Part One: Life of Charlemagne
by
Damien F. Mackey
Emperor
Charlemagne’s life bears some uncanny likenesses to
that
of the ancient King Solomon of Israel and his family.
Charlemagne
has indeed been likened to King Solomon of old, e.g. by H. Daniel-Rops (The Church in the Dark Ages, p. 395),
who calls him “a witness of God, after the style of Solomon …”, and he has been
spoken of in terms of the ancient kings of Israel; whilst Charlemagne’s father,
Pepin the Short, was hailed as “the new king David”.
Charlemagne,
too, appears sometimes as a larger-than-life king, almost too good to be true.
His coronation on Christmas Day of 800 AD can seem just too neat and perfect.
He was, according to Daniel-Rops (ibid.,
p. 390), “… the heaven-sent man, for whom Europe was waiting …”. And: (p. 401):
“Who in the world fitted this role more than this glamorous personage, who set
every man’s imagination afire and who seemed so much larger than life?”
Charlemagne
is assigned to the period known as the Dark Ages (c. 600-900 AD); a period somewhat
lacking in archaeology – and there is precious little evidence for the many
buildings that this famous king is supposed to have had erected. (See Part Two)
Admittedly,
the anomalies and contradictions associated with virtually every aspect of the
life of Charlemagne, from his birth to his death, are evident for all to
consider.
Other
striking likenesses to the persons of the Old Testament, apart from that of Charlemagne’s
father king Pepin being like king David; are his mother, Bertha or Bertrada, reminding
of Bathsheba; Charlemagne’s wife, “Desideria”, reminding of the “Queen of
Sheba”; and Charlemagne’s colourful eastern friend and ally, Harun al-Raschid, most
definitely like Solomon’s ally, King Hiram of Tyre. The last I believe to have
been - as King Solomon most certainly was - a real historical person:
Charlemagne’s Father, Pepin, “the new
David”
D.
Fraioli tells of Pepin at his peak (Joan
of Arc and the Hundred Years War, p. 46): “An aura of prestige now
surrounded the king, whom the pope called the “new king David” …”. Gregory of
Tours had, as we shall read below, spoken similarly of king Clovis I, of the
Merovingian dynasty. This traditional likening of Frankish kings to the ancient
Davidic kings immediately raises the important point to be considered in this
article concerning a sacred attitude held in regard to French kings, and this
might go a long way towards accounting for the phenomenon of Charlemagne.
Let us
take a relevant section on this from Fraioli’s book (pp. 43-45):
THE
FRENCH TRADITION
France
developed by far the most sacred mythology around its kingship of all the
kingdoms in western Europe, although the earliest known coronations occurred in
Visigothic Spain and Ireland. The sacred mythology of French kingship, which
became known as “the religion of the monarchy”, first emerged during the
Merovingian dynasty, in the context of a baptismal anointing rather than a
sacred coronation, when Clovis, king of the Franks, converted to Christianity.
….
Fraioli
will however, in a later section on Hincmar (d. 882), suggest that this whole
notion of sacred kingship was a late tradition, both mythical and “fabricated”.
Here is what she has to say about it there (pp. 47-48. Emphasis added)
Hincmar,
archbishop of Reims from 845 to 882, was a learned theologian and nimble
politician, whose fame in the development of sacred kingship rests on his
introduction of the legend of the Holy Ampulla into the history of Clovis, four
centuries after the fact. In an effort to prove the continuity of Frankish
kingship and, it is commonly believed, to challenge the influence of the abbey
of Saint Denis – then successfully fusing its own history with that of the
monarchy – Hincmar authorized a new myth. He is often believed to have
fabricated the story himself in an attempt to expand the importance of the see
of Reims. In all likelihood, he did not invent it, although he had confessed to
forging other documents. The myth made the astonishing assertion that the
liquid used to consecrate Frankish kings was of divine origin. A dove, the
Christian symbol of the Holy Spirit, had allegedly delivered the Ampulla, or
vial, of sacred liquid in its beak, when the bustling crowd at Clovis’ baptism
had prevented the bearer of the baptismal oil from a timely arrival at the
ceremony. Through this myth the election of French kings was seen as the will
of God. Furthermore, the continuity of their rule was guaranteed by an
inexhaustible supply of anointing balm in the Holy Ampulla, which could anoint
French kings to the end of time.
[End of
quote]
This
charming story may have Old Testament origins in the miraculous preservation,
in liquid form, of the sacred fire as recorded in 2 Maccabees 1:18-36, for the
time of the biblical Nehemiah, whom we have found apparently making an
anachronistic ‘return visit’ at the time of the Prophet Mohammed, BC dragged
into AD time:
The
legend of Hincmar may perhaps have arisen out of a confused transmission of the
original true historical account relating to the governor Nehemiah.
