Notker lived through a different time from Charlemagne and what is he writes is not first-hand information. Both Nokter and Einhard had their narrations based on themes in place of history. Notker’s story is what he heard from other people hence it is uncertain if what he writes is true, but Einhard’s writing can be considered the truth. Notker did not witness events as they happened in Charlemagne’s life, but Einhard was there as events unfold. Nevertheless, his account of Charlemagne is still regarded as the best account of King Charles’s life. We are not told of any wrongdoings this may be due to the high regard he held for Charlemagne. Einhard’s narration is full of praises to Charlemagne as a reader, you will think he was a perfect man. Nevertheless, Notker talks about individuals that king Charles allotted during his tenure. He knew King Charles’ royal family at a personal level. Both Notker and Einhard reveal that the kingdom really mattered to Charlemagne.Įinhard gives detailed descriptions of the personal accounts of Charlemagne. For instance, eating during lent and the processes he undertook to keep up with the code for fasting. He showed them how a Christian should carry himself. Notker wrote that Charlemagne’s goal was to be a role model for other people. The king is portrayed as a man who valued Christianity. Charlemagne went to the church very often to be in a close association with the pope.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |