Disappointment (Disappointment) Disappointed. History of foreign literature of the XVII-XVIII centuries

Composition

The great Goethe said that with the death of Schiller he lost half of himself. These two enlightening writers are always there - even after death: their monuments stand in front of the theater in Weimar, and they are buried not far from one another. Goethe and Schiller revived the ballad and competed with each other in this genre. Schiller's ballads are full of mystery, danger, inevitability of fate, and sometimes cruelty. The core moment of the plot is the test of the hero, the test of his chivalrous courage. In Schiller, as in Goethe, the theme of human freedom, the idea of ​​equality of rights for all the peoples of the world, the assertion of the right to state independence and just laws are a through motif. In Schiller's dramas "Mary Stuart" (1880), "The Virgin of Orleans" (1801), "William Tell" (1804), the idea of ​​equality and freedom occupies a central place.

Schiller congratulated the Great French Revolution, seeing in it liberation from violence, but the cruelty of revolutionary actions pushed him away from the "free" republic, he develops own program human improvement, where he preaches the idea of ​​peace and harmony instead of revolutionary upheavals. Writers are often called spiritual shepherds of mankind. It was this message that came to my mind when I was thinking about the content of the ballad "Glove". It seemed as if the author was talking to you, as if he was offering to “try on” the events of a literary story for the reader. The ballad is based on a historical legend about events that allegedly took place in the XIV century in France, during the reign of King Francis. But the history of hoary antiquity is interesting, relevant for us, contemporaries. When you read a ballad, you get the impression that you yourself are a spectator of the performance, mentally transported to those distant times, occupying a chair in the arena of the royal menagerie and watching events, people ...

Everywhere you hear a quiet conversation, ladies fan themselves with fans, worthy knights stand next to them, ready to fulfill any order of their lady of the heart. Here is the beautiful Kunigund - proud, unattainable. Beside her is an agitated Delorge. From the first point of view, it is clear that he is in love with Kunigund. And if you take a closer look, we will see that she treats the young man with contempt. And, unfortunately, love is always blind...

Here the performance begins. An imperious gesture of the king - and a lion enters the arena, another gesture - a tiger appears, then two leopards. The king is having fun, expecting a bloody denouement. The courtiers are looking forward to death. I feel uneasy... Animals are animals, they live according to brutal laws, but people who enjoy death... Creepy! And in the arena, in the meantime, a fight between leopards ensues. The audience is alive. But the terrible roar of the king of beasts - the lion - and the animals calm down. The show seemed to be over. The audience is disappointed. And suddenly a glove falls from the hand of the beautiful Kunigund, falling directly into a cage with formidable animals. All eyes turn to the lady. At some point, it seemed to me that I saw how proudly the lady's chin rose, she felt like a queen.
The performance continues. Like the king at the start of the play, Cunigunde now makes an imperious gesture, sending Delorge to pick up his glove. Neal watches the action with tension, horror. I really want the king to stop this, as the king of beasts did - with one gesture! No! He only watches. Meanwhile, Delorge enters the cage, picks up his glove. He goes to Kunigund, everyone enthusiastically congratulates him, praises him, the proud beauty also promises her love to the knight. And he throws a glove in her face, says: "Thanks are not needed." The hall freezes, and Delorge leaves the lady. The end of the performance.

I want to catch up with the brave young man who managed to defend his human dignity, who proved his courage. He defeated the world of evil, cruelty and managed to understand the real essence of the one without which he could not imagine life yesterday. Man begins with an act. Kunigund did her deed. Delorge's act is delightful. The king did not act. What would I do if they did this to me?

One of the brightest periods in the history of the German Enlightenment is called "Storm and Drang". Lyrics, drama and prose of the 70s XVIII century marked by high emotional stress, rebellious motives. The bearer of this rebellion is most often a lone hero who declares war on society. The conductor of this direction was the young Goethe, the creator of the image of Prometheus, proud and rebellious, who challenged Zeus himself.

Schiller joins the Sturm und Drang movement in the early 80s. In the spirit of ideas and artistic manner of this movement, the young writer creates his well-known drama The Robbers. The protagonist of the work expresses Schiller's thoughts about the Enlightenment. “Put me in command of an army of fellows like me, and Germany will become a republic, in front of which Rome and Sparta will seem like convents!” - proclaims Karl Moor. He is a well-born nobleman, nevertheless, he equally neglects the noble elite, and those who crawl before her. TO parental home Charles is bound not by the parental estate, not by the count's privileges, but by love for his aged father and for Amalia, pupils in their house.

The image of Karl is quite complex, unlike his brother Franz. Franz is depicted by Schiller as cruel, treacherous, ready to commit a crime for his own purpose. Having slandered Karl in front of his father, he thus blocked his way home. Then Karl accepts the offer of the robbers to become their chieftain. The composition of Moore's gang is quite interesting. Many people know Latin, a French swear word and an old and recent history. These men are students who have not finished their studies. Scoundrels Karl Moor expels from his society.

Carl's gang robs not for enrichment, but for revenge. “My trade is punishment,” he says. Karl Moor always gives his part of the money to orphans and helps talented young men to get an education. But if you have to be cruel to the rich, or teach a lesson to a loafer who interprets justice in his favor, Karl has no regrets. The result of this rebellion could have been foreseen. Karl Moor, as an intelligent person, was also aware of his futility. Moreover, the struggle for justice that he waged was accompanied by cruelty and new crimes. Karl Moor leaves the gang, realizing the futility of his activities. He admits that the whole idea was only youthful eccentricity and chimerical ideas. Schiller, like his hero Karl Moor, also renounces rebellion. And with this Essay, he expresses hope for peaceful ways to improve humanity, education, enlightenment. Schiller's thoughts are relevant even now, because everyone wants to improve their lives. So it was, is and will be at all times.

No illusions - no disappointments.

Japanese proverb

Disappointment as a quality of personality - a tendency to worry about unfulfilled expectations, hopes, dreams and the collapse of faith in someone or something.

Disappointment is the bitter taste of melted idealizations. The life of a fool is a collection of disappointments. It would seem that there are an innumerable number of faces and colors at the life carnival, but the algorithm of disappointment in life is tritely simple. A person sets himself the wrong main goal or something strongly idealizes. Sacrificing and neglecting a lot, he goes to a goal that is not his own or burning, passionately desires to possess the object of idealization, hopes for him, expects something good and bright from him, believes in him. In the first case, we observe a senseless waste of time, energy and spiritual strength on moving towards something that will not make him happy. In the second, what is extremely disliked by the laws of the universe is a violation of the equilibrium state. Any deviations, excesses and distortions excite balancing forces, and they punish a person for idealizations sitting in his mind.

Disappointment is a fantasy, idealized mind. Simplicity does not disappoint. If a person attaches excessive importance to food, sex, money, material goods, the balancing forces tend to return him to an equilibrium state. Idealized friendship - get betrayal of friends, idealized sex - live impotent, idealized car, apartment, money - no problem, possess, but only without health and alone. Disappointment takes hold of the person. In youth, an unintelligent person follows a chain of disappointments. Stuffed cones, healed the trauma and went to look for the same rake. Igor Huberman accurately noted: “Once having paid with acute pain for the joys of love sensations, we are so afraid of new hobbies that we wear a condom in our souls.” In mature years, when it is not possible to change the situation, disappointment becomes a manifested personality trait.

A trip not to your goal is fraught with severe disappointment. No, to set a spiritual goal - to cultivate kindness and caring in oneself and in children, a man considers, for example, the construction and improvement of a house to be the main goal of life. He works hard for many years, like a slave in the galleys, and, finally, completes the construction of the house. Then he lives to equip it, then furnish it with furniture. Building a house, he sought to prove to himself and others his importance and significance. Someone else's goal comes from outside - under the influence of stereotypes, false beliefs, beliefs and the influence of others. There is a house, but there was no feeling of happiness and never will be. People make grandiose plans, dream, form idealizations in their minds, and then, having reached the “desired” goal, they realize that they have received a fake, a surrogate for what they dreamed about. They begin to see clearly that the effort was not worth the time and energy spent. Having ruined life in this house that constantly requires repair and care, a person at the end of his life will experience disappointment. Old, weak, useless to anyone, he will live out his life in this house if the children who do not have good feelings for him do not send him to a nursing home even earlier. Happiness is spiritual, you will not find it in the cellars of a material house.

A person gets the greatest depth of disappointment from what he is overly attached to. A young family introduces me to their five-year-old son, and my mother says: “As soon as my son was born, our life ended. Now we live only for him.” The child hears this, and the thought gets stuck in his mind like a splinter: “I am the head of the family. My life is the greatest value." As he grows older, he is affirmed in the opinion that he is the Center of the Universe, that the sun would not rise in the morning, whenever I was not there. A terry egoist is growing, not used to thinking and caring about someone. There comes a time when he creates his family. The mother, who dedicated her life to him, believes that since she lived for the sake of her son, it would be fair if he lives for her, or at least takes care of her. But the son does not even have a hint of such absurd thoughts. At best, he will congratulate you on your birthday and on the holiday of March 8. Mom is terribly disappointed and depressed. Now disappointment becomes the hallmark of her personality. There are millions of such disillusioned women over the age of forty.

Often they understand the reason for their disappointment with life, but nothing can be fixed. Life is written cleanly, the years are gone, the old head would be on young shoulders. What was the reason for the disappointment? Well, it turns out that a child does not need to be loved? Need, as needed. But in the context of raising children, it is necessary to set not material, but spiritual goals as the main goal. Happiness is spiritual. Finding the spiritual in the material is like eating the earth in the hope of getting iron for the body. The material goal regarding the child is health, education, material well-being and a good spouse. A woman, according to her nature, is inclined to live for children, to take care of them. But education is not just food, water and sleep. Education is the development of virtues in a child, that is, the positive qualities of a person, it is the art of giving as much as possible a spiritual taste of happiness. The son must understand the taste of happiness from the grateful smile of a loved one for the care shown to him.

Instead of saying that he is the navel of the Earth, you need to teach the boy responsibility and caring for others. For example, a mother says to a five-year-old child: “I always forget to wash my hands after walking. Can you remind me when we get home to wash our hands?” For a child, this is a game and, at the same time, the upbringing of responsibility and care - two undoubted virtues of a person. Gradually raising her son's respect for her interests, worries and anxieties, mother will release into life not an inveterate, selfish egoist, but a responsible, self-confident, caring man who will never leave his mother.

A few hours before his death, a journalist met with the oligarch V. Berezovsky. In front of him sat a deeply unhappy, disappointed man, to whom billions of dollars never brought happiness. Here are interview excerpts: – Do you miss Russia?- To return to Russia ... I want nothing more than to return to Russia. When even a criminal case was opened, I wanted to return to Russia. They even opened a criminal case! Only on the advice of Elena Bonner stayed. The main thing that I underestimated is that Russia is so dear to me that I cannot be an emigrant. I have changed many of my estimates. Including himself. As for what is Russia and what is the West. I absolutely idealistically imagined the possibility of building a democratic Russia. And he idealistically imagined what democracy is in the center of Europe. He underestimated the inertia of Russia and greatly overestimated the West. And it happened gradually. I changed my idea of ​​the path of Russia... I shouldn't have left Russia... – If you had stayed in Russia, you would be in prison now. Do you want that?– Now, looking back at how I lived these years in London… Berezovsky slowly looked in front of him, then pressed his hand to his chest - it was shaking. He turned to me and looked into my eyes for a long time. finally said: “I don’t have an answer to this question now ... Khodorkovsky ... saved himself.” Here Berezovsky looked at his feet, then quickly cast a glance at me and began to speak quickly, as if making excuses.: “That doesn't mean I've lost myself. But I experienced much more reassessments, disappointments. Khodorkovsky is still less. I… lost my sense.” – Life?- Meaning of life. I don't want to be in politics now. – But what to do?- I do not know what to do. I am 67 years old. And I don't know what to do next."

Petr Kovalev 2013

(lat. Carolus Magnus or Karolus Magnus, German Karl der Große, French Charlemagne, born April 2, 747, † January 28, 814 in Aachen) - king of the Franks from 768 (in the southern part from 771), king of the Lombards from 774, Duke of Bavaria from 788, Emperor of the West from 800. Eldest son of Pepin the Short and Bertrada of Laon. From the name of Charles, the Pipinid dynasty was called the Carolingians. The nickname "Great" Karl received during his lifetime.

Place and year of birth

Biographer Karl Einhard reports that he was unable to obtain information about the birth and childhood of Karl, but elsewhere he notices that he died at the age of 72, that is, he should have been born in 742. In an unpreserved Aachen epitaph, it was said that Charles died in the 70th year of his life, that is, he was born in 744. In one of the early medieval chronicles, under the year 747, it says: "This year King Charles was born." In it, under the year 751, it is said about the birth of the younger brother of Charles Carloman, and this date is not questioned.

The birthplace of Charles is completely unknown and is disputed by many cities: Paris, Ingelheim, Worms, Lüttich, Karsberg in Bavaria and many other cities make claims to this, which, however, are not supported by sufficient evidence.

The beginning of the reign. Death of Carloman

On July 28, 754, Charles, together with his brother Carloman, was anointed king in the church of Saint-Denis by Pope Stephen II, and after the death of Pepin, he took the throne with his brother. By sharing his father's inheritance with his brother, Charles received land in the form of a vast crescent, going from Atlantic Aquitaine to Thuringia, through most of Neustria and Austrasia, through Frisia and Franconia, and covering the possessions of Carloman's brother on all sides. Charles' residence was Noyon. The brothers did not get along with each other, despite the desperate efforts of their mother, Bertrada, to bring them closer, against all odds. The agreement between them was maintained with the greatest difficulty, for many of Carloman's entourage tried to quarrel the brothers, and even bring the matter to war. When in 769 one of the lords from the southwest named Gunold (perhaps it was the son of Waifar) raised the western Aquitaine and Gascon Basques to revolt, Charles was forced to go alone to suppress the rebellion, since Carloman refused to join him with his army . But, despite this, Charles resolutely continued the planned campaign and, with his perseverance and firmness, achieved everything he wanted. He forced Hunold to flee to Gascony. Without leaving him there alone, Charles crossed the Garonne River and obtained the extradition of the fugitive from the Duke of Gascony.

