Talk:Charlemagne

About "Karl" and "Karlus"

The page had for years on and off listed "Karl", the modern German form of his name, as the form that would've been used by Germanic speakers at the time. I can find evidence of this out on the internet, but not in any scholarly sources. This makes me worried that it's out there as a WP:CIRCULAR reference back here. The last time it was added [1], it was cited to Fried's biography, but Fried makes no such claim on page 2, or anywhere else in the book. "Karl" is only used in the book in footnotes referencing titles of German-language sources. Even in it's appearances prior to this it didn't seem we had any RSs for it.

I replaced Karl with the form "Karlus", citing the following in Nelson's King and Emperor: "I call my subject Charles, or use one or another of the languages spoken by his contemporaries: Latin Carolus, Old High German Karlus or Romance Karlo." (Nelson 2019 p. 2). Nelson's is the most up-to-date comprehensive English-language biography, and she's a giant in Charlemagne scholarship. Frustratingly, though, this is in the introduction, the only part of the book where she doesn't provide footnotes. And except for this passage, she invariably calls him "Charles", never using one of these forms again.

So while I trust Nelson on this, it's tough because she doesn't have a footnote we can track down, and "Karlus" definitely seems odd as a Germanic form to us. And what you see on the web is that the evolution went something like keril or kerl -> Karl -> Karolus/Carolus. Our article on Charles mostly seems to claim this, although it doesn't look that well sourced to me.

Johannes Fried, Roger Collins, and Alessandro Barbero are all silent on a contemporary Germanic name. The only other of the major biographies I have access to that addresses the name at all is Becher, on p. 43:

But what did this name "Charles," which was uncommon in this period, actually mean? For a while it was thought that the name was taken from the root in "Kerl - fellowman" which meant "a free man without inherited property," or simply "man, married man, or beloved." This interpretation of "Charles" was used to support the now outdated theory that Charles Martel's mother Chalpaida came from a low-status family. Modern research sees the name "Carolus" as the Romanized form of "Hariolus" a pet form of the name "Chario." It also appears to have been an element in the name "Charibert" which was borne by two Merovingian kings. There is also some suggestion that the name may have been derived from "Crallo." This was the name of the father of Bishop Kunibert of Cologne, who had been a close ally of Pippin the Elder. In any case, there were no negative connotations associated with the name "Charles" at the end of the seventh century

So Becher, gesturing at "modern research" seems to represent that Carolus is the original form of the name as an adaptation of the (Germanic?) names Chario and Hariolus. And that the kerl origin is outdated scholarship.

Doubling the frustration though, Becher is again one of the foremost Charlemagne scholars. But his book was apparently written for a general audience. According to Roger Collins' review in The Historian, it's in a genre of German publishing called a "pocket book" "aimed at a serious but non-specialist readership that wants to be well informed on a wide range of subjects but not in too much detail and without any element of uncertainty". So it also doesn't have any footnotes and doesn't engage in debate over topics, really just presenting a "state of the subject".

So between Nelson and Becher, my best hunch (though entirely synthesis at this point) is that modern scholarship has arrived that Carolus (a Latin name though with Germanic roots) was actually borrowed back into German in the form Karlus, which then derived into Karl, Karel, etc.

I'd love to track down the actual scholarship on this but haven't been able to. I'm sure it's in some obscure German-language journal. I was able to find through Googling this paper: [2], which has a text his for "Carolus" "Chario" "Hariolus", but it's paid access. But it's probably working from the same scholarship Becher is so I might go to WP:RX to see if anyone has access and try to get someone to translate the relevant paragraphs. Finding the source for Nelson's "Karlus" hasn't turned up anything. So if anyone cares to research this, hopefully we can eventually track it down. But I highly doubt Matthias Becher and Janet Nelson are just making these things up out of whole cloth.

