Birthdate for Charlemagne
Leo van de Pas
Hereby the sources I have. Can anyone tell what it should be?
Many thanks
Leo van de Pas
Erich Brandenburg, "Die Nackommen Karls des Grossen"
published in 1935 and republished in 1995
page 1 Charlemagne is born 2 April 742
Siegfried Roesch, "Caroli Magni Progenies"
published in 1977
page 56 Charlemagne born 742 (?) 2 April (?) (in Ingelheim?)
Prince W. K. von Isenburg
Europaische Stammtafeln, Volume I
published1936, republished 1975 by Frank Baron Freytag von Loringhoven
Tafel 2 Charlemagne born 2 April 747 (!!!! different year!!)
Editor Detlev Schwennicke, "Europaische Stammtafeln"
Neue Folge Band I.1 published 1998
Tafel 4 Charlemagne born (2 April 747)
It seems 2 April is accepted but not the year.
Don Stone
Settipani and Van Kerrebrouck (Le préhistoire des Capetiens 481-987. Première
partie: Mérovingiens, Carolingiens et Robertiens) give the year as 748, with a
detailed analysis in note 3, p. 191.
-- Don Stone
Peter Stewart
Leo is right about the acceptance, but I think this is the wrong way
round and the year should be fixed on rather than the alleged date.
The year traditionally given until the mid-20th century was 842,
supposedly before his parents' marriage, since the emperor was reputed
to be in his seventy-second year at his death in January 814 (Thegan
in _Vita Hludowici_ wrote: "in senectute bona plenus dierum perrexit
in pace...anno aetatis suae 72").
As to 2 April for the date, KF Werner ['La date de naissance de
Charlemagne', _Bulletin de la Société nationale des antiquaires, 1972_
(Paris, 1975) p. 116] quoted a document from Lorsch abbey, supposedly
written in the first half of the ninth century, catalogued as ms
Phillips 1869 in Staatsbibliothek, Berlin: "IIII Non. Apr. Nativitas
domni et gloriosissimi Karoli imperatoris et semper Augusti".
However, it appears that the date and even the year of his birth were
not remembered accurately in Charlemagne's lifetime within his own
entourage: Einhard reported that the emperor at his death in 814 was
in his seventy-second year, placing his birth before 28 Jan 743. This
is not plausible for several reasons, mainly from the extant records
of his parents' marriage (variously in 744 and 749) along with the
reasonable deduction - from papal blessing of his associate kingship
in childhood - that he had been born in recognised wedlock; and from
records of his own and his siblings' births (ranging from 747 to
758/9) along with the simultaneous gift of countships to Charlemagne
and his younger brother Carloman in 763, after they first accompanied
their father on campaign in 762, indicating that they were close
enough in age for common treatment in these respects (see Werner
(1975) p. 119 note 2 for references).
Given this, the date of 2 April may well have been a polite fiction,
invented later as a mark of honour to the emperor due to the fact that
Easter Sunday had fallen on this date in 747. Christian Settipani [_La
préhistoire des Capétiens 481–987_ (Villeneuve d'Ascq, 1993) p. 191
note 3] suggested that the silence of contemporaries about a
coincidence between the emperor's birth and the most joyful day of the
religious year actually excluded the possibility of his having been
born in 747 - relying on the putative exact date rather than the whole
calendar year. The safer conclusion appears to me that Charlemagne was
indeed born in 747, as reported by a good source, and _perhaps_ after
15 August in that year when his uncle Carloman evidently attested a
charter before leaving to take monastic orders in Rome, since his
departure was related ahead of the birth. (However, the order of
reporting in medieval annals is not always a trustworthy guide to the
actual order of events).
The precise date of 2 April 748 was determined by Matthias Becher
['Neue Überlegungen zum Geburtsdatum Karls des Grossen', _Francia_
19/1 (1992) - a minor reservation on this is given by Janet Nelson
['La cour impériale de Charlemagne', _La royauté et les élites dans
l'Europe carolingienne (du début du IXe aux environs de 920_, edited
by Régine le Jan (Lille, 1998) p. 182 note 25]. Christian Settipani
(op cit p. 191) agreed with Becher.