We
continue now with Fraioli’s earlier section on The French Tradition, where she
briefly considers Clovis I (pp. 44-45), and then proceeds on to Pepin (p. 46),
emphasis added:
Clovis I (d. 511) and the Franks
…. At
his baptism, King Clovis was anointed with a holy balm, or salve … in a
ceremony blending kingship and religion. According to the contemporary
chronicle of Gregory of Tours, the anointing of Clovis occurred by the grace of
God, prompting Gregory to draw an analogy between Clovis and the sacred
kingship of David in the Old Testament. ….
Pepin the Short (d. 768)
…. Pepin
the Short … receives the credit for introducing the ritual of sacred anointing,
or consecration, into the installation ceremony for French kings. …. As Patrick
Simon has stated, Pepin’s innovation consisted of “legitimizing through a
religious ceremony a power obtained by force ...”.
…. The
union of king and clergy provided mutual benefit …. An aura of prestige now
surrounded the king, whom the pope called the “new David” ….
[End of
quotes]
Again,
we recall the famous anointing with “the horn of oil” of David the shepherd,
the youngest son of Jesse, by Samuel the high priest and prophet, after Samuel
had rejected one by one David’s seven older brothers (1 Samuel 16:1-13). After
the death of Saul (Samuel was also dead by now) David was anointed again, at
Hebron, as king of all Israel (2 Samuel 5:3).
Now
Pepin, likewise, was twice crowned (Fraioli, p. 46. Emphasis added): “The
second coronation, celebrated at Saint-Denis in 754 [AD], cleverly reconnected
Pepin’s reign to the Merovingians through his wife, big-foot Bertha, a
descendant of Clovis, which provided fictional continuity to French kingship”.
King
David is sometimes found going so far, it seems, as to act out the priest’s
rôle, as for example when he had triumphantly returned the Ark of the Covenant
to Jerusalem, and he subsequently offered “burnt offerings and the offering of
well-being before the Lord” (2 Samuel 6:17).
Both
David and Pepin were warrior-kings and men of great personal courage. Pepin is
famous, in his youthful days, like David, for his courage against wild animals,
including lions. Daniel-Rops (op. cit.,
p. 387) tells of it: “A well-known picture, which was already very popular in
the Middle Ages, has impressed on our minds the features of this thickset,
broad-shouldered little man who, for a wager, amused himself by separating a
lion and a bull who were in the middle of a fight in the circus arena”.
In the
case of David, this courage is manifest, not “in the circus arena”, but in the
field. More serious, and we might say less frivolous, was David’s situation,
when the giant, Goliath, was challenging the armies of Israel. Then David said
to Saul (1 Samuel 17:34-36):
‘Your servant used to keep
sheep for his father; and whenever a lion or a bear came, and took a lamb from
the flock, I went after it and struck it down, rescuing the lamb from its
mouth; and if it turned against me, I would catch it by the jaw, strike it down
and kill it. Your servant has killed both lions and bears; and this
uncircumcised Philistine shall be like one of them, since he has defied the
armies of the living God’.
Pepin
was nicknamed “the Short”.
Was
David also short? He probably was not of very tall stature. When the prophet
Samuel came to Jesse’s boys, to anoint the one amongst them whom God had
chosen, Samuel had been most impressed by Eliab, who was apparently of a good
height (1 Samuel 16:6-7). So, we could probably draw the conclusion that, when
the Lord advised Samuel not to look on “the height of [the candidate’s]
stature” in making his choice, that David, the youngest of the boys, who
eventually was chosen, was not that very tall. But David was of fine
appearance, nonetheless: “Now he was ruddy, and had beautiful eyes, and was
handsome” (v. 12).
Charlemagne, “after the style of Solomon”
His Beginnings
Like
Solomon, the young son, Charlemagne (said to be 26 at the time), succeeded his
father. But some hazy legend seems to surround Charlemagne’s mother and the
king’s own early years. Thus Daniel-Rops (op.
cit., p. 391):
What had
he done, this boy who was promised to such a lofty destiny, between that day in
742 when Bertha, the daughter of the Count of Laon – the ‘Bertha of the big
feet’ of the chansons de gestes – brought him into the world in some royal
villa or other in Austrasia, and the premature hour of his succession? No one
really knows, and Einhard of all people, who faithfully chronicled his reign,
is strangely discreet about his hero’s early years.
[End of
quote]
In the
case of Solomon, he was not born out of wedlock, as it is thought of Charlemagne.
Rather it was Bathsheba’s child who had died as a result of king David’s sin of
adultery with her (2 Samuel 12:16-23). Solomon himself was the child of
‘consolation’ for the pair after the sad death of this un-named child (v. 24).