TLDR/The point Not being able to track down Nelson and Becher's own citations, they are still preeminent scholars and the best references we have. So unless we can give an equivalent modern scholarly source that gives Karl as the contemporary Germanic form, giving Karlus as cited to Nelson is our best-sourced option. Karl is either old scholarship perpetuated by Wikipedia, or a WP invention that got picked up elsewhere. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Latin in the Carolingian Renaissance

Hi there, a note that Latin was standardised on the basis of Classical Latin texts during the Carolingian Renaissance, a change which began the "fixing" of Latin, and the realisation that modern Romance languages were no longer the same thing as Latin as a formal written and spoken language. This is a very important change that had implications for the development of vernacular languages as well as ensuring that Latin was fit to serve as the pre-eminent language of learning for the coming centuries, so deserves a line or two. Jim Killock (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I added a line on the general relevance of the renaissance for the use of Latin; the point on Latin's change is a bit contested and seems less relevant on balance that its contribution to the spread and vitality of early medieval Latin learning and literature etc. Jim Killock (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

add a page

There are many contempory media portraits of charlemegne. Some are mentioned but there's a lot more, I think it'd be cool to get a page dedicated to that is like the layout of the wives/concubines page(just a list with brief descriptions and hyperlinks to other wikipages where possible). If you'd like I could name a few movies/TV shows/documentaries/songs that mention him or portrays him. I don't really know how to add something(and honestly dont really care to learn) but I could add some references and sources if people like this idea and would be willing to add this page. 2603:6011:2C00:3C5:9759:7B9B:C3EC:AD75 (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Charlemagne/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Seltaeb Eht (talk · contribs) 00:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 10:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Starting the review. More a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 10:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

From a first canter-through looking for typos etc my first comment is that although the article is generally in BrE – centre, colour, favour, honour, metres, neighbouring, Sepulchre, spectre – the odd AmE spelling has crept in: neighbors, traveled. Most noticeable of all is the inconsistency of –ise and –ize forms. We have emphasised and we have emphasizes, recognised and recognized, standardised and standardized. Other –ise endings in the text are canonised, characterisations, Christianised, criticising, finalised, harmonise and idealised; other –ize forms are baptized, characterized, legitimized, organization, popularized and realizing.

I'll begin a proper study of the text next. Meanwhile pray ponder the above points. Tim riley talk 10:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! It was a long labor to rewrite this article, and it received an excellent and thorough first GA review (which RL prevented me from completing), and has had a copyedit since. Thank you for helping get it over the finish line.

On English usage - yes, the article should be in BrE - it was tagged as such when I arrived, and the more prominent English-language scholars are from the UK. But as an American, I and my spellchecker often slip, so any catches on those are welcome. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Detailed comments

I must make it clear at the outset that the following are merely my suggestions, to be acted on or rejected as you see fit. I have found nothing in the text that I think must be changed to meet the GA criteria.

• Names

• "A number of languages were spoken in Charlemagne's world" – if you say "a number of…" the reader is likely to ask what the number was. Safer to say "many" or "several" if you don't know the number.

• Good suggestion, changed

• Early life and rise to power

• "practiced by the Franks" – practised, if we're in BrE

• changed

• Birth

• "German scholar Karl Werner" – clunky tabloidese false title, easily remedied by a definite article before the phrase. Ditto later in the text for German historian Johannes Fried, Historian Janet Nelson, Historian Rosamond McKitterick, Historian Henry Mayr-Harting, contemporary Byzantine chronicler Thophanes and historian Jennifer Davis.

• Clunky implementation of a good suggestion at the previous GAN, all revised.

• "but it cannot be proven – in English (though not in Scottish) usage "proved" rather than "proven" is usual.

• changed

• Language and education

• "German historian Johannes Fried" – is his nationality relevant?

• No, and removed from him and others

• Accession and reign with Carloman

• "but modern historians dispute this" – all modern historians or just some of them?

• It is the consensus - open to better suggested wording because I agree it's not great as is. The intended contrast is between what Carolingian propoganda represented (and some general audience works repeat today) vs. what today's historians actually say.

• "does not say whether Charles and Himiltrude ever married, were joined in a non-canonical marriage (friedelehe), or if married after Pepin was born" – do we want the "if" here?

• Omitting it reads much better, thanks!

• King of the Franks and the Lombards

• "the pagan irminsul – we capitalise the noun throughout our Wikipedia article on the topic. I merely mention it and don't presume to express an opinion.

• Reviewing my books, it does seem to be capitalized more often than not. Great catch

• Building the dynasty

• "under the care of regents and advisors" – according to the current (2015) edition of Modern English Usage the form "adviser" as opposed to "advisor" is "nearly three times as common across all varieties of English, and so the traditional spelling still predominates"

• Thanks, great catch. I was letting some of my professional usage leak in

• Saxon resistance and reprisal

• "convinced him to end his resistance" – a touch of WP:ENGVAR here. In BrE one convinces someone that and persuades him to.