For the year, _Annales Laubacenses_ in MGH SS vol. I p. 10 under 747
records "Nativitas regis magni Caroli". NB this entry was dependant on
the following and both seem to have been written before Charlemagne
became emperor: _Annales Petaviani_, MGH SS I p. 11 (747) "Et ipso
anno fuit natus Karolus rex". Werner (1975) pp. 135-6 suggested that
this entry and other notes about the Pippinid family were written
before the death of Carloman in December 771, because no annalist
after that time would have bothered to record the birth of the
latter's son Pippin in 770. Charlemagne's birth in 747 is recorded
here following mention of his uncle Carloman's departure for Italy,
which possibly did not take place until after 15 August in that year
(Settipani p. 191 note 3, citing _Recueil des chartes de l'abbaye de
Stavelot-Malmédy_ (Brussels, 1909) pp. 51 et seq no 18). However,
Carloman's tonsuring at Monte Cassino took place in 746 according to
_Annales Xantenses_ and _Annales regni Francorum_, at variance with
some other sources but possibly reliable - the Stavelot-Malmédy
charter may have been misdated, or the precise order of the two events
may not have been known when the entries were made in _Annanles
Petaviani_.
I think it's reasonable on the evidence to accept that Charlemagne was
born in 747, possibly on 2 April or after 15 August but with little
chance now of recovering any certainty about the date.
Peter Stewart
Janko Pavsic
Charlemagne born on the 2th of April...
"III Non. Apr. Nativitas domni et gloriosissimi Karoli imperatoris"
(manuscript of Lorsh) in La préhistoire des Capétiens (Settipani & Van
Kerrebrouck, p. 191 footnote 3)
... certainly in 748...
(detailed and convincing explanation from these two authors, p.
191-192, footnote 3). Too long to translate in english, but I can fax
it on request...
Regards...
Janko Pavsic
Montréal, Canada
janko...@hotmail.com
Nathaniel Taylor
Yes, there is dispute based on incomplete and contradictory sources.
Settipani, in what is now the canonical genealogical sketch of
Charlemagne (_La préhistoire des Capétiens_ [1993], 191-92, n. 3), gives
a detailed overview and summarizes some points made by Karl Ferdinand
Werner at various times, and most recently by Matthias Becher, "Neue
Uberlegungen zum Geburtsdatum Karls des Grossen," Francia 19.1 (1992),
37-60. [Collins cites this article as "Neue Uberlieferung..."; which is
it?]
Briefly, the year 742 follows Einhard's statement of how old Charlemagne
was when he died, but against this there is the apparently trustworthy
statement of the Annales Petavienses, perhaps dating as early as 770,
stating Charlemagne's birth in 747. Actually, Becher suggests that this
747 should be corrected to 748 for various independent reasons; 2 April
748 is the date Settipani settles on, following Werner and Becher.
"747 or, more likely, 748" is followed--without fanfare--in the
biography by Roger Collins published in 1998.
Settipani has a clear summary of the primary sources with the varied
testimony, and the historiography of the debate. I would trust his
discussion over any of the dicta disseminated in the compilations you
have cited. However, I do not know if there has been any scholarly
reply to the 1992 work cited there. Anyone have anything to add?
Nat Taylor
Nathaniel Taylor
peter....@crsrehab.gov.au (Peter Stewart) wrote:
> ... I think this is the wrong way
> round and the year should be fixed on rather than the alleged date.
>
> ... the date of 2 April may well have been a polite fiction,
> invented later as a mark of honour to the emperor due to the fact that
> Easter Sunday had fallen on this date in 747. Christian Settipani [_La
> préhistoire des Capétiens 481–987_ (Villeneuve d'Ascq, 1993) p. 191
> note 3] suggested that the silence of contemporaries about a
> coincidence between the emperor's birth and the most joyful day of the
> religious year actually excluded the possibility of his having been
> born in 747 - relying on the putative exact date rather than the whole
> calendar year. The safer conclusion appears to me that Charlemagne was
> indeed born in 747, as reported by a good source, and _perhaps_ after
> 15 August in that year when his uncle Carloman evidently attested a
> charter before leaving to take monastic orders in Rome, since his
> departure was related ahead of the birth. (However, the order of
> reporting in medieval annals is not always a trustworthy guide to the
> actual order of events).
Good! Now, if this had made it to my server before I posted my reply, I
would not have had the pleasure of an independent reading of Settipani's
blurb. But reading it just now, I also had a reservation about relying
on the ordering of events in the Annales Petaviani. "... et ipso anno"
as a conjunction does not imply that it postdates the event in the
preceding sentence.
