Character and Narrative Function of Nicodemus Essay

Character and Narrative Function of Nicodemus - Essay Example "Word of God" reveals Light and darkness goes away. Raymond Brown also writes, "The prologue is a hymn, a poetic summary of the whole theology and narrative of the Gospel, as well as an introduction".2 The result, for Brown, is that "we have a union of wisdom and God's word, a divine person uncreated and existing with the Father." Throughout, from verse 1 to 16, dialogues are centring on this theme of realising knowledge, virtue, truth, Father, Mother, Son, God and Word. The nature of these dialogues is such that they constitute the real essence of knowledge, truth and the Bible. It is this "Word of God" which appears initially to be mystical and mysterious! While, in reality and scientifically, this Word of God is the practical way to delve deep into one's inner self for becoming one with Truth. Knowledge or Truth is there for all of us to see from within. Books and modern science of information and technology cannot help obtain it. One has to see it with eyelids downwards and vision upwards. That is why these dialogues are the essence of Bible. When Jesus says, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God", it is yet another scientific hint to Nicodemus about seeing and realising God.3 It is after hearing the musical sound of Word of God and imbibing the Spirit that one not only experiences but also starts conversing with God. This is how every human being descends upon this spaceship earth from a Mother's womb to go finally for the second birth from the Word of God. Then such a twice born becomes Son of God!4 Necodemus is a leader who has read scriptures and laws for so many years. His behaviour has also been considered righteous. He asks Jesus quite a few questions. He does not grasp what Christ says at that instant. For Jesus, one is wrong until one is born again. This difficult for Necodemus to believe for he finds it hard to see that he has been in the wrong. Despite this apparent disbelief, Jesus bestows Word of God unto Necodemus. After receiving the Word of God, he does not ask much. He now listens to Christ and also Author's Last Name to others who were countering Jesus. He looks on under the spell of his re-birth! Even after crucifixion of Jesus, Necodemus buries Christ in the grave. What Necodemus has learnt from Christ We are all supposed to learn only that from Jesus. Howsoever we may interpret all teachings of Christ in Chapter 3 of the Gospel of John; certain view-points emerge very clearly. Despite several different versions of Bible and Gospel, His fundamental teachings are beyond reasonable dispute.5 Jesus Christ is bestowing upon us through Necodemus several pathways to light and Christian way of life. This is made available in John 3: 1-16, especially through the character of Necodemus. His initial scientific inquisitiveness, later tranquillity; his earlier hypocrisy in learning laws and going to temples and later equanimity of keeping quiet even when Jesus was being crucified. Major lessons that emerge from the concerned chapters of Gospel of John are mainly five, namely, 1. Science of God

COMMUNITY PROFILE Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

COMMUNITY PROFILE - Essay Example This paper delves into one specific region that has been put on the spot for the threat the people are facing, especially when it comes to the aspect of physical inactivity. It also strives to bring out some of the factors that influence different characteristics of members of this population, and how their health status might be affected due to some of the mentioned factors. Factors that influence their health will also be mentioned, giving rise to the morbidity factors, and the risks to which most of them are exposed. The aim of this paper is to examine some of the behavioral traits that exist in this population, and why the proportion of adults in the region participating in physical activity is low. In so doing, it may be possible to identify factors that may improve these numbers. The population that is under study is London Borough of Hillingdon, where it is believed that the average proportion of individuals who participate in physical activity is less than the average of England. This region is of interest because it is said to be among the greenest cities in the world. This is amazing considering the statistics that show of the inactivity levels displayed in relation to the individuals in this society (DH 2012). One might be forced to think that living in such an environment would make people choose a healthier lifestyle, but studies indicate otherwise. Adults and children are not spending an average of 3 hours a week on physical activity, which should be a cause for alarm. Children alone, on average, should have at least 60 minutes per day of physical activities that help prevent some of the health problems that may arise (Long et al. 2009). Current statistics indicate that at least one in six deaths occurs as a result of physical inactivity, and this ma kes this issue as immense as smoking. It is also interesting to note that this

Your objective is to show the ways in which the document or source. In Essay

Your objective is to show the ways in which the document or source. In the paper please identify the source and its creator. Int - Essay Example "This film from the 1970s reflects that period's questioning of the guilt of convicted atomic spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. The film follows the trial very closely and even features actors reading important parts of the trial transcript. It shows many newspaper headlines and much film footage from the period. People interviewed for the film include the authors of an investigative book, a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent, five of the jurors, the prosecutor, an assistant for the defense, and the Rosenbergs' children. The film was originally shown in 1974, but after 100,000 pages of FBI documents were released several years later, a new introduction and postscript were added and it was re-televised in 1978. In the addition, some of the testimony of the witnesses against the Rosenbergs is questioned and the judge is claimed to have broken the ethical code of judges. The film concludes that the Rosenbergs were not executed because they were guilty but because they refused t o admit they were guilty." i Another primary source is Judge Kauffman's Statement Upon Sentencing the Rosenbergs which is available at the link: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/rosenb/ROS_SENT.HTM. In this statement, the judge sentenced the couple to death saying that their crime was worst than murder and that they entered such "serious conspiracy with full realization of the implications." convicted.

