Styles of Historiography: Herodotus vs Einhard

The Life of Charlemagne is an edited version from the original book Two Lives of Charlemagne. The author of the original biography is Einhard, who was his close friend and younger contemporary. He wrote this biography, after his death in 814 CE to honor Charlemagne and his contributions to the Frankish dynasty. In the historical context Charlemagne is believed to have contributed largely in flourishing the Carolingian Empire. In the book, The Life of Charlemagne, Einhard describes Charlemagne’s personal life rather than the actual historical legacies. The biography seems to have many personal bias opinions which makes the source hard to trust. One example from the text itself is when he describes King Charlemagne’s physical appearance, “His neck was short and rather thick, and his stomach a trifle too heavy, but the proportions of the rest of the body prevented from noticing these blemishes (Brophy, 250).” Even Though, the author describes the king with great details, he is positive throughout each text and avoids giving any flawed comments.

The first account of Charlemagne's life was by his courtier, Einhard, who thought it would be a tragedy if history forgot such a noble ruler. Furthermore, not only does he believe that it should be him to write about Charlemagne's life, but only him. He

Tacitus, Suetonius and Plutarch, although major historians of their time, were not completely reliable and (now we realise) their works contained bias, mainly a result of upon the writers personal opinion and beliefs. Another cause of bias within primary text was the influence of the Roman elite hierarchy upon the contemporary writers of the time. Plutarch himself admitted this in many statements and claimed to not be a historian but a biographer. Plutarch regarded biography as a different class of writing, and his primary goal was to entertain the audience, as opposed to informing them. He did this by writing only what the reader wanted to read rather than the actual event that had taken place. This is the number one reason why much of ancient Roman sources are unreliable, and biased.

The two lives of Charlemagne as told by Einhard and Notker are two medieval sources about the accounts of the life Charlemagne. Modern sources by Matthew Innes and Rosamond Mckitterick discuss how history was recorded during the medieval period and how it was suppose to be viewed in the early ages. Observing each of these sources helps get an understanding of how the writing of history is important in recorded history and how it affected how the history of Charlemagne was recorded.

The structure of The Histories presents a problem. The secondary structure of The Histories almost obscures the primary structure, making the book difficult to follow. We are presented with two possibilities. Either Herodotus is not a good author or The Histories was not meant to be read as a book. Given the oral nature of fifth century Athens the later is far more likely. Books were likely a rarity in Herodotus' time given the difficulty in reproducing them. Given the oral

Charlemagne is described by Janet Nelson as being a role model for Einhard. Einhard himself writes in the first paragraph of The Life of Charlemagne, “After I decided to write about the life, character and no small part of the accomplishments of my lord and foster father, Charles, that most excellent and deservedly famous king, I determined to do so with as much brevity as I could.” I feel that these are sincere words about the man who cared for Einhard. I feel that Einhard’s purpose for writing The Life of Charlemagne is to praise the works of his “foster-father” and create a historical document that would describe the great deeds of Charlemagne so that he would not be forgotten throughout time as a great leader and man.

The two lives of Charlemagne as told by Einhard and Notker the Stammerer are very different accounts of the life of the great Emperor. Einhard gives us a historical overview of the life of Charlemagne who lived from 742 to 814 A.D. Charlemagne was also known as Charles the Great and the King of the Franks.Charles was one of four children born to Pepin the Short, A Mayor of the Palace of the Carolingian Empire. He had one brother, Carloman and two sisters, Gisela and Pepin.Since women at the time didn’t inherit power, when Pepin the Short died, the kingship of the Carolingian Empire was divided and shared by Charlemagne and his brother, Carloman. Unfortunately, Carloman died early and unexpectedly as a young man and

The Life of Charlemagne, written by the Frankish scholar Einhard, is a biography on the personal life and achievements of Charlemagne, a ruler of the Franks and the king of Italy. He ruled from 774-800. Einhard, a male Frankish scholar, was born to noble parents in the Main Valley, around 770 A.D. He was educated in the monastery of Fulda, and shortly after sent to the palace school of Charlemagne in Aachen. Eventually becoming a personal adviser and a close friend to the king of the Franks, he influenced the king in all the ways of higher thinking and even inspired the king to desire a higher education for himself. The king even tried his hand at learning to write, however to no avail. Einhard was able to give deeper insight into the life of Charlemagne, as he was present during many of the events that took place. He also had the advantage of hearing firsthand accounts from the king. The Life of Charlemagne is thought to have been written between 829 to 836, composed by Einhard while living in Seligenstadt. Einhard wrote the accounts of Charlemagne so that there would be a historical account describing the emperor’s day to day life. “His two immediate reasons for writing were the personal knowledge which he possessed of Charlemagne, and the debt of gratitude which he owed to this remarkable king and emperor.” He was a man that possessed a drive for knowledge and insight into the future. By working under Charlemagne, he was able to grow in that knowledge and even

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.