Fearing a collusion between Carloman and the Lombard king Desiderius, Charles decided to get ahead of events. He not only became close to his cousin, the Duke of Bavaria Tassilon, who, remaining faithful to the traditions of his family, became the son-in-law of the Lombard king, but he himself in 770, on the advice of his mother Bertrada, married the daughter of Desiderius Desiderata, putting his lawful wife Himiltrude in the background ( who had already given birth to his son Pepin). The conflict could have flared up seriously if Carloman had not died, and very timely, in December 771. Charles attracted to his side some of the figures closest to Carloman and seized his brother's inheritance. His daughter-in-law Gerberga and nephew Pepin, born in 770, took refuge with Desiderius.

Carl's personality and appearance

According to biographer Karl Einhard, Karl was very tall (nearly seven feet tall), strongly built, and prone to corpulence. His face was different a long nose and big, lively eyes. He had long blond hair. Carl's voice was unusually high for such an imposing man. Over the years, the king began to suffer from lameness. There were no lifetime portraits of Charles, and many artists depicted him according to their imagination, using only some of the features from this description. Although many took the description of Karl's heroic physique as an epic exaggeration, the exhumation of Karl's grave confirmed the correctness of the description: the length of the skeleton was 192 cm.

The king was very simple and moderate in his habits. On ordinary days, his outfit differed little from that of a commoner. He drank little wine (at dinner he drank no more than three cups) and hated drunkenness. His lunch on weekdays consisted of only four courses, not counting the roast, which the hunters themselves served directly on skewers, and which Karl preferred to any other food. While eating, he listened to music or read. He was occupied with the exploits of the ancients, as well as the work of St. Augustine "On the City of God." After dinner in the summer he ate a few apples and drank another goblet; then, having stripped naked, he rested for two or three hours. At night, he slept restlessly: he woke up four or five times and even got out of bed. During the morning dressing, Karl received friends, and also, if there was an urgent matter that was difficult to solve without him, he listened to the litigants and passed a sentence. At the same time, he gave orders to his servants and ministers for the whole day. He was eloquent and expressed his thoughts with such ease that he could pass for a rhetorician. Not limited to his native speech, Karl worked hard on foreign languages and, by the way, mastered Latin so much that he could express himself in it, as in his native language; He understood Greek more than he spoke. Diligently engaged in various sciences, he highly appreciated the scientists, showing them great respect. He himself studied grammar, rhetoric, dialectics, and especially astronomy, thanks to which he was able to skillfully calculate church holidays and observe the movement of the stars. He also tried to write, and for this purpose he constantly kept writing boards under his pillow in order to accustom his hand to draw letters in his spare time, but his work, begun too late, had little success. In all his years, he deeply revered the Church and sacredly observed all the rites.

The beginning of the war with the Saxons

Shortly after the death of his brother, Charles began a war with the Saxons. It was the longest and fiercest war in his reign. Intermittently, stopping and resuming again, it lasted thirty-three years, until 804, and cost the Franks the greatest losses, since the Saxons, like all the peoples of Germany, were fierce and devoted to their cults. The border with them almost everywhere passed through a bare plain, and therefore was indefinite. Every day there were murders, robberies and fires. The Franks, irritated by this, in the end, at the Diet in Worms, found it necessary to start a war against their neighbors. In 772, Charles invaded Saxony for the first time, destroyed the Eresburg fortress and overthrew the pagan shrine - the idol of Irminsul. But Karl understood that there would be no lasting appeasement as long as an independent Saxony exists outside the kingdom, or rather independent Saxons, since this people was divided into western (Westphalian), central (Angrarian), eastern (Ostphalian) and northern (Nordalbingen) Saxons.

Invasion of Italy

Charles was then distracted by Italian affairs. In 771, Charles divorced his wife, the daughter of the Lombard king Desiderata, sent her to her father and married the granddaughter of the Duke of the Alemanni Gottfried, Hildegard (Hildegarde). In 772, Charles had a son from Hildegard, who also received the name Charles. Desiderius was not slow to accept the challenge. From the very first days of 772, he demanded from Pope Adrian I the anointing of Carloman's son Pepin to the kingdom and resumed the offensive launched by his predecessors on the Papal States. The Pope turned to Karl for help. In September 773 a strong Frankish army headed for the Alps. The Langobards closed and fortified the passes. Carl decided on a detour. On secret paths, the fearless Frankish detachment made its way to the enemy from the rear and, with one of its appearances, caused general confusion in the Lombard army and the flight of the son of King Desiderius, Adelchis. There is an indication that the pope managed to sow treason, both in the army of the king of the Lombards and in his possessions, that it was precisely this circumstance that was the reason for the very weak resistance. Fearing encirclement, Desiderius left the passes and retreated to his capital Pavia, hoping to sit out behind its thick walls, his son, with the widow and children of Carloman, took refuge in Verona. The Franks pursued the enemy with battle, capturing numerous cities of Lombardy along the way. Leaving part of the forces near Pavia, Karl with the rest of the army approached Verona in February 774. After a short siege, the city surrendered, and Charles had the pleasure of taking possession of his nephews, whom Desiderius had so frightened him of.

Charles - King of the Lombards

In April 774, the Franks approached Rome. Pope Adrian I arranged a solemn meeting for Charles. Charles treated the high priest with the greatest respect: before approaching the hand of Adrian, he kissed the steps of the stairs of the church of St. Peter. To many cities donated to the pope by his father, he promised to add new donations (this promise was later not fulfilled). In early June, unable to withstand the hardships of the siege, Desiderius left Pavia and submitted to the winner. Charles took possession of the capital of the Lombards and the royal palace. So the kingdom of the Lombards fell, their last king was taken prisoner to the Frankish state, where he was forced to take the veil as a monk, and his son fled to the Byzantine emperor. Taking the title of the Lombard king, Charles began to introduce the Frankish system in Italy and united France and Italy into one state.

In 776, Charles was supposed to return to Italy to quell the uprising. The dukes of Friul and Spoleto, supported by Adelchis, plotted, hoping to take Rome with the help of the Byzantine fleet and restore the power of the Lombards. Charles, after being warned of the conspiracy by Pope Adrian, recrossed the Alps and thwarted the plot of the conspirators. As a result, the Duke of Friul Rothgaut was killed, the rebellious cities obeyed, and Adelchis was again forced to flee.

Continuation of the war with the Saxons

In 775, at the head of a large army, Charles went deeper into the territory of the Saxons more than usual, reached the land of the Ostfals and reached the Okker River, took hostages and left strong garrisons in Eresburg and Sigiburg. The following spring, Eresburg fell under the reciprocal onslaught of the Saxons. After that, Karl changed tactics, deciding to create a "fortified line" (brand), which was supposed to protect the Franks from Saxon invasions. In 776, having re-fortified Eresburg and Sigiburg, he built a new fortress of Karlsburg and left priests in the border zone to convert the pagan Saxons to the Christian faith, which at first went quite successfully. In 777, the Saxons were again defeated, and then the majority of the Saxon Edelings (tribal nobility) recognized Charles as their overlord, at a meeting in Paderborn.

Battle of Ronceval

In 777, Charles received the Muslim governor of Zaragoza, who came to ask him for help in the fight against the emir of Cordoba, Abd ar-Rahman. Charles agreed, but in 778, finding himself in Spain at the head of a huge army, he failed at Zaragoza, where he was betrayed by yesterday's allies. On the way back, in Ronceval, when the army was moving in extended formation, as the mountain gorges forced, the Basques ambushed on the tops of the rocks and attacked from above the detachment covering the convoy, killing everyone to the last man. Next to the commander of the detachment, Roland, fell Seneschal Eggihard and Count Anselm of the Court. This battle, which took place on August 15, 778, is called Ronceval. Einhard does not give this name, however, he emphasizes that only the rear guard of the Frankish convoy and those who walked at the very end of the detachment were defeated. In the original version of the Annals of the Kingdom of the Franks, compiled in 788-793, in the events relating to 778, there is no mention of this battle at all. It is only said that "after the hostages were handed over from Ibn Al-Arabi, Abutariy and many Saracens, after the destruction of Pamplona, ​​the conquest of the Basques and Navarres, Charles returned to the territory of Francia." The revised version of the Annals, compiled shortly after Charles' death, also makes no mention of this battle. But there is a new important passage: “Returning [Karl] decided to go through the gorge of the Pyrenees. The Basques, setting up an ambush at the very top of that gorge, led the whole army [of Charles] into great confusion. And although the Franks were superior to the Basques, both in weapons and courage, however, that superiority was defeated due to the unevenness of the place and the impossibility for the Franks to fight. In that battle, many of the close ones, whom the king put at the head of his army, were killed, the convoy was plundered; the enemy, thanks to the knowledge of the area, immediately scattered into different sides". Einhard in his work (this is the third description of the Battle of Ronceval) makes two major changes. He replaces "the whole army" from the rewritten version of the Annals of the Frankish Kingdom with "those who marched at the very back of the detachment" and lists only three of the noble Franks who fell in battle (Eggihard, Anselm and Ruotland, i.e. Roland (prefect of the Breton March) the hero of the famous French epic "Songs of Roland".). The exact date of the battle - August 15 - is known from the epitaph of Eggihard, the steward of Charles - "it took place on the eighteenth day of the September calends." Twenty years later, when describing the same events, an unknown scribe of the Annals inserts such a message, about which in early texts there is no mention. Apparently, drawing attention to this event was important to him. Most likely, all the details are taken by him from later texts. He says that the whole Frankish army entered the battle and claims that many Frankish leaders were killed. It was a real disaster. The defeat threw the Gothic Christians in Spain into a panic, among whom the Frankish invasion raised great hopes, and many of them took refuge from Islamic domination in the Frankish state.

Widukind becomes the head of the Saxon resistance

Upon Charles's return, other troubles awaited: the Westphalian Saxons, having united around Widukind, who in 777 did not appear in Paderborn, but fled to the Danish king Siegfried (Sigifrid), forgot their oaths and ostentatious appeal and started the war again. In 778, having crossed the border at the Rhine, they climbed along the right bank of this river to Koblenz, burning and plundering everything on their way, and then, loaded with rich booty, returned almost without obstacles. Only once did a Frankish detachment catch up with the Saxons at Leisa and inflict minor damage on their rearguard. In 779, Charles invaded Saxony and passed through almost the entire country, meeting no resistance anywhere. Again, as before, many Saxons came to his camp, who gave hostages and an oath of allegiance. However, the king no longer believed in their peacefulness.

The next campaign in 780 was prepared by Charles more carefully. Together with his army and priests, Charles managed to advance to the very Elbe - the border between the Saxons and Slavs. By this time, Charles already had a strategic plan, which boiled down, in general, to the conquest of all of Saxony through Christianization. In this undertaking, Karl was greatly helped by the Anglo-Saxon Willegad, a doctor of theology, who began to actively plant a new faith. Charles divided all of Saxony into administrative districts, at the head of which he put counts. The year 782 was once again devoted to Saxon affairs. To pacify the Sorb Slavs who attacked the border lands of Saxony and Thuringia, Charles sent an army, which included Saxons loyal to Charles. But just at that time Widukind returned from Denmark. The whole country immediately rebelled, nullifying all the achievements of Charles. Many Franks and Saxons who accepted the new faith were killed, Christian churches were destroyed. Charles again failed because he did not take into account the commitment of the Saxons to their own faith. The army sent against the Sorbs was ambushed near the Weser, near Mount Zuntal, and was almost completely killed by the rebels. At the same time, dissatisfaction with the innovations of Charles intensified in Frisia.

Charles' cruel measures against the Saxons. Widukind's baptism

Charles gathered a new army, appeared in Verden, summoned the Saxon elders and forced them to hand over 4,500 instigators of the rebellion. All of them were beheaded on the same day. Widukind managed to escape. At the same time, the so-called “First Saxon capitulary” was promulgated, which ordered to punish by death any deviation from loyalty to the king and any violation of public order, and also recommended measures to eradicate any manifestations of paganism. The Battle of Detmold in 783 was indecisive; Charles had to retreat, but then won a victory on Gaza, near Osnabrück. The next 784 and 785, Charles hardly left Saxony. During this stubborn war, he beat the Saxons in open battles and in punitive raids, took hundreds of hostages, whom he took away from the country, destroyed the villages and farms of the recalcitrant. The winter of 784-785, in contrast to the previous winters, which were a time of rest for Charles; was also held by him in Saxony, in Eresburg, where he moved with his family. In the summer of 785 the Franks crossed the Weser. Widukind, drained of blood by many defeats, asked for mercy and started negotiations with Karl in Berngau. In the fall, the leaders of the Saxons Widukind and Abbion finally came to the court of Charles in Attiny, in Champagne, were baptized (moreover, Charles was Widukind's godfather), swore allegiance and received rich gifts from his hands. This was a turning point in the Saxon War. In the annals of 785, it was recorded that the king of the Franks "subdued the whole of Saxony." After that, the resistance of the vanquished began to gradually weaken.

