Comparison Of Two Lives Of Charlemagne By Einhard

The book Two Lives of Charlemagne contains two different biographies. The first version is titled ‘The Life of Charlemagne’ and is written by Einhard. The second version is titled ‘The deeds of Charlemagne’ and composed by Notker the Stammerer. Both of these works were written in Latin and then later translated to English and other European languages. While these two biographies are medieval classics, they differ in their focus and point of view. I find it interesting that the two texts could be combined to make one book given their differences; it provides a way for the reader to think critically while reading. Having two different viewpoints on one subject can cause the reader to form their own opinions on Charlemagne and his reign.

Charlemagne,

which translates as Charles the Great, was the King of the Franks and the holy roman emperor. We learn from the two biographies that Charlemagne was instrumental in the spread of arts, culture and the Christian message too much of Europe. As a result of his contributions in various fields, his reign was named the Carolingian Renaissance. The reader will be able to get a summation of his lifetime achievements as well as a sense of life in medieval Europe by reading the two biographies. We come to find out from these readings, that Charlemagne was a patron of the written arts. Charlemagne was one of the only/first nobleman to dedicate time to learn to read and write. He found this to be an important quality and worked to achieve his educational desires. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Charlemagne kick-started the tradition of written literature as we understand it today. He also encouraged the development of Western culture by promoting music, dance and theater.
Einhard was a prominent member of the Royal court and was privy to the personal and official life of the King. He was highly respected for his knowledge, honesty, brilliance and character. Indeed, his closeness to the King was such that he was able to recollect the entire account of the King’s life. By the time Einhard undertook this project, the King had already passed away, which goes on to show how well his memory and observation were during the writing process. Einhard believed that he could take on the challenge of writing this biography. When he said, “The most famous and greatest of men’ deserves a fitting literary commemoration,” he proved his admiration for Charlemagne. It was clear that Einhard felt he should write the biography since he had been close to Charlemagne and felt no one else could accurately write about his life.
When reading the accounts or Charlemagne through Einhard, you can understand the closeness between the two lifestyles.

It is made clear through Einhard’s writing that he understood Charlemagne, as he lived through the time period with him. It seemed almost as if ‘the life of Charlemagne’ was written about Einhard as the attention to detail was so exact. This is just one of the things that makes this reading so enjoyable. I felt as if I was right there along side Charlemagne during this part of his life, as this biography provides so much information about Charlemagne's life and character. Einhard’s work was written as a praise of Charlemagne; the main focus being the official life of Charlemagne, which entailed the wars he participated in, the political decisions he made, and the civil society projects he implemented. It is clear that Einhard wanted to document the stories of Charlemagne to commemorate him and insure that his greatness is not lost or forgotten. Einhard reveals much information about Charlemagne, which is useful when comparing

works.
The alternate biography written by Notker the Stammerer comes across as less academic and more light-hearted. Here, the author seems to sacrifice historical accuracy in order to achieve an artistic effect. Of the two biographies, Notker the Stammerer’s book is certainly the more humorous. For example, he begins many sections by saying, “The most glorious Charles” or “the most careful Charles.” As Notker was not personally familiar with Charlemagne as Einhard was, he had to get creative in his writing. He had no direct contact with the king, therefore allowing him to fabricate certain events. There seems to be no intention of bringing truth to the work, as the author himself claims to have never visited the King or his Kingdom. Most of the content stems from rumored accounts and the author’s own imagination. He had no personal knowledge of Charlemagne and wrote his biography seventy years after Charlemagne's death.
Notker most likely wrote about Charlemagne for the same reasons as Einhard, to examine the influence Charlemagne had on the development of Europe.

But the collection of stories, as opposed to Einhard's personal accounts, collects the view of the issues under Charlemagne. It is relevant in showing that even shortly after his death what legendary status Charlemagne had among the people. Notker’s tales, attempt to show the king in good light. He focuses on the personality attributes of the King, such as his generosity, the King’s practical decision making, and the set of principles he follows. Though, he also brings out the darker sides of the King, including his tendency to be spiteful and the brutality of some of his

punishments.
The two biographies cover different facts of the King’s life though together they compliment each other. They both remain vital texts in understanding one of the most influential Kings during early medieval Europe. These two biographies give the readers a glimpse of the social, religious and political atmosphere under which Charlemagne ruled his domain.