the opinion which has been founded on an erroneous passage in
Eginhard, that Charlemagne could not write. Eginhard understood,
as Gibbon says, the court and the world, and the Latin language,
it is true; but, nevertheless, we may much more rationally believe
that the secretary made use of a vague expression, than
suppose that he wished to imply, in one sentence, the manifest
contradiction of Charlemagne being in the habit of going through
all the abstruse calculations of astronomy, in an age when those
calculations were most complicated, without being able to write.
The whole of Charlemagne's life renders the supposition absurd.
He studied under Alcuin, whose first rule was to teach the most
correct orthography in writing. We know that he subscribed many
deeds, though his signature was abbreviated, to render it as rapid
as possible. Eginhard himself states, that the monarch wrote the
history of the ancient kings in verse: and Lambecius, one of the
highest antiquarian authorities, declares, that the imperial
library still contains a manuscript, corrected by the hand of
Charlemagne himself.

Nor did the monarch remain satisfied with leading the way himself on
the path of knowledge which he desired the whole nation to follow; nor
content himself with bestowing on his children a careful and judicious
education, both mental and corporeal; but by constantly proposing in
writing questions for solution, addressed to the various prelates and
teachers of his realm, he forced them to exercise their talents and
cultivate their minds, under the severe penalty of shame and ridicule.
On the other hand, literary merit was never without its reward,
for though, as far as we can discover, Charlemagne, wise in his
generosity, seldom if ever gave more than one profitable charge at
once to one man, yet those who distinguished themselves by talent