Critical Review of Fichtenaus Charlemagne Essay Example

Critical Review of Fichtenaus Charlemagne Essay Example Critical Review of Fichtenaus Charlemagne Essay Critical Review of Fichtenaus Charlemagne Essay Critical Review of Fichtenau’s The Carolingian Empire: The Age of Charlemagne This is an analytical book review of Heinrich Fichtenau’s The Carolingian Empire: The Age of Charlemagne. It will cover the Fichtenau’s writing techniques and sources he used in developing this fascinating book. Thesis: To better understand the significance of Charles the Great, one must first comprehend the unfortunate features challenging Charles during the Carolingian period. This was a quality intention for Fichtenau because historians have struggled with the legend of Charlemagne. It is hard to distinguish his celebrity myths from the factual truth. Content: Fichtenau created an enchanting overview of the social, economic, political, and religious problems that faced Charles the Great. The author tried to remove the legendary side of Charles and reveal his human side. â€Å"No man’s stature is increased by the accumulation of myths, and nothing is detracted from genuine historical greatness by the consideration of a man’s purely human side† (Fichtenau, p. 25). He focuses not only on Charlemagne, but also on the human affairs confronting the people of the Carolingian Empire. Fichtenau also takes an in-depth look at the various classes of people within the empire. He examines the scholars of the empire and their effect on how Charlemagne is portrayed in their works. Although seen as propagandists, Fichtenau commends the scholars for their contributions (Ficthenau, p. 103). Also, he scrutinizes the large, growing gap between the rich and the poor of the empire. The ruling class became overwhelmed with a lust for power and wealth (Fichtenau, p. 112). The author additionally tackles the issue of Christianity in the kingdom. Charles basically forced his subjects into Christianity. This meant they supported Christianity, but not with sincerity (Fichtenau, p. 143). Fichtenau sees the time of peace in the Frankish kingdom as more of a mirage or lull period, as opposed to actual tranquility. He describes the era as successful in comparison to the later generations, but still full inequality (Fichtenau, p. 155). Charlemagne did however bring unity and order to the Frankish kingdom. His leadership and rule would factor into the future development of Europe. Sources: Fichtenau uses mainly primary but also a good share of secondary sources in this book. It was surprising he used any secondary sources because in the preface, the translator points out how great number of secondary sources about Charlemagne have conflicting views (Fichtenau, xi). Writers put their own interpretations within their works. Fichtenau’s repeated use of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica works is an example of his application of primary source material. These compiled manuscripts and other documents hold substantial historical value, which Ficthenau utilizes superbly. One example is when he refers the reader to a poem in the MGH about the blessing of a church. By using more primary sources, Fichtenau establishes more credibility with the reader. The sources are hard proof and not facts from a secondary source that we have no knowledge of. Deciphering the Fichtenau’s usage of secondary sources was hard because my book lists all the footnotes in German. However, I was able to tell that he did consult works by other authors. The citations included some sort of title, author, possibly a publisher, and also a page number. Based on the context, it appears that he only uses secondary sources when discussing broader or sometimes foreign topics. For example, he uses L. Thorndike’s, A History of Magic and Experimental Science when discussing astrology in the kingdom (Fichtenau, p. 151). The basis of Fichtenau’s work is derived mainly from primary sources. This produces a sense of trust and believability in his work. Methodology: As stated above, Fichtenau assembled almost all of his information from the MGH and historical script. The overall structure of The Carolingian Empire is fractured. Fichtenau introduces the empire and Charles the Great in the beginning. He then changes course and discusses the people of the empire. There is no real chronological feel to the writing. He does get back to Charlemagne’s story towards the end of book, but by that point any sense of a timeline of the empire or Charlemagne’s life is lost. Fichtenau puts his own personal inferences into his writing. For example, when covering the topic of how Charlemagne accumulated his wealth, Fichtenau describes his military expeditions as â€Å"wars of aggression. Also, he states that there was â€Å"military, political, and religious motives† behind Charlemagne’s work. There is no script or source to back these claims up and therefore appear to simply by the opinion of the author’s. In J. M. Wallace-Hadrill’s review of the book, he was upset that Peter Munz left out the chapter on the Carolingian Empire after Charlemagne’s death (Wallace-Hadrill). Th is would have changed the structure of the book and added to chronological story. Writing and Graphics: Graphic illustrations are lacking in The Carolingian Empire. The abbot’s house†¦burnt down and the abbot himself was killed by the flames in an attempt to salvage his property† (Ficthtenau, p. 152). This is a great example of a place where the author could have placed a few descriptive or emotional words to help paint a better picture. The only place I found satisfactory description was in the illustration of Charles’s physique. â€Å"†¦a thick, short-set neck, and a protruding paunch† (Fichtenau, p. 26). My favorite was his â€Å"large, vivacious eyes† (Fichtenau, p. 6). It is worth noting however that these were not Fichtenau’s words, but those of the biographer Einhard. It felt as if I was reading a history book as opposed to a novel. Not once was I drawn into any sort of story by Fichtenau’s writing technique. I think t he intended audience for this work was the college-educated public. There is some background information needed to understand the writing, and therefore a person of the general public would not be able to comprehend this work. Fichtenau’s comparison between the Byzantine Empire and the Frankish Empire would not communicate well to some one the general public who had no knowledge of the Byzantians. When Clovis is discussed in the introduction, I was able to understand the reference because I am college-educated and have learned about Clovis (Fichtenau, p. 2-3). The book is not at historian level for the exact same reasons. The conversation and language was not over my head. I was able to follow the author’s points and not get lost in complicated words or explanations. The Carolingian Empire is an appreciable introductory piece to Charlemagne and his empire. It is full of facts and historical references, but falls short when trying to portray the image of the kingdom graphically to the reader. Bibliography Fichtenau, Heinrich. The Carolingian Empire: The Age of Charlemagne. Trans. Peter Munz. Toronto: University of Toronto in Association with the Medieval Academy of America, 2000. Print. Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. Rev. of The Carolingian Empire by Heinrich Fichtenau. The English Historical Review 73 (1958): 342. JSTOR. Web. 3 Nov. 2010.