Military action in Brittany

The authority of the king was almost unshakable in Neustria and Austrasia, but Charles still had to pacify the south of Gaul and its extreme west. Charles repeatedly invaded Brittany, the country of the Celtic tribe of the Britons (Bretons), imposing tribute on them. On the outskirts of Brittany, in the late 70s, a British border mark appeared, including the cities of Rennes, Tours, Angers and Vannes. In 799, Guy, a representative of the influential Austrasian family of the Lambertides, the ruler of this province, taking advantage of the discord among the Breton leaders, carried out a decisive expedition to the peninsula. In 800, the leaders of the Britons took an oath of allegiance to Charles in Tours. However, this country did not submit to the end, retaining its own religious customs and customs. A few years later, a need arose for a new company, it was held in 811 and showed the fragility of the power of the Franks in a country that never renounces its political and religious independence.

Military operations in Aquitaine

In Aquitaine, from 779, Charles began to settle royal vassals and systematically send counts there from among the Franks. And in 781, he elevated Aquitaine to the rank of a kingdom, and placed his new son on her throne from Queen Hildegard, who was born 3 years ago and received the Merovingian name Louis (Ludwig or Clovis). Aquitaine was to become an extensive base in the struggle against the Basques of the Pyrenees and against the Muslims of Spain. For the same purpose, he created the county of Toulouse and Septimania and put it at the head in 790-804. his cousin Duke Guillaume. In the 90s, the new King Louis undertook short-term campaigns beyond the Pyrenees, as a result of which the fortified line of the Spanish March appeared, consisting of a fortified border area with the cities of Girona, Urgell and Vic.

As for Charles, he, despite the creation of the kingdom of Aquitaine, refused any intervention in this region, even in cases where cities and entire regions (Urgell, Girona, Cerdan) declared their desire to stand under his protection, or when in 793 The Emir of Cordoba raided Narbonne and put Duke Guillaume in a difficult position. The Franks again regained the initiative only at the very end of the century (from 799 the power of the Franks extended to the Balearic Islands), and they achieved their first success only in 801, when King Louis of Aquitaine captured the Arab city of Barcelona, ​​​​and made it first the center of the county, and then the entire Spanish fortified zone (Spanish brand), which soon expanded its borders (by 804-810) to Tarragona and mountain plateaus north of the Ebro. In 806, Pamplona was subordinated.

The Pope consecrates the appointment of the sons of Charles as kings

In 781, on the same days when Louis became king of Aquitaine, Charles established for the four-year-old Carloman, his other son, born to him by Hildegard, the "Kingdom of Italy", and in the spring of 781 in Rome, the pope, at the request of Charles, consecrated this appointment, at the same time with a dedication to Louis. The child received on this occasion royal name Pepin, which actually excluded from the inheritance of his half-brother the son of Himiltrud, who already bears this name.

New uprising in the north

However, in 793 an uprising broke out again in the north, which engulfed not only Saxony, but also other territories inhabited by the Frisians, Avars and Slavs. From 794 to 799 again there was a war, which already had the character of a destructive war, accompanied by mass captures of hostages and prisoners, with their subsequent resettlement as serfs in the internal regions of the state. The resistance of the Saxons went on with great bitterness (especially stubbornly in Wixmodia and Nordalbingia). Wanting to achieve victory over them, Charles made an alliance with the encouraging Slavs, the enemies of the Saxons, and again spent the winter of 798-799 with his family in Saxony in the Weser, where he set up camp, and in fact built a new city with houses and palaces, naming this place Gershtel (i.e. "Army Station"). In the spring, leaving Herstelle, he approached Minden and devastated the entire area between the Weser and the Elbe, while his allies were encouraged to fight successfully in Nordalbing, which made it possible to decide the outcome of the struggle in favor of Charles. In 799, there was another campaign of Charles, along with his sons, to Saxony, in which the king himself did not show any activity.

Charles subdues the Lombard duchies in Italy

After the campaign of Charles in Italy, the country represented, with the exception of the Frankish and ecclesiastical regions, two more Lombard regions: the duchies of Spoleto and Benevento. The first, however, soon submitted to the Carolingians, but Benevento, protected by the mountains of Abruzzo from the north, could maintain independence longer. The war with Benevento is presented by Einhard in an extremely simplified way, and he is trying to reduce everything to Arechis' fear of Karl. In fact, the war was long: the Benevenites constantly revolted, and the Franks had to again make punitive campaigns in their country. Duke Arechis of Benevent was married to the daughter of King Desiderius and therefore considered himself the only hereditary representative of the rights of the Lombards. Especially since the king's son Adelchis, the son of Desiderius, found a welcome in Constantinople and received the rank of patrician here, relations between Benevent and the empire and the formation of the Byzantine party here were very natural. Karl, who knew about the plans of the rival from Pope Hadrian, decided to subjugate the remnants of the kingdom of Desiderius. At the end of 786, Charles opposed Arechis, the duke of Benevente. At the beginning of 787 Charles was already in Rome. Arechis, who did not receive timely support from the allies, sent his eldest son Rumold as a hostage to Charles with rich gifts in order to stop Charles's attack on his territory. Karl, having accepted the hostage, nevertheless crossed the border and arrived in Capua. Arechis, retreating to Salerno, sent Charles as hostages to his second son Grimoald and twelve noble Lombards, promising complete obedience. Charles, agreeing, released the eldest son of the duke to Benevent, sending his representatives with him to take the oath from Arechis and his people, with the payment of an annual tribute. However, as soon as Charles left Italy, Arechis broke his oath and entered into an alliance with Byzantium to conduct further hostilities against Charles. At the same time, Adalgiz, the son of Desiderius, went with his army to Treviso and Ravenna in order to subjugate the north of the country. All military achievements of Charles were put in jeopardy. But on August 26, 787, Arechis died unexpectedly, and a month before that, his son Rumold died, which led to the failure of the Byzantine-Beneventine treaty, especially since the second son of Arechis, Grimoald, was still held hostage by Charles.

Adalgiz, the son of Desiderius, after the death of his supporters, tried to continue the actions begun against Charles, making contact with Ataberga, the widow of Arechis, and launching an attack on the papal possessions. In response, Charles, in spite of the pope's calls for help, namely to go back to Italy and continue to hold Grimoald hostage, did the opposite. He did not go to Italy and let Grimoald go. Subsequently, this action helped Charles, because when the war with Byzantium began, Grimoald supported the Frankish army, which led Charles to victory, as a result of which he took possession of Istria.

Subjugation of Bavaria

Having untied his hands in Saxony and Italy, Charles turned against the Bavarian Duke of Thassilon, an old ally of the Lombards. In reality, there was no Bavarian war. Charles, because he was aware of Thassilon's conspiracy from the pope, subjugated Bavaria through diplomatic negotiations (supported by some military action), during which Thassilon was faced with a hopeless situation that forced him to submit. In 787, Charles surrounded Bavaria from three sides with troops and demanded that Tassilon renew the vassal obligations they had once given to Pepin. Tassilon was forced to appear before the Frankish king and give him a second oath of allegiance. The duchy was solemnly transferred to Charles, who conceded it as a benefice to Thassilon, but the entire Bavarian aristocracy took an oath of allegiance to the king. But Tassilon, whom his wife Luitberga, daughter of Desiderius, constantly incited to treason, entered into an alliance with the Avars of Pannonia, which threatened to upset the balance that was developing in the west.

A year later, in 788, at the General Diet in Ingelheim, Tassilon was forced to confess to weaving intrigues with his wife and sentenced to death, which Charles replaced by imprisonment in a monastery in Jumièges. The same fate was destined for his wife and children. As for the duchy, Charles included it in the kingdom, divided it into several counties, subordinating them to the authority of a single prefect, appointing his cousin Herold to this post. At the same time, Karl annexed the South Slavic regions of Carantania (Horutania) and Kraina to his territory. But before undertaking a full occupation, the Frankish king expelled many representatives of the Bavarian nobility. Apparently, Charles had difficulties in the process of complete subjugation of the country, because six years later (in June 794), during the General Diet in Frankfurt, Tassilon was released from the monastery for a short time and taken to the city to re-renounce his claims to power.

Campaign against the Slavs

In 789, Charles made an expedition to protect the Mecklenburg Obodrites against the Slavic tribe of the Lutiches (Wiltzes). The Franks built two bridges across the Elbe, crossed the river and, with the support of the allies (Saxons, Frisians, Obodrites and Lusatian Serbs), dealt a terrible blow to the Luticians. Although, according to the annals, they fought stubbornly, they could not resist the huge forces of the allies. Karl drove the Wilts to the Pena River, destroying everything in its path. Their capital capitulated, and Prince Dragovit submitted and gave hostages.

War with the Avars

Then began a heavy war against the Avars, which lasted from 791 to 803. According to Eingard, it was the most significant and fierce after the Saxon one and demanded very high costs from the Franks. The Avars were allied with Thassilon. Promising him to invade the territory of the Franks in 788, they fulfilled their obligation (not knowing about the overthrow of Thassilon) by starting a war against Charles. In the summer of 791, Charles's army invaded the country of the Avars in three different ways and reached the Vienna Woods, where their main fortifications were. Having left their camp, the Avars fled inland, the Franks pursued them to the confluence of the Rab River with the Danube. Further persecution stopped due to the mass death of horses. The army returned to Regensburg laden with much booty.

New Saxon uprising

In 792, the son of Charles from his first wife Himiltrud Pepin, nicknamed the Humpback, having learned that he was removed from the inheritance, raised an uprising. He managed to carry several counties with him, but was defeated. Karl spent the whole year in Regensburg, but the uprising of the Saxons distracted him from a new campaign against the Avars. Its scope surpassed even the events of 785. The Frisians and Slavs joined the Saxons. Temples were destroyed everywhere and Frankish garrisons massacred. In the summer of 794, Charles and his son Charles the Young, at the head of two armies, invaded Saxony. Seeing themselves surrounded, the Saxons rushed to Eresburg in masses, swore allegiance, gave hostages and returned to Christianity. In the autumn of 795, the king with a strong army again devastated Saxony and reached the lower Elbe. Learning that the Saxons had killed his ally, the Prince of Obodrites, he subjected the country to a second devastation, took up to 7,000 hostages and returned to the Frankish state. As soon as he left, the Saxons revolted in Nordalbing, a country north of the Elbe. Charles had to turn against them.

Continuation of the war with the Avars

The war with the Avars went on with varying success. The Frankish king needed to mobilize all his forces and conclude an alliance with the southern Slavs (as before in the war with the Saxons) to resist the nomads. The Annals of the Kingdom of the Franks (record of 796) describe one of the most important events of this war in this way: the Franks, led by the young son of Karl Pepin, in alliance with the Khorutan prince Voinomir, resumed the war against the Avars, took the “capital” of the Khagans Ring, which was actually a giant fortified camp, located at the confluence of the Danube and Tisza rivers, and captured rich booty there, taken to the Frankish state by a convoy of fifteen huge carts. After this campaign, according to Eingard, not a single inhabitant of Pannonia remained alive, and the place where the residence of the kagan was located did not retain traces of human activity. The terrible people of the Avars, for several centuries, terrified the whole Eastern Europe, ceased to exist. The strip of land running from the Aisne to the Wienerwald was gradually captured by the Franks and turned into the Eastern Country (Ostmark, the progenitor of Austria).

Continuation of the war with the Saxons

Meanwhile, Charles and his sons, Charles the Young and Louis, fought in Saxony. The army combed the whole country up to Nordalbingia, and then returned to Aachen with hostages and much booty. In late summer - early autumn, Karl organized a grandiose expedition to Saxony by land and water; devastating everything in its path, he approached Nordalbingia. Saxons and Frisians fled to him from all sides of the country, giving a large number of hostages. During the expedition, Charles settled the Franks in Saxony, and took many Saxons with him to France. He spent the whole winter here doing Saxon business. In the spring of 798, he completely devastated the land between the Weser and the Elbe. At the same time, the Franks-allied Obodrites defeated the Nordalbings at Sventana, killing up to 4,000 Saxons. After that, Charles was able to return to France, leading up to one and a half thousand prisoners. In the summer of 799, the king, together with his sons, went on his last campaign against the Saxons. He himself remained in Paderborn. Meanwhile, Charles the Younger had completed the pacification of Nordalbingia. As usual, Charles returned to France, bringing with him many Saxons with their wives and children to settle them in the interior of the state. But Charlemagne was able to start preparing for the future by issuing in 797 a new "Saxon capitulary", which abolished the regime of terror established by the capitulary of 785, and introduced the progressive equality of Saxons and Franks before the law. In Minden, Osnabrück, Verden, Bremen, Paderborn, Münster and Hildesheim, Saxon episcopal sees were established, partly belonging to the Cologne, partly to the Mainz diocese.

Charlemagne - Emperor of the West

In the autumn of 800, Charles went to Rome, where the noble Romans plotted against Pope Leo III, arresting him during a solemn procession. Threatening with blindness, they demanded that Leo renounce his priesthood, but the pope managed to escape from the city and get to Paderborn, where Karl was at that time. On the advice of Alcuin, Charles promised the pope support. Charles spent almost half a year in Rome, sorting out the feuds between the pope and local nobility. On December 25, he heard a festive mass in St. Peter's Basilica. Suddenly, the pope approached his guest and placed the imperial crown on his head. All the Franks and Romans who were in the cathedral exclaimed in unison: "Long live and conquer Charles Augustus, the great and peace-giving Roman emperor crowned by God." Although all this did not come as a surprise to Karl, he, according to Eingard, at first pretended to be dissatisfied with the "unauthorized" act of the pope. Charles even claimed that, if he knew in advance about the intentions of Leo III, he would not have gone to church that day, despite Christmas. He did this, apparently, in order to appease the Court of Constantinople. The hatred of the Roman emperors, which immediately arose, Charles, however, endured with great patience. In the end, the Byzantine emperors had to recognize the new title of Lord of the Franks. In the current situation, a marriage alliance was outlined between the Byzantine queen Irina and Charles, with the aim of uniting, in this way, East and West. Western ambassadors were supposed to arrive in Constantinople in the autumn of 802 to discuss this issue, but in the same autumn, on October 21, a palace coup took place in the Byzantine capital, depriving Irina of power. The throne was occupied by Nikephoros I, who refused to recognize Charles as emperor. In response, Charles, after a rather long war (806-810), took possession of Venice and Dalmatia, which were nominally listed as Byzantium, but were weakened due to internal strife and, thanks to an alliance with the Baghdad Caliph al-Amin, forced Nicephorus, who waged war in Bulgaria , to go in 810 to peace negotiations. 12 years after the start of the conflict, the Byzantine emperor Michael I, the successor of Nicephorus, who died in Bulgaria, formally recognized the new title of emperor, counting on the support of the West in the fight against Bulgaria, which defeated the Byzantine army in 811. For the recognition of his imperial title, Charles ceded Venice and Dalmatia to Michael I. However, the legitimacy of recognizing this title was disputed by the Byzantines in the 12th and 13th centuries.

