Library › St Gregory of Tours › History of the Franks

History of the Franks

St Gregory of Tours, tr. Dalton, 1927

nb2

1. Brice. S. Brice died about 443. For works relating to him see U. Chevalier, Rép. des sources hist., as above: Bio-bibliographie, cols. 697-8. Sulpicius Severus (Dialog. i. 20) relates a story of the unreasonable conduct of Brice towards Martin. There also Brice is said to have been accused of various irregularities inconsistent with the monastic virtues. Martin was urged to remove from the priesthood a man so troublesome to himself, and against whom so much was said. Martin replied: Si Christus Iudam passus est, cur ego non patiar Brictionem? For Sulpicius Severus, cf. note to I. 7.

1 (2). Attacked Spain. This was in the autumn of 409, the earlier invasion of Gaul having taken place three years before. The Vandals were accompanied by the Suevi and Alans, and may have followed the main road from Bordeaux to Pampluna. Cf. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire (1923), i, pp. 191-2.

Whose man conquers. The idea of single combat was that war was a judgement of God; it was sometimes possible to let the issue be determined by single representatives of the opposing armies. The champions were not always important persons, but their attendants; in the present passage the word used is puer. The same principle was adopted in Frankish law; cf. the episode of Chundo (X. 10). Cf. Introduction, p. 209.

Trasamund had the kingdom. This is not correct. The successor of Gunderic was Genseric, or Gaiseric, under whom the Vandals crossed into Africa in 429. Trasamund or Thrasamund, grandson of Gaiseric, succeeded to the throne in 496, and married a sister of Theodoric, the great Ostrogothic king, in 500. Gregory’s short account of the Vandals contains more than one error, as does that of Fredegar (Chron. ii. 60), who makes Trasamund successor of Chroc, described by him as king of the Vandals instead of the Alamanni (cf. I. 29 (32) above). He makes Trasamund cross to Africa after leaving Spain.

The Christians. This means the Catholics, as opposed to the Arians. Trasamund was following the example of his uncle Huneric and his brother Gunthamund. (Cf. Bury, as above, ii, p. 125.)

To be re-baptized. Arians insisted that a change of belief demanded fresh baptism. Catholics condemned re-baptism. Cf. S. Augustine, Letter xxiii, to the Donatist bishop, Maximin, where he calls it: immanissimum scelus.

As far as Tangier (Iulia Traducta). For the passage of the Vandals into Africa under Gaiseric in 428, cf. Bury, as above, ii, pp. 245-6. They were invited by Count Boniface, who was at odds with the Court of Ravenna. When he was attacked by the imperial general, the Goth Sigisvult, he appealed to the Vandals as his only possible supporters.

Huneric... was elected by the Vandals to rule over them. Another mistake. Huneric was the uncle of Trasamund, and succeeded Gaiseric, his father, in 477, whereas Trasamund only succeeded to the kingdom in 496, and died in 523. A third mistake lies in the statement that he was elected: he succeeded in due course by hereditary right, in accordance with Gaiseric’s law of succession. Fredegar (Chron. ii. 60) repeats the error that Huneric succeeded Trasamund.

2 (3). Its whole form is dissolved. Doubtless the argument is suggested by the words: Ye are the salt of the earth. The Catholics are compared by their bishop to salt, made from (sea) water, but losing its consistency and visible substance if placed in water a second time. Catholic baptism gave them that substance which lends them worth; if they permitted themselves to be immersed in Arian fonts, that substance and that worth would be lost.

Eugenius... Vindemialis and Longinus. Eugenius became bishop of Carthage in 479. Exiled to Gaul, he died at Albi in 505. See Analecta Bolland. (1883), ii, Appendices 63-6, and numerous other references in U. Chevalier, as above: Bio-bibliographie, col. 1397.

Here are fifty pieces of gold. In G. C., ch. 13, a similar story is told of an Arian bishop in Spain in the time of Leuvigild. The discomfiture of Cyrola is repeated in full by Fredegar (Chron. ii. 60). The passage on p. 42 from the words ‘For so great an anguish’ down to ‘God is not mocked ’ is one of the additions made by Gregory when he revised the History.