Now were,
perhaps, the French 'Songs' (or Chansons), the Song of Roland (La Chanson de
Roland) and the "Songs of heroic deeds [or lineages]" (Chansons de
gestes), inspired by, or even in part based upon, the biblical “Song of Songs”
or “Canticle of Canticles” (also known as the “Song of Solomon”); a love poem
that could well have inspired some of the famous French chivalric notions?
Was the
‘wisdom of Oliver’ in the Song of Roland inspired by the Wisdom of Solomon?
“Oliver urges caution; wisdom and restraint are part of what makes him a good
knight” (http://www.gradesaver.com/song-of-roland/study-guide/section2/).
Did the
“giants” in these Chansons perhaps arise from the encounter between David and
the giant Goliath? Wikipedia tells (article “Chanson de geste”):
Composed
in Old French and apparently intended for oral performance by jongleurs, the
chansons de geste narrate legendary incidents (sometimes based on real events)
in the history of France during the eighth and ninth centuries, the age of
Charles Martel, Charlemagne and Louis the Pious, with emphasis on their
conflicts with the Moors and Saracens. To these historical legends, fantasy is
gradually added; giants, magic, and monsters increasingly appear among the foes
along with Muslims. ….
[End of
quote]
His Birthplace
More
than a dozen places are claiming the honour to be the birthplace of Charles.
The year
of birth varies between 742 and 747 AD. Bertrada, the mother of Charles, was
said to be a Bretonian princess, an Hungarian noble woman, or a member of the
imperial family of Byzantium.
The
competition for the throne between Charles and his brother, Carloman, is also
very much like what we find in the biblical account of the challenge to the
throne by Solomon’s brother, Adonijah (1 Kings 1:5-10). The mother may perhaps
have been complicit in this (cf. 2:9). According to Daniel-Rops (op. cit., p. 395): “At the time of
[Charles’] accession this question [of Italy, Rome and the Lombards] had been
considerably confused owing to the political mistakes of Queen Bertha, his
mother”. Solomon, like Carloman, seems to have been twice elected king
(accession and coronation), and in the first case, in both instances, the
mother appears to have played an ambiguous part.
Again,
when Adonijah’s bid for the throne had failed, he cunningly approached
Bathsheba to ask Solomon to give him the beautiful Abishag for his wife
(2:13-18). When Bathsheba did approach Solomon, the latter acted out the
pretence of complying with his mother’s request (2:2): “King Solomon answered
his mother, ‘And why do you ask Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? Ask for
him the kingdom as well! For he is my elder brother; ask not only for him but
also for the priest Abiathar and for Joab the son of Zeruiah!’ [both of whom
had supported Adonijah in his revolt against David and Solomon]”.
This
situation can perhaps be likened to the case of what Daniel-Rops (op. cit., ibid.) has referred to as
“these manoeuvres when Queen Bertha had married her elder son … to Desiderius’s
[King of Pavia’s] daughter, Desideria”. Though, in the biblical story, Adonijah
apparently was not actually a son of Bathsheba’s (1 Kings 1:5), nor of course
did he manage to fulfil his wish of marrying Abishag, despite his desire for
her. “Desideria” is certainly a most appropriate appellation for the
much-desired Abishag. And soon I shall be showing, from another parallel
situation between Solomon and Charlemagne, that Desideria well equates with
this Abishag.
Of
course Solomon was being completely sarcastic in his reply to Adonijah’s
request via Bathsheba. The wise king fully appreciated the implications of the
scheming Adonijah’s attaining the hand of David’s favourite, Abishag. Thus he
added, chillingly (vv. 23-25):
‘So may God do to me, and
more also [a typical idiom of the time], for Adonijah has devised this scheme
at the risk of his life! Now therefore as the Lord lives, who has established
me and placed me on the throne of my father David, and who has made me a house
as he promised, today Adonijah shall be put to death’. So King Solomon sent
Benaiah son of Jehoiada; he struck him down, and he died.
Conveniently,
likewise, Charlemagne’s brother died suddenly (Daniel-Rops, p. 391): “But
scarcely three years had elapsed when an unexpected death completely broke
these shackles …. Charles claimed his brother’s heritage and thus rebuilt the
unity of the paternal realm under his leadership”.
Solomon’s
sarcasm in the face of Bathsheba’s request may even have its faint glimmer in
the case of the chaffing compliance of the young Charles towards his own mother
(ibid., pp. 394-395): “Despite his
twenty-five years Charles had appeared to defer to his energetic mother’s
wishes. But he fretted under the restraint”.
