Customer Reviews

Two Lives of Charlemagne (Penguin Classics)

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

It's really bizarre how this book has gotten all those 1-star reviews. Most of them seem to have read it thinking it was a novel, though considering the book's title they must not be very perceptive. While Einhard's Life is a little dry in parts, I greatly enjoyed Notker's. The translator's notes are very informative, particularly on the battle of Roncevalles, where Charlemagne's general Roland was killed. To someone genuinely interested in learning more about Charlemagne than what is mere common knowledge, I suggest ignoring the bad reviews and get this book.

Those of you who claimed this book bored you obviously thought you were picking up an Arthurian romance or some kind of fantasy/sci-fi epic. This is history, people, not an adventure story! What's more, it's history from the period in which it happened, what we call a primary source. Of course it's not going to read like a modern novel. People in the Middle Ages wanted solid content, not useless fluff. This work is great for introducing students to the life of a great leader written by someone who was actually there. I use it with my tenth grade students and they love it because it gives you a snapshot of the man under the crown.

Looking at the three 'one-star' reviews this book has received, I would point out they are all written in the same style, are close in date and look suspiciously like they were all written by the same person.

Yes, this is a wonderful primary source.

With Einhard's story you are actually reading the work of a person who knew Charlemagne (who lived approx. 742-814AD).

Prior to Charlemagne there basically was no Germanic literature. Charlemagne encouraged book learning and the writing of what had before then been either purely oral or simply not remembered. We are looking at the birth of Germanic Literature and also the birth of Germanic recorded history. Before this, (apart from a few glosses in the 7th Century) there is only the archaeological record and the writings of neighbouring literate cultures like the Romans about their Germanic neighbours to turn to for illumination.

These glimpses into the minds of people whose culture and outlook on the world are both so different to our own but also has so profoundly impacted the development of our modern day life are fascinating.

Charlemagne after all followed in the footsteps of the Roman Caesars in his attempt to create a great and literate civilisation and by doing so deeply influenced the Anglo-Saxons in England. Some of the earliest Saxon writings were commissioned by Charlemagne and his son, Louis the Pious. Alfred the Great was deeply influenced by his example. It was Alfred the Greats encouragement of Anglo-Saxon literature that established sound foundations for later developments in English literature.

I preferred Einhard as I think he succeeded in showing Charlemagne the man to a greater degree than Notker writing a hundred years later. Already with Notker the 'legendising' of Charlemagne made him more one dimensional and also as you can see in the foot notes more inaccuracies creep into Notker's text. There is also something more primitive and 'mystical' about Einhard. Mystical, mind you when one of Charlemagne's rivals 'mysteriously' dies. ;) But this is not really a criticism of Notker as he gives a feel for the development both of Germanic culture one hundred years further on and also some insight into the making of the legend of Charlemagne.

This book is a valuable historical resource. It contains two early medieval chronicles relating to the life of Charlemagne (it is not, by the way, a novel). Readers who are looking to be instructed about Carolingian France will find this book to be fascinating. Those who are looking only to be amused and entertained might not, but that does not diminish the value of the work.

Thorpe's compilation of two biographies of Charlemagne is an interesting start to understanding the Emperor's life. The book consists of a lengthy introduction by Thorpe; a biography written by Einhard, a contemporary of Charlemagne's; and a biography by Notker the Stammerer who lived sometime after Charlemagne. Einhard's biography is simpler to read and really more complete although it is much shorter than Notker's. Altogether, both "Lives" were an enjoyable read.

The title "Two Lives of Charlemagne" is a bit deceptive. This is not a novel with Charlemagne playing a double role. It is a telling of Charlemagne's life by two authors of his time.

The first part of the book is a useful forward. It should be read. It will tell you much of what to expect in the book regarding style and content.

The second part of the book is written by Einhard. Einhards main goal seems to have been to write about Charlemagne's life in such a manner as to fit it seamlesly into the "De vita Caesarum" written earlier, so Charlemagne could take his rightful place with the Roman emperors.

The third part, written by a monk, focuses on Charlemagne's religious life. As it was written for one of Charlemagne's grandsons, it is of course written in such a way as to make Charlemagne look like a saint. It does stray from time to time to other members of Charlemagne's family.

The two lives work well with each other. And while you have to take some of the stories with a grain of salt, the fact that two people could write so highly of the man after his death speaks to his greatness.

As other reviewers have pointed out, this is a "source document" - that is to say, it is history written by those who witnessed the event (or in this case, personally knew the person of whom they were writing about.) As with any eye-witness, their accounts need to be taken with a dose of skepticism. With that said, _Two Lives of Charlemagne_ provides an insightful and (for the time period) a relatively complete picture of one of the most influential figures in European history. Einhard's biography provides detail about Charlemagne as king: the political challenges he faced, and the numerous reforms he made. The second account (Notker's) details the religious life of Charlemagne, placing him in an almost "saintly" light.