I like your alternative explanation about the '.iiii. nones April'
datum: that it could have been proposed to honor the Emperor with an
Easter birth. If this was so, it was a quiet monastic kiss-up, at least
in the form in which it survives, for the reader of the Lorsch MS would
have had to have his Easter table in front of him or in his head to
'get' it.
Nat Taylor
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> The year traditionally given until the mid-20th century was 842,
> supposedly before his parents' marriage
Make that "around a century after his parents' marriage" - too much of
a prodigy even for Charlemagne. This is one of my more comprehensive
typos, the formerly supposed year of Charlemagne's birth being really
742.
Peter Stewart
fa10...@skynet.be
opinion about the place where the Emperor was born. I happen to live at
about 200 metres from "la ferme Charlemagne" (legendary birth place , I 'm
sure, but my fellow Herstaliens don't see it that way ).Every year we
celebrate at the cultural centre "La Charlemagnerie".Quite a few streets of
my town bear "Carolingian " names: Rue Pépin, rue Charlemagne , rue Charles
Martel .Others think he was born in Jupille (other side of the Meuse river ,
but still in the area )Archeologists are still searching...We have proof
that Charlemagne had one of his Palaces in Her(i)stal. (=stable of the Lord
:Herr-Stal)My question : What are the chances that he was born in Ingelheim
?Are there sources ? or convincing reasons ?
Patrick , Charlemagne country, Herstal,now Belgium.
""Leo van de Pas"" <leov...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:000301c3605a$aa0540e0$b1e9fea9@old...
Nathaniel Taylor
"patric...@infonie.be" <fa10...@skynet.be> wrote:
> Could one of you (or more..), very knowledgeable gentlemen , give your
> opinion about the place where the Emperor was born. I happen to live at
> about 200 metres from "la ferme Charlemagne" (legendary birth place , I 'm
> sure, but my fellow Herstaliens don't see it that way ).Every year we
> celebrate at the cultural centre "La Charlemagnerie".Quite a few streets of
> my town bear "Carolingian " names: Rue Pépin, rue Charlemagne , rue Charles
> Martel .Others think he was born in Jupille (other side of the Meuse river ,
> but still in the area )Archeologists are still searching...We have proof
> that Charlemagne had one of his Palaces in Her(i)stal. (=stable of the Lord
> :Herr-Stal)My question : What are the chances that he was born in Ingelheim
> ?Are there sources ? or convincing reasons ?
> Patrick , Charlemagne country, Herstal,now Belgium.
Settipani's sketch of Charlemagne in _La préhistoire des Capétiens_
deals with the birthplace question in less space than the date issue
(see p. 193 n. 3). He cites the universal silence or vagueness on this
issue, and 'general opinion' that he was born in the 'Rhine region',
which we should take as the Carolingian heartland of the middle
Rhine-Meuse-Mosel area. One 12th-century writer, Godfrey of Viterbo,
says he was born at Ingelheim, up the Rhine near Mainz. Herstal makes
sense, though there may be no early attestation of this, and the local
tradition there may be countered by similar ones elsewhere. Is there
any resident of Ingelheim, for example, who can tell us whether this is
celebrated there?
Nat Taylor
fa10...@skynet.be
of Viterbo)?To add to the Herstal dossier, I would like to bring to your
attention that numerous pieces of land all along the Meuse Valley were given
to the Church of Liege and so formed the foundations of the Prince Bishopric
of Liege (created in 980 by emperor Otto I )." The Land of St Lambert " as
the City of Liege is called (martyrdom of Saint Lambert (8th Century) and
the removal of the bishopric from Tongres to Liege via Maestricht) made the
place a well-known pilgrimage area in Carolingian times. Their ancestor
:Pepin of Landen (a small town which still exists on the French/Dutch
language border ) is just a few miles from the Meuse valley.I've never heard
of a "Charles of Ingelheim" .........
Patrick.
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathani...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-54...@news06.east.earthlink.net...
Nathaniel Taylor
"patric...@infonie.be" <fa10...@skynet.be> wrote:
> "Nathaniel Taylor" <nathani...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:nathanieltaylor-54...@news06.east.earthlink.net...
>
> > In article <3f38eab2$0$924$ba62...@reader1.news.skynet.be>,
> > "patric...@infonie.be" <fa10...@skynet.be> wrote:
> >
> > > Could one of you (or more..), very knowledgeable gentlemen , give your
> > > opinion about the place where the Emperor was born.