His Natural Qualities
Like
Solomon, Charlemagne was a most gifted individual, and the perfect king
material (Daniel-Rops, p. 392):
Charles
was … throughout his life – quick, far-sighted, and energetic. In these
instinctive qualities lies the secret of his incomparably fruitful labour, and,
to their service, a never-failing vigour lent an activity which was truly
prodigious. ….And he had other complementary qualities, which decisively
defined his grandeur: prudence, moderation, a realistic appreciation of the
possible, a mistrust of unconsidered actions. It is the Emperor Augustus whom
Charlemagne recalls, rather than Caesar or Alexander.
Or is it
rather king Solomon “whom Charlemagne [most closely] recalls”?
As for
“prudence” and his other cardinal virtues, as mentioned in the quote above,
well, was not Solomon the first person to list these virtues (Wisdom of Solomon
8:7)?
His Appearance
What did
Charlemagne look like?
“Truth
to tell, nothing very detailed can be put forward on this point” (Daniel-Rops, ibid.).
What is
certain is that Charlemagne was not in fact the giant ‘with the flowing beard’
whom Chanson de Roland has immortalized; the mighty build is a poetic
exaggeration, and the beard is an anachronism which owes its origin to the
Byzantine-Arab fashion which, in the tenth century, considered that all
distinguished Western Europeans should be excessively hairy.
[End of
quote]
The
beard was of course de rigueur in
Solomon’s era.
For an
idealized (and even mighty) physical description of king Solomon and his
Shunammite bride, from which Chanson de Roland may perhaps have gained some
epic inspiration, see “Song of Songs” 5:10-16.
His Intelligence and Discernment
“Was he
intelligent?”, asks Daniel-Rops (op.
cit., p. 393), who then answers his question:
Most
certainly; and when we think of his profound knowledge of men, of his ease at
grasping situations, of the immensity of the tasks which he conceived and of
the undertakings which he managed, we realize that his intelligence was far
above the average”. And: “He unquestionably had a supreme appreciation of the
overriding need of the moment – the foundation of a new culture – and this is
one of the aspects of his character in which his genius shines forth most
brilliantly”.
Solomon
was of course the wisest of the wise; his name being a byword for wisdom. We
read, for instance, in the Book of Ecclesiastes of king Solomon (12:9-14):
Epilogue
Besides
being wise, the Teacher [Qoheleth]
also taught the people knowledge, weighing and studying and arranging many
proverbs. The Teacher sought to find pleasing words, and he wrote words of
truth plainly. The sayings of the wise are like goads, and like nails firmly
fixed are the collected sayings that are given by one shepherd. Of anything
beyond these, my child, beware. Of making many books there is no end, and much
study is a weariness of the flesh.
The end
of the matter: all has been heard. Fear God, and keep his commandments; for
that is the whole duty of everyone. For God will bring every deed into
judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil.
Most of
this could be applied to Charlemagne, we shall find, for we shall see unfurl
the traditional multi-facetted concept of him as a pious, wise and culturally
restructuring (even Renaissance-like) king.
There
are many other examples, too, of Solomon’s extraordinary wisdom and
discernment. Here are just a few:
1 Kings 4:29: “God gave
Solomon very great wisdom, discernment, and breadth of understanding, as vast
as the sand on the seashore”.
Wisdom 1:1: “Love
righteousness, you rulers of the earth …”.
Ecclesiastes 9:1: “… how
the righteous and the wise … are in the hand of God”.
Moreover, Solomon was not
shy about broadcasting his wisdom and the fact that he had exceeded all others
in it. For example (Ecclesiastes 1:16): “I said to myself, ‘I have acquired
great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me; and my mind has
great experience of wisdom and knowledge’.”
However Solomon, in his
‘Prayer for Wisdom’ (Book of Wisdom 7:15-17), had attributed his wisdom to God:
“May God grant me to speak
with judgment, and to have thoughts worthy of what I have received; for He is the
guide even of wisdom and the corrector of the wise. For both we and our words
are in His hand, as are all understanding and skill in crafts. For it is He who
gave me unerring knowledge of what exists …”.
Ecclesiastes 1:12: “I, the
Teacher, when king over Israel in Jerusalem applied my mind to seek and search
out by wisdom all that is done under heaven …”.
Ecclesiastes 7:25: “I
turned my mind to know and to search out and to seek wisdom and the sum of
things, and to know that wickedness is folly and that foolishness is madness”.
The
multi-talented Solomon was, I have proposed, the genius Senenmut (or Senmut), a
key organiser in 18th dynasty Egypt:
“by far the most
powerful and important figure of [female pharaoh Hatshepsut’s] reign”, who was -
like Solomon - not beyond self-praise: “I was the greatest of the great in the
land”. Thus Senenmut.