Revocatus... revoked (Revocatus est revocatus a fide catholica). Here Gregory puns upon a proper name, after a fashion only too popular with late Roman writers, Sidonius being a conspicuous offender. Gregory the Great shows the same leaning towards such puns in his famous remark, ‘non Angli sed angeli’, and Bede is several times guilty (Hist. Eccl. ii. 15; iii. 2; Hist. Abb. § 1.)

He was succeeded by Childeric. Again a mistake. Huneric died at the end of 484, but Childeric did not come to the throne till 523. Gelimer (written by Gregory ‘Gelasimer ’) should really be styled Geilamir, as his coins show. He succeeded, after deposing Childeric, in 530. The removal of the latter was made by Justinian the casus belli which he desired to find. (Cf. Bury, Hist. of the Later Roman Empire (1923), ii, pp. 125 ff.) Fredegar repeats Gregory’s mistakes (Chron. ii. 60), but writes Ghildemer for Gelimer. He adds the curious story of the marriage of the two friends, Justinian and Belisarius, to two sisters of light reputation. Gelimer, instead of being sent to Galicia, is said by him to have been dispatched to the Persian wars.

By the empire. The word actually used by Gregory is respublica, which he frequently applies to the East Roman Empire. Cf. ch. 11 (12) below.

3 (4). Athanaric, king of the Goths. The Gothic king of this name who persecuted the Christians lived long before the Vandal kings just mentioned, so that the words ‘at this time’ must be taken in a very general sense. His persecution caused Ulfilas to lead the Christian Goths across the Danube (Jornandes, De reb. Goth., ch. 51). At a later time Athanaric led his whole people across that river, making an agreement with the Emperor Theodosius.

4 (5). Aravatius. For the question whether there is confusion between this bishop and S. Servatius, see A. Molinier, Les sources de l’hist. de France (1901), p. 53. G. Kurth, Hist. poétique des Mérovingiens, p. 66, and others have argued that the two should be regarded as the same person, facts connected with the one having been inserted in the Life of the other.

Formed the design of visiting Rome. For pilgrimage to Rome in the sixth century from Gaul cf. F. H. Dudden, Gregory the Great, i, p. 54. The story of the journey of Aravatius is given by Fredegar (Chron. iii. 1).

5 (6). Attila, king of the Huns. For Attila, see Bury, as above, i, pp. 272 ff. Attila’s career is described by Gibbon in his thirty-fourth chapter.

Anianus. He died (c. 453). For his gesta see refs. given by U. Chevalier, Rép. des sources hist. du Moyen Âge: Bio-bibliographie, s.v. Agnan, and A. Molinier, Les sources de l’hist. de France, p. 54.

Aëtius. Commander in the parts of Gaul still remaining to the Empire. Cf. note to ch. 7 (8) below.

Cast forth and flung back the enemy. The siege of Orleans is mentioned by Sidonius (Ep. viii. 15), who says that the city had actually fallen before succour arrived. Prof. Bury (Hist., as above, p. 292) thinks that this statement may contain rhetorical exaggeration, and that the enemy may not have entered the city. The exaggeration of Sidonius may have led to the ecclesiastical legend of the later Vita Aniani.

The plain of Méry. The Mauriacus Campus may be the plain of Méry-sur-Seine, between Troyes and Pont-sur-Seine, though some authorities prefer Moirey (Aube, arrondissement de Nogent, canton de Marcilly). In the Lex Burgundionum, xvii. 1, the battle is called Pugna Mauriacensis. The place of battle is given by Jordanes (ch. 36) and Hydatius as the Catalaunian Plains, ‘which probably denoted nearly the whole of Champagne’ (Bury, Hist. of the Later Roman Empire (1923), p. 293). There are difficulties in the precise location of the site, but the choice would seem to lie between Méry and Moirey. On the whole geographical question, see A. Longnon, Géographie de la Gaule au VIe siècle, 1878, pp. 334-40.