Industrial Revolution Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words - 3

Industrial Revolution - Essay Example Industrial revolution occurred between 1750 and 1850. It is considered to be the most significant event in human history after domestication of animals and plants. Industrial revolution started in England and spread abundantly all over the globe changing the lives of many people. In 1784, innovation of steam engine was one of the many technologies which brought industrial revolution. The efficiency and power of industrial revolution lifted the modest workshop industries to high speed factories. One of its key achievements was the impact it had on the iron industry. Since the middle age till 17th century, iron industry used trial-and- error methods. Wood was mainly used as combustible fuel. However, in 18th century, wood was replaced with coal as a combustible fuel for producing wrought and cast iron (Esler & Elis, 2007). Use of furnaces further refined the process of iron production and consisted of two separate compartments. In the field of metallurgy, use of furnaces enhanced production of wrought iron. This iron was considered to be the best quality to be used for machinery and construction. Further industrial growth brought the emergence of steel which was a major breakthrough. It was the first metal used to construct road, bridges, canals, and railroads in France and England before spreading to the rest of Europe. The other advantage of industrial revolution was introduction of faster mode of transport which facilitated travelling of goods and people. In addition, it led to emergence of new era of commercial activities which strengthened economy (Esler & Elis, 2007). However, industrial revolution had a profound impact on conditions of human beings especially workers in urban areas. The shift of agrarian occupation to that of industry, led to a dramatic increase in urban population. High population increased spread of diseases while crime and filth became the dominating themes of the city life. The working

Contemporary Marketing Issues and Strategic Marketing Essay

Contemporary Marketing Issues and Strategic Marketing - Essay Example (Tapscott; Ticoll, 2003) However while commendable and also desirable, the quest for transparency has its pitfalls also. Within a competitive framework where asymmetry in information comes as an advantage, opening up everything can bring at par the corporate battlefield. Although transparency in financial revelation is not only wanted, it is compulsory, but transparency in marketing strategy can be devastating. Besides, in the ultimate analysis, although a company might bring about transparency, success cannot always be assured. There are chances that plans laid up in the best possible manner can still go haywire. (Tapscott; Ticoll, 2003) In the 21st century we are witnessing the development of strategic alliances and networks in which businesses work in unison towards shared goals and maintain partnership in their operations. Managing of such relationships in the most efficient manner is nearly the solution to success or failure. The preceding is at the core of marketing strategy that has to include the following factors (i) the opening and shutting of strategic windows (ii) the effect of market propellers. (iii) The type of competition within the market place. (iv) The stage of the market or the industry life cycle. (v) The assets and the abilities which the company possesses or is able to readily obtain. Understanding of the all these five factors is vital if efficient long-term marketing strategies are to be advanced that will result in a company establishing a strategic competitive advantage in industries or in product markets. (Proctor, 2000) The current era of informational transparency calls for building marketing strategies through customer relationships and integrating communications across multiple channels. This is driven by the fact that marketing is witnessing a rapid shift of power towards consumer and the management of communication processes was being raised to strategic levels to facilitate in building customer relations and drive business results. Marketers are trying to cope with increasingly tough competition while the cost of acquisition of new customers is rising. Privacy concerns and regulatory acts like 'Do Not Call' legislation gave higher focus on setting up true relationships instead of blindly luring customers with uncertain mass-communication strategies. (Developing Effective Multi-Channel Marketing Strategies) Channel proliferation spawned by new media like websites and e-mail also added channels through which new methods of marketing are surfacing that seek to more efficiently use customer data to filter across target lists, build personalization rules and build marketing campaigns across and within the complete spectrum of media channels available. Therefore the two main constituents of efficient multi-channel marketing are building pertinent offers through personalization and coordinating and management of multiple marketing channels. (Developing Effective Multi-Channel Marketing Strategies) In order to build a consistent and effective multi-channel marketing and Customer Relationship Management -- CRM strategy, the answer lies in integrated solutions. It is through integration that companies are able to restructure CRM and marketing, keeping up a consistent message, leading to more efficient campaigns and increased Return on

Family and Household Essay Example for Free