However, Charles himself attached considerable importance to his new title, demanded a new oath after the coronation (802) and emphasized his position as God-appointed trustee for the good of the people and the church. The full title of Charles was: Karolus serenissimus augustus a Deo coronatus magnus pacificus imperator Romanum imperium gubernans qui et per misericordiam dei rex Francorum atque Langobardorum (approximately: "Charles, the most merciful exalted, crowned by God, the great sovereign-peacemaker, the ruler of the Roman Empire, by the grace of God, the king of the Franks and the Lombards).

The end of the war with the Saxons and the first clashes with the Danes

In 804, the exhausting Saxon war was brought to an end. Charles arrived in Hollenstedt and resettled 10,000 Saxon families from Nordalbing to the interior of the state. The deserted Nordalbingia was handed over to the encouragers. At the turn of the VIII-IX centuries. the Franks first encountered the Danes (Danes) directly. In 804, the new king of Southern Denmark (Jutland) - Godfred, who took the place of Siegfried, who died around 800, gathered an army and fleet in Sliestorp (as Hedeby was called in Latin-language sources), on the border with Saxony, intending to attack the Franks. The opponents negotiated, the result of which is unknown, but, probably, a direct clash was averted. Godfred was more active in 808. He attacked the land of the Obodrites, who had made an alliance with Charlemagne, and devastated it so that the Obodrites were forced to ask him for peace and promise him tribute. During the campaign, Godfred wiped out one of the most important centers of Western Baltic trade, Roerik (Mecklenburg or Old Lübeck at the mouth of the Trave River), from the face of the earth, and took artisans and merchants out of it to Hedeby, whose position thanks to this was strengthened. Immediately after the campaign, according to the Annals of the Kingdom of the Franks, he built fortifications on the border with the Saxons along the northern bank of the river. Eider: rampart "from the western ocean to the eastern bay leading to the Baltic Sea", with one gate to let horsemen and wagons through. For their part, the Franks in Nordalbingia, again taken from the Obodrites, built several fortresses; this was the beginning of the Danish frontier mark.

The struggle for trade routes and centers and for influence on the North Sea-Baltic trade also explains the following well-known action of Godfred: in 810, with a large fleet, he passed along the coast of Frisia, winning victories, and returned, having received a ransom of 100 pounds of silver. Worried, Charlemagne gathered a fleet for a campaign in Denmark, but the need for a campaign suddenly disappeared: in the same year, Godfred was killed by his warrior, and power was in the hands of his nephew Hemming. Far from being so militant, Hemming agreed to peace negotiations and in 811 concluded an agreement that confirmed the inviolability of the southern border of Denmark - along the river. Eider.

Viking raids

IN last years During the reign of Charles, a new danger loomed over the kingdom: Viking raids. From the end of 799, their sailing ships began to appear off the coast of the Vendée and land bands of robbers. And in 810, the danger approached within a few day's horse marches from Aachen, just at the time when Charles was busy in Nordalbing strengthening the Danish March, in the fight against the restless Danes. To repel the Norman raids, Charles ordered the construction of ships on the rivers that flowed through Gaul and Northern Germany. In all ports and estuaries of navigable rivers, on his orders, parking lots for ships were arranged and patrol ships were posted in order to prevent the enemy from invading.

Domestic politics

Charlemagne and Popes Gelasius I and Gregory I. Miniature from the prayer book of King Charles II the Bald.

With his happy wars, Charles pushed the borders of the Frankish state to a great distance. Just as tirelessly, entering into all the little things, he took care of improving state structure, about the material and spiritual development of their state. military power he greatly elevated him by streamlining the collection of the militia, and strengthened the borders by the military organization of the marks, ruled by the margraves. He destroyed the power of the people's dukes, which seemed to him dangerous for the king. Separate districts were ruled by counts, who concentrated administrative, financial, military, and partly judicial functions in their hands. Twice a year - at the end of spring or at the beginning of summer and in autumn - state diets gathered around the emperor himself; all free people could come to the spring, only the most important "advisers" of the sovereign, that is, people from the court circle, the highest administration and the highest clergy, were invited to the autumn. At the autumn meeting, various issues of state life were discussed and decisions were drawn up on them, which received the form of the so-called capitularies. At the spring meeting, the capitulars were presented for the approval of those assembled; here the sovereign received from those who had gathered information about the state of government, about the situation and needs of a particular area.

Carl took great care of agriculture and on the management of palace estates; from him remained detailed and detailed decrees concerning this administration (Capitulare de villis). By order of Charles, swamps were drained, forests were cut down, monasteries and cities were built, as well as magnificent palaces and churches (for example, in Aachen, Ingelheim). Started in 793, the construction of a canal between Rednitz and Altmühl, which would connect the Rhine and Danube, the North and Black Seas, remained unfinished.

Providing energetic assistance in the spread of Christianity, patronizing the clergy and setting a tithe for him, being in the most better relations with the pope, Charles retained, however, full power in church administration: he appointed bishops and abbots, convened spiritual councils, and passed decisions on church affairs at the diets. Charles himself was diligently engaged in the sciences; ordered to compose grammar vernacular in which he established the Frankish names of months and winds; ordered to collect folk songs. He surrounded himself with scientists (Alcuin, Paul the Deacon, Einhard, Raban Moor, Theodulf) and, using their advice and assistance, sought to educate the clergy and people. In particular, he took care of the organization of schools at churches and monasteries; at his court, he set up a kind of academy for the education of his children, as well as courtiers and their sons.

In 794, on the site of the thermal resort of the Celts and Romans in Aachen, Charles began the construction of a huge palace complex, completed in 798. Having first turned into the winter residence of Charles, Aachen gradually became a permanent residence, and from 807 - the permanent capital of the empire. Carl strengthened the denier, which began to weigh 1.7 grams. Charles's fame spread far beyond his realm; embassies from foreign lands often appeared at his court, such as the embassy of Harun al-Rashid in 798.

In February 806, Charles bequeathed to divide the empire between his three sons. Louis was to get Aquitaine and Burgundy, Pipin Italy and Germany south of the Danube, and Charles the Younger Neustria, Austrasia and Germany north of the Danube. However, Pepin died in 810, and Charles the Young died in 811. Shortly before his death, in 813, Charles called to himself Louis, King of Aquitaine, his only surviving son from Hildegarde, and, having convened a solemn assembly of the noble Franks of the whole kingdom, on September 11 appointed him, by common consent, his co-ruler and heir, and then he placed a crown on his head and ordered that he henceforth be called emperor and augustus. Shortly thereafter, stricken with a violent fever, he took to his bed. In early January, pleurisy joined the fever, and on January 28, 814, the emperor died. He was buried in the palace church of Aachen built by him. At the insistence of Frederick I Barbarossa, the antipope Paschal III, appointed by him, canonized Charlemagne.

Wives and children

Since 768 - Himiltrud (or Himiltrud; Himiltrude), daughter of Devum I (Devum I), Count of Burgundy. Divorce.
Pepin the Humpbacked (Pépin le Bossu; 769/770 - 811). In 792, he participated in a conspiracy against his father, but unsuccessfully. He was imprisoned by his father in a monastery.
Rothais, (784 - ?)
from 770 - Desiderata (Désirée, 747 - 776), daughter of Desiderius (Didier), king of the Lombards. Divorce in 771
from 771 - Hildegarde Vintzgau (or Hildegarde; Hidegarde de Vintzgau, 758 - April 30, 783), daughter of Gerold I (Gérold I), Count of Vintzgau.
Charles the Young (Charles, 772 - December 4, 811), Duke of Inhelm.
Adelaide (Adelaide, 773 - 774). Died in infancy.
Rothrude (Rothrude, 775 - June 6, 810). She had a relationship with Count Rorgon (Rorikon) I (? - 839/840).
Pepin (Pépin, 777 - June 8, 810), King of Italy (781-810).
Lothair (Lotaire, 778 - 779). Twin with Louis, died as a child.
Louis I the Pious (Louis I le Pieux, August 778 - June 20, 840), Holy Roman Emperor (813-840), King of all Franks (814-840), King of Aquitaine (781-813), King of Alemannia (833-840 ).
Bertha (Berthe, 779 - 823). She married Count Engelbert (750-814).
Gisela (Gisèle, 781 - 808). She was not married.
Hildegard (Hildegarde, 782 - 783). Died in infancy.
from October 783 - Fastrada (Fastrade, 765 - October 10, 794), daughter of the East Frankish Count Radolf.
Tetrad (Tétrade, 785 - 853), abbess Argentiel.
Giltrude (Hiltrude, 787 -?), Abbess of Farmotier.
from 794 - Liutgard (Liutgadre, 776 - June 4, 800).
Emma (Emme,? - 837).
Rotilda (Rothilde,? - 852).
from 808 - Gerswinda of Saxony (Gerswinde de Saxe, 782 - 834).
Adaltrude.
In addition to six wives, three mistresses of Charlemagne and several bastard children are known.
Maltegarde.
Rotilda (Rudhild) (790 - 852), abbess Farmotier.
Regina (Regine).
Drogon (Drogon, June 17, 801 - December 8, 855), Bishop of Metz.
Hugo (Hugues, 802 - June 14, 844), abbot of St. Quentin.
Adalind.
Theodoric (807 - 818).

CARL IV
"I came to the Czech Republic and found neither father nor mother, nor brothers, nor
sisters and no acquaintances. And I forgot how to speak Czech, and only
later I learned my native language again and began to speak and understand like any other
Czech. I found the kingdom in such a pitiful condition that there was not a single
fortresses, nor estates unmortgaged.
Most Czech lords engaged in violence out of greed and arrogance, not
knowing neither fear nor bow before the king.
The once glorious city of Otakarov lay in ruins, and I had to stay
like a tradesman."
CHARLES THE FOURTH. BIOLOGY.

