Charlemagne. Father of a Continent by Alessandro Barbero (review)

Abstract

REVIEWS 187 pologists on that issue.2 This is symptomatic of Althoff’s general neglect of important studies in languages other than German.3 The translation is well done with very few mistakes, although the high number of German terms left untranslated is irritating. This could easily have been avoided, or at least the editor could have inserted explicative footnotes in each case. In the end, however, these numerous problems and the fact that the book was not brought up to date by including references to studies on this topic published since 1990 leave the present reviewer wondering why the editor published a translation of this book in the first place. Scholars and students of political power in the early Middle Ages with limited knowledge of German will most likely welcome this translation, but ultimately, they will find themselves with a fourteen-year gap to cover on their own and a bibliography almost exclusively in German. Therefore it remains unclear what potential audience would be interested in reading such a book. ÉRIC FOURNIER, HISTORY, UC Santa Barbara Alessandro Barbero, Charlemagne. Father of a Continent, trans. Allan Cameron (Berkeley: University of California Press 2004) 426 pp. English readers with no knowledge of Italian should welcome the translation of this important work on a central topic of medieval studies. This ambitious attempt to produce a “totalizing” account of Charlemagne’s reign presents three main themes underlying the narrative. First, a revisionist perspective targets the older, dépassées, interpretations of Charlemagne and the Middle Ages in general . Second, it envisions Charles’s reign in its larger perspective, addressing how his different measures and policies influenced and shaped the subsequent centuries, hence the subtitle of the book. And third, it focuses on the policy of inclusion and unification that was necessary to maintain such a vast and diverse territorial empire. The first of these themes is especially clear to the reader who expects to read about Charlemagne as a single-facet personality, as a Frankish warrior purely interested in military campaigns and building himself a palace where he can spend his later years amidst the riches he plundered during these successful raids. Barbero analyzes the sources carefully and presents a highly complex character, sometimes to the surprise of the reader, who will discover that Charlemagne was highly educated—even if he couldn’t write himself—and continuously concerned with matters that required intense reflection. This is most clear in chapter 10, devoted to the so-called Carolingian “Renovatio,” but throughout the book as well whenever Charles is involved in planning a military campaign, organizing a council of bishops, or issuing a capitulary concerning the social status of freed slaves. This laudable emphasis on Charles’s own competence, however, has a downside. For in attributing all the credit for any decision of ‘government’ to 2 Except 147, n. 33, highly insufficient. The work of Victor Turner, among numerous others, is a good place to start. 3 A good example is Wendy Davies and Paul Fouracre, eds., The Settlement of Disputes in Early Medieval Europe (Cambridge 1987), crucial on conflicts in the early Middle Ages. REVIEWS 188 Charles, Barbero persistently assumes that laws and other royal documents were the exclusive result of the ruler’s orders. It would be more plausible to allow some credit to the influence of advisors, or at least mention that all of Charlemagne’s policies were not the sole result of his personal initiatives. To his credit, Barbero acknowledges such external influence in some cases (i.e., 237–238, concerning the conversion of the pagans and a change of policy). But this is insufficient, the more so since Barbero is fully aware of the presence of great scholars at court who are well known as Charlemagne’s “advisors.” Conversely , if Barbero’s aim was to dismiss the potential influence of these scholars as an assumption not securely attested, he should have done so in a clearer and more direct fashion. The second theme of importance in the book is the way Charlemagne came to be viewed as the “Father of Europe.” Again, in good historiographical fashion , Barbero rejects older, nationalistic, interpretations that attempted to appropriate Charles as a “national” hero...