King Solomon,
too, exhorted other kings and officials to follow his way (Wisdom 6:1-9):
Listen therefore, O kings,
and understand; learn, O judges of the ends of the earth. Give ear you that
rule over multitudes, and boast of many nations. For your dominion was given
you from the Lord, and your sovereignty from the Most High; he will search out
your works and inquire into your plans. Because as servants of his kingdom you
did not rule rightly, or keep the law, or walk according to the purpose of God,
he will come upon you terribly and swiftly, because severe judgment falls on
those in high places. For the lowliest may be pardoned in mercy, but the mighty
will be mightily tested. For the Lord of all will not stand in awe of anyone,
or show deference to greatness; because he himself made both small and great,
and he takes thought for all alike. But a strict inquiry is in store for the
mighty. To you then, O monarchs, my words are directed, so that you may learn
wisdom and not transgress.
His Repudiated Wife
Charlemagne,
according to Daniel-Rops (op. cit.,
p. 396): “… repudiated Desideria, his Lombard wife, and sent her back to Pavia
post-haste.
Solomon
also divorced “the Queen of Sheba”, Hatshepsut, and sent her back to Egypt.
This, as I have explained following the terrific research of Dr. Ed Metzler (http://moziani.tripod.com/dynasty/ammm_2_1.htm), is the full meaning of the Hebrew of 1 Kings 10:13, that now translates
weakly as: “Then she returned to her own land, with her servants”. Metzler has
suggested that the biblical phrase "she [Sheba] turned" (to go back
home) indicates 'divorce' (Latin divortium, from divertere, "to turn
away") ….
The
Europeans of the Middle Ages would have known of Solomon only from the Bible.
They did not have the advantages that we have today of archaeology and other
knowledges – and even today this era can still be so poorly known.
Solomon’s
divorce of ‘the Queen of Sheba’ was all purely political.
Despite
King David’s having made absolutely clear his wish regarding the succession in
favour of his son, Solomon, there arose ‘the Abishag incident’, in relation to
which Queen Bathsheba was involved in an intrigue with Solomon’s brother for
the throne. And, just as Solomon went counter to his mother, Queen Bathsheba,
on behalf of David, so, we find from Daniel-Rops (op. cit., ibid.) that: “Bertha’s policy was abruptly abandoned, and
Charlemagne was returning to that pursued by Pepin”.
Charlemagne’s
triumph is recounted by Daniel-Rops as follows (ibid., p. 397):
At
Easter 774, in a grandiose ceremony, the victorious Frank was to be received at
St. Peter’s like a hero; the three doors of the basilica were opened in his
honour. As he ascended the steps he kissed them piously, one by one, and
prostrated himself upon the apostle’s ‘confession’, whilst the choir sang:
‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!’
Cf. The
Accession of King Solomon: 1 Kings 1:28-48.
And the
proclamation here: ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!’, is of
course straight out of David’s Psalm 118:26.
His Morality and His Piety
“As for
his personal morals, they too remained typical of his epoch: this virile man,
who married four times certainly followed
Old rather than new Testament practices in his private life” (Daniel-Rops, ibid. Emphasis added).
Solomon
was of course a serial polygamist.
Charlemagne
was most definitely a religious man, too (ibid.,
p. 394):
Charles
was personally devout, rigorously observant in his prayers and his fasting (and
the latter cut into his fine appetite), and he was indeed the man as portrayed
by the chroniclers, the man who attended interminable religious services
entirely of his own free will, his own strong voice mingling with those of the
choir.
We could
expect that Solomon might have inherited some of David’s musicianship.
Charlemagne
was a wise and religious ruler, and here is where Daniel-Rops does actually
liken him to King Solomon (ibid.,
394-395. Emphasis added):
To make
his subjects live in perfect harmony, to establish the concordia pacis between
men, above all to fight against all the evils which ravaged the world: famine,
cruelty, and injustice – such was the ideal of this mighty and awe-inspiring
monarch …. And the certainty which this man held at the bottom of his heart, of
‘taking the place of God on earth, of having, as his task, the exaltation of
His Law [the Torah?]’ …. Charles is, on
the historical plane, a witness of God, after the style of Solomon….
[End of
quote]
Cf. King
Solomon’s Prayer of Dedication of the Temple: 1 Kings 8:22-61.
Solomon
also acted like a priest on this important and triumphal occasion (vv. 62-64).
His Imperial Coronation
It is
unclear whether Charles requested the coronation, or whether he was crowned
unexpectedly by the Pope. It is not clear whether there was a formal coronation
or an acclamation. Einhard reports just the 'acceptance of the imperial title'.
Andreas from Bergamo (9th century), Bonizo from Sutri (11th century), Gero from
Reichersberg (12th century) and Nicolaus Cusanus (15th century) don't know anything
about an emperor Charles.
Similarly
Daniel-Rops has written (op. cit., p.