> >
> > Settipani's sketch of Charlemagne in _La préhistoire des Capétiens_
> > deals with the birthplace question in less space than the date issue
> > (see p. 193 n. 3). He cites the universal silence or vagueness on this
> > issue, and 'general opinion' that he was born in the 'Rhine region',
> > which we should take as the Carolingian heartland of the middle
> > Rhine-Meuse-Mosel area. One 12th-century writer, Godfrey of Viterbo,
> > says he was born at Ingelheim, up the Rhine near Mainz. Herstal makes
> > sense, though there may be no early attestation of this, and the local
> > tradition there may be countered by similar ones elsewhere. Is there
> > any resident of Ingelheim, for example, who can tell us whether this is
> > celebrated there?
>
> Thank you for your post.Any information about that "primary source" (Godfrey
> of Viterbo)?
Settipani cites Godfrey of Viterbo's "Pantheon" [a 12th-century
universal history; Godfrey died about 1191], cap. 23.3, in the MGH,
Scriptores, vol. 22 p. 209.
Nat Taylor
Pierre Aronax
<...>
> But reading it just now, I also had a reservation about relying
> on the ordering of events in the Annales Petaviani. "... et ipso anno"
> as a conjunction does not imply that it postdates the event in the
> preceding sentence.
<...>
Incidently, how do the Annales Petaviani count years?
Pierre
Pierre Aronax
<...>
> Yes, there is dispute based on incomplete and contradictory sources.
> Settipani, in what is now the canonical genealogical sketch of
> Charlemagne (_La préhistoire des Capétiens_ [1993], 191-92, n. 3), gives
> a detailed overview and summarizes some points made by Karl Ferdinand
> Werner at various times,
<...>
Brosing the net, I have found this page:
http://users.skynet.be/pierre.coste/Genealogies/Charlemagne.htm#N1
and had the bad impression that it was for the most part a plagiarism,
word for word, of the Charlemagne entry in "La préhistoire des
Capétiens". The book is mentionned, but between other references, as
if the synthesis was from the author of the website and not from
Christian Settipani. Unfortunetly, I had not the "Préhistoire" at hand
to check the differences, but I don't think they are numerous.
Am I the only one who find that scandalous?
Pierre
Nathaniel Taylor
pierre...@hotmail.com (Pierre Aronax) wrote:
This is a complete, word-for-word transcription of the entry for
Charlemagne in Settipani (& Van Kerrebrouck)'s _Préhistoire_. The first
footnote is a citation to the pages in _La préhistoire_, but obviously
the implication is that it is the work of the author of the site, since
it is not stated that the page is a verbatim rendition of the sketch.
This is plagiarism, pure and simple.
This page is part of a painstaking set of pages on the Frankish and
French ruling houses, almost all (if not all) based on extracted text
from Settipani & Van Kerrebrouck. Settipani's footnotes are retained
and the appropriate abbreviations are keyed at the end of each page.
The graphics are selected and (some) captioned, and tied to pedigree
index pages. This represents a lot of painstaking work. But in no
place is it made clear that Settipani's text is what is on the pages.
The author, who is a long-time hobbyist who has held office in his local
genealogical society, should know better.
Nat Taylor
Peter Stewart
> >
> > It seems 2 April is accepted but not the year.
>
> Yes, there is dispute based on incomplete and contradictory sources.
> Settipani, in what is now the canonical genealogical sketch of
> Charlemagne (_La préhistoire des Capétiens_ [1993], 191-92, n. 3), gives
> a detailed overview and summarizes some points made by Karl Ferdinand
> Werner at various times, and most recently by Matthias Becher, "Neue
> Uberlegungen zum Geburtsdatum Karls des Grossen," Francia 19.1 (1992),
> 37-60. [Collins cites this article as "Neue Uberlieferung..."; which is
> it?]
The title is 'Neue Überlegungen zum Geburtsdatum Karls des Grossen'.
I'm not sure what a "new oversupply" about Charlemagne's birthdate
might refer to in the Collins citation, but it surely isn't to the
quantity of evidence.
Peter Stewart
Nathaniel Taylor
> Nathaniel Taylor <nathani...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<nathanieltaylor-7A...@news01.east.earthlink.net>...
> <snip>
>
> > ... Matthias Becher, "Neue
> > Uberlegungen zum Geburtsdatum Karls des Grossen," Francia 19.1 (1992),
> > 37-60. [Collins cites this article as "Neue Uberlieferung..."; which is
> > it?]
