SOURCE: Ganshof, F. L. “Einhard, Biographer of Charlemagne.” In The Carolingians and the Frankish Monarchy: Studies in Carolingian History, translated by Janet Sondheimer, pp. 1-16. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1971.

[In the following excerpt, originally published in French in 1951, Ganshof argues that the Life of Charlemagne is not only historically valuable but also interesting reading in its own right.]

Einhard does not stand in the forefront of the great figures of the Carolingian Renaissance which bequeathed to us such a major part of classical Latin literature. The influence of the English Alcuin, as teacher and writer, and above all as Charlemagne's adviser on ecclesiastical and intellectual matters, was vastly more profound. And the subsequent flowering of the Carolingian renaissance in the ninth century—which coincided with the political breakup of the Carolingian world—witnessed the development of minds more forceful and original than his, men such as the Saxon Gottschalk, theologian and man of letters, or the Irish John Scot, a theologian but principally a philosopher, to name but two. At the same time it must be said that Einhard, a Franconian from the Maingau, has enjoyed a resounding success. His biography of Charlemagne attracted praise from contemporaries such as Walahfrid Strabo, the celebrated abbot of Reichenau, and Lupus of Ferrières, the most considerable humanist of the Carolingian epoch.¹ The work was constantly copied and survives in eighty manuscripts, many of which go back to the ninth and tenth centuries. The influence the biography exerted on medieval historical writing was considerable. From the sixteenth century onward, it has been published, translated, commented upon times without number.

Interest in Einhard has by no means died out, and over the past thirty years few writers of the early and central periods of the Middle Ages can have received so much scholarly attention. While his many-sided personality has inspired studies devoted to his activities as lay abbot, politician, theologian, hagiographer and artist,² it is still true that interest has chiefly centred on the biographer of Charlemagne. And it is with Einhard as the author of the Vita Karoli that we shall alone be concerned.³

Existing studies of the subject fall into two broad categories.

The first is well represented by an important study by an eminent French historian, Louis Halphen, whose recent death has left us all the poorer: I refer to the third chapter of his celebrated Etudes critiques sur l'histoire de Charlemagne,⁴ entitled ‘Einhard, historien de Charlemagne’. In that article Halphen drastically whittled down the importance ascribable to the Vita Karoli as a source for the history of the great king of the Franks. His views have received some support both abroad and inside France, where they have recently been adopted by one of the most distinguished French medievalists, E. Perroy, in an interesting Histoire de France.⁵

The second category is represented by studies which take the opposite line and attach very great value to Einhard's testimony for the insights it affords into the history of Charlemagne. It may be recalled that this was very much the conclusion I reached myself, in an article published in 1924 based on a fresh critical examination of the Vita. A similar view was taken by the late Arthur Kleinclausz, in a book on Einhard and his work which appeared in 1942. In the meantime, in studies published respectively in 1932 and 1934, S. Hellmann and P. Lehmann had produced fresh arguments in support of Einhard's authority, working from the angle of the historian of ideas and the literary historian.⁶

My intention here is not to summarise or debate the arguments advanced on either side over the last thirty years but to highlight or reiterate certain facts, impressed on me by a constant reading of the text, which bear on the question of Einhard's authority.⁷ I have derived much benefit from the writings of the scholars just mentioned, which directly or indirectly have drawn my attention to important points or directed my thoughts along particular paths.

There are two problems to be investigated: the value of the Vita as evidence, and the interest of that evidence. To tackle the first, we must begin by discovering what opportunities Einhard had for gathering information. That such opportunities existed is hardly in dispute. From 796 at the latest, Einhard was resident at court; he belonged to the band of lively wits in Charlemagne's entourage; according to Alcuin, he was a familiaris adiutor of Charlemagne's; he had sufficient prestige to be sent on important official missions, and in particular to be chosen as spokesman for the magnates at the assembly of Aachen in 813 when Louis, king of Aquitaine, was associated with his father in the imperial dignity; to all appearance, he acted as a kind of superintendent of the building works at Aachen.⁸ Einhard's own statement, confirmed by authors likely to be well informed, leaves little doubt that he was on terms of friendship with Charlemagne, a favour which probably earned him his master's confidence.⁹ Furthermore, since he lived at the palace, he could draw on the memories of witnesses to the early part of the reign, which he no doubt used in his account of those distant days, and in particular for the passages in the Vita concerning Charles's relations with his brother and his mother.¹⁰

In addition to using information which came to him de visu¹¹ or de auditu, Einhard also had recourse to written sources. It is well known, and needs no further elaboration, that he took most of his information about the wars of the reign, and many particulars of political events, from the Royal Annals, which down to 801 he was plainly using in the revised version.¹² But he also consulted other written sources, narrative, diplomatic and legal. According to one likely hypothesis, his knowledge of the correspondence between Charlemagne and King Alphonso the Chaste of Asturias, and between Charlemagne and the Irish kings¹³, was gleaned from the archives, to which he could have had access under Louis the Pious.¹⁴ What seems certain is that he made use—and very exact use—of a collection of the capitularies: what he says of Charles's measures regarding the upkeep and restoration of churches agrees exactly with the regulations there laid down.¹⁵