402):
There
only remains the … element which was responsible for the great event of
Christmas 800: Charles’s own will. This is the point upon which we know the
least. Was the imperial coronation the result of a well-matured plan on the
part of the Frankish leader, a ladder which he had long ago resolved to climb?
It is quite impossible to give an answer.
And
Fraioli writes (p. 47):
So on
Christmas day 800, in commemoration of the birth of Christ, a surprise
coronation took place … Charlemagne, whom his biographer Einhard described as
persuaded of his own God-given mission to unite western Christendom …. was
looked upon as king and priest (rex et sacerdos).
But now
it is Charlemagne who is the ‘new [king] David’. Thus Daniel-Rops (p. 400): “Next
the pontiff [Leo III] anointed the forehead of the ‘new David’ with sacred oil
and, uniting the ceremonial imposed, since Diocletian’s time, by the protocol
of the Roman emperors, with the ancient biblical rite, he prostrated himself
before him and ‘adored him’.”
No
wonder the French kings came to consider themselves the rightful descendants of
the Israelite royalty!
“The
triple and ritual acclamation” to which Daniel-Rops refers in this part (ibid.) is also seemingly reminiscent of
the triple procedure to which I have referred in my article:
Like Solomon,
Charlemagne reigned for at least four decades.
His Empire
Whilst
Solomon’s empire lay entirely in the ancient region of ‘the Fertile Crescent’
(Egypt; Syro-Palestine; Mesopotamia), as reconstructed in my various articles
on him, to Charlemagne are attributed European conquests; firstly, Italy, Rome
and the Lombards. “The ease with which Charles could impose his rule on Italy
in this way remains astonishing” (Daniel-Rops, op. cit., p. 397). Then, he pushed back Islam and conquered the
entire Germanic world, so that (ibid.,
p. 401): “His domain, which spread to the Elbe, to the middle Danube, to
Brussels, and even as far as the outskirts of Rome, seemed now too large for
the ordinary world ‘realm’ to fit it any longer”.
In
Solomon’s case, he would have been pushing back, not Germans and Islamic
armies, but Philistines, Syro-Hittites, Elamites and Nubians.
His Ally, Harun al-Rashid
Finally,
the whole Charlemagnian scene does shift to the east.
Daniel-Rops
introduces this exotic phase in the life of Charlemagne as follows, once again
making allusion to Solomon (and also now to “the Queen of Sheba”), p. 410:
Another
aspect of Charlemagne’s ‘Christian policy’ struck his contemporaries very
strongly; it is almost unbelievable, and brings into his career, which is
almost devoid of poetic quality, a note of exotic charm similar to that which
the visit of the Queen of Sheba casts upon the reign of Solomon; in other
words, his relations with Haroun-al-Raschid, the Caliph of Bagdad.
I would
be more emphatic here and suggest that it is more than “almost unbelievable”.
It is unbelievable!
Harun
al-Raschid belongs to the world of fairy tales! “Harun al-Raschid has become
famous as protagonist in tales from One Thousand and One Night[s]”.
Relations
Charles
exchanged diplomats with Harun al-Raschid, the Caliph of Baghdad, who sent him
the white elephant Abul Abbas, which took part in all journeys and military
actions of Charles between 802 and 810 AD. Arab sources do not mention these
relations. Harun al-Raschid has become famous as protagonist in tales from One
Thousand and One Night[s].
In a Solomonic
context, Harun is not unlike the king of Israel’s great Phoenician ally, Hiram,
king of Tyre. Though Hiram’s power extended much further than Tyre; for he, as
I have argued in my “King Hiram” article (ref. above), was also the mighty
merchant-king Iarim-Lim of the Aleppo
region, who was able militarily to threaten with extermination rulers as far
away as Babylonia (the region of the exotic Harun), if they failed to pay for
his shipbuilding services.
King Hiram
had told Solomon that the Galilean towns that the latter had given him in
payment for his services were “Cabul” (1 Kings 9:13), virtually ‘rubbish
dumps’. According to Daniel-Rops (ibid.),
Harun “was an intelligent, well-educated, and relatively sympathetic man …”. And
Daniel-Rops continues with his account of Harun:
Probably
no Eastern ruler ever equalled the glory of this great caliph: he lived in the
palace of the ‘Golden Gate’, whose famous green dome dominated the Mesopotamian
plain, amongst his priceless carpets and tapestries, in the midst of a gigantic
court of servants, concubines and eunuchs, and he was worthy indeed to become
the hero of the Arabian Nights. But he was also a skilful diplomat and a
soldier.
[End of
quote]
The
architecture, the lavish courts and the multitudes of servants, as well as the
skill factor in ruling and conquering, all are perfectly true of Hiram, too, especially
in his partnership with the magnificent Solomon. The royal pair had fleets of
ships visiting the most exotic regions, for gold, slaves, precious myrrh and
rare spices, and other quite unique flora and fauna. I have suggested that
Solomon and Hiram were actually turning Palestine at the time into a zoo and a
botanical gardens; a lot of which atmosphere is reflected in the exotic “Song
of Songs”.