This pathetic view of the ruined residence of the last Přemyslids and
state of the Czech lands was generally revealed to the eyes of the eldest son of the king Jan
Luxembourg on October 30, 1333, when, after a ten-year stay
in France, he returned to his native Prague, so that in the position of margrave
Moravian to take, in the absence of his father, into his own hands the government of the Czech Republic and
Moravia. The margrave was then seventeen years old.
His first wife also arrived in Prague - the same age as Carla Blanche Valois,
sister of the French king Philip VI (the marriage between them was concluded in
at the age of seven, which was not uncommon at the court at that time). A
since King Jan laid in his three Prague Castle, along with all
treasures of the crown - even before the fire destroyed it, and his own
he did not have a house in the city, then the young margrave settled in the Old City
-- apparently, in the house "At Shtupartu", which is known to have served
refuge and his father, when he returned from the battlefield or from knightly
tournaments to Prague (however, he usually did not stay here for a long time,
limiting itself to collecting money for renting lands of the Czech Crown and
newly acquired territories). However, the new ruler of the Czech lands
intended to settle in Prague permanently in order to better fulfill his duties
monarch. For this, he had all the prerequisites: innate good
quality, plenty of courage and youthful enthusiasm, as well as excellent for
of that time education and cultural level acquired in France.
From there he also brought his new name: May 16, 1316 - on the Day of his
birth - he was named at baptism Wenceslas - in honor of the Grand Duke,
now he was returning home by Karl. This new name he adopted at confirmation
and it was under him that he went down in history later.
Another, symbolic name "Father of his country", which for the first time fell over
his coffin, determined the established ideas about the role of Charles IV in the Czech
stories. According to these ideas, this is an invariably majestic sovereign
in a solemn robe with a golden crown on his head: then he signs
founding charter of the university - the oldest in Central
Europe, so that the inhabitants of the kingdom dear to his heart, thirsty for knowledge
Czech "did not have to go to other people's thrones"; then he heads on
on a high throne, a brilliant assembly of imperial princes and electors; That,
kneeling, stands in quiet thought in the Karlštejn chapel - in
beautiful castle that he himself built along with numerous other
magnificent buildings.
The traces that Charles IV left in our capital alone are truly
indelible. We meet with them at every step, without realizing it.
It is enough to walk along Charles Square, which is one of the largest
squares of Europe; just walk along the wonderful stone bridge,
thrown across the Vltava, in which the spirit of France is still felt today,
from where Charles IV brought with him the famous architect Matthew from Arras;
it is enough to admire the panorama of Hradcany with the slender tower of the Cathedral of St.
Vita...
An integral part of Gothic Prague - this "poem of stone" -
is the university building Carolinum, the monasteries of Charles and Emauza,
rising with their towers above the neighborhoods surrounding them, and many other
buildings that owe their current beauty to Charles IV. His seal is on
founding charter of the New Prague City. Carl himself put
the first stone in the foundation of its fortress walls, and also freed its inhabitants
for a while from all taxes - in turn, everyone who bought
plot in the New Prague City, was obliged to build on it up to a year and a half
house...
However, not only the famous bridge is associated with the name of Charles IV,
University, Karlštejn, New Prague Town, St. Vita, Karlovy Vary and
so on and so forth. By order of the wise sovereign to the Czech Republic from the famous wine
and the grapes of the French region of Burgundy were brought and grafted here
vine. Charles IV supported the construction of ponds and took care of
the flourishing of cities, which he bestowed with many rights and privileges; When
the interests of the kingdom and the crown were threatened, did not hesitate to speak out
against the arbitrariness of the landlords, not only from the standpoint of the law, but in the case of
necessity and from a position of strength...
If we set out to replace the history textbook, which is by no means
is not included in our tasks, in listing the merits of Karl, it would not have been possible without
mention of the Golden Bull, without raising the Prague bishopric in
archbishopric or without expanding the territories of the Czech Crown with new
big powers. In all these and OTHER affairs of the state,
diplomatic and legislative nature, Charles IV proved himself a monarch,
acting for the grandeur and glory of the ancient kingdom he inherited
from their Přemyslid ancestors.
NOTHING HUMAN WAS ALIEN TO HIM. Let's put it aside
reverence and look at Carl's personality a little differently. Recall, for example,
how, according to the romance of Neruda, he sat down with Bushek from Velgartits "to the oak
table," at which - why not believe the poet? - they drank together
"many goblets and sang at the top of their lungs." Or like in royal attire
the emperor walked among the masons who erected the walls of the New City, and
conducted conversations with them - with understanding and knowledge of the matter. Also in Czech
language!
To Czech - his native language - Charles IV generally had a weakness.
Although all the important letters he published and his biography were written
in Latin, he insisted that in ordinary communication and office work
Czech was written and spoken in institutions. In Golden Sulla, this
fundamental law of the "Holy Roman Empire", which was in force on
throughout its history, it was said that all officials in the empire, and even
the sons of German princes and electors must learn the Czech language. And although
all the wives of Karl were foreigners by origin, the Czech language prevailed and
at the yard. Especially eloquent evidence of the national consciousness
Charles is the introduction of Slavic liturgies in the Emauza built by him
monastery. It is known that the monastery "On the Slavs" was presented by Charles IV, in
in particular, the unique gospel, the authorship of which is attributed to the
the Sazavian monastery of Prokopu, which later ended up in Reims, where it became
traditional props for the coronation ceremonies of the French kings.
However, this is about another weakness of Karl, or rather, about his passion.
It is known that he collected relics, that is, the relics of saints, which he kept in
precious caskets -- works of art the work of the finest gold cases
masters of that time. Less well known is that Charles possessed numerous
collection of rare manuscripts and hand-written books of religious and
secular nature (with which he later supplied the new university
library), and also that he extended his passion for collecting to
antique coins, cameos and natural minerals. About the size of all his collections,
containing, according to the inventory of 1379, more than 3,900 items,
"testifies the message that summarizes the robbery of Sigismund: when
in 1422 he took away the collections of his father and brother from the country, he
it took 500 wagons. "However, he did not have long to enjoy the prey, -
we learn from the book of the publishing house "Freedom", dedicated to collecting,
- since already at the German Ford (now Havlickuv Brod) the wagons were seized
Hussites".
Charles IV was also the man who most certainly inherited a few drops
the restless blood of his father, a knight and adventurer. What
concerns his mother, Elishka Přemyslovna, then, according to what has come down to us
historical documents, she was by no means phlegmatic either. So
way, the state, diplomatic and human wisdom of the Czech
King and Roman Emperor Charles IV was to gradually mature as
it matures with age in each person. In his youth, he was by no means
monk, as evidenced not only by contemporaries (in the reliability of their
statements can sometimes be doubted, because, as you know, the Germans
disliked Charles IV, saying that he was the father of the Czechs, but the stepfather
Germans), but also, in particular, the dream that he mentions in his biography
the monarch himself. This is what he saw on August 15, 1332 in the village of Torenzo
near Parma in Italy:
"When we were driving with our father from Lucca to Parma, we stopped
in a village whose name is Tarentum. It was Sunday, Ascension Day.
mother of God. And that night, when we were sleeping, we dreamed, as if an angel of God
stands from us on the left side, where we lie, and pushing us to the side,
says: Get up and come with us. And we answer him in the spirit: Sir, we do not
know how to go with you. And he lifted us by the hair and lifted us high above
great army that stood at the fortress, ready for battle. And an angel held us in
air over this army and turned to us: Look and look! And we look
another angel descended from heaven, brandishing a fiery sword in his hand, and sculpted one
in the midst of the army, and cut off the male vessel with his sword. And he died mortally
wounded, sitting on a horse. Then the angel holding us by the hair said: You know
Are you the one that is wounded to death by an angel? And we answered: We do not know, sir,
and we don't know where. And he says: Let it be known to you that it is
the Viennese dolphin, who is so punished by God for the sin of adultery. That's why
take care of yourself and tell your father to avoid such sins, otherwise
worse things will befall you."
This "Viennese dolphin" was the Dauphin of Vienne, Charles's cousin. Describing your
dream, Carl informs further that this cousin was indeed at the same
time wounded and soon died. One could say - an ordinary dream and faith
into dreams. But where does the "male vessel", the "sin of adultery" and the serious
Carl and his father's warning? At the very least, this indicates
too calm conscience.
The fact remains that Charles in 1332 (and more late period,
when his - still young Roman emperor - Pope Clement VII
censures for being too "free, unworthy and unsuitable for the emperor"
clothes) far from the sensible king of the fifties - seventies -
king of the period of his highest political and diplomatic successes and
wise ruler of the Czech Republic and the entire "Holy Roman Empire". He's far from it
still religious - sometimes to the point of hypocrisy: later his fanatical attitude towards
religious duties surprised even his contemporaries and was attributed to him
religious psychopathy, inherited from the grandfather of Wenceslas II. However, apparently
this is not the only or sufficient explanation.
Charles' religiosity may have been due in part to his position
emperor of the "Holy Roman Empire", endowed with "God's grace",
feeling like "the hand of God on earth" and the protector of the church. And the church at that
the time when feudalism reached its peak in our lands,
arrogated to itself the right not only to interfere in European politics, but also
to control without limitation the thinking and views of all members of society, not
excluding crowned persons. So was Charles IV, no matter how superior he was to his
contemporaries in their state wisdom, greatness of spirit, education and
cultural level, yet remained the son of his time, in which religion
played a dominant role in the entire spiritual sphere.
On the one hand, Charles IV supported the church in every possible way, enlarged it
possessions, founded monasteries and churches, trusted representatives of the church
high government posts (in the Czech Republic, hierarchs belonged to the largest
nobles - feudal lords), including the post of Czech chancellor, which he was, in
in particular, Litomysl Bishop Jan of Strsheda. However, on the other hand,
his religious tolerance is astounding. (So, for example, the preacher Jan Milic
from Kromnerzhizh - the predecessor of Hus and a critic of the universal moral
the decline of the church and clergy, the sale of indulgences - did not
no punishment, even though he called his king the Antichrist).
These apparent contradictions, complementing the image of Charles IV, nevertheless
only confirm what has already been said, namely, that even he could not,
in essence, to step over the boundaries of the era that shaped him and which he
represented at the highest rung of the social ladder. At the same time these
conflicting sides foreshadow the crisis of feudal society
- a crisis that is still timidly manifested in the sermons of Jan Milic,
Konrad Waldhauser and other critics of church abuses, like
underground flow. The time when it will splash out with full force on
the surface is not far away: its first explosion will befall the reign of the sons
Charles Wenceslas and, above all, Sigismund.
THE SON IS NOT RUNNING FROM THE FIGHT ALSO. Charles IV went down in history as the king of the world and
calmness. He knew how to state and diplomatic arts and to achieve
more than a weapon. And not because he was afraid of battle. Battles and fights
- greater or lesser - he experienced more than
enough. In the ranks of the French knightly cavalry, Charles took part in
last battle father at Crecy, although he behaved there and not as bravely as his
blind father. However, the fact that he was able to resist enemies and with a sword in his hand,
Karl proved long before this battle. For example, in Italy, with which King Jan
tied up fantastic plans that eventually collapsed. And maybe,
precisely because he was convinced by his own experience how transient
conquests won by the sword, his son became such a staunch supporter of peace.
Thanks to skillful negotiations and a well-thought-out marriage policy, he managed to
annex Brandenburg to the lands of the Bohemian crown (unfortunately, his son
Sigismund sold it at the Diet in Constance to Burgrave Friedrich of Nuremberg
Hohenzollern, predecessor of the founder of the dynasty of Prussian kings and
German emperors), Svidnik, vast territories in Saxony, the Palatinate and
etc. And all this without bloodshed, without suffering, which brings with it
population every war.
Nevertheless, Charles IV knew how to take the fight. We can read about this in
Carl's biography, sympathetic in its modesty. Here is what he writes about the battle
for the fortress of San Felice, in which he participated as a sixteen-year-old youth and
where for courage he was knighted:
"Then we held council and went out into the field and pitched the camp there, and came
there on the day of St. Catherine from the city of Parma, and on that day the fortress should
was to surrender into the hands of the enemy. And at noon with two thousand helmets and six
we began the battle with the enemies with thousands of foot soldiers, and there were as many of them, or even
more. And the battle lasted from noon until sunset. And on both sides were
almost all the horses were beaten, and we were almost amazed, and our horse, on which
we sat, also fell. And we were cut off from ours, and standing, and looking back
around us, saw that we were almost defeated and in a desperate situation. But
lo and behold, at the same hour our enemy with his banners began to flee, and
first of all the Mantes, and others followed them. And so by the grace
God's we won victory over our enemies and eight hundred helmets, to flee
those who converted were taken prisoner, and five thousand footmen were beaten. And with this victory
The fortress of St. Felix was liberated. And in this battle they dedicated us,
along with two hundred heroic men, to knighthood.
Although this memoir was written many years later and with the consciousness
elapsed time, yet it feels the pride of the author for the fact that in
early youth, he showed himself to be a good fighter and was worthy of a knightly
reputation of his father.
Karl proved his fighting spirit in adulthood, when his head was already
adorned the royal and imperial crown, and the neck began to bend down
disease, or maybe the consequences of a spinal injury in his youth. Entered into
legend, for example, how in June 1356 the then forty-year-old Czech king
he himself went with his army on a campaign against the fortress of Zhampakh, in order to
to punish the knight-robber Jan from Smoyn named Shell, who robbed
on the roads of passing merchants and civilians, and despite the warning
king, did not give up his robbery business. Charles took the fortress, and the Shell
sentenced to death by hanging. This is a decisive intervention
won such a reputation for the king that after him, as the chronicle says,
established in the Czech Republic and in the whole empire such calmness, as in no other
other country.
Chronicles, however, brought to us other examples - as they say,
the other side of the coin, when Karl had to resist the intrigues and
conspiracies of hidden enemies. When Charles IV returned from his coronation in 1355
in Rome, he stopped at Pisa to receive honors from the local citizens
(Pisa belonged to Lombardy, which recognized Charles as its supreme
ruler). Karl had no idea that a riot was secretly being prepared in the city against
him. The conspirators set fire to the town hall at night, where the emperor stayed
together with the Empress (Anna Svidnitskaya). Fortunately, both managed to escape from