While the veracity of events presented here may be questionable (the purpose of "history" and "biography" in the present is very different from 1300 years ago), they do provide an excellent sense of Charlemagne's time - which is why I give it 5 stars.

The pairing of these vastly different accounts of the life and deeds of Charlemagne presents the reader with information about change of perception of the great emperor overtime. Charlemagne, in the many centuries after his death in 814, changes from a historical person into a legendary King Arthur-esque figure, a model chivalric knight and one of the Nine Worthies (a Medieval list of the most chivalric knights of all time), his paladins analogous to Arthur's Knights, and the subject of the first chansons de geste.

The first source, commissioned the request of Louis the Pious one of Charlemagne's successors, was written by Einhard, a monk, historian, and a dedicated servant of Charlemagne. His Life of Charlemagne, written between 817-830 is clearly in the vein of the famous Roman historian Suetonius' The Twelve Caesars (a text that existed at the monastery where the author worked). The work is brief, to the point, and for the most part does not include tangential information, and is biased. The bias is completely understandable and the introduction to the text points out where and why. His chronicle was written to make Louis the Pious' famous father look good. For example, one of the morally stained aspects of the Charlemagne's reign were the actions of his unmoral daughters, which Einhard carefully does not tell us about. Einhard, in short, sometimes deliberately obscures the truth. However, what is so appealing about Einhard's text is the fact that his most of his information was based off of 26 years as a servant of Charlemagne and his court, and information that he includes of actions before Charlemagne's reign most likely was gathered from sources and documents which he had access to. Lastly, Einhard's attempt at stringently following the model of Suetonius Twelve Caesars makes him connect the characteristics of great emperors such as Augustus to Charlemagne, obscuring Charlemagne's actual habits, personality etc...

The next chronicle, written 70 years later by a self described lazy, toothless, stammering, monk who could be either, Notker the Stammerer, or the Monk of Saint Gall, or both in one person, is completely different. The introduction states immediately what most reader's minds will skip. I quote "Our first danger is that when we put De Carolo Magno side by side with Vita Caroli we may be comparing it with something quite dissimilar; and our second that we may be criticizing both Einhard and the Monk of Saint Gall for failing to achieve what they did not set out to do." Einhard, wanted Charlemagne to look good, this monk wants to give his fellow monks fables, stories, semi-historical events, moral tales concerning bishops and churchman, that are all connected merely by the presence of Charlemagne in each. Moral tales are the most predominate. This is illustrated by these chapter headings: the bishop who bought a stuffed mouse, the bishop who gave Charlemagne cheese to eat on Friday, the bishop who thought himself divine, the bishop who dreamed he had sex etc... In the section where the monk talks about Charlemagne's extensive military adventures he is more concerned again, with short tidbit tales that have nothing to do with the military campaigns: the two illegitimate children who fought bravely for Charlemagne, the two brave soldiers, etc... Charlemagne has begun his journey to the realm of legend a mere 70 years after his death. Notker the Stammerer is writing for the entertainment of his fellow monks and in so doing explains the perception of Charlemagne over time.

The introduction is extensive and to the point, it does not merely summarize but explains. The notes do not merely present trifling material but ADD extensively to the text. The two vastly different texts do not rehash the same material but rather explain the same person in vastly different ways for vastly different purposes: one, using historical fact, the other using semi-historical stories and anecdotes concerning the moral behavior of bishops. These are very good sources for research and for the casual historian.

Charlemagne occupies a position of central historical importance in the west. 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.
Understanding the Franks during this historical period is vital to understanding the dynamics of the middle ages. One problem is the lack of reliable source material. These two sources do much to help us in this regard.
Einhardt's narrative is terse, well written, and fast paced. He cuts the fat and keeps the beef. Only problem is, he is biased from the outset. The cardboard picture of Charles we get from his narrative is lacking illumination. Compared to Notker, however, it is the more reliable source.
Notker's story is a series of tales, digressions, and fantasies; all written with an overly verbose, confusing style. Charlemagne seems more human and vivid in this account, but he still lacks complex, three-dimensional qualities. He is described as tireless, fearless, pious, unconquerable, etc. I do not think a bad word is spoken of him. The story also lacks a thread to tie it together. There are some entertaining tales and tidbits, but often they wonder into obscurity.

It is dissapointing to have these two "lives" of Charlemagne without being able to understand him. He still remains a mysterious figure. If you want his illusiveness to disapear, you will be very dissapointed. If you want to understand the mind of the medieval era, and some facts besides, these two accounts are great places to start.

I purchased this book because my Latin II class was reading a excerpt in Latin from Einhard's life of Charlemagne. I wanted to see what the original version was like. I have enjoyed reading both lives found in this book. Even more interesting were the introductions to each life which talked about the authors' lives.