We now leave this in-depth description of Charlemagne given by Einhars, and take a look at a new essay by Fichtenau entitled "A New Portrait of Charlemagne." Instead of describing Charlemagne as Einhard does, we find that Fichtenau's essay rather rebuilds Charlemagne. Fichtenau talks about how things like his personality were strung together in the wrong way by Einhard. He talks about how his personality is predictable, because all Emperors must have the same values. He talks of how in generosity, as Einhard's description showed as being out of the kindness of his heart, was actually a result of what actions would follow his generous jesters. Fichtenau uses his whole essay to rebuild Charlemagne to what kind of ruler he believes he is. He does say that without the great ruling and personality of Charlemagne, then it would have taken generations for this empire to reach its peak. "What remains is

Einhard, born in 775 in an ancient Frankish homeland, in a valley of the River Main, was taken into Charlemagne’s court sometime between 791 and 792. After the scholar Alcuin retired to the monastery, Einhard became a go to source for answers for Charlemagne. After Charlemagne’s death Einhard felt compelled to write a biography about his king and friend, writing that, ○“In any event, I would rather commit my story to writing, and hand it down in posterity, in partnership with others, so to speak, that to suffer the most glorious life of this most excellent king, the greatest of all the princes of his day, and his illustrious deeds, hard for men of later times to imitate, to be wrapped in the darkness of oblivion” (Einhard 16). Einhard spent twenty-two years in Charlemagne’s court and ○“Although

Einhard was a scholar, friend and courtier in the Charlemagne court. His extensive account on Charlemagne was following the canons set by Roman classic literature which signifies that the ideas and influences of the Roman Empire were still alive. Due to the strong ties with the court, Einhard almost puts Charlemagne equal to the god on earth. Einhard takes on responsibility upon himself to write about the life of his king with the great honor and a great deal of pressure, as he believed it is better to accept all the criticism than let Charlemagne be forgotten. Moreover, he emphasized the accuracy of his work by putting himself as a witness of all Charlemagne deeds.

Herodotus marked a new way of recording and interpreting history: conducting research. He recorded what he saw, heard, and experienced as he traveled around places like the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, and as far up as Babylon. He went on expeditions and encountered much of his information through in person exchange, an accomplishment surely to be considered great. Martin believes Herodotus explored an extensive amount of history and peoples and showcased a spectrum of topics like “war, politics, religion, commerce, geography, climate, ethnography, and individual human motivations” (Martin 7). In his writings called The Histories, Herodotus begins with The Story of Croesus and

The characteristics and deeds of Charles the Great were recorded in The life of Charlemagne after Charles’ death by the courtier, Einhard, who argues that Charles was the greatest, idealistic king and must be passed on to the next generation. The author Einhard, a courtier to Charlemagne served as an attendant to the king, dedicated the writing to Charles and Charles’ son, Louis, for who it was to serve as a guide to being a great king. Although Einhard is humble in stating that he is not worthy of writing about Charles the Great and the impossibility of writing as good as Cicero, who was considered the most eloquent writer in Latin, he still writes Charles’ biography in Latin which was the language of the Roman Empire. As Einhard is well educated he was able to writing about Charles, Charles was passionate for the education of himself, his children, and the nation itself. Education became an essential component of being successful and powerful because Charles promoted its importance; however, regardless of Einhard’s statement that Charles was highly educated, his education was well supported by other scholars and education itself also became politicized and supported Charles goals of reviving the Roman Empire.

In Herodotus’s The Histories, Herodotus had the intent to provide a truthful and factual historical account that does not “pass[] judgment”. However, in Tours’, History of The Franks, the intent is severely intertwined with religion. Religion is arguably the central role of the text, Tours himself strongly announced that he was a devout catholic. Thus, it becomes extremely apparent that Tours’ writing holds little ‘factual’ truth compared to the writing of Herodotus.