It is
such a pity that the archaeologists have been looking at the wrong strata
levels for the cosmopolitan Late Bronze phase of king Solomon. See my:
The
harmonious relations between the two sovereigns were marked by exchanges of
gifts, which the Carolingian chroniclers enlarge upon charmingly and freely.
Everyone at Aix-la-Chapelle was enraptured by the arrival of a chess set with
the figures finely carved in ivory, of spices with unknown scents, of a clock
which moved by means of a cunning hydraulic mechanism, and even of elephants
and other strange animals!
Part Two:
Archaeology of Charlemagne
For
AD history to be fully convincing and to be made to rest on firm foundations,
it
will
need to undergo a rigorous revision similar to the one that scholars have been undertaking
for BC history, with the application of a revised stratigraphy.
There
may be some indications that the history of Charlemagne is yet far from having
been established on such firm stratigraphical foundations.
The following
will be based upon the research of some pioneering European revisionists (Illig;
Niemitz; Topper) who have bravely embarked upon a re-assessment of AD time. Whilst
I may not necessarily agree with all of their conclusions, or their revised
models, I would applaud them for having undertaken so necessary a revision.
Charlemagne’s Economy
The
findings of historians regarding Charles' economy show extreme contradictions:
Some concede abundant wealth to Charles, while others have to complain economic
decay. Jan Beaufort writes (“Illig’s
Hypothesis on Phantom Times – FAQ”: http://www.cybis.se/forfun/dendro/hollstein/hollstein0/beaufort/index.htm):
Economy: The findings of historians regarding Charles' economy show extreme
contradictions: Some concede abundant wealth to Charles, while others have to
complain economic decay. [DeM
161 ff.] As Heinsohn has shown recently, coins attributed to Charles (or,
likewise Charles the Bald-head) cannot be distinguished from the coins of
Charles the Simple (898-929). According to Illig, Carolus Simplex has been a
real Carolingian and the model for Charlemagne. The attribute
"simplex" (= stupid, but likewise single, not-duplicated) has been
used for the first time following the turn of the millennium. [Heinsohn
(2001)]
Charlemagne’s Capital City
and His Cultural Achievements
‘The
Carolingian Renaissance’, as Daniel-Rops calls it (The Church in the Dark Ages, p. 422), centred on Aix-la-Chapelle.
But Aix-la-Chapelle is considered to have been a rather unusual geographical
choice anyway:
The
vital centre of this Renaissance was Aix-la-Chapelle, the ancient ‘villa’ of
Pepin the Short’s time, which was situated some distance off the great Roman
roads. From 794 onwards Charlemagne made it into a Carolingian Versailles,
judging from its intellectual atmosphere and the splendour of its appearance.
The geographical position of this new capital has given rise to much discussion:
why was this Rhineland area chosen, rather than some town in Gaul, or even Rome
itself? …. Aix was the centre of the intellectual Renaissance; and the centre
of Aix, and especially the Palatine school, was a kind of general headquarters
of the mind, which influenced the entire empire ….
[End of
quote]
Amongst
this august group was Charlemagne himself, now “known as David”; this being
about the only seemingly eastern factor in what comes across as a very European
‘club of gentlemen’ (ibid., p. 424):
The
leaders of this pleiade of scholars and cultured men formed a sort of club, a
small, self-contained group. Historians are accustomed to call this group the
Palatine Academy. Each of its members bore a pseudonym borrowed from antiquity.
Charlemagne himself, who was not a whit averse to residing over this learned
assembly, was known as David, which overestimated the power of the cantor of
the Psalms and overrated even more outrageously the poetic talents of the son
of Pepin!
[End of
quote]
Charlemagne
is also, like King Solomon, famed for his architectural achievements. Thus Daniel-Rops,
p. 425:
….
Because the building, decoration, and beautifying of the House of God was one
of the major preoccupations of the master, architecture and the plastic arts
developed so much that Dawson has been able to write: ‘Charlemagne founded a
Holy Roman architecture as well as a Holy Roman Empire’. In fact, it was not
only Roman, but followed tendencies which we have already noticed in the
Merovingian epoch, mingling Eastern and remote Asiatic influence with the
revival of classical features.
But
sadly - as somewhat also with king Solomon (but in his case due to centuries of
destruction and looting, and also to the failure by archaeologists to identify
Solomon’s era stratigraphically): “We no longer possess many examples of the
architecture of this great reign”.