Ever since the time of Isaac Casaubon,¹⁶ it has been recognised that Einhard took Suetonius as his model, borrowing words and phrases very freely from his ‘Life of Augustus’, and to a lesser extent from the ‘Lives’ of other emperors. This use of Suetonius has been severely censured by Einhard's detractors, from Leopold von Ranke, the most illustrious, down to Louis Halphen, the most learned. Halphen, indeed, remarks: ‘He follows the Latin historian so closely, and adopts his colloquialisms so slavishly, that in many places his Life of Charlemagne reads more like the thirteenth “Life of the Caesars” than an original composition.’ And again: ‘Einhard is often quite carried away: he strains all the time to match the biographer of the Caesars in every detail, and in writing of features admittedly to be found in the Frankish emperor does not scruple to exaggerate them; with Suetonius at his elbow, he often falsifies the proportions, distorts the reality and draws a picture of Charlemagne it would be unwise to accept without considerable reservation.”¹⁷ These charges are quite without foundation, as has been demonstrated elsewhere. Besides, as Halphen himself admits, many of the characteristics Einhard attributes to his hero differ from those Suetonius attributes to Augustus or some other emperor, and may indeed be their opposite: in fact, there are almost as many passages in the Vita Karoli which use expressions from Suetonius to point a difference or a contrast, as there are passages which use such expressions to stress a similarity.¹⁸ As for the concrete instances—very few—in which the model is supposed to have exerted a distorting influence, it is not difficult to show that the distortion existed only in the imagination of certain scholars.¹⁹

The boot is on the other foot: what needs to be stressed is the beneficial influence exerted by Suetonius. In the first place, and this is no new observation,²⁰ the ‘Life of Augustus’ and certain other ‘Lives’ focused Einhard's attention on the most salient features in a physical and moral portrait of a Caesar; he could check these traits against what he knew of Charlemagne; and he found in the ‘Lives’ the words and phrases he needed to do justice to his subject. But there is yet more to be said: through reading Suetonius, Einhard—the first medieval biographer²¹—was fired with the ambition of drawing the character of a person, instead of merely recounting piecemeal the exploits of an individual; his model for such a portrait lay before him in Suetonius. It is scarcely probable that he could have re-created this literary genre by his own unaided effort, and that his ultimate creation would have had the majestic structure, equilibrium and precision of the Vita. This is an aspect of the matter which Hellmann and Lehmann very properly stress.²²

Ought we, however, to assume that the use of a Roman model for the portrait was the only possible source of distortion? The answer to that question may become clear when we have tried to analyse the portrait itself.

Among the problems attaching to the authority of the Vita is that of the period at which it was written, which today seems to have been resolved. M. Lintzel has shown, to my mind convincingly, that the only valid terminus ad quem is a letter from Lupus of Ferrières in which the work is mentioned: now this letter must be dated 829-30.²³ At the other extreme, the Vita must certainly be later than 817, since the author alludes to a revolt of the Abodrites which occurred in that year.²⁴ All efforts to arrive at a dating closer than 817-830 have proved fruitless.²⁵

If, as is possible, the work was written sixteen years after Charlemagne's death, is its credit thereby diminished? Some have maintained so.²⁶ But criticism of this type starts from a false premise. Which of us has not retained distinct and exact memories of people we knew or events we took part in, be it fifteen, twenty, thirty or thirty-five years ago? Such power of recall need not suppose a prodigious memory; it is a quite ordinary faculty, as anyone can test for himself. There is no need to press the point.

The Vita has met with some more specific complaints. Scholars have found errors in the chapters dealing with military events. These errors are not numerous, but they certainly exist. The reason for them is usually that Einhard, whose aim was to characterise an individual and not to narrate events,²⁷ in his eagerness to give a concise general view of military matters has inexpertly compressed the narratives he found in the Annals.²⁸ But this is a mere detail: with very rare exceptions, Einhard is not the authority one goes to for information about Charlemagne's campaigns.

Einhard has been reproached for neglecting a topic which Suetonius, in his biography of Augustus, developed at some length: the Regni administratio, or government of the state.²⁹ It is certainly noticeable that Einhard gives far less attention to matters of this kind than he does to military events and diplomatic activity, in his efforts to present the figure of his hero in all its glory. If we think about it, this insufficiency is easily explained: most of Charlemagne's efforts to provide the Frankish monarchy with a more effective administratio took the form of ad hoc, partial measures, which contemporaries did not regard as being of general application. There is, nevertheless, one notable exception: the attempt made in 802, on the morrow of the imperial coronation, to recast the traditional laws and to promote the written law in a way which would greatly diminish the arbitrariness of the judges' decisions.³⁰ In his account of it, Einhard shows himself very exact, neither disguising where the reform failed nor omitting to indicate its modest successes: surely a telling example of his penetration and of his sound and unbiased judgment. Furthermore, it may be wondered whether Einhard did not quite deliberately reduce the part of his book devoted to the Administratio regni to the minimum, having realised that Charlemagne's efforts in this department were not exactly crowned with success; he could compare them with Augustus's achievements as related by Suetonius, and the comparison was no doubt decisive.³¹

This brings us to the last serious charge levelled at the Vita: its author's partiality towards Charlemagne. This partiality is indeed quite evident: in any case, it is a trait Einhard shares with all the writers of his time, whether authors of historical narratives or of works of edification. Besides, was it not Einhard's declared intention to write what used to be called a ‘eulogy’ of the great king? We ourselves are unlikely to be misled by his complaisance towards Charlemagne, since we have other sources to turn to. We know very well that Einhard's statement that the widow and children of Carloman II had no reason to flee the Regnum Francorum in 771 is highly questionable. We can guess the true reason for the author's silence concerning the birth and childhood of Charlemagne: it is not, as he claims, that no one could inform him, but because when their first child was born Pippin III and Bertha were not yet married. In most cases, moreover, the biased character of an account in the Vita is already noticeable in whichever passage in the Annals Einhard was using as his source: for example, the playing down of the Pyrenean disaster of 778 or the exaggerated picture of the submission of the Slav peoples to the Frankish monarch.³² We need to bring the same critical spirit to the Royal Annals as we do to the ‘Life of Charlemagne’.

On the other side, it should be noted how often Einhard's account of something, where it can be controlled, is perfectly correct. This applies especially to facts not mentioned in any other contemporary narrative source. Two examples have already been given: Charlemagne's measures with regard to the upkeep and restoration of churches, and his efforts to reform the laws.³³ And there are others. Einhard tells us that the conclusion of hostilities in Saxony was ratified by an agreement between Charlemagne and representatives of the Saxon tribes; although the historicity of this event has been much disputed, the thorough investigation of the matter by Lintzel has now made it highly probable, if not certain, that it did in fact take place, probably in 803 at Salz.³⁴ Passages in chapter xvi of the Vita have in the past been interpreted as evidence that the caliph agreed to the establishment of a Frankish protectorate over the Holy Places. In the light of critical studies by Einar Joranson and Arthur Kleinclausz this view is doubtless no longer tenable,³⁵ but Kleinclausz has shown that two points can be conceded: first, that Charlemagne, as Einhard testifies, won concessions from Hâroûn-ar-Rachîd and other Muslim authorities on behalf of Christians in Islamic territory, the Holy Land in particular; and second, that the caliph of Bagdad made Charlemagne the gift—in an honorific sense—of the Holy Sepulchre. Reduced to these proportions, the evidence of the Vita is perfectly admissible.³⁶ Einhard asserts that the naval defence measures against the Normans and the Saracens were on the whole successful; broadly speaking, events proved him right, at least so far as continental Italy and Mediterranean Gaul were concerned.³⁷

Einhard comments on the concern Charlemagne felt for foreigners (peregrini) and on the welcome—a burden to the state—which so many of them enjoyed at the Palace; on the first point at least, he is borne out by the capitularies.³⁸ Einhard reports that Charlemagne spent much of his time at Aachen in his swimming pool, where he liked to have plenty of people—there were sometimes over a hundred, it is said in c. xxii—about him; this is confirmed by a reference in one of Alcuin's letters, in which he recalls expounding a theological problem to Charlemagne in the thermal baths at Aachen, in the presence of other bathers.³⁹ Einhard will also be found exact in his account of institutional arrangements, as when he describes the count of the palace as the ordinary judge of the Palace court, with the king sitting only in exceptional cases.⁴⁰ Then there is the manner, which I need hardly repeat is wholly in accord with the facts, in which the Vita deals with Charlemagne's negotiations with Byzantium between the time of the imperial coronation and the recognition by the βασιλεύς that the king of the Franks had acquired an additional dignity.⁴¹ Lastly, Einhard's testimony that the gallery which joined the palace chapel at Aachen to the palace was built of stone (he says of a heavy material) has recently been proved correct by the discovery of surviving remnants embedded in the buildings of a later period.⁴² Having so much to set on the credit side must surely inspire us with confidence.

Now that I have once again, as I hope convincingly, demonstrated that Einhard's testimony is of great value to the historian, we can turn to the remaining question and examine what interest attaches to his testimony, which in essentials is a portrait of Charlemagne.

In essentials, that is, but by no means exclusively. There are facts which we learn from Einhard alone, or which he alone shows in their most important light. Some have already been mentioned, but there are others: the names of the leaders who fell in 778, Roland among them;⁴³ the fact that from the evidence of their letters the king of Asturias and the kings of Ireland addressed⁴⁴ Charlemagne in deferential terms;⁴⁵ facts about the bridge at Mainz and the palace chapel at Aachen; the names of the king's chief concubines; details about the conspiracies of 785 and 792; Charlemagne's epitaph and his testamentary dispositions.⁴⁶ None of this is negligible.

To return to the portrait of Charlemagne. Insofar as it rests on the author's personal recollections, it shows us Charlemagne during the two concluding periods of his life, which ran from the great crisis of 792-3 to the imperial coronation, and from 25 December 800 to 28 January 814.⁴⁷ For Charlemagne this was a time of consolidation rather than creation, but one in which his glory asserted and unfolded itself, so much so that it masked the factors of dissolution which were working to ever graver effect in society and the state. For this reason the portrait is more static than it might have been, had the author first known its subject around the year 780.

What picture of Charlemagne does Einhard bring before us? In physical appearance he was a man of considerable height—seven times the length of his foot—but so well-proportioned that he gave one no feeling of the grotesque;⁴⁸ he had a domed top to his head, a long nose, large and brilliant eyes, handsome white hair, a neck thick at the nape, and a redoubtable paunch: the majesty of his person impressed itself on all beholders.⁴⁹

Hellmann and Lehmann rightly stress the elements which Einhard perceived in Charlemagne's psychological makeup, the virtues which determined his attitude as king. First, for this was his dominant quality, he had magnanimitas, a concept probably derived from Ciceronian stoicism: it was his magnanimitas which made him aware of his own superiority, allowed him to scorn what was petty and mean, gave him self-assurance, and on occasion made him wish to see his own greatness praised.⁵⁰ Next we hear of qualities allied to magnanimitas: prudentia or discernment, and constantia, the capacity to persist in his designs, becoming neither disheartened by setbacks nor intoxicated by success.⁵¹ The closely related virtue of patientia enabled him to suffer insults without giving way to rage; it is here the Christian note is most plainly heard.⁵² As a corrective, there was his animositas or pride, which forbade him to submit to really flagrant threats and insults.⁵³ These high moral virtues were tempered by some more emotional traits. His magnanimitas was no bar to the workings of pietas, a sensibility in which the religious and moral intermingled; it did not prevent Charles from shedding tears of grief at the death of his friend Pope Hadrian I, or over the loss of a child.⁵⁴ The king was deeply attached to his family: to his queen—no easy matter when she was as hard a woman as Fastrada⁵⁵—and to his children, and even his grandchildren, whose education he made a major concern. In fact he liked to have his children always about him, bound by an attachment which contained a fiercely egoistic streak, worthy of a character from the novels of Mauriac in that it became an obstacle to the marriages of his daughters.⁵⁶