burning building. In the morning, the rest of the coronation ceremony dealt with the rebels.
the retinue of the emperor (the retinue was at first 4,000 Czech horsemen, however
most of it had already been disbanded by this point). Rebel leaders
lost their heads, and the emperor - one hundred and fifty of his knights.
An attempt to poison Karl with poison will be discussed later.
SORRES OF CHARLES IV. "We, Charles IV, Roman Emperor, King of Bohemia,
Germanic, Lombard, Arelatian, Duke of Brandenburg, Margrave
Moravian...".
Approximately this is how the letters of the monarch began in last period his
life. Maybe this initial clause sounded a little different, not in this
case: we just wanted to emphasize how great was the power of Charles, what
he owned a vast empire. Of course, he did not rule alone, but with the help of
advisers, attorneys and high government officials. But chose them
happy hand. Even Francesco Petrarca, the Italian poet and humanist,
a great admirer of Charles, with recognition expressed that the emperor surrounds
themselves as people of such a high spirit, as if their homeland were ancient Athens.
In the absence of the king or during his illness, they ruled those entrusted to them.
lands almost on their own.
So, during the illness.
For the Czech king and the Roman emperor were also tormented by various ailments
and illness, family worries, internal strife. And he was a Meat Man and
bones.
Charles IV experienced his first great disappointment in his youth, being
Margrave of Moravia, a few months after his return from
France to Prague. Then he, with the enthusiasm characteristic of every youth,
undertook a difficult task: to return back what he frivolously squandered it
adventurous father - trust in the throne, mortgaged property
crowns, order in official affairs and in the government of the whole country. His efforts
have borne fruit and been received favorably until
he did not affect the interests of some Czech feudal lords, who used frequent
the absence of a king and profiting at the expense of the people. They took care of
so that rumors reach the king that Charles wants to seize his throne. Yang believed
and deprived his son of the position of ruler of the country. With a sense of injustice Karl
went to his brother in Tyrol. He returned to the Czech Republic only in 1338, on
own funds having bought the position of the administrator of the Czech lands from his father -
King Jan at that time, somewhere in Lithuania, was converting pagans to the Christian faith.
Charles IV was widowed three times during his life. About the causes of death of his wives -
Blanche of Valois (d. 1348), Anna of the Palatinate (d. 1353) and Anna of Swidnitskaya
(d. 1362) - we do not have sufficient materials to allow
at least approximately establish the diagnosis of their death. She could step into
the result of the most common diseases, which, at the low level at which
was then medicine, were practically incurable. But your spouse
survived Eliska Pomorzhanska - judging by the sources, the woman is exclusively
good health and male power. After being widowed, she lived out the rest of her life in her
manor in Hradec Kralove.
Charles IV became the Czech king and Roman emperor at the age of thirty
age. As a wise and prudent monarch, he had a great influence
not only into Czech, but also into German and Italian history. Therefore, before
We have received information about his life from both domestic and foreign
sources. In our time, mainly in the XIX and XX centuries, he was given
much attention in the monographs of Czech historians (Josef Shusta, Josef Klik,
Jiří Spevaček and others), as well as foreign ones (Konstantin Hoefler, Emil Verunski,
Gerald Welsh and others).
Many of them agree that in the life of the Czech king and the Roman
emperor, at a certain moment, a visible turning point occurs, and they state
significant difference between the behavior of a young prince and a mature king. Case
here not in the usual opposition of youth and old age, which exists in
life of each person, changing with age. It's about deeper
change - a change in the character and the whole personality of the king, one pole of which
represents the cheerful, cheerful disposition of the young prince, and the other pole -
already mentioned religious hypocrisy and some gloomy importance
aging emperor.
According to one of the leading researchers of the biography of Charles IV, Joseph
Shuste, this fracture dates back to 1350. Everything indicates that
the fracture was associated with an event that at one time excited not only
Prague, but all of Europe: serious and sudden illness emperor. TO
Unfortunately, contemporary chroniclers speak of the nature of this disease
differently. Little is said about this in the literature. And yet let's
try to get in now
WITH A VISIT TO THE LODGE OF THE SICK EMPEROR AND KING and to establish a diagnosis,
which has not yet been accurately determined. Instead of history and
examinations at our disposal are only scant information of the chronicles
contemporaries of the patient. For simplicity of orientation, we choose from them all that
about our topic.
Charles IV suddenly fell ill in October 1350. At that time he was
thirty four years. The illness was serious. The king had to give up
planned trips and stay in Prague without a break for almost six months. In January 1351
year, he, however, calls in the Bezdez fortress and in Zittau, however, from a trip to
Southern Germany is forced to abstain. In 1351, the king is having difficulty gathering
in Budejovice for a diplomatic meeting with the Austrian Duke Albrecht.
The emperor's illness caused concern at the court of the pope in Avignon,
and also in Germany, where in February 1351 Archbishop Gerlach of Mainz
even consults with Rudolph, Count Palatine of the Rhine, about measures in case of death
Carla. Swabian towns discussed similar measures, and much earlier,
as early as November 1350. Charles IV himself was aware of the seriousness of his illness:
he writes to his great-uncle, Bishop Baldwin of Trier, and instructs him
management of some affairs of the empire.
What was the disease that threatened his life? It was paralysis
all four limbs, as can be learned from the chronicle of Heinrich Taub from
Selbach. Another chronicler who went down in history under the symbol
A follower of Matthew of Neuenburg, defines the disease as "especially severe and
constant impotence", and the authors of both sources express surprise at
about the fact that later there was finally a complete healing. Paralysis gone
finally somewhere in August 1351, that is, the disease lasted for a total
difficulty for about ten months.
It was, therefore, about a sudden onset of tetraparesis, or
tetraplegia, which means paralysis of all four limbs, during which
was at first frighteningly swift, but after less than half a year, the case
went for a fix. Based on the then prevailing ideas about the nature
disease, its etiology, chroniclers judge that its cause was poisoning.
A follower of Matthew of Neuenburg accuses him of an attempt on the life of the king
Czech nobility, from whom Charles IV confiscated estates that had previously been pledged
crown. Matteo Vilani expresses bewilderment that no one was punished, and
therefore comes to the conclusion that the queen was involved in the matter (Anna
Palatinate): in order to keep the love of the king, she allegedly gave him a drink
a drug that made the king seriously ill. Researcher Werunski, with
on the other hand, claims that in southern Germany, poisoning was suspected
King's brother Jan Heinrich.
Such an etiological interpretation is completely in the spirit of that time,
when poisoning was one of the most popular remedies, how to get rid of
from an uncomfortable opponent. Besides. Charles IV nineteen years before in
Pavia was indeed poisoned. Returning home on the first day of Easter with
services, the king, according to his own recollections, saw that "the servants
fell ill, especially those who ate before dinner ... But I, writes Karl, do not
breakfast that morning, - sat at the table and did not want to eat, and we were all
scared. And so, looking around, I saw a handsome and strong man,
who was unfamiliar to me. And this man walked in front of the table,
pretending to be dumb. And having suspected him, I ordered him to be taken under
guard. And after much torture, he confessed on the third day that he himself was in the kitchen
put poison in my food at the instigation of Azza, the viceroy of the Count of Milan.
However, modern historians are skeptical about the idea of ​​poisoning as
cause of the illness of Charles IV. We also have to abandon this idea. And
not only because in the Czech Republic there was no reason to conspire against such
popular here monarch: but mainly because the character itself
disease testifies against poisoning. Can't imagine poison
known in the fourteenth century, which would cause tetraplegia lasting
ten months and finally ending with a complete recovery of the patient.
Therefore, Shusta suggests gouty arthritis, for which
characterized by simultaneous inflammation of several joints.
This assumption is acceptable to the extent that Charles IV really
suffered from gout. In the Great French Chronicle, written approximately
circa 1380, contains information about the official visit of Charles to France in
1378. The event is described through the eyes of an eyewitness in a reportage form and is given
in a fairly complete manner. Pierre is credited as the author of the description.
d "Agrement, chancellor of the French king Charles V. From here we learn that
Emperor Charles IV, at that time sixty-two years old (and only a few
months before his death), from time to time he could not walk because of pain, and his
had to be carried on a special stretcher. IN the Louvre in Paris it was worn in
armchair. However, when the pain subsided, the emperor was able to move freely. ABOUT
that gout was the cause of these difficulties is evidenced by her
intermittent character - intermittention. Palatsky also mentions that
Charles IV "was tormented by gout." However, the final proof is
testimony of the anthropologist Jindrich Matejka, who in 1928 researched
the remains of the king at the opening of his tomb. The anthropologist has discovered certain
traces of gout on spine and long bones.
AN ATTEMPT TO DIAGNOSIS. Does this prove, however, that the disease of 1350
was gouty arthritis? The only evidence in favor
this assumption, it is the fact that since then the emperor begins to
characteristic bending of the neck, described by contemporaries and captured
artist in the chapel of St. Catherine at Karlstejn Castle. Matteo Vilani,
who saw Charles IV five years after his illness, claims that the king
walking bends forward. It is possible, however, that such posture
developed by the king gradually.
At the same time, gout - whether it is a one-time attack or chronic
the disease is never manifested by complete tetraplegia. paralysis of all
four limbs. Of all the forms of gout described by Prof.
Frantisek Lenoch, none of them manifest as complete paralysis. In addition, neither
one disease of bones or joints does not end in complete paralysis, which
would go through in its entirety.
Sudden onset and gradual complete healing of paralysis
testify, on the contrary, in favor of a clear neurogenic disorder.
Paralysis of the extremities can be caused either by damage to the peripheral
motor neurons (outgoing from the spinal cord), or damage
brain, brain stem, or upper spinal cord. Wherein
in the first case, flaccid paralysis occurs, weakening the muscles, and in the second -
spastic paralysis causing hardening of the muscles. However, spastic
paralysis of all four limbs as a result of brain damage is associated with
such a severe disease of the central nervous system, which is unthinkable
without modern treatment, he could pass without a trace, as happened in the case
Charles IV. The only exception would be multiple sclerosis of the brain.
However, this is a relapsing disease. And Charles IV lived another 28 years without
he showed characteristics of this disease chroniclers for sure
would not fail to leave us relevant evidence of this.
Similarly, damage to the spinal cord in its various parts
leads to various types of paralysis. In the region of the cervical vertebrae, it can
lead, as a result of the pressure of the tumor or intervertebral disc, to
spastic paralysis of the upper and lower extremities, and damage in the area
the lower part of the cervical vertebrae - to a slight paralysis of the upper and spastic,
paralysis of the lower extremities. This case, however, might be probable.
only if there had not been a subsequent complete healing. At
damage to the vessels of the spinal cord (with softening of the spinal cord) also
it is impossible to imagine the complete disappearance of all signs of the disease.
So, if we exclude degenerative lesions that entail
persistent and aggravated over time diseases, inflammation remains
nerves and roots of the spinal nerves, which can cause
complete temporary paralysis. It is an inflammation caused by various
poisons, bacterial and infectious, which can have a variety of causes.
Moreover, this paralysis is weak, symmetrical, often complete, and almost always
temporary. This diagnosis is best supported by the evidence
Chroniclers about the illness of Charles IV.
Although polyradicular neuritis is a disease that does not entail
lethal outcome, it can nevertheless become a threat to life due to
respiratory muscle damage. In any case, this is a disease that can
last for months. It was this disease that could lead to paralysis.
all four limbs, with an initial aggressive course and a complete final
recovery, or almost complete, because it cannot be ruled out that
neck curvature could be incomplete paralysis (residual paresis) of the cervical
muscles. And although we have no confirmation that in 1350 Charles IV suffered exactly
polyradikuloneuritis no other disease explains with such completeness
all the symptoms that appeared in Charles IV, and his complete recovery.
WHAT DID THE EXHUMATION SHOW? In modern times, in 1978, the remains of Charles IV
were re-exhumed and re-examined by a commission headed by a scientific
employee National Museum Emmanuel Vlcek. Member of this commission was
and the author of these lines. It turned out that on the left side of the cervical vertebrae is visible
a clear trace of hemorrhage, pressing on the outside at the level of the third-fifth cervical
vertebrae. This external hemorrhage could cause, by vascular
changes or direct pressure, paralysis - and at the same time could not
affect the king's health.
In this regard, there were speculations about the adventures of Karl, not too much
marked by official history. We are talking about participating in tournaments under a stranger
name, which Charles IV allegedly undertook, already being the Czech king and
by the Roman emperor. The remark of the Pope mentioned here concerning
young Charles's clothes are also sometimes cited as an argument for frivolity and
adventurism of the king in his youth. In those days, such an injury could cause
a fall from a horse or - more likely - a blow from a spear shaft.
However, it is unlikely that anyone in the fourteenth century succeeded in
not only survive a cervical spinal cord injury, but even
get well. In itself, damage to the spine could not lead to
consequences or cause temporary paralysis, however, with paralysis,
the duration of which would exceed half a year and which would pass
subsequently by itself, it is inconceivable that it could be a consequence
spinal cord injury, especially in the region of the cervical vertebrae. It is possible
however, that an injury to the spine of Charles IV could have caused
places of least resistance where inflammation then occurs
spinal cord stems. This possibility is increased by the fact that in 1371
In the year Charles IV again fell ill with a serious illness that lasted four months, about
which we know only that "doctors, like 21 years ago, doubted
in his recovery". It is known that polyradiculoneuritis, inflammation of the trunk
peripheral nerve, gives sometimes relapses. Was this a new attack?
The pressure on spinal cord tumor or intervertebral disc could not
to return to normal as quickly as happened in the case of the first disease,
or would certainly manifest itself again over the next 27 years of life
king. In the fourteenth century there might already be infectious or toxic
causes of inflammation, and if they are not mentioned in historical sources,
so it is probably because they were rare; and today it's not like that
already common disease. And at the level of medieval medicine, we can learn about
her only in those rare cases when she befell a crowned person.
Charles IV died in November 1378 from "jumping fever" - rather
all from bronchopneumonia. As established in 1978, its cause was
fracture of the femoral neck.
Be that as it may, as far as we have been able to ascertain, the "case of Charles IV" --
one of the first - if not the first - case of strong suspicion
polyradiculoneuritis.
This can put an end to our modest contribution to history
illness of the greatest Czech king. And although we have revealed to you
"non-royal" side of his life, we hope you still agree that this
did not in the least detract from the role that Charles IV in such an exceptional way
played in our history.