>
> The title is 'Neue Überlegungen zum Geburtsdatum Karls des Grossen'.
> I'm not sure what a "new oversupply" about Charlemagne's birthdate
> might refer to in the Collins citation, but it surely isn't to the
> quantity of evidence.
I realized this too, right after posting. I remember getting
compound-happy when studying German, but I'm surprised to see a slip
like this in Collins' book.
Nat Taylor
Leo van de Pas
You do disappoint me. Ueberlegung is not a supply of any kind. Try one of
the translation machines and you might get 'consideration'. In Dutch
'overleggen' means discussion and, obviously, that is what is meant,
discussing, considering the birth date of Charlemagne.
Your German is slipping as well :-)
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
Nathaniel Taylor
leov...@bigpond.com (Leo van de Pas) wrote:
> > Nathaniel Taylor <nathani...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > In article <5054737e.03081...@posting.google.com>,
> > peter....@crsrehab.gov.au (Peter Stewart) wrote:
> >
> > > Nathaniel Taylor <nathani...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:<nathanieltaylor-7A...@news01.east.earthlink.net>...
> > >
> > > > ... Matthias Becher, "Neue
> > > > Uberlegungen zum Geburtsdatum Karls des Grossen," Francia 19.1 (1992),
> > > > 37-60. [Collins cites this article as "Neue Uberlieferung..."; which is
> > > > it?]
> > >
> > > The title is 'Neue Überlegungen zum Geburtsdatum Karls des Grossen'.
> > > I'm not sure what a "new oversupply" about Charlemagne's birthdate
> > > might refer to in the Collins citation, but it surely isn't to the
> > > quantity of evidence.
> >
> > I realized this too, right after posting. I remember getting
> > compound-happy when studying German, but I'm surprised to see a slip
> > like this in Collins' book.
>
> You do disappoint me. Ueberlegung is not a supply of any kind. Try one of
> the translation machines and you might get 'consideration'. In Dutch
> 'overleggen' means discussion and, obviously, that is what is meant,
> discussing, considering the birth date of Charlemagne.
> Your German is slipping as well :-)
Now, I will cheerfully admit my German is weak, but I think you may have
got off track reading the quoted posts. It is 'Uberlieferung', not
'Uberlegung', which was the point of departure for Peter's wordplay
about oversupply. 'Uberlieferung' means 'tradition', but it can be
literally read as 'oversupply' (Uber + Lieferung). By referring to
'Uberlieferung' as 'oversupply', Peter was obliquely sending up the
meagerness of the evidence on Charlemagne's birth.
The 'slip' to which I referred was not any translation, but rather
Collins simply inserting the wrong word (Uberlieferung instead of
Uberlegungen, or 'considerations') in his bibliographic entry. What I
has realized, after posting my original query (and after looking both
words up to make sure), was not the kernel of Peter's pun, but that
'Uberlegung' was more appropriate than 'Uberlieferung' in the title of
the article, given the nature of Becher's article as noted by Settipani.
Now, following your other reference. I'm not sure what else is supposed
to be slipping here, but perhaps I'd better not ask!
Nat Taylor
Leo van de Pas
If you use Babel fish, I suggest you don't, the translation given for
ueberlieferung is excessive quantity. As far as I can gather, the word
ueberlieferung has more than one meaning, tradition, hand down, deliver up
but also transmit. Transmit would be a correct meaning if that was intended
by Collins.
I love languages but do not know enough about them :-(
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Taylor" <nathani...@earthlink.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: Birthdate for Charlemagne
Peter Stewart
> Dear Nat,
>
> If you use Babel fish, I suggest you don't, the translation given for
> ueberlieferung is excessive quantity. As far as I can gather, the word
> ueberlieferung has more than one meaning, tradition, hand down, deliver up
> but also transmit. Transmit would be a correct meaning if that was intended
> by Collins.
I suspect that Collins got the title confused with another where the
meaning of Überlieferung was "tradition" - however, this could make no
sense in the context of an article about Charlemagne's birthdate,
where a "new" tradition regarding something that happened more that
1,000 years ago would not be worth the printer's ink. "Transmission"
wouldn't be much better, since the subject was old information newly
considered.
I wonder if Collins had actually read Becher's article in German, or
maybe satisfied himself with the abstract in French. Shades of
Roderick Stuart...
Peter Stewart
Leo van de Pas
he is not here to explain, let alone defend himself.
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <peter....@crsrehab.gov.au>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: Birthdate for Charlemagne