Charlemagne took a great interest in things connected with his religion, and besides what is said of his piety we should note the impression made on him by St Augustine's City of God, extracts from which were read to him at table. He understood the importance of education, and not content with encouraging its spread, neglected no opportunity of becoming personally acquainted with the ‘liberal arts’; but writing, despite the exercises he forced himself to practise when he could not sleep, he never fully mastered.⁵⁷

He was deeply attached to all things Frankish: he was a ‘Frank’—an Austrasian Frank, that is—through and through. He always dressed in the Frankish style. He had a passion for the pursuits at which the Franks excelled, riding and the chase. While anxious for his children to be instructed in the ‘liberal arts’, he also insisted they should be educated in the manner traditional among the Frankish aristocracy: the girls were taught to spin, the boys to handle weapons, ride and hunt. He took delight in the lays and epic stories of his nation, hearing extracts from them during meals and ordering a collection to be made; he gave Frankish names to the months and winds and ordered the compilation of a Frankish grammar. Twice only, at Rome and to please the pope, did he consent to deck himself out in Roman garments.⁵⁸

His character was reflected in his way of life. Full of energy, he hated to waste time and dealt with business as soon as he got up.⁵⁹ He delighted in human company. In friendship he was ready and loyal, but could easily progress beyond his immediate circle; he liked to have plenty of people about him, whether he was dressing, feasting or bathing. His expression was cheerful, his speech fluent.⁶⁰ It was only on solemn occasions that his magnanimitas expressed itself in a desire for pomp and display in the armament, vestments and insignia of royalty, but even then national traditions were scrupulously respected.⁶¹

Other traits in his personality were probably determined by his physical constitution. For example, his love of violent exercise, riding, hunting and swimming; his huge appetite, and in particular his passion for roast meat, above all venison; his incapacity for fasting, and his aversion to the doctors who tried to restrict his diet. In summer he was obliged to take a long siesta after the midday meal. Though he drank only in moderation,⁶² the choice of Aachen, with its thermal springs, as his semi-permanent residence from 794, suggests that he may have suffered from arthritis.⁶³ Einhard is discreet about the king's propensity to carnal pleasures, which he retained to an advanced age.⁶⁴ The exigencies of Charlemagne's own temperament were perhaps responsible for a certain indulgence he showed towards his daughters' conduct, a matter our author has clearly had to treat with considerable reserve.⁶⁵

This is indisputably the portrait of a well-defined personality. When it is also realised that Einhard never speaks of Charlemagne as imperator but always as rex,⁶⁶ and that he in no way exalts the imperial coronation, one wonders how he ever incurred the reproach of having painted a conventional portrait of a ‘thirteenth Caesar’. Besides, as Lehmann justly points out, Einhard was no fanatical admirer of the antique. In his preface to the Vita, people who disdain the merely topical come in for some ironical comment.⁶⁷ Einhard took from antiquity, from Suetonius and others, only what he needed to equip himself to describe, define and analyse a personality of his own day.

In conclusion I can do no better than concur in the judgment of the learned professor from Munich: ‘If only all biographers, from the ninth century on, had learned as much from Suetonius, even though he was no genius, as Einhard did.’⁶⁸ The task of the historian would then be simpler.⁶⁹

Notes

1. For Walahfrid Strabo's Prologue to the Vita Karoli see below, n. 9, and for the letter from Lupus of Ferrières to Einhard, below n. 23.

2. For example: M. Buchner, Einhards Künstler- und Gelehrtenleben, Bonn, 1922; F. L. Ganshof, ‘Eginhard à Gand’, Bulletin de la Société d'histoire et d'archéologie de Gand, 1926; A. Kleinclausz, Eginhard, Paris, 1942; B. de Montesquiou-Fezensac, ‘L'arc de triomphe d'Einhardus’, Cahiers archéologiques iv, 1949.

3. The only truly critical edition, and the one I refer to, is that of O. Holder-Egger, in the series Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum, Hanover and Leipzig, 1911. The introduction contains all necessary information concerning manuscripts and previous editions.

4. Paris, 1921. This chapter first appeared in the Revue Historique cxxvi, 1917. Halphen summarised his views in the introduction and notes to his edition of the Vita, which is accompanied by a French translation: Eginhard, Vie de Charlemagne (Paris, 1923), in the series Les Classiques de l'histoire de France au Moyen Age. In the third and most recent edition (Paris, 1947, p. 110), he admits that he may have ‘exaggerated a little on some points’, but maintains that his general conclusions are unaffected.

5. Histoire de France pour tous les Français, i, by E. Perroy, R. Doucet and A. Latreille (Paris, 1950), 73.

6. F. L. Ganshof, ‘Notes critiques sur Eginhard, biographe de Charlemagne’, Revue belge de Philologie et d'Histoire, iii, 1924. A Kleinclausz, op. cit. S. Hellmann, ‘Einhards literarische Stellung’, Historische Vierteljahrschrift, xxvii, 1932. P. Lehmann, ‘Das literarische Bild Karls des Grossen vornehmlich im lateinischen Schrifttum des Mittelalters’, Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie, Phil.-Hist. Kl. ix, 1934 (reprinted in Erforschung des Mittelalters, Leipzig, 1941). The article by H. Pyritz, ‘Das Karlsbild Einharts’ (Deutsche Vierteljahrschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte, xv, 1937), while interesting is of lesser importance (cf. Lehmann, Erforschung, 166 n. 1).

   I do not intend to list the authors of general works who have rallied to the views of Halphen or his opponents. But an exception must be made for one work of quite exceptional importance, the late J. de Ghellinck's Littérature latine au moyen âge i (Paris, 1939), 101-2. The significance and authority of the Vita are brought out in a very finely nuanced exposition, by a scholar whose knowledge of medieval Latin literature was second to none.