Family and Household Essay Sociology is the subject which looks at the social world around us, how the social world works and how it effects and influences our daily lives. People tend to accept the social arrangements in which they grew up as normal or too complicated to understand. The family is the natural way to bring up children and schools are the normal places for children to learn. For most people the social world is just there, challenging their lives, they cannot change it and it is not really worth while trying to understand it. There is a consequence of that argument, which is when people try to understand their place in society, rich or poor, isolated or popular; they usually do so by saying it is their personal abilities, weaknesses and situations that cause them to be as they are. Sociologists do not fully agree with this, they regard it as their job to understand society and the way it affects different people. They do this by using certain concepts such as, values, beliefs, norms and identity, they also look at different theories, which are explanations that link together social events and show how the social events have different effects on different people. Within this essay the writer will be looking at functionalism, feminism and Marxism and how the different aspects affect people and how they impact on the family and household. Family and household are two different things, a household simply means one or more person living in the same home, where as a family typically means a group of people related by ceremonial and or blood ties, living together or in frequent contact. (Moore, 2001) The functionalist perspective is one of the main theoretical perspectives within sociology. It has its origins in the likes of Emile Durkheim, who was especially interested in how social order is possible and how it remains relatively stable. Functionalism was the dominant branch of western sociology until the 1960s, since when it has been increasingly criticised by sociologists, favouring different sociological perspectives. Functionalists argue that â€Å"societies consist of inter-related social institutions such as schools, mass media, political systems and the family each of which contribute positively to the maintenance of stability of society as a whole.† (earlyhamsociologypages.co.uk, 2011) These institutions are said to be functional for societies as a whole. Broadly speaking it is assumed by functionalists that societies operate in the interests of all of their members so that there is no reason for fundamental conflict in society. Instead there is a high degree of consensus that societies are organised efficiently and relatively fairly. Functionalists believe every institution in society contributes to the smooth running of society as a whole. To functionalists the family is at the heart of the family. Murdock claimed that â€Å"the nuclear family is so useful to society that it is inevitable and universal, appearing everywhere† (historylearningsite.com, 2012). Murdock claimed that he had found evidence of nuclear families in the 250 societies he studied. The family is universal because it fulfils essential functions for the family, such as sexual, which controls sexuality and provides stability for adults, reproduction, which provides new members of society, economical, the family provides for its members and education, the family socialises the young into society’s norms and values. They are essential for social life since without the sexual and reproductive functions there would be no members of society, without the economic function (for example, the provision and preparation of food) life would cease, and without education a term Murdock uses for socialization there would be no culture. Human society without culture could not function. (historylearningsite.com, 2012).parsons states there are two irreducible functions of the family, these functions are primary socialisation, through which children learn to accept the norms and values of society and the stabilisation of adult personalities, the family gives adults the emotional support necessary to cope with everyday life. (Moore, 2001) The functionalist view suggests that the nuclear family has become socially isolated from extended family and geographically separated from wider family and more reliant on the welfare state. The family is self-contained, inward looking with little contact with neighbours and community, home leisure’s have made the family more home centred. Functionalists have been accused of idolising the family; they ignore conflict, abuse and gender equality within families and the ever growing divorce rates and family diversity. Feminists have been highly critical of the highly positive view of the family presented by Functionalists and the more critical view presented by Marxists. The reason for this scepticism boils down to one key concept: patriarchy. Patriarchy refers to a system of male dominance. Historian and activist Cheris Kramaroe once famously remarked that† feminism is the radical notion that woman are human beings† (Head, 2012). Feminism is about woman living on equal terms with men and not being pushed down by law or culture into a lower role within society. Feminists believe that the family is patriarchal, dominated by men and it exploits and oppresses women. The family supports and reproduces inequalities between men and woman, woman are Oppressed because their socialised to be dependent on men and remain second place. They reject the new rights view of the separate roles and also reject the march of progress view, in that society has not changed and it is still unequal. Feminists believe that marriage remains patriarchal and that men benefit from wives, they reject the functionalist view of one best family type, and they welcome fre edom and diversity. (Anderson, 2008). Critics argue that there is too much focus on negative aspects and that feminists sometimes ignore recent social changes. Critics claim that feminists portray woman as passive victims as if they