Wenceslas IV
"As a child he became king; as a child, unfortunately, he ruled as an adult
age: complacently and fairly, until unbridled passions knocked him off
the true path, and he began to reign not as a husband, but according to his whim and
waywardly, like everyone weak person who wants to look strong."
Frantisek PALACKI. HISTORY OF THE CZECH PEOPLE IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND MORAVIA

Wenceslas IV clearly refutes the proverb about an apple falling not far from
apple trees. He became an apple that rolled pretty far from the Carl Tree.
However, let's be fair: being the son of a great father is never easy. From
such a son is usually expected to not only equal the greatness of his father, but also
will surpass him.
First of all, Wenceslas did not inherit his father's tenacity,
prudence and diplomatic talent. However, his image
handed down to us by history and traditions is largely distorted. The fact is that
it is conditioned, and sometimes overshadowed, by the dramatic events of that era,
full of contradictions and twists, which are characteristic primarily of the second
half of the reign of Wenceslas IV, which lasted forty-one years. The question arises:
and any other ruler, not excluding the famous father of Wenceslas, could
adequately cope with their mission in such an era?
On the problematic characterization of this Bohemian king
objectively points out the same Palatsky, who writes:
"About the moral character and the whole personality of Wenceslas IV, unfortunately, no one from
his contemporaries did not leave enough true and written from nature
image; fragmentary judgments and stories have come down to us, for the most part
biased and belonging to people who, in personal contact with the king,
spoke of him on the basis of own experience and own view. Those
the same passions that, during his 41-year reign, caused
the great bifurcation in which Western Christianity still finds itself,
gave rise to contradictory conclusions about the nature and behavior
King Wenceslas, both among his contemporaries and among his descendants. This led to
that if, on the one hand, most writers portrayed him as low
drunkard and senseless brawler, then, on the other hand, there were voices
who noted in him a very reasonable-minded martyr who succumbed to his
the trouble of hatred of evil people..."
TWO POPES AND THREE VOICES. Reign of Wenceslas IV (1378-1479)
was anything but idyllic. When an eighteen-year-old boy he
ascended the Czech throne, the position of the Czech state was largely
wonderful. Its territories, thanks to Charles IV, almost doubled; Czech
the king was considered at the same time the king of Rome (he became emperor
only after the coronation in Rome); the international prestige of the Czech
kingdom thanks to the "marriage" policy of Father Wenceslas: younger son Karla
Sigismund received the Hungarian crown as his wife's dowry, and his daughter Anna got married
for the English King Richard II. After taking the throne with the right hand
the young Czech king Wenceslas IV had a crown council headed by a prince
Přemyslav Teszynski, which included many experienced zemstvo and imperial
officials, in particular Jan from Strsheda.
On the other hand, from the very beginning there were also unfavorable
circumstances. First of all, the double papacy, which was already poisoning
the last days of Father Vaclav's life. At the head of the Catholics were at that time two
popes - one in Rome, the second - in Avignon, and almost the entire church was
engulfed in deep moral decay. It can be called the climax
pontificate of antipope Urban VI (1378-1389), at whose expense (or rather,
at the expense of whose illness) dozens of crimes against
humanity, the insidious murders of bishops and cardinals, even more often -
accusing them of heresy and condemning them to burning, not to mention selling
indulgences, prebends and other ways of accumulating church wealth. About
Urbana VI knows that he suffered from megalomania, aggravated by the same
a delusion of persecution that drove him from murder to murder. He was ill
paranoia - a chronic disease, not so common among
the mentally ill. Today it is even treatable. However, the paranoia
befell a person with great power, can turn around for others
a real disaster, as happened in the case of Urban VI.
First, Wenceslas IV sided with the Pope, which led to a break
with France, standing, of course, on the positions of the Pope of Avignon. One for
the other was followed by wars and clashes within the "sacred Roman-German
empires", in which Vaclav was involved every now and then. In addition, pope,
recognized by Wenceslas, refused to confirm his claims to the Roman
throne. Therefore, Wenceslas IV demanded (being not alone in this) that
the problem of the dual papacy was solved by the resignation of both popes and the election of
new, only dad. This was opposed by the University of Prague,
more precisely, its German majority, which continued to side with
the pope. The consequence of this was the publication in January 1409 by Wenceslas IV
the so-called Decree of Kutnogorsk, according to which foreigners were deprived of
and the Czech people were given voices. Thus, Wenceslas completed the work of his
great father (when the university was founded, its academic society
divided into nationalities: Bavarians, Saxons, Poles and Czechs, that is
two Slavic peoples against two Germanic ones. However, as a result
gradual Germanization of Silesia, the "Polish" voice essentially turned into
third German voice, and the Czech people thus found themselves in their
own university in the minority).
Although the motive for such a decision of Wenceslas was not a pronounced
patriotism or national identity as it was sometimes interpreted
romantic and revival literature, the publication of the Decree of Kutnogorsk,
undoubtedly the most significant act of his reign. Whoever developed
this document, the main thing is that Vaclav signed it. many places
of this "Decree" have been repeatedly confirmed in our history.
For example:
"Because the German people have no right to reside in
Kingdom of Bohemia, and, moreover, in various matters of Prague education ...
appropriated three votes in decisions, while the Czech people,
realm the true heir, has the only vote... we command you
by this decree strictly and authoritatively ... so that the Czech people in all councils,
courts, examinations, elections and in any other cases and proceedings ... to
three votes has always been admitted and from now on and forever enjoyed the privilege
those voices..."
The issuance of the decree contributed to the Czechization of Prague in those years, since together
with professors and students from Prague moved to Leipzig and Krakow and
many German merchants, artisans and officials, one way or another
previously enjoyed the privilege of "three votes".
Unlike his father, who was on better terms with
the Catholic Church, in particular, with its higher clergy, and in fact
relied on it, Wenceslas from the very beginning of his reign entered into with the highest
clear in disputes. Moreover, it would be a simplification to say that the motives of these disputes
were purely economic. They culminated in a sharp
clash of the king with the Prague archbishop and large feudal lord Jan from
Jenstein on the issue of the Kladrub monastery, on the estates of which Wenceslas IV
wanted to found a new episcopate in Pilsen. When the archbishop violated these
plans, the king got so excited that Jan had to flee from his anger from
Prague.
It is not surprising because the views of church circles on the king were
entirely negative; should not be forgotten, moreover, that during his
board, two major figures of the future Hussite revolution enter the stage
- Jan Hus and Jan Zizka. Therefore, in the eyes of the Roman Church, Wenceslas appears a little
whether not a semi-heretic.
FIRST - ONE PRAISE ... We have already said that Wenceslas IV did not inherit
from his great father a number of necessary qualities. But he had the quality
which Charles IV clearly lacked. As a youth, the king surrounded himself
advisers from the lower noble strata. His choice was successful: they were like
usually capable, loyal and devoted to their king people. Wenceslas IV trusted
them high government positions (at the end of his life he brought him closer to the court and
Jan Zizka from Trotsnov), which, of course, caused discontent of the noble
nobility, headed by the noble Rožmberk family. In conspiracies
the archbishop did not lag behind against Wenceslas. Things went so far that
the king was twice taken prisoner and kept in custody at the Grad, and later in
Vienna. Many times they tried to poison him. The highest nobility has always sympathized and
Vaclav's brother Sigismund entered into an alliance with her, and with him most of the others
king's relatives.
So let's get back to František Palacký's assessment: historical
sources from church circles did not forgive Vaclav Archbishop Jan from
Jenstein and Vicar General Jan from Pomuk, and indirectly Jan Hus from
Jan Zizka; the Germans, in turn, did not forget the Kutnogorsk Decree,
infringing on their rights, and the higher nobility reproached him for preferring the lower
nobility and chivalry. The contradictory nature of these views has
unfortunately, the impact on Czech historical science.
We are, however, interested in the personality of King Wenceslas IV primarily from the point
the doctor's vision - Vaclav's disease, more precisely, the gradual deterioration of his health
and above all his neuropsychic state and his behavior as
man and as a ruler, of course, are closely interconnected.
The beginning of the reign of Wenceslas is marked in history by some laudatory reviews.
In the "Chronicle" of the Brabant diplomat Edmund de Dinter, who personally knew
Wenceslas IV ("Chronicle" written in 1445-- 1447), one can read that
the Czech king was "a monarch who not only knew how to speak pleasantly, but also
educated". Along with the Czech language, Vaclav was fluent in German, and in
in his library, religious books coexisted with the works of German
minnesingers. During the reign of Wenceslas in the Czech Republic, a great
cultural revolution. Czech writers no longer write exclusively in Latin,
there is a growing number of authors writing in rich, beautiful Czech. Jan Hus
invents the so-called diacritical letter, replacing the inconvenient
reading ligature (still existing, in particular, in Polish)
diacritics used over letters.
The young king shows himself well at first in the government of the country,
upholding law and justice. The chronicler mentions that "if in his days
reign, someone carried gold on his head or went his own way, no one would
offended." This could be said at that time about a rare European country.
Vaclav's walks disguised in a simple dress around Prague became a legend.
during which he allegedly watched whether butchers and bakers were deceiving the people.
(The true reason for the royal "masquerade" could, of course, be much
more prosaic: he presto did not want to be recognized when he returned from
nightly wanderings to his residence in the Old City).
At the same time, he really protected the townspeople from the arbitrariness of the nobility, and
merchants - Jews - from persecution.
Soon, however, everything changed. “Later,” writes researcher F.M.
Vartosh, - Wenceslas limited himself to simple raids and Good Will. It was
little where the farther, the more felt the need for state
a husband of such magnitude and such working energy as the deceased
Emperor". And again about Wenceslas: "In the morning he said yes, and in the evening he said no.
This is about the period that followed the first imprisonment of Wenceslas by the so-called
noble community, and his overthrow from the Roman throne, on which he
replaced by Sigismund. About the period when Vaclav's cousin Jost was everywhere
proclaims that Bohemia will soon have a new king. With time
the indifference and apathy of Wenceslas increase; o" is indifferent to the fact
that in Poland, Germany and Italy they speak of the Czech Republic as a land of heretics; Not
protest vigorously against imprisonment Husa in Constanta (although this
and was primarily the concern of Sigismund, who, being emperor
Roman, issued Hus a safe-conduct), does not make any preparation for
defense in case of a crusade against the "heretical" Czech Republic. In a word,
the last years of the reign of Wenceslas IV were marked by a lack of any interest in
things that should have interested him the most.
An expressive feature of Vaclav's character was his exceptional
irascibility. It first manifested itself in a clash with Archbishop Yang of
Jenstein and his supporters. Vaclav's aggressiveness, allegedly
contemporary chroniclers, in the affects of anger knew no bounds, especially
when he learned that all his efforts had ended in failure. As
"evidence" of his cruelty is given by the fact (possibly fictitious) that
when someone (probably from the circles of the higher clergy) wrote on the wall: "Vaclav,
second Nero", the king allegedly attributed: "If I have not been yet, then I will be."
WHAT CAUSED THE CHANGE? So, what, in addition to the usual royal concerns and
failures, was the reason that the character of the king so clearly changed in
on the worse side, that Wenceslas lost control of himself, often succumbed to anger and
- in the end - apathy? Although it is difficult to consider objective judgments about
that a promising ruler suddenly turned into a cruel monarch,
"destroyer of trust, consulting with demons" (nameless
clergyman close to St. Vita), or the characteristics of Vaclav
as a "wild man" and "terrible appearance" (Augustinian monk from Regensburg
Ondřej), nevertheless, there is a lot of indisputable evidence. In particular,
in 1400, the electors considered Wenceslas in Oberlenstein a man "useless and
lazy, completely unsuitable for the Roman Empire" (Another question -
how much the same electors corrected the matter by Sigismund).
The formation of personality occurs, as you know, in childhood. When
Charles IV and his wife Anna Svidnitskaya was born on February 26, 1361 in
Nuremberg, the desired heir, the father was, of course, infinitely happy. He
gave freedom to prisoners and sent to Aachen - the place of his coronation - gold
newborn weight. Already at the age of two, Wenceslas was crowned
(against the will of Archbishop Arnošt of Pardubice) as Czech king, and
his father unreasonably spoiled him in the future - for example, at the age of 15 he was
declared by the Roman king. On the other hand, Wenceslas was deprived of maternal
worries - his mother died when the child was not even two years old.
After the death of his father, Vaclav remained alone in the Luxembourg family.
His half-brother Sigismund treated him unfailingly unfriendly. WITH
with small exceptions, they behaved in this way in relation to Wenceslas and
other relatives.
Then another enemy enters the life of Vaclav - alcohol. At first, how
usually, passion for them does not go beyond secular customs. Later, by
to the testimony of Enea Silvio Piccolomini (Pope Pius II), Czech
the king once declared that if he fought in Italy, he "would take for booty only
wine".
Vaclav's outbursts of anger were also associated with alcohol. In Edmund's Chronicle
de Dinter who, as we have already said, was personally acquainted with the king and in
the beginning of his reign, noted the education of Wenceslas, you can read
the following: "When he drank to excess, he became ferocious and in this
state was depraved and dangerous."
It is difficult to say what the Brabantian chronicler represented under the concept
"corrupt". However, the question arises: what was it - manifestations
indomitable anger or the pathological affects of malice inherent in alcoholics?
As you know, the fall of prohibitions and the "affect of the moment" are the most frequent
symptoms of alcoholism.
It is also reliable that Vaclav's alcoholism increased. Some
contemporaries claim that it was due to two poisoning attempts,
after which Vaclav complained of a constant "burning" in his throat.
However, it should be attributed to the realm of fiction stories about angry dogs,
with which Wenceslas allegedly liked to poison people, or about the skin on which the executioner
supposedly wrote down the names of the victims of royal anger. All this asserts already
the Augustinian friar quoted here. We repeat again that chroniclers,
most of whom were from the clergy, clearly did not differ
sympathy for Wenceslas, who restored the highest clergy against himself. All this,
however, it does not change anything in the fact that the affects of Vaclav's anger were
pathological in nature and could well correspond to the picture of chronic
alcoholism, in favor of which there are many facts.
So, were these mere affects of malice, or was it thus manifested
organic brain disease
Testimony of a contemporary of Wenceslas, an Augustinian opate Rudolf from
Zagani does not skimp on the harshest words addressed to Vaclav: according to him, he
was "not so much a king as a cannibal in the kingdom of the Czechs." Opat Rudolf,
no doubt shows by such a characteristic hatred for the king, who
harshly opposed the church hierarchy in Wroclaw. Interestingly, the
Rudolph compared Wenceslas IV with his contemporary Charles VI, the French
King, who went down in history under the nickname Mad.
Along with the affects of anger, it is necessary to take into account the apathy of Vaclav,
developed in recent years. "He could not decide on any action and
drowned his bitterness in wine, "- writes about the behavior of Wenceslas after his deposition
from the Roman throne, the German historian Mahilek. This inability to act
progressed over time.
Even without falling under the influence of those negatively disposed towards Vaclav
church, German and high society sources, on the basis of indisputable
historical facts, it can be argued that this Czech king suffered
alcoholic dementia (dementia) - a common consequence of chronic
alcoholism. Moreover, we have reason to believe that Wenceslas IV had
disturbed nervous system.
DISEASE AND "WHITE MICE". According to the data we have,
Wenceslas IV was seriously ill twice. He first fell ill in 1393 in Vienna.
It is known that the disease was dangerous, but its signs are nowhere
described. Sources give only the indefinite "terminally ill" and the fact
about recovery. Most likely, it was a poisoning. At the same time with
king, the same disease befell the Bavarian Duke Friedrich, who on 4
December of the same year he died, Wenceslas IV still struggles with death on December 7th.
By all accounts, both rulers were poisoned. About the epidemic could not be
speech, since no one except them, at that time and in this place, fell ill.
More details have come down to us about the second serious illness
Wenceslas IV, which took place fifteen years later, in 1408, in Prague. Then
King was paralyzed in all four limbs (tetraplegia). Curial Detrich
describes the king's illness in this way: "He could not move his arms or legs, and his
had to be carried or carried on the back. "So, the king moved in a carriage
or he was carried by lackeys. He was finally healed by the personal physician of the king, Albic of
Unichov, who left us the following evidence of this: "I, Albik,
prescribed a regimen for King Wenceslas, and this helped him a lot, so he soon
was able to walk and ride." So, some time later (it is not known how
for a long time - in weeks or months?), the king could walk and ride.
What was this "regime"? Albic reports what exactly the king received.
From the point of view of modern medicine, it is difficult to imagine healing with
with rose water and oil balm, (rather, there was a spontaneous
relief), but to Albic's credit it must be said that he managed to keep
king from ordinary alchemical practices.
It is noteworthy that Wenceslas IV was struck in 1408 with almost the same
way, like his father in 1350. However, the etiology (origin and causes)
Vaslav's disease is completely different. Carl's disease is an inflammation of the nerves and their
roots - lasted ten months, after which there was a complete healing. IN
At the same time, when examining his skeleton, it was found that Charles IV
suffered an injury (in a fight? in a tournament?) that caused paravertebral
outpouring pressing on the cervical vertebrae. This could also lead to
Charles to tetraplegia (paralysis of all four limbs). Vaclav has such
etiology is out of the question. Unlike his father, he did not receive a military
upbringing and almost never (with the only exception when the king
led the army, but the battle never happened) did not fight. Thus,
the cause of Vaclav's tetraplegia, which finally receded, could be inflammation
nerves due to alcoholism or the so-called Korsakov's disease, with
which appear, as the people say, "white mice". The word contract
in the description could testify in favor of spastic, central
quadriplegia, but it means not only "constricted", but also "sluggish"
(atrophy?), and in addition, spastic (convulsive) quadriplegia in such
short term would not return to normal enough for the patient to walk and
to ride, whatever the reason for it. Thus, almost
for sure it can be argued that it was a question of flaccid quadriplegia,
peripheral, most likely due to alcoholic polyneuritis.
Later
THE FACE OF THE KING IS CHANGING. It is noteworthy that a handsome young man,
as we know the king from the bust in the triforium of the church of St. Vita, sleek mature
husband, as Wenceslas appears before us on the Old Town Mostetska tower,
according to modern chronicles, it finally turns into a man
"terrible appearance", with a terrible face. It must be said that in his portrait in
the bible of Martin Rotler (Wenceslas IV with his wife) shows a certain change.
It is quite possible that such a change, which was registered by contemporaries
king, there could be a known puffiness and discoloration of the face, characteristic
for chronic alcoholics.
It remains to mention the death of King Wenceslas IV. Her historical
context is well known: at the insistence of the Pope, as well as his
brother Sigismund, Wenceslas finally took some measures against the Hussites,
the consequence of which were new unrest, culminating in the so-called
the first Prague defenestration: on July 30, 1419, crowds of Praguers who burst into
into the New Town Hall, they threw members of the magistrate out of the windows, chuckling with
galleries above the Hussite tabernacle, which was carried by the procession,
headed by Jan Zhelivsky.
Wenceslas IV was at that time in the so-called Novy Hradok in
Kunratice, where he increasingly retired from the unrest-ridden Prague. Learning about
defenestration, the king became agitated and died - it is believed that from a heart
attack. Many images have come down to us in which Wenceslas is holding on to
heart. The famous Czech physician Thomayer was of the same opinion.
unequivocally believed that Wenceslas IV died as a result of a myocardial infarction.
There is, however, one circumstance in this which testifies against
this theory: the said incident occurred on July 30, and the king died only
18 August. With the then medical possibilities, it seems
implausible that anyone lived with a myocardial infarction for 3 weeks. A
if he had already suffered this disease, then most likely he would have lived longer (otherwise
speaking, in the case of a mild heart attack, he would simply recover).
WAS THIS REALLY A MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION?
Ancient Czech chronicles describe the death of the king as follows: "He died at the hour
evening prayer, from a sudden blow from grief and with a great cry, and with a roar
as if like a lion, in the New City, otherwise Kundratitsa ... "Almost in the same language
talks about this event and Vavrzhinets from Brezova in his "Chronicle of the Hussite
wars": "From this (from the news of the members of the magistrate thrown from the tower) the king
Wenceslas was very angry ... And that same summer, on Wednesday after the Ascension of the Virgin
Mary, on the day of the 16 (?) month of August, King Wenceslas at the hour of evening prayer
received a blow and with a great cry and a lion's roar died suddenly in the New City
not far from Prague.
Neither the "great cry" nor the "roar" is known to accompany a heart attack.
myocardium, but they are the initial symptoms of a large epileptic
an attack, or the so-called epileptic state - life-threatening
a phenomenon in which an epileptic seizure does not go away as usual, but
lasts several hours. It is known that epileptic seizures suffer,
as a rule, chronic alcoholics, and some of them die in
epileptic state.
We have already mentioned that the upbringing of Wenceslas IV was unreasonable, and on
his base, as well as under the influence of family circumstances, he developed
frustration neurosis, mental and emotional balance was disturbed.
Added to this was the excessive consumption of alcohol, which led to
organic changes in the brain, common in chronic alcoholism, that is,
to affects of malice, alcoholic polyneuritis, alcoholic dementia and
facial changes. This, in all likelihood, led to epileptic
seizures and - ultimately - to the death of Vaclav in an epileptic
condition...
As you can see, it is difficult to give an objective assessment of not only life, but also death.
Czech king Wenceslas IV.
Therefore, in conclusion, we turn again to Palacki, to the maximum
the desire for objectivity of which there is no doubt:
"Czech history until the very beginning of the 15th century developed under
predominant monarchical influence, like all peoples: from the throne
the king and his entourage depended on the main direction and success of all affairs
public life. But we knew in what a wretched state it found itself
influence during the reign of Wenceslas IV, when not only the king, but also his
opponents from base passions fell into insignificance. It became
the reason that then Czech history took its beginning and the impulse did not
from above, from the Royal Court and high-ranking strata of the people, and from below, from
from its very womb, from aspirations and efforts, that, having been born in the people itself, than
further, the more decisively they took possession of his life and, like a new element,
changed the course of history not only Czech, but in some respects history
universal".