7. I resumed the critical study of the Vita by taking it in sections with my seminar in medieval history at the University of Ghent in the years 1940-1, 1941-2, 1942-3, 1945-6 and 1946-7.

8. It seems pointless to list yet again the texts which provide the evidence for these facts: see in particular, M. Manitius, Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters, i (Munich, 1911), 640-2; my ‘Notes critiques’ [in Revue belge de Philologie et d’Histoire, III, 1924], 728-34; and Kleinclausz, op. cit., 31-52. Note, however, that the description vester immo et noster familiaris adiutor occurs in a letter from Alcuin to Charlemagne (MGH Epist. iv, ed. E. Dümmler, p. 285, letter no. 172). With regard to Einhard's functions as superintendent of works, it is possible that the known textual arguments can be reinforced by conclusions to be drawn from a discovery made by Count B. de Montesquiou-Fezensac (see above, n. 2). He found a sketch showing a triumphal arch in the Carolingian style, erected in honour of the Cross by someone named Einhardus: everything depends on the identification of this Einhard with ours, and on this for the moment I reserve judgment.

9. Einhard's statement occurs in his preface to the VK [Vita Karoli] (p. 2): … perpetua, postquam in aula eius conversari coepi, cum ipso ac liberis eius amicitia. The other witnesses are Walahfrid Strabo (prologue to VK, p. xxix) and Ermoldus Nigellus (In honorem Hludowici, ii, v. 682: Tunc Heinardus erat Caroli dilectus amore; ed. E. Faral, Ermold de Noir, Poème sur Louis le Pieux et Epitres au roi Pépin, Paris, 1932, p. 54); for the admissibility of this evidence, see my ‘Notes critiques’, 732-4. Walahfrid Strabo is quite explicit that Einhard was in Charlemagne's confidence: … ut inter omnes maiestatis regiae ministros pene nullus haberetur, cui rex id temporis potentissimus et sapientissimus plura familiaritatis suae secreta committeret.

10. VK, xviii, pp. 22-3.

11. Preface: … quibus ipse interfui, quaeque praesens oculata, ut dicunt, fide cognovi.

12. H. Wibel, Beiträge zur Kritik der Annales Regni Francorum u. der Annales quae dicuntur Einhardi (Strasbourg, 1902), 168-229. Halphen, Etudes critiques, 78 ff.

13. VK, xvi, p. 19. See above, p. 7.

14. M. Bondois, La translation des saints Marcellin et Pierre (Paris, 1907), 83-5, with references to the letters from Einhard which provide evidence on this point (MGH Epist., v, ed. K. Hampe, nos, 4. 12, 20-22, 41); see also Ad epistolas variorum supplementum, ibid., ed. E. Dümmler, no. I, pp. 615-16.

15. VK, xvii, pp. 20-1: Praecipue tamen aedes sacras ubicumque in toto regno suo vetustate conlapsas conperit, pontificibus et patribus, ad quorum curam pertinebant, ut restaurarentur imperavit, adhibens curam per legatos, ut imperata perficerent. cf. amongst others, Synod of Frankfurt (794), c. xxvi: Ut domus ecclesiarum et tegumenta ab eis fiant emendata vel restaurata qui beneficia exinde habent … ; Capitulare missorum of 803, c. i: De ecclesiis emendandis et ubi in unum locum plures sunt quam necesse sit, ut destruantur quae necessaria non sunt, et alia conserventur; Capitula ecclesiastica ad Salz data, (803), c. i: Ut ecclesiae Dei bene constructae et restauratae fiant, et episcopi unusquisque infra suam parrochiam exinde bonam habeat providentiam, tam de officio et luminaria quamque et de reliqua restauratione; Capitulare missorum Niumagae datum (806), c. iii: Ut praedicti missi per singulas civitates et monasteria virorum et puellarum praevideant, quomodo aut qualiter in domibus ecclesiarum et ornamentis aecclesiae emendatae vel restauratae esse videntur … All printed MGH Capitularia, i, ed. A. Boretius, nos. 28, 40, 42, 46. Einhard's use of the capitularies, especially in this matter of the upkeep and restoration of churches, is noted by A. Kleinclausz, op. cit., 72.

16. See his animadversiones appended to his edition of Suetonius (C. Suetonii Tranquilli de XII Caesaribus libri VIII, Geneva, 1595), passages listed under ‘Eginhartus’ in the index.

17. 3rd edn of the Vita, pp. xi and xiii. This is where Halphen speaks his mind most plainly.

18. Hellmann, op. cit., 53.

19. See my ‘Notes critiques’, 735-6.

20. It is even to some extent admitted by Halphen, Vita, 3rd edn, pp. xii-xiii. see further my ‘Notes critiques’, 737-8.

21. As P. Lehmann rightly points out, op. cit., 15 (Erforschung, 164), the saints' Vitae were written with an entirely different object: they were concerned less with a clearly characterised individual than with a type, that of a hero of the Church whom God had chosen to be his servant and witness.

22. Hellmann, op. cit., 45-7, 52-3; Lehmann, op. cit., 15-16 (Erforschung, 165-6).

23. M. Lintzel, ‘Die Zeit der Entstehung von Einhards Vita Karoli’, Kritische Beiträge zur Geschichte des Mittelalters. Festschrift für R. Holtzmann, Berlin, 1933. The letter from Lupus to Einhard is no. 1 in the edition by L. Levillain (Loup de Ferrières, Correspondance, i, Paris, 1927), who on good grounds dates it 829-30. Lintzel was using Dümmler's edition (MGH Epist., vi, no. 1, p. 8) and based himself on the latter's dating for the letter, 828-36, for which there is less justification. The passage in question reads as follows: … venit in manus meas opus vestrum, quo memorati imperatoris clarissima gesta (liceat mihi absque suspicione adulationis dicere) clarissime litteris allegastis.