are unable to act against discrimination. The same critics believe that feminists focus on one specific group and ignore woman in families from other cultures and ethnicities Marxist Feminists argue that within capitalist societies the nuclear family is part of the overall structure of capitalism and that its organisation and functions are heavily influenced by the nature of the capitalist economic base which means that womens oppression derives primarily from the organisation of the capitalist system rather than from the patriarchal behaviour of men. According to Marxist Feminists housewives fulfil several important functions for the capitalist system: they bear and rear children at no cost to the capitalist system and, along with their husbands, encourage their children to accept authority such that a new, suitably obedient generation of workers becomes available; housewives also provide many domestic services at low or zero cost which reduces the wage levels which the capitalist system needs to pay its male workers. Women also form part of the reserve army of labour which is available for employment during times of economic boom but which can return to the traditional housewife- mother role during economic recession. Marxist feminists also believe women provide emotional support for their husbands/partners without this they would be unable to face the oppression and alienation of the capitalist workplace. Without this emotional support it is also possible that workers would be more prepared to challenge the capitalist system. However, family responsibilities may also dissuade workers from strike activity and the existence of families with its demands for cars, washing machines and other consumer durables also helps to maintain spending and capitalist profits. The socialisation process which operates within the family both stabilises the capitalist system as a whole and also by discouraging female career aspirations, restricts female career opportunities. (Head, 2012). Marxists shares some similarities with feminism, it argues that society is unequal and that it is characterised by oppression, however, Marxists believe that the oppression is of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. Marxism is a conflict theory which sees all societies’ institutions, such as the education system, the media, religion and the state as helping to maintain class equality and capitalism for Marxists, therefore, â€Å"the functions of the family are performed solely for the benefit of the capitalist system† (sociogeeks.com, 2011). Marxists believe that the family aids capitalism by being a big consumer of goods, which they have to pay for, as long as the family are around, people will keep buying the products and the bourgeoisie will continue to make money. (earlyhamsociologypages.co.uk, 2011)Marxists also believe that woman staying at home looking after the children are producing the next generation of the proletariat. This means that more people will be created to fill the jobs of the retiring proletariat. Marxists believe that the family cushions the main producer, this is similar to the functionalist perspective where after a hard day at work, the main provider, usually the male, will be comforted by his family, they are there to relieve the pressures so he can return to work the next day less stressed than when he left the day before. This allows the bourgeoisie to have a worker in the next day and to have a guaranteed work force. Marxists believe that family is a strong influence on education and is considered the primary socialisation, this is beneficial for the bourgeoisie because the family and education system will teach the norms and values, which are that the society they are living in is correct. (Moore, 2001) Education makes the proletariat believe in the benefits of capitalism and will make the children believe in the myth of meritocracy. Feminists argue that the Marxist emphasises on social class and capitalism underestimates the importance of gender inequalities within the family, for feminists, the family primarily serves the interests of men rather capitalism. Functionalists argue that Marxists ignore the very real benefits that the family provide for its members, such as intimacy and mutual support. Others feel that Marxists tend to neglect the meanings families have for individuals and how family members interpret family relationships. (Head, 2012) In conclusion Functionalists see society as similar to a human body. Each part of the human body relies on different organs in order to function correctly. According to functionalists society operates in exactly the same way because it relies on different social institutions such as the family, schools, and the government working together to keep the social body working properly. In contrast Marxists see society as operating solely to make a profit for the ruling class. The proletariat are socially engineered to conform to the needs of a ruling class who benefit the most from societies using a capitalist economic system. Therefore schools and the family exist solely to provide a compliant labour force who will willingly serve the needs of capitalism. On the other hand feminists see society as operating in order to meet the needs and wishes of men (patriarchy). Patriarchal societies are engineered to meet the desires and needs of men through institutions like the family and the education system. On this basis feminists say women are second-class citizens. References Anderson, M. L., 2008. Sociology. In: J. Cheng, ed. understanding a diverse society. USA: Thompson Wadsword, pp. 308-312. earlyhamsociologypages.co.uk, 2011. early ham sociology pages. [Online] Available at: www.earlhamsociologypages.co.uk

Charles the Great: Should Charlemagne be called great?