The Robbers was completed in 1781. Schiller had just graduated from the course of the Military Academy in Stuttgart, and he wrote the drama while still studying at it. The young writer had to publish the drama at his own expense, because not a single publisher in Stuttgart wanted to print it.

But the director of the Mingham Theater, Baron von Dahlberg, undertook to stage it. The premiere took place in Mainheim in 1882. Schiller immediately became famous.

Genre and direction

Young Schiller is an ideological follower of Sturm und Drang, an association close to sentimentalism. The members of Sturm und Drang carried the educational ideology on German soil. Rousseau's works are very important for Schiller, especially his literary work. The Robbers reflect the idea of ​​the "natural man", the rejection modern civilization and doubts about progress. Schiller shared the religious concept of Rousseau (one of the qualities of Franz Moor's negative hero is godlessness). Schiller puts Rousseau's ideas into the mouths of his heroes.

The genre of the work "Robbers" is drama. In the finale, all relatives of Karl die, and he himself goes to surrender to the authorities. The contradictions in his life are unresolvable. He is broken morally and expects physical retribution. Some researchers specify the genre, calling the work a robber drama.

Topics and issues

The theme of the drama is enmity and hatred between close people, capable of killing; responsibility of a person for his choice and his actions, for moral obligations.

The priest pronounces the main idea: there is no greater sin than patricide and fratricide. Karl echoes him in the final: “Oh, I am a fool who dreamed of correcting the world with atrocities and observing the laws with iniquities!”

In the preface, Schiller admits that his goal as a playwright is "to peep into the innermost movements of the soul." The problems raised in the drama are human passions: revenge and betrayal, the slander of the eldest son, the grief of the deceived father, the choice of Amalia, the loyalty of the robbers and Charles to the word.

Social problems are connected with the omnipotence of the feudal lords (the story of Kosinsky, whose beloved became the mistress of the prince, and he took Kosinsky's lands and gave them to the minister). One of the epigraphs of the drama is "To tyrants".

The women in the drama make a choice between honor and love. Amalia (Kosinsky's fiancee) chooses love (losing her lover in the process). And Karl saves his Amalia from such a choice by returning home on time.

Plot and composition

The plot was borrowed by Schiller from Schubart's story "On the History of human heart". The plot was influenced by stories about noble robbers fighting against feudal lords. Robbery was a frequent social phenomenon of Schiller's time.

The younger son Franz slandered the elder Karl in the eyes of his father, and then declared him dead. He desired to inherit his father's wealth and marry his brother's fiancee. He declared the sick father dead and locked him in the family crypt.

Charles, noble robber, but the killer, feeling worried for the bride, decides to secretly sneak into the family castle. He finds a barely alive father who spent 3 months in a crypt, still loving him Amalia. Karl wants to take revenge on his brother for the suffering of his father, but he strangles himself with a string. The father dies when he finds out that Karl is a robber, and Amalia asks to stab her, just not to part with him again. Carl fulfills the request of Amalia and is given into the hands of justice, along the way doing a good deed for the father of 11 children.

Heroes and images

Old Man Moore wants only one thing: that his children love each other. He is too soft, which Franz uses and pulls out of his mouth a curse addressed to Karl. It was the father's refusal to accept his son in his castle that prompted Charles to become a robber. The father either curses his son, or calls him a pearl in the crown of the Most High and an angel. The old man is not ready to accept his son Karl as a robber and murderer, he dies from this news.

Franz Moor, the youngest son, is cunning and deceitful. His goal is to take possession of his father's estate. In his own words, he is mired in all mortal sins. Franz suspects that all people are like him. Franz considers a person to be dirt, but he himself is completely devoid of conscience.

The priest calls Franz a tyrant. Franz is an atheist, but deep down he is afraid of meeting God. He is tormented by the sin of parricide, which is reflected in a dream about the Last Judgment. His death is correlated with sins: he strangled himself like Judas.

Elder brother Karl Moor is a noble robber. He himself does not consider himself to be either a criminal or a thief, calling his trade retribution, and trade - revenge.

Karl is pious, but he treats the churchmen with contempt, calling them Pharisees, interpreters of the truth, monkeys of the deity.

Karl, according to the father, is consumed by pride. Indeed, Karl scorns the robbers, calling them godless scoundrels and an instrument of his great plans.

Carl is a natural person, acting according to common sense. Upon learning of his brother's deceit, Karl is ready to flee so as not to kill him in anger. He is generous and generous, giving Daniel a purse. At the end of the tragedy, Karl decides not only to surrender to the authorities, but also to help the poor man by giving him money for his capture.

At the same time, Karl is a robber and a murderer. He would like to forget the cries of his victims, trying to find justification for his actions in his pedigree and his upbringing.

Carl has a heightened sense of justice. He himself rebels against human laws, considering them unfair, but is outraged that Franz violates God's laws when he kills and tortures his father: “The laws of the universe have been turned into dice! The connection of nature broke up ... The son killed his father.

From Karl's point of view, revenge justifies his robbery and the murder of his brother. And yet he does not consider himself entitled to be happy and love if he has killed so many.

Daniel, a seventy-year-old servant, is exceptionally honest. He does not console Franz, who told a terrible dream about the Last Judgment, but only promises to pray for him. Franz calls this sincerity the wisdom and cowardice of the mob. Daniel refuses to stab Franz when the hour of retribution approaches, not wanting to commit a sin.

Robber images

They are loyal to their chieftain and do not agree to hand him over to the authorities even for a signed pardon. Charles calls the robbers punishing angels. Obligations to them force Carl to kill Amalia.

Amalia

The girl is faithful to her lover, idealizes him. Amalia is ready to go to the monastery, having learned about the imaginary death of Karl and his father, but she does not agree to become Franz's wife, she wants to stab herself when her younger brother harasses her by force.

Amalia cannot imagine her life without her lover. When a girl finds out that her fiancé is a robber, she calls him both a demon and an angel at once. She herself becomes a victim of the debt of her beloved.

Conflict

The conflict in the drama is external and internal. External social conflict: rebellion against feudal arbitrariness. He encourages Karl to become a robber, and Franz to plot against his father and brother. At the end of the novel, the conflict is resolved by Karl's recognition of the fallacy of his path.

Karl's internal conflict is the contradiction between the right to protest and the criminal ways of its implementation based on violence. This conflict is unresolvable.

Internal conflict is inherent in every hero. Amalia resolves the conflict between her love for Carl and her sympathy for Carl in disguise. Franz's inner conflict is the question of the existence of God. The father cannot decide whether to forgive or curse each of his sons.

Artistic originality

For the young Schiller, the main thing in drama is to convey his ideas to the reader and viewer. The plot is not based on life facts, but comes from ideas. The character of the hero in Schiller is conditional. He builds it rationally, based on his meager knowledge of society and the world, subordinates to the idea.

Schiller created a new type of drama. It has a political component, pathos, emotionality and lyricism.

Songs play an important role in drama. Karl and Amalia sing, restoring their strength by playing the lute and pouring out longing. Songs reveal true feelings heroes, for example, Charles sings about Caesar and the traitor Brutus, having learned about his brother's betrayal.