24. VK, xii, p. 15: … Abodritos, qui cum Francis olim foederati erant … For the ‘disaffection’ of the Abodrites see Annales Regni Francorum, 817, ed. F. Kurze (Hanover, 1895), p. 147. This is the view taken by O. Holder-Egger in his edition, VK, p. xxvii.

25. Lintzel (op. cit., 40-1), detecting, as he thinks, traces of hostility to Louis the Pious in the Vita, suggests a date of composition some time after 830, by which time Einhard had left the court, or even after 833, when Einhard, as a resident of Seligenstadt, had become a subject of Louis the German. The traces of hostility may or may not be there, but the other conjectures are ruled out by the date which must be assigned to the letter from Lupus.

26. Notably Halphen, Etudes critiques, 103.

27. VK, iv, p. 7: ad actus et mores ceterasque vitae illius partes explicandas ac demonstrandas … transire disposui. vi, p. 9: nisi vitae illius modum potius quam bellorum, quae gessit, eventus memoriae mandare praesenti opere animo esset propositum. Hellmann, op. cit., esp. pp. 52 and 55, is rightly vehement on this point; see also Kleinclausz, op. cit., 81-3.

28. See my ‘Notes critiques’, p. 726.

29. The accusation was made in strong terms by E. Bernheim, ‘Die Vita Karoli Magni als Ausgangspunkt zur literarischen Beurteilung des Historikers Einhard’, Historische Aufsätze dem Andenken an Georg Waitz gewidmet (Leipzig, 1886), 80-1. The criticism is to some extent accepted by Kleinclausz, op. cit., 80.

30. Annales Laureshamenses, 802 (ed. G. H. Pertz, MGH SS, i, 38-9): … Sed et ipse imperator … congregavit duces, comites et reliquo christiano populo cum legislatoribus, et fecit omnes leges in regno suo legi et tradi unicuique homini legem suam et emendare ubicumque necesse fuit et emendatam legem scribere, et ut iudices per scriptum iudicassent et munera non accepissent, sed omnes homines, pauperes et divites, in regno suo iustitiam habuissent.—Capitulare missorum generale, 802, c. xxvi (MGH Cap., i, no. 33): Ut iudices secundum scriptam legem iuste iudicent non secundum arbitrium suum.—Capitulare legibus additum, 803 (ibid., no. 39, with p. 112 a notice concerning its publication).—Capitulare legi ribuariae additum 803 (ibid., no. 41). Perhaps: Capitula ad legem Baiuvariorum addita (ibid., no. 68). On the general framework into which these measures fitted, see my article on ‘La fin du règne de Charlemagne. Une décomposition’, Zeitschrift für Schweizerische Geschichte xxviii (1948), 442-3. …

31. VK, xxix, p. 33: Post susceptum imperiale nomen, cum adverteret multa legibus populi sui deesse—nam Franci duas habent leges, in plurimis locis valde diversas—cogitavit quae deerant addere et discrepantia unire, prava quoque et perperam prolata corrigere, sed de his nihil aliud ab eo factum est, nisi quod pauca capitula et ea inperfecta legibus addidit. Omnium tamen nationum, quae sub eius dominatu erant, iura quae scripta non erant describere ac litteris mandari fecit. On Charlemagne's lack of success in the sphere of administratio regni cf. my short paper ‘L'échec de Charlemagne’, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Comptes Rendus des Séances, 1947, p. 253. …

32. VK, iii, p. 6, iv, pp. 6-7, ix, p. 12 and xv, p. 18.

33. See above, p. 3.

34. VK, vii, p. 10. M. Lintzel, ‘Der Sachsenfrieden Karls des Grossen’, Neues Archiv xlviii, 1929.

35. E. Joranson, ‘The alleged Frankish protectorate in Palestine’, American Historical Review, 1927; A. Kleinclausz, La légende du protectorat de Charlemagne sur la Terre Sainte, Syria, 1926. In my ‘Notes critiques’, 744-7, I went too far in crediting Charlemagne with power over the Holy Places.

36. VK, xvi, p. 19: … non solum quae petebantur fieri permisit, sed etiam sacrum illum et salutarem locum, ut illius potestati adscriberetur, concessit. The locus in question is indicated earlier in the same sentence: sacratissimum Domini ac Salvatoris nostri sepulchrum locumque resurrectionis. ibid., xxvii, pp. 31-2: … ob hoc maxime transmarinorum regum amicitias expetens, ut Christianis sub eorum dominatu degentibus refrigerium aliquod ac relevatio proveniret; from what is said earlier, the reges can be identified as those bearing rule in Syria, Egypt, Africa, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Carthage. Kleinclausz, op. cit. n. 36, 221-33.

37. VK, xvii; cf. my account of the struggle against the Saracens in the Mediterranean, F. Lot, C. Pfister and F. L. Ganshof, Les destinées de l'Empire en Occident de 395 à 887 (2nd edn, Paris, 1940-1), 487.

38. VK, xxi, p. 26. See in particular Admonitio generalis (789), c. lxxv; Capitulare missorum generale (802), c. v, xiv, xxvii, xxx (MGH Cap., i, nos. 22 and 33).

39. VK, xxii, p. 27: Et non solum filios ad balneum, verum optimates et amicos, aliquando etiam satellitum et custodum corporis turbam invitavit, ita ut nonnumquam centum vel eo amplius homines una lavarentur.—Alcuini Epistolae, no. 262, dated 800 (MGH Epist., iv pp. 419-20), addressed to Nathanael (= Fridugis): the subject was St Peter's catch of seventeen large fish after casting his net: … crescente numero ab uno usque ad decem et septem propter decalogum et septem Sancti Spiriti dona. De cuius numeri mira divisione et significatione olim me scripsisse memoro, dominoque meo David dixisse, calido caritatis corde, in fervente naturalis aquae balneo. Ubi te, alumne, praesentem esse non ignoro. David, of course, was Charlemagne.