[End of
quote]
Beaufort
would concur with the fact of this dearth of architectural evidence (op. cit.):
Buildings: As we know from the ancient texts, between 476 and 855 AD more than 1695
large buildings were erected, including 312 cathedrals, 1254 convents and 129
royal palaces. The historian Harald Braunfels: "Of all these buildings
[until 1991] only 215 were examined by archaeologists. Artefacts were found
only at a fraction of these buildings. One may count with ten fingers the
number of buildings that still exist as a whole or as a significant
fraction." [DeM
208]
Publisher Heribert Illig, who has advanced the historical conspiracy theory
known as the phantom
time hypothesis, has made this observation
about the “masterpiece of Carolignian architecture” (as told by Beaufort):
Pfalzkapelle Aachen: The
masterpiece of Carolingian architecture, the Chapel of St. Mary at Aachen
(about 792-799) is unique. Its direct predecessor (Ravenna's San Vitale) had
been erected some 200 years earlier. Buildings comparable to Aachen in style
and technology were not erected until the advent of the Romanesque style in the
11th century. Consequently, Illig assumes the Pfalzkapelle to be a Romanesque
building of the 11th century.
[End of
quote]
In other
words, Illig claims it to be quite anachronistic.
His Burial and Tomb
Beaufort
tells about this (op. cit.):
Burial: Charles' burial place is the Pfalzkapelle at Aachen (his explicit will to
find his grave beneath his father at Saint-Denis had been ignored). This
contradicted the general prohibition of burials within churches, proclaimed by
councils held under Charles at Aachen (809) and Mainz (813). [DeM
44 f.]
And again:
Tomb: Charles' tomb had been camouflaged so well (in fear of the raiding
Normans) that it could not be localized for two centuries. In the year 1000 the
emperor Otto III discovers the tomb. He finds Charles sitting on his throne.
Again the tomb became forgotten until it was found once more and reopened by
Friedrich Barbarossa. Then again, the tomb disappeared and was never found
again. For comparison: The tomb of Otto I in the dome of Magdeburg has always
been honoured - despite of all destructions and rebuilds of this church. [DeM
44 ff.]
His Cult and Biography
And, again
from the same source:
- Cult: Friedrich Barbarossa (1152-1190) is said to have coined the term Sacrum Romanum Imperium. Friedrich gave order to exhumate Charles, and to canonize him. Most known forgeries referring to Charles were produced during Friedrich's lifetime. The reliquary for Charles' arm (dated about 1170) displays the imperial attitude of Barbarossa in reference to Charlemagne. [DeM 338]
- Biography: Leopold von Ranke classifies the biography of Charles, written by his palatial clerk Einhard: "The small volume is full of historical errors [...]. Frequently, the years of reign are false [...]; about the split of the empire between the two brothers the opposite of what really happened is reported [...]; the names of the popes were confused, the spouses and children of Charles were not noted correctly; so many offences have been found that the authenticity of the book has been questioned quite often, although it is beyond all doubt." [DeM 345]
- Tradition: Charles' son in law Angilbert rhymes in 799 an epos, where he denotes Charles to be the "light of Europe", "Head of the world; summit of Europe; father of Europe; most graceful father; hero". But in 799 Charles was not yet crowned as the emperor. [DeM 35 f.] In an essay for the Spiegel magazine (“A dark lighthouse”), Johannes Fried has shown that the myth of Charles as the "father of Europe" came up very much later as a product of a romantic Napoleonism and even Hitlerism. [Fried][End of quotes]
It seems
that French kings too, such as Philip II and Louis IX, did much to enhance the
reputation of the glorious ‘Charlemagne’. D. Fraioli takes up this point (Joan of Arc and the Hundred Years War, pp.
49-50, 51, 52.):
Philip
II Augustus (r. 1180-1223)
….
Entranced by the life and imperial image of Charlemagne, to whom he must have
considered himself in many ways parallel, Philip consciously patterned himself
on the model of the great Christian emperor. …. In the twelfth century,
Charlemagne was primarily known through literary rather than historical works.
Philip had certainly listened to the popular epic poems about national heroes –
the most prominent being Charlemagne – called chansons de geste. ….
Louis IX
(r. 1226-1270)
….
Hincmar’s legend of the Holy Ampulla was permanently incorporated into the
coronation ritual. As a result, it was declared, with far-reaching
consequences, that because French rulers were appointed with oil sent from
heaven, the king of France “outshines all the kings of the earth”.
…. As
others before him, Saint Louis maintained that the consecration of French kings
was intimately connected to the original anointings of Old Testament kings.
[End of
quotes]
Conclusion
Hopefully
this series has provided sufficient indications that the true Charlemagne must needs
be sifted out from the larger-than-life, and often biblically-based “Charlemagne”
we read about in the text books.
And, obviously,
a proper archaeology needs to be developed to underpin all of this.
No comments:
Post a Comment