Charles the Great: Should Charlemagne be called great? Charlemagne has from his time of rule between the years 768 to 814 left a marked and undeniable impression upon the historical world, encouraging global and timeless debate as to whether he warrants his image as the Father of a Continent.  [1]  Throughout the duration of my project I intend to explore the concept of Charlemagne as a great man by looking at the historiography surrounding him, considering his actions and seeing whether they justify his magnificent reputation. This question has attracted much scholarly debate both during and since the time of Charlemagne and I hope to display how the historians have interpreted Charlemagnes title, and whether their opinions have changed as time has progressed and their research has developed. I will consider three main areas of his reign which have in my opinion instigated the most discussion. The first will be his constant involvement in warfare and the achievements and failures he attained and endured as a result. The second will look at the disintegration  [2]  theory, calling into question the capability and effectiveness of Charlemagnes government and administration, and consequently his ability as a ruler. The final area of deliberation will question the significance of the imperial title, and how he came to acquire such a prestigious title, encompassing his policies of education and reformation. I will attempt to find historians that both agree and disagree with all themes. In addition to these main points that I hope to also observe Charlemagnes involvement with finance and legislation, including his relationship with the church, all of which I hope will provide me with enough evidence from historians by which I can determine whether Charlemagnes reputation ca n be defended or not. The German historian, Franà §ois-Louis Ganshof who was writing in the late twentieth- century, is very explicit in his opinion that Charlemagnes kingdom and rule decomposed shortly after 800, mostly as a result of the inadequacies of his army. According to him it was Charlemagnes death which actually helped to save his reputation from disgrace, as he suggests that had he lived any longer the defeats he would have endured would have been especially damaging.  [3]  There are many scholars who directly oppose this line of thought however, particularly Donald Bullough who was writing around the same time as Ganshof and professed that by the time of his death in 814 Charlemagne was the most powerful Christian ruler in the world  [4]  These differences of opinion felt around the same time demonstrate how varied the debate is upon Charlemagne and whether he truly deserved his magnificent title, which has survived and been upheld throughout the ages. The Frankish kingdom under Charlemagne was, indeed, very powerful, and by 814 Charlemagne had many over-sea territories under his firm control. This however was not always the case, and throughout his 40 year reign, Charlemagne was confronted with much unrest. Roger Collins, writing in 1998 tells us that Charless Saxon wars were the most protracted and most bitterly fought of the numerous campaigns of his reign, having begun in 772 and continuing until 804, with repercussions still being felt thereafter.  [5]  There is no general consensus to be found which agrees that he Charlemagne was wholly successful or not in the different areas of his rule, but I hope to see whether time, situation or perhaps agenda of the historians are valuable enough evidence for the continued debate as to whether Charlemagne was a great man. The reputation of kings and leaders is often measured in terms of the amount of land gained throughout a reign or time in power. In terms of Charlemagne, this again opens up new avenues of great historical debate. Was the expansion of territory during his reign extensive enough to justify his repute as the most powerful Christian ruler in the world? Many historians disagree that it was, and R. Schieffer confirms that after years of apparently unstoppable rise, the limits of Carolingian power suddenly became apparent  [6]  around the time of the year 800. Alongside Schieffer, reasons for this opinion centred upon Charlemagnes inability to expand his territories significantly into Spain or into the eastern empire. For example, The Royal Frankish Annals, described as the most unassuming work of history written during this age  [7]  , tells us in 782 that Charlemagnes army were killed almost to a man when the Saxons, persuaded by Widukindà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ rebelled as usual.  [8]à ‚  This does not suggest a successful army led by a great warrior king. In addition debate on this topic has been largely focussed around the substantial lacking of a competent and willing army, as H. Fichtenau suggests, The poorer people complained that they were compelled to render almost continuous military service until they were completely impoverished.  [9]  This also informs us that Charlemagnes subjects were coerced into fighting for their king, possibly questioning his reputation at the time and skill as a military leader. In this sense, it is easy to argue that Charlemagne does not deserve the brilliant reputation that he has been remembered for. Fichtenau continues in suggesting that Charlemagne cared very little about his people to make them do continuous military service which may be a reason why he could not easily raise an army. Is this the attitude of a great leader, in response to the terms of the treatment of Charlemagnes service men? T. Reuter completely disagrees with Fichtenau suggesting that warriors were well looked after, bene fiting from gifts of food, clothing, gold, and silver, horses and arms  [10]  . This reveals a competent leader aware of the people serving under his name and rewarding them justly. Charlemagne managed to conqueror a substantial amount of Italy and hold on to what he had when faced with attempted invasion, in particular against the Saracens and troublesome Saxons. Einhard recorded that Ganshof, whose view upon Charlemagne is often critical, even records that; outstanding achievements, which can scarcely be matched by modern men.  [11]  Certainly the achievements that Charlemagne enjoyed in wartime are abetting as a part of his great remembrance. There is certainly much to suggest that Charlemagne did deserve his reputation in relation to his triumphs on the battlefield. His acquirement of the Avar treasure in 791 and the invasion and subjugation of the land of Bavaria to his rule where remarkable high points in his reign of warfare; Becher goes on to tell us that with Bavaria, Charlemagne acquired a new and apparently powerful neighbour,  [12]  which would assist him in advancing his reputation across the continent. Bullough is in cohorts with Becher on this opinion as he claims that Charles reputation and prestige among his neighbours had clearly not diminished as advancing years forced him to leave the command of armies in battle to others.  [13]  Agreeing with this view is Collins who adds in his work, which offers an essentially political account of the major developments of Charles reign  [14]  , that Charless naval activities in his final period are particularly notable, and saw the Carolingian Empire turned into a major maritime power.  [15]  In my opinion, Charlemagne did well to defend his kingdom successfully and expand to cushion his existing borders. Ganshof shows that he was a well renowned man and admired by other kings from neighbouring territories. I believe that Charlemagne not only managed to maintain his inherited lands, which is a great achievement in itself considering the vastness of the kingdom, but managed to build and gain land and respect, with which comes great reputation. His role in warfare suggests that he was a great and distinguished military leader and it would appear that his victories and skill in battle is one of the few topics where the historians generally agree that it enhanced his reputation amongst his peers and beyond. The argument of the decomposition  [16]  theory, chiefly driven by Ganshofs, has also encouraged much contest between historians, both historically and modern. Charlemagnes final years, chiefly following the Imperial Coronation of 800, are characterised by Ganshof as being dominated by a process of disintegration. It is my view that this idea holds a certain truth to it, demonstrated particularly in the aftermath of Charlemagne receiving the imperial title, but only to a certain extent. There were arguably some areas of his rule that experienced some level of limitations post-800, particularly his administrative apparatus, his military successes and also his Imperial Programme. Ganshof sets the parameter for this issue, although he does also indicate that there was a Balance Sheet,  [17]  implying that he did not believe that there was either uniform failure or success. He does often mention, however, that any successes Charles managed to achieve, mainly concerning his foreig n and internal policies, were in his mind, notably disappointing,  [18]  holding an overall picture of failure. Opposing this idea, King states that the Emperor had coped perfectly satisfactorily in his last years,  [19]  supported by Collins who adds that he believes that Ganshofs judgement seems mistaken.  [20]   Charlemagnes government is one of the most disputed aspects within his reign. Many historians agree that the way in which he orchestrated his government was poor, including Matthew Innes who declares that the lack of attention to the nuts and bolts of administration and to the mechanisms by which Charlemagne was able to govern à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ is striking  [21]  . His point is furthered in saying that some historians have gone so far to claim that the Carolingians lacked any clearly defined concept of the state  [22]  . In the last years of Charlemagnes reign for example, the Carolingian state had symptoms of bad government  [23]  . The idea argued by Ganshof that the last reigning years suffered decomposition would surely suggest that Charlemagne does not deserve his great reputation. Ganshof states that Charlemagnes achievements in the last years fell short of those envisaged in 802  [24]  We know that during 801-814 for example there are instances of malfunctioning of public services  [25]  of which the capitularies year after year denounce the same abuses  [26]  . The capitularies created under Charlemagne often had to be re-issued, and we may infer from this that perhaps he did not have the authority which would ensure his requests were carried out. Fichtenau maintains that it cannot be denied that Charles the great failed to solve this problem  [27]  . Donald Bullough is in agreement with this point as he does not feel confident that either Charles or his close advisers had developed a clear and consistent attitude to the empire in the east.  [28]  Davis who was writing in the late 1920s confirms that the capitularies and his commissions produced the merest ripples on the surface of the deep waters of customary law.  [29]  His work predominantly focuses on the belief that the very name by which [Charlemagne] is best known is the product of French invention  [30]  with a view to link themselves with greatness, rather than a result of Charlemagnes prominence. The majority of the criticism directed at Charlemagnes government foc uses around the years after 800, however Charlemagne managed to achieve great things such as managing to make his subjects take an oath of fidelity taken in the name of the emperor  [31]  which Ganshof describes as new and imperial  [32]  . Perhaps even more importantly he created a new codification of law which insisted upon creating a written record of laws for the first time. Therefore it is evident that the government serving under Charlemagne did manage to do great and commendable things. It was from the government that Charlemagne managed to patronize the arts, and scholarship and learning. Although there were negatives within the government, I believe the achievements far outweigh them. The Imperial Coronation is a major event in Charlemagnes rule and yet another area which has induced forcible disagreement amongst historians since its occasion in 800. The main argument is centred on the significance of the title in relation to the rest of his rule, and