40. VK, xxiv, p. 29: … si comes palatii litem aliquam esse diceret, quae sine eius iussu definiri non posset, statim litigantes introducere iussit et, velut pro tribunali sederet, lite cognita sententiam dixit.—Capitulare de iustitiis faciendis of 811, c. ii (MGH Cap., i, no. 80): Ut episcopi, abbates, comites et potentiores quique, si causam inter se habuerint ac se pacificare noluerint, ad nostram iubeantur venire praesentiam, neque illorum contentio aliubi diiudicetur neque propter hoc pauperum et minus potentium iustitiae remaneant. Neque comes palatii nostri potentiores causas sine nostra iussione finire praesumat, sed tantum ad pauperum et minus potentium iustitias faciendas sibi sciat esse vacandum.

41. VK, xvi, pp. 19-20, c. xxviii, pp. 32-3. Cf. my ‘Notes critiques’, 748-55.

42. VK, xxxii, p. 36; Porticus, quam inter basilicam et regiam operosa mole construxerat, die Ascensionis Domini subita ruina usque ad fundamenta conlapsa. Halphen unnecessarily casts doubt on this statement, on the grounds that a light wooden gallery (eam et fragili materia esset aedificata et iam marcida et putrefacta), which linked the church to the palace, is recorded as having collapsed in 817 (ARF, same year). This must obviously have been a replacement for the other gallery, which had probably collapsed in 813. Einhard's residence at Aachen extended over a long period, he was certainly in a position to know whether in Charlemagne's time a gallery which played such an important part in the life of the Palace was made of stone, and at what date it collapsed! The results yielded by the recent discovery, as yet unpublished, have been communicated to me by Professor J. Ramackers of Aachen, to whom I am most grateful.

43. It is surprising that an editor as expert as Holder-Egger should place the words et Hruodlandus Brittannici limitis praefectus between brackets; the agreement between manuscripts of the A and C families is surely a decisive argument in favour of this reading, and Halphen was quite right to adopt it (Vita, 3rd edn, p. 30).

44. Scottorum reges (c. xvi) can only mean ‘kings of Ireland’. It is surprising that Einhard's testimony has been doubted. There were enough Irishmen at Charlemagne's court to make the establishment of links between that monarch and the Irish kings a quite natural development. Admittedly, when the Irish ‘kinglets’ speak of Charles as dominum and of themselves as subditos et servos, we should interpret this as the language of courtly hyperbole—not forgetting, however, that these expressions have most probably been translated from the Gaelic, and so may have lost some of their original nuances.

45. There is nothing improbable in the use of marks of respect, e.g. the term proprius vester employed by Alphonso the Chaste vis-à-vis Charlemagne (xvi, p. 19), when one remembers his requests for help when in difficulty, and the despatch of Saracen booty to Charlemagne after Alphonso's victories. Besides, these expressions are not meant to be taken literally, as M. Defourneaux very properly points out in his excellent article ‘Charlemagne et la monarchie asturienne’, Mélanges Louis Halphen (1951), 180.

46. VK, c. xvii, pp. 20-1 and xxxii, pp. 36-7; xviii, pp. 22-3; xx, pp. 25-6; xxxi, pp. 35-6 and xxxiii, pp. 37-41.

47. I have attempted to ‘plot a curve’ of the reign in my article ‘Charlemagne’, Speculum, 1949. …

48. From the measurements taken of his skeleton it looks as though Charlemagne was at least 1.92 m. tall; the scientific procedures used do not seem to me to warrant the reserves expressed by A. Kleinclausz, Charlemagne (Paris, 1934), 41.

49. VK, xxii, pp. 26-7.

50. VK, vii, p. 10 (magnanimitas regis ac perpetua tam in adversis quam in prosperis mentis constantia); viii, p. 11 (… et prudentia maximus et animi magnitudine praestantissimus); xix, p. 24 (see below, n. 54); xxi, p. 26 (the burden represented by the hospitality offered to foreigners: Ipse tamen prae magnitudine animi huiuscemodi pondere minime gravabatur, cum etiam ingentia incommoda laude liberalitatis ac bonae famae mercede conpensaret); xxviii, pp. 32-3 (the jealousy shown by the Byzantine emperors: Vicitque eorum contumaciam magnanimitate, qua eis longe praestantior erat …). For an account of magnanimitas and of the other moral concepts shortly to be discussed, and of their place in Einhard's work, see Hellmann, op. cit., 91-6 and Lehmann, op. cit., 17 (= Erforschung, 166).

51. Prudentia: VK, viii (see above n. 50), xv, p. 17 (Haec sunt bella, quae rex … in diversis terrarum partibus summa prudentia atque fecilitate gessit).—Constantia: vii (see above n. 50), viii, p. 11 (following the passage cited above n. 50: nihil in his quae vel suscipienda erant vel exsequenda aut propter laborem detractavit aut propter periculum exhorruit, verum unumquodque secundum suam qualitatem subire et ferre doctus nec in adversis cedere nec in prosperis falso blandienti fortunae adsentiri solebat), xviii, p. 21 (… summam in qualicumque et prospero et adverso eventu constantiam).

52. VK, xviii, p. 22 (Post mortem patris cum fratre regnum partitus tanta patientia simultates et invidiam eius tulit, ut omnibus mirum videretur quod ne ad iracundiam quidem ab eo provocari potuisset); xxviii, p. 32 (in connection with the imperial coronation: Invidiam tamen suscepti nominis, Romanis imperatoribus super hoc indignantibus, magna tulit patientia).

53. VK, xi, p. 14 (regarding Tassilo, duke of Bavaria, and his alliance with the Avars: Cuius contumaciam, quia nimia videbatur, animositas regis ferre nequiverat …).

