A good compilation, not more

Georges Minois, former student of the ENS, Associate and PhD in history, professor of history and geography until 2007, is a prolific author: a book a year or more since 1987, and not (!) thinner.

The ambition of the author with that Charlemagne is to propose a new approach to the character's biography. This is why he starts his book by the myth surrounding the Emperor of the West, part one would usually expected at the conclusion of the whole. The second chapter is similarly devoted to the sources (primary but: given the content, we would have also liked that the author talks about the rest ...). G. Minois itself acknowledges that there is at least a "dozen" of Charlemagne biographies of "very good" (p.8), several of which he will frequently cited in the text (and in particular the latest when he wrote in 2010, that of R. McKitterick). According to him what is lacking is an overall vision, not thematic character, or partial. That is why his biography follows a chronological plan, 9 chapters, which deal not far from 600 of the 820 pages of text. And yet he can not help but to finish on 5 purely thematic chapters, when he could, to respect its introduction problematic (a purely chronological biography), make a chrono-thematic biography. While the timeline for his biography, certainly, but still the theme. First contradiction ...

The biography, seen pagination, is very detailed. The theme of the book is that Charlemagne is a builder of Europe, a Christian Europe, but that does not go as far on a crusade against his enemies. Charlemagne remains primarily a Frank, a Germain, who dreams to the City of God of St. Augustine on land and in the restoration of the Roman Empire. His empire is primarily hers and as his personal construction, it will not survive his death. The author tries, despite the poverty of sources to paint a psychological portrait of Charlemagne. We recognize the inclination of the author for cultural history, old enough.

The conclusion seeks to address the theme: it is titled "Charlemagne, the first European final or Roman?". For G. Minois Charlemagne became a legend thanks to his biographer, Einhard, and because he wore a kind of perfection institutions, organization, instruments built by his predecessors. The greatness of Charlemagne lies in its intentions more than his achievements, for fragile essence. Charlemagne is primarily a Frank, his empire is outspoken in structures, by Roman decorum, but above all Christian, with the model of Roman Christianity.

With this vast fresco with Charlemagne Georges Minois appears to have done considerable work. But one may wonder about some things that do not necessarily fit with the advanced by the author intentions. In the first chapter that the myths do the clearing of the character, p.75, about a survey of major historical figures, and found this surprising sentence: "The sinking of the historical culture caused by the catastrophic curriculum reforms. .. ". Affirmation to the punch, without however any explanation or reasoning to support it, leaving more than thoughtful. As another passage, much further, in the thematic chapters that close the book, p.709, about Caesaropapism: "One wonders why many historians are reluctant to use it, or around it so much shades it loses its substance. We are indeed at a time when the language of wood has become the universal language, prohibiting the use of terms deemed excessive, aggressive or derogatory to create a harmonious decor, consensual and quite unreal. ". Aggressive tirade, for once, and for which there was, again, no explanation. Between the lines, one understands that Georges Minois should not get along with some scholars of Charlemagne and / or from the Carolingian period or with any court historians. We can then question its stance in relation to teaching and academic history.

We can put this in relation to something else that concerns: the bibliography. G. Minois made use of number of primary sources, often cited in the text. However, the secondary literature, presented in one piece -and which for once might have deserved a classification and separation books / articles also- not even fill ten pages: for a book of this size, c is little. In detail, in the middle of the British and German references, we are surprised not to see some French historians newer than those cited (and often used in the text, too). This probably confirms the hypothesis about the pike raised above. It is likely that G. Minois realizes here an excellent job of compiling, from primary and secondary sources, to the public, serving a hypothesis and reading it claims original. But are they really? To read it, to sources of quotations shots and even works of historians who have written about Charlemagne, one has the impression that incorporates many of their conclusions. One historian noted already, in 1992, about another work of the author published the previous year, that it rested on many other historians and ignored the latest research, including literature very specialized, while sometimes highlighting the lack of analysis. The finding applies perhaps to Charlemagne. This would explain the sustained pace of G. Minois publication of books and the differences noted above we would not expect to find in a truly professional historian doing advance research and offering original and challenging tests for reader. A base to find Charlemagne and his kingdom, no doubt, but it will go towards the specialist literature, in French, to be updated properly on recent historiography.