calls into question his role as protector of the Church among other factors. With the imperialization of Charlemagne  [33]  in 800, many historians have questioned whether Charlemagne changed the way he ruled after his coronation. The areas on this question chiefly explored throughout history are multi faceted, but I have identified three main parts to examine. These include changes that were implemented in the government, if any, Charlemagnes personal outlook on the title, and his role as protector of the Church. It is interesting to see how much, or indeed, how little, these three constituents changed after the Imperial coronation of 25th December, 800. We can identify certain techniques that Charlemagne employed in order to carry out his will. In 802 he called a council at Aachen and dispatched his missi in order to examine the religious and moral state of affairs throughout the kingdom. Wilson described his government as a strong, centralised government [with] internal stability  [34]  , which leads us to believe that he was powerful enough to impose any changes effectively upon his dominions. Historians have claimed in their work that there were also changes to the content and style of capitularies after 800. The most famous and extensive of capitularies were the Admonitio Generalis, 789, the Herstal of 799, and capitulary produced at Aachen in 802, dubbed as the Programmatic Capitulary by Ganshof. Historian King tells us how each of these capitularies are released following much unrest in Charlemagnes kingdom, and that most of the rulings are concerned with canon law, monastic life and the like.  [35]  It is to be noted however, that these things are indeed recurrent theme[s with] the problems dealt with in 802 or 789 or 779  [36]  and the ideas are simply repeated over time. Collins informs us that the Admonitio Generalis we can see Charlemagne explicitly claiming responsibility for the moral and spiritual welfare of his realm  [37]  . The content was greatly influenced by a range of councils dating back from the fourth to sixth centuries, and therefore much of it was repetition of ideas and wishes from over the years. Although this is true, Collins admits that the concluding regulationsrepresent new injunctions  [38]  and have not been taken from any earlier documents. Nevertheless no dramatic change in content can be seen. King adds that the previously sought goals in the capitularies had not been altered: order, justice, piety, peace, concord, each conceived in Christian terms, each expressive of Gods will.  [39]  Despite this, we are told that these issues were sought the more determinedly  [40]  by Charlemagne after 800. In opposition to King and Collins, Ganshof argues that in face there was a significant change to the content and style of the capitularies after 800, and also the way in which Charlemagne thought perceived them. He interprets the 802 capitulary issued from Aachen as a bid to create a Christian republic on earth under Charlemagnes authority. He puts particular emphasis on the way it is written, and how some passages are in first person which he claimed was unusual. The parts in first person may be interpreted as issues which Charlemagne held most dear to him, and Ganshof argues that this is due to the Emperor being driven by Imperial responsibility.  [41]  The introduction of the capitulary refers to Charlemagnes intentions of sending out missi, to spread the word of god and encourage people to obey him, and Ganshof uses this as evidence of an Imperial programme of rule. The oath of fidelity is a particularly significant feature of the Programmatic Capitulary, the counterpart to t he Emperors recognition of his own enhanced obligations before God.  [42]  Two years after his coronation, it appears that Charlemagne imposed a greater insistence on the strict enforcement of the established laws  [43]  , and possibly the most significant detail is that the oath was to be taken in the name of the Emperor, not the King. Ganshof implied that a distinction is being made between the Imperial and former royal title. He adds that the language used to draw out the oath in the capitulary is explicitly more spiritual, and this distinguishes it from other oaths sworn in the 890s with Charlemagne as king. I believe that the debate to Ganshofs argument rests in the suggestion that perhaps the sixty-year-old Emperor  [44]  was simply becoming increasingly more aware of his old age. Charlemagne greatly desired salvation and in order to ensure this he knew his responsibility to his people and their beliefs was an important constituent which would seal his fate. Perhaps Charlemagnes focus in his capitularies came more from the anxieties of an old man for awareness of passing years  [45]  , and not as a direct result of his Imperial Coronation, as Ganshof has suggested. Perhaps Charlemagne perceived the Imperial title as a way to enforce other wishes more firmly as Wallace-Hadrill claims that the imperial title meant little or nothing to him outside Rome.  [46]  For example, with his newly acquired status he was able to claim that there were religious dimensions to his military campaigns, which would encourage more people to serve him. Davis tells how Charlemagne; did not go out of his way to seek the Imperial dignity, but accepted it as a responsibility which could not be refused; he employed it, not as a stepping-stone to further aggrandisement, but to legalise power already acquired, to allay the purposeless strife of race against race within his existing dominions, to evoke the consciousness of spiritual brotherhood which afterwards proved so mighty a factor in European development.  [47]   Wallace Hadrill confirms that Charlemagne was fight[ing] for the faith  [48]  , and not solely because of his newly adorned title. In addition, this supremacy enabled him to crown his son Louis, which he hoped would secure his legacy after his death. I believe that the greatest significance of the Imperial coronation lies in the debate as to whether Charlemagnes attitude towards the Church changed after 800. In my personal opinion, there is much evidence from many of the historians which suggests that it did, but still there lies a counter argument. I believe that following the coronation in Rome Charlemagne recognised his responsibilities to God and pursued them with a driving passion  [49]  , and his ambition to create a truly Christian society  [50]  was substantially magnified. There is much evidence to suggest that this is exactly what Charlemagne thought God required of him, and the fact that he was crowned on Christs birthday is appropriate to this. It adds to the belief that Charlemagne saw himself as Christs representative upon earth, and because of this, saw himself as Gods worker among men. The Paderborn Epic  [51]  also may hold evidence to this claim, as the poem refers to Charlemagne as an instrument of St. Peter. The oath of fidelity, released with the capitulary of 802, has been said to have been re-phrased to give it a more religious character and was the counterpart to the Emperors recognition of his own enhanced obligations before God.  [52]   After 800, Charlemagne became worthy of the highest secular dignity that existed under God, and we know that he also continuously claimed responsibility forthe spiritual welfare of his realm.  [53]  Was this however completely owing to the coronation or due to his awareness of an approaching death as an old man? There are continuous implications suggesting that Charles had a terrible awareness that Gods judgment will be conditioned by the conduct of his subjects  [54]  and in his remaining months he spent his time in prayer and alms-giving and spent some of his last hours in correcting books.  [55]  Perhaps therefore this priority of religion had more to do with his hopes for personal redemption and salvation from God, and to attain this, he knew he had to do Gods bidding, and spread the word of Christianity for a Christian republic on Earth. Also toward the end of his reign we know he arranged for the distribution of the treasures and silveramong the twenty-one metropoli tan churches that now existed in his empirefor the good of his soul.  [56]  Nevertheless, it remains certain that Charlemagne was concerned with the problems of the Church and thought it was his duty to protect with his whole mind.  [57]  It is evident that his struggles with Saxony were primarily due to their resistance of Christianity, in preference of paganism. It remains uncertain as to whether his increased Christian mission in his last years were more due to the coronation, and his recognition of being the protector of the church, or simply due to his hopes for salvation after death. Becher however tell us that in gaining the Imperial title, Charlemagne achieved his goal of standing at the head of the Christian world.  [58]   Charlemagne is presented as a king of well-rounded ability and his patronage of the arts compliments his government and religious advances particularly well. The capturing of the Avar treasure meant there was a greater disposable income and as a result of the influx of income patronage of the arts, encouraging scholarship and learning amongst his people, soars in his period. Fichtenau and Wallace-Hadrill suggest there was no significant push in the development of the arts for the first few years in Charlemagnes sovereignty. Rosamond McKitterick continues to say that the patronage of learning could be regarded as one of the obligations of royalty,  [59]  perhaps suggesting that it was not something newly enforced by Charlemagne. On the other hand, she then suggests that his patronage was designed to promote his royal power as a Christian king and to consolidate the faith  [60]  which is shown by the creation of the two schools; the peripatetic school, which Charlemagne travell ed with, and the Hofschule, his court school. Most of the courts activities revolved around religion and the Hofschule even created a new addition to the gospels.  [61]  In addition, Charlemagne began to commission paintings such as the Al Fresco which still survives today in the chapel in Frankia. It overlooks the vault and illustrates Christ sitting in majesty. This represents to us a recurring theme that the arts tended to reflect; Charlemagnes comparison to Christ. Charlemagne however seemed to show a genuine interest in the developments of the arts as he was very interested in music and what was sung in his chapel.  [62]  Charlemagne used his patronage of the arts to improve the image in which other people saw him and successively improve his reputation. Einhard, a dedicated scholar who served both under Charlemagne and Louis the Pious claimed that the Kingà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ was a very intelligent man.  [63]  Rosamond McKitterick suggests that it was a period of remark able efflorescence of culture initiated by Charlemagne  [64]  which is shown by the influx of poetry, art, and books produced during his reign. This can allow us to understand more clearly why the scholars in Charlemagnes era were eager to help the king; scholars from all around the globe sought to help him, including Alcuin of York and Paul the Deacon from Italy. The ability to summon such great men from other kingdoms suggests the reputation that preceded Charlemagne. His devotion to scholarly texts, prayer and almsgiving shows the depths of Charlemagnes faith and his desire and motivation to improve his subjects lives. Personally I think that this is an invaluable insight into the character of the king, as we are able to see how driven and determined Charlemagne was to both better the lives of his people, but also his personal reflection of what his duties meant to him. Charlemagnes attention to the arts tended to be quite extravagant and we may infer that he looked upon the subject as a form of propaganda. It suggests that he was very astute in his decision-making of what to commission in order to improve his reputation. It is clear to see that Charlemagne reputes himself with great integrity and achievement and his accomplishments were of great merit. The viewpoints regarding Charlemagnes claim to greatness are of great variation. Finding the distinction between a myth and a truly remarkable man has been difficult to determine throughout the scope of work available to me. Many historians, including Richard Winston who was writ