• Didn't know that - good to know! changed

• Continued wars with the Saxons and Avars

• "lasted through 799" – does this mean "throughout" or "until"?

• Until, but inclusive of, 799

• Coronation

• "French scholar Henri Pirenne" – as with Herren Werner and Fried earlier, I'm not certain his nationality is all that relevant here. Or am I wrong?

• Not relevant, removed

• Governing the empire

• "more-sedentary rule" – I don't think I'd hyphenate this

• Agreed, I think one of the CE may have done so

• "focused on internal governance … increasingly focused" – rather too highly focused: perhaps a variant the second time?

• Revised this as I realized that it wasn't quite still making the same point as it was meant to. Let me know what you think.

• "requiring that all free men take an oath of loyalty to him" – to the emperor presumably but this doesn't say so.

• Indeed, specified Charlemagne

• Religious impact and veneration

• "Frederick Barbarossa convinced Antipope Paschal III to elevate Charlemagne – see comment above on "convince"

• Changed to persuaded

• Bibliography

• I avoid the heading "Bibliography" as it can equally mean "Publications about…" or "Publications by…" As there aren't any publications by Charlemagne it doesn't matter here, but even so I think "Sources" is clearer.

• I take your point, and see that's the usage on recent FAs. Changed

That's all from me for now. This article seems to me to have the potential for FAC, and if you take it on to that stage I shall have some pickier comments on some of the prose, but it will unquestionably suffice for GA. Over to you. Tim riley talk 12:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all your suggestions, User:Tim riley - a couple left open above for your further comment ("but modern historians", "through 799", and "focused" comments).

Don't know about FAC, we'll see - a lot of work just to get it here, and related articles are still in need of a lot of attention. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

All fine now. And so:

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Jumpy542 talk 22:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Charlemagne owned an elephant which he received as a gift from the Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid?

• Source: Paul E. Dutton, Charlemagne's Mustache: And Other Cultural Clusters of a Dark Age, pp. 59-61

• Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Seltaeb Eht (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Seltaeb Eht (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: The hook and the article have no problems; this is my second review, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. TheNuggeteer (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

To Prep 1

Who the fuck is Roger Collins?

He has a Wikipedia page, but regardless of his prominence he in "Medievology" or whatever, one person saying something sensational like "Charlemagne was an illegitimate child" isn't worthy of an encyclopedia blurb. Case closed. Octaazacubane (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

To answer the topline question, Collins is indeed an eminent medievalist and his book was probably the standard English-language biography on Charlemagne until Nelson published hers in 2019.

Collins is certainly reflective of some older trends in scholarship (partially owing to the fact his book is over 25 years old).

It seems it was pretty in vogue to cast Charlemagne as illegitimate, and it's still pretty prevalent in pop culture. But this is usually based off of the 742 birthdate.

Collins' 749 date for the marriage is cited to paper in German by Becher from 1989, "Drogo und die Konigserhebung Pippins". However, Becher in his 2005 biography gives 744 as the date of Pippin's marriage to Bertrada (p. 34) as does Nelson (p. 63). Without digging up Becher's paper, it's hard to know what underlying information the sentence in Collins is reflective of. I'm going to adjust it to reflect the marriage in 744. I feel like it was in there at one point, with the 749 date contrasting, but I don't think the latter needs to be represented at all unless it's present somewhere besides Collins.

While I might have asked it differently (though it definitely made it the topic jump out on my watchlist) :), thanks for bringing it up and putting some attention on the issue. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Seltaeb Eht, thank you for your diplomatic reply. Octaazacubane, MF got his book published with U of Toronto, which runs one of the best medieval programs in the world. Also, bro got a resume that's quite impressive. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Roger Collins is definitely a real one. His books are both readable and reliable. Though not infallible, in this case. I do wonder if he would support renaming medieval studies to Medievology. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, FWIW, "Drogo und die Konigserhebung Pippins" is available from the WP library. I don't speak German, so take my reading with the assist of machine translation with many grains of salt, but it does appear to indicate a 744 marriage between Charlemagne's parents. The citation on that sentence in Collins may instead be for his use of Becher's work placing Charlemagne's year of birth (the entire sentence being "Charles was illegitimate, being born either in 747 or, more probably, in the Spring of 748; not till the next year did Pippin actually marry the boy's mother, Bertrada."). The reasoning for calling Charlemagne illegitimate in this case remains obscure to me. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)