54. VK, xix, p. 24 (Mortes filiorum ac filiae pro magnanimitate, qua excellebat, minus patienter tulit, pietate videlicet, qua non minus insignis erat, conpulsus ad lacrimas). The interpretation of pietas as a form of ethic peculiar to the Germanic peoples, which is suggested by Pyritz (op. cit., 181-2), is quite arbitrary.

55. VK, xx, p. 26.

56. VK, xviii and xix, pp. 22-5.

57. Religion: VK, xxiv, p. 29 (Delectabatur et libris sancti Augustini, praecipue his qui de civitate Dei praetitulati sunt), xxvi and xxvii, pp. 30-2. Education: xxv, p. 30.

58. VK, xxiii, pp. 27-8 (dress); xxii, p. 27 (Exercebatur assidue equitando ac venando; quod illi gentilicium erat, quia vix ulla in terris natio invenitur, quae in hac parte Francis possit aequari); xix, p. 23 (education of his children, more Francorum); xxiv, p. 29 (reading at table); xxix, pp. 33-4 (Item barbara et antiquissima carmina, quibus veterum regum actus et bella canebantur, scripsit memoriaeque mandavit. Inchoavit et grammaticam patrii sermonis. Then follows the passage about the naming of the months and the winds).

59. VK, xxiv, p. 29.

60. VK, xix, p. 24 (friendship); xxiv, p. 29 (crowds present when he dressed or at feasts), xxii, p. 27 (crowds at the baths; cf. n. 39 above; cheerful expression), xxv, p. 30 (fluent speech).

61. VK, xxiii, p. 28 (Aliquoties et gemmato ense utebatur, quod tamen nonnisi in praecipuis festivitatibus vel si quando exterarum gentium legati venissent. … In festivitatibus veste auro texta et calciamentis gemmatis et fibula aurea sagum adstringente, diademate quoque ex auro et gemmis ornatus incedebat).

62. VK, xxii, p. 27 (pursuits), xxiv, p. 28 and xxii, p. 27 (diet).

63. VK, xxii, p. 27 (Delectabatur etiam vaporibus aquarum naturaliter calentium … Ob hoc etiam Aquisgrani regiam exstruxit ibique extremis vitae annis usque ad obitum perpetim habitavit).

64. VK, xviii, pp. 22-3 and xx, p. 25 (Charles's concubines, three of whom are mentioned by name for the period 800-14; the name of a fourth is given only in mss of the C family).

65. VK, xix, p. 25. Pyritz, op. cit., has I think interpreted Charlemagne's reactions correctly, but there was no need to drag in a supposedly Germanic ethic.

66. Rightly stressed by Lintzel, op. cit., 41.

67. Preface, p. 1: I will try to be brief, says the author, to avoid nova quaeque fastidentium animos offenderem. cf. Lehmann, op. cit., 16 (= Erforschung, 165) and E. R. Curtius, Europäische Literatur und Lateinisches Mittelalter, Berne, 1948, 173 and 482 (English translation by W. Trask, European literature and the Latin Middle Ages, London 1953, 166 and 489).

68. Lehmann, op. cit., 16 (= Erforschung, 165): ‘Hätten nur alle, die seit dem 9. Jahrhundert Biographien schrieben, so viel von dem gewiss nicht genialen Sueton gelernt wie Einhard.’

69. I am most grateful to Madame Cécile Seresia, ‘docteur en philosophie et lettres’, who read over my text and made some most valuable comments, and to my colleague Professor P. Dollinger, of the Facultés de Lettres, Strasbourg, who very kindly undertook an important piece of research on my behalf.

Abbreviations Used in the Notes

1. Sources

ARF = Annales Regni Francorum, ed. F. Kurze, Hanover, 1895.

VK = Einhard, Vita Karoli Magni, ed. O. Holder-Egger, Hanover, 1911.

MGH = Monumenta Germaniae Historica.

MGH Cap. = MGH Capitularia Regum Francorum: vol, i, ed. A. Boretius, 1883; Vol. ii, ed. A. Boretius and V. Krause, 1897.

MGH Concilia = MGH Concilia: vol. i, ed. F. Maassen, 1893; vol ii, ed. A. Werminghoff, 1904-8, Supplement to vol. ii, Libri Carolini, ed. H. Bastgen, 1924.

MGH Diplomata Karol. = MGH Diplomata Karolinorum, ed. E. Mühlbacher, 1906.

MGH Epist. = MGH Epistolae in quarto. Vol. iii contains inter alia the Codex Carolinus ed. W. Gundlach, … ; vol. iv contains inter alia the correspondence of Alcuin, ed. E. Dümmler, 1895.

MGH Formulae = MGH Formulae Merowingici et Karolini aevi, ed. K. Zeumer, 1886.

MGH Poetae = MGH Poetae Latini aevi Carolini, Vols. i and ii, ed. E. Dümmler, 1880-81, 1884.

MGH SS = MGH Scriptores in folio.

MGH SS rer. Merov. = MGH Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum, in quarto, Vol. i, 2nd edition contains the historical work of Gregory of Tours, ed. B. Krusch and W. Levison, 1951; the hagiographical works are to be consulted in vol. i, 1st edition by W. Arndt and B. Krusch, 1884; vol. ii contains the chronicle of Fredegar and its continuations, ed. B. Krusch, 1888.

W-H = The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar with its continuations, ed. with English translation by J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, London, 1960.

2. Periodicals

HZ = Historische Zeitschrift.

Meded. d. Kon. Vla. Acad. v. Wet., Kl. Lett. = Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Letteren.

MIÖG = Mitteilungen des Öesterreichischen Instituts für Geschichtsforschung.

SSCI = Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull' alto medioevo.

ZKG = Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte.