greatest ruler of all time. He seemed proud to have lived at the same time as Charlemagne. He thought Charlemagne made no mistakes in the wars he was involved with. Einhard was proud of what Charlemagne did for the churches at the time of his reign. "Whenever he discovered one in his kingdom that was old and ready to collapse he charged the responsible bishops and priests with restoring it" (Einhard). He "Cultivated friendships with kings across the seas, so that Christians living in need under their jurisdiction would receive some aid and succor". Altogether, Charlemagne's rule was a successful one and Charlemagne rarely, if ever, made mistakes according to Einhard.

In St. Gall's version of "The Life of Charlemagne" the author does not give any background information at all. The reason St. Gall is writing this version of Charlemagne's life is to blame him for the attacks going on at present times. He gives no information about Charlemagne's family or ancestors. The author immediately begins to start his complaining about how Charlemagne basically did nothing good for the empire he was ruling. "After the omnipotent ruler of the world, who orders alike the fate of kingdoms and the course of time, had broken the feet of iron and clay in one noble statue, to wit the Romans, he raised by the hands of the illustrious Charles the golden head of another, not less admirable, among the Franks". At the beginning of this quote, Einhard is praising Charlemagne. St. Gall is placing Charlemagne at the same level as the Romans, saying God has raised up Charlemagne to succeed them. Then, at the end of the quote, it is unclear why St. Gall says that the bishop falls of his horse. To me, this seems some sort of a negative passage making the reader think Charlemagne is somewhat incompetent. This being the first entry in this author's text, it immediately gives off a negative feeling towards Charlemagne. The reader immediately has a negative bias towards Charlemagne and has only been reading for a few seconds. The Monk goes on to say