Hi everyone,
In week 3 we're going to be talking
about a famous text known as the Life of Charlemagne by Einhard. There
are some leading questions in the reading guide which we'll be trying to
answer. In order to kick us off, I've selected (what I hope are) some
thought-provoking images gathered from the webosphere to show the
different ways in which Charlemagne and the idea of Empire have been
linked. I hope these will help you to think about the kinds of messages
of cultural and political superiority that are being sent in the text,
as well as in these visual representations. Note
that these images also come from different periods. Does the image of
Charlemagne's power seem to have changed much over time? How?
1. A denier (small denomination coin) of Charlemagne, with the inscription KAROLVS IMP AVG, "Charles, Emperor Augustus". (Cabinet des Médailles, Paris); 2. A 9th century equestrian statue of Charlemagne. (Le Louvre); 3. Charlemagne in an initial from a 9th century manuscript, written in Carolingian miniscule. (BnF, Lat 5927); 4. A 14th century manuscript painting of Charlemagne being crowned Holy Roman Emperor by pope Leo III. (BnF, Fr 2813); 5. A 15th century manuscript painting of Charlemagne building his new capital at Aix-la-Chapelle. (BnF, Fr 6465); 6. Portrait of Charlemagne by Albrecht Dürer, late 15th century. (Nuremberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum). All these images sourced from Wikimedia Commons, or the BnF (Bibliothèque nationale de France) website.
 |
| Einhard, as scribe. (14th century; BnF, Fr 2813). Wikimedia commons. |
Other contemporaries wrote about
Charlemagne too. You can check out the Life of Charlemagne by the
fabulously-named Notker the Stammerer here. Both Notker and Einhard's lives are available together in a Penguin edition, Two Lives of Charlegmagne, which is in the library if you want to know more.
PS.
While we're talking Carolingians, I can't resist showing you this photo
of me meeting Rosamond McKitterick - one of the world's foremost
scholars of this period - at a conference in the UK in 2010. There's
more to this than me showing off; I think it's important to
realise that the historians whose work we are reading are actually real
people! A number of Rosamond's wonderful works on this period are on the
extended reading list and come very highly recommended! (No wonder I'm looking pretty pleased with myself...)
10 comments:
I don't know about the image of Charlemagne's power changing over those photos, but certainly his image does change. The most striking differences are of course between the first and the last pictures. Here we see the change that Claire was talking about in the lecture, the change from Roman to medieval times, the coin depicting a clean shaven man, imposing in his Roman garb with a wreath upon his head. In contrast we see the last photo, his appearance has changed dramatically, he is covered in rich clothes, a crown, carrying a sword and a cross in each hand. But the most striking difference is that he has become a 'barbarian' (bearded one) He now has a great big bushy beard, depicting the change of attitude as well as the influence of the barbarian tribes over Europe.
I don't see how the level of his power has changed dramatically over time as portrayed in the images, but it does represent differences in how his power may be perceived. Some of the images are more religious as compared to others, which may be argued as more focused on his military might? Or I could be making all of this up! I do also appreciate his transition from a clean-shaven Roman to a bearded one.
I agree the image of what a powerful man should look like has clearly changed between the 9th and the 15th century: it's interesting Jake that you picked up on the beard, which in fact I hadn't consciously noticed! Perhaps both those artists wanted to portray someone with what they considered an ancient kind of authority - for the 9th century coin-maker that ancient authority was Roman; for Dürer, it was medieval. But to me the first and last images are actually kind of the most similar: they both show authoritarian rulers. In between something weird was going on, and I think Bec might have put her finger on it when she noted the religiosity. In fact, I probably should have picked a few more of those if I was going to be truly representative. Did the readings give anybody any ideas about how and why the religious elements of Charlemagne's story might have been so important?
I completely agree with Bec. Each image seems to portray the different aspects of what made Charlemagne a leader and all that was held dear to him. The images change between emphasis on his military skills to his strong faith in Christianity and his interests in scripture reading and writing. However, could it be possible that the change between the 9th Century and the 15th Century are reminiscent of the changes he brought about in society? Meaning that his focus on scripture and religion may have caused society's shift in focus on a leader as a war hero to a leader as an intellectual. I could be wrong, because he made changes for monks I think, but in terms of the wider community it might not have been the same, I don't know. Also, with the last image I do feel that the two parts of him (military and religious/intellectual) kind of mesh together with the sword, gold ordainments, crucifix etc.
Once again, I agree with you guys about how the perception of both a powerful man and Charlemagne change over time. I think it is important to note the importance of Christianity to Charlemagne, evident in the actions he took against the Saxons in the 770's, as a possible explanation of the religiosity of some of the interpretations.
Hi guys,
Tom is still having trouble logging in, but he wants to suggest that the changes in representation relate both to the increasing Christianisation of the image, as well as changes in artistic style itself over time.
I found images four and six particularly interesting. Charlemagne being crowned by Leo III in the fourth image demonstrates that he and his rule are blessed by God. However it also shows by placing him so centrally that he himself is a power to reckon with. It seems though to be an image entrenched in propaganda; designed to improve or maintain his religious standing. For centuries that followed there would be many turbulent relationships between monarchs and military leaders with the Church. The hierarchy was not as clear cut as the image suggests and the Church certainly did not see itself as secondary to the crown.
The sixth image with the double-headed eagle (symbol of the Holy Roman Empire) attached to Charlemagne's clothes and on the banner behind him as well as the cross that is central to his crown indicate his devotion to the Christianity whereas the sword he holds shows us that he was determined to expand his boarders and thus expand the influence of the Church. It seems to be a rather self-important revisionist image. The artist seems to want to portray Charlemagne as sort of all things to all people; as a military and religious leader- the absolute qualities of power in Medieval Europe.
Hi Trishna - am I right that you are picking up on the influence of the society that produced the images, as much as the story of Charlemagne himself here? [Take care, though, because the way you've worded this makes it sound as if Charlemagne was the cause of all social changes, which isn't plausible and I'm pretty sure that isn't what you meant.] Anyway, I think it's right that the society that produces an image - and I mean an image in art or words - is where we should look for the important explanations of why it is produced in a certain way. If you turn this insight onto Einhard himself, and the image of Charlemagne he produced in his Life, what does it suggest to you?
Good points, Stephanie. It's interesting that he seems to have needed to support his political rule with religious approval... or at least to have benefited from this. Can we offer any explanations for why religious and political propaganda come together in the medieval period?
I think your interpretation of image 4 is an especially good place to kick off some further discussion. Einhard makes it sound like Charlemagne had to be begged to accept this coronation (why would he do that? why would Einhard say so?), and yet it arguably benefited him much more than it did pope Leo, because although the pope gained a powerful supporter, he also created a 'new' kind of kingship that was divinely ordained and hard for the popes to control. Did the fact that popes could crown emperors make them superior to emperors? Or did it put the emperor in the centre - like in the picture? Medieval political hierarchies just got even more difficult to interpret...
I don't believe that the image of his power changed much, they all demonstrate that his authority and status was highly regarded all the way through from the times of the first image to the last. If anything, I believe the images show the changing and progression of culture across Europe at different times. The first being a very simple image with minimal detail with influence from the Roman Empire to a much more obvious demonstration of his power in the sixth where he is wearing a crown and draped from head to toe in a golden robe. I believe that the third and fourth image show the influence Christianity was having through out Europe at the time as they make him appear holy and untouchable.
Post a Comment