6 (7). The king of the Franks. The name of this king is not mentioned.

The story of the poor man who overheard S. Peter and S. Paul is repeated by Fredegar (Chron. iii. 1).

Strangled by his brothers. Aëtius persuaded Thorismund to return home to guard against treachery on the part of his brothers. The Visigothic king at the time succeeded in establishing himself on the throne; but two years after the battle, during his absence from home, his two brothers Theuderic and Frederic stirred up a rebellion. Thorismund returned and, after encounters with his brothers, was assassinated (453). Cf. L. Schmidt in C. M. H. i. 281.

7 (8). Renatus Frigeridus. His full appellation is Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus, as to which Gibbon remarked that the three names denote a Christian, a Roman subject, and a semi-barbarian. The works of this writer, again quoted in the next chapter, have not been preserved, and his style is only known from Gregory’s extracts. Cf. Wattenbach, Deutsche Geschichtsquellen (1873), i. p. 78.

Aëtius. This famous man was born at Silistria; his father was a native of Lower Moesia. In his childhood he had first been given as a hostage to Alaric, king of the Goths; afterwards he was again sent as a hostage, this time to the Huns, with whom he remained for a long period, forming a friendship with their king, Rugila. Gibbon’s account of the career of Aëtius will be found in chapters xxxi and xxxiii of the Decline and Fall. Cf. also Bury, Hist. of the Later Roman Empire (1923), i, p. 241.

Occila (Optila). There were two murderers, Optila and Thraustila. The degenerate Valentinian’s madness in destroying the saviour of the Empire is indicated in the well-known line of Sidonius (Carm. vii. 359):

Aetium Placidus mactavit semivir amens.

8 (9). Concerning the kings of the Franks. Fredegar, who borrows freely from this and the following chapters, adds the legend that the Franks were of Trojan origin, on which see the note to Fredegar, Chron. iii (iv). 2 (M. G. H., Script. rerum Merov., ii).

Sulpicius Alexander. His works are unknown to us; he is only mentioned by Gregory in this passage.

Germany. This means the Roman province on the left bank of the Rhine.

Carbonnière. This forest was a part of the Ardennes, which once extended far towards the west. It is now represented by the forests of Vicogne, Fagne, Mormal, Soignes, and Tirault; cf. A. Maury, Forêts de la Gaule et de l’ancienne France, p. 54, and A. Longnon, Géogr. de la Gaule au VIe siècle, p. 154.

The Jovinians. The legion was so called from Jovius, one of the names of the Emperor Diocletian.

The Roman province. i. e. of Germania. Cf. note above.

Arbogast. The celebrated Frankish leader in the Roman service, who played so conspicuous a part in history under Gratian and Theodosius, occupying the position of Master of Both Services (magister utriusque militiae). Cf. Fredegar, Chron. iii. 3; Gibbon, ch. xxvii.

Chiefs. The word used is regales, ‘petty kings’.

Chamavi. They lived north-west of the Bructeri, towards the Yssel; for Julian’s conquest of them see Gibbon, ch. 19. The Ampsivarii, next mentioned, dwelt to the north on the middle Ems. The Chatti occupied a wide territory between the Sieg and the Fulda.

Alans. The text has Alamanni, which is a mistake. For Respendial and Goar, cf. Bury, Hist. of the Later Roman Empire (1923), i, p. 186.

Also tyrant. His father had proclaimed him Caesar, in 409. For the tyrant Constantine and his son, see Bury’s illustrated edition of Gibbon, vol. iii, App. 17; and Hist. of the Later Roman Empire, i, pp. 188-94.

One of his dependants. Olympiodorus (Fr. 16) says: τὸν ἑαυτοῦ παῖδα, which might mean either servant or son; cf. Bury, Hist., as above, p. 192, and his ed. of Gibbon, iii, p. 359.

Master of the offices. This official had jurisdiction over the imperial household. He was master of ceremonies, arranged audiences for foreign ambassadors. He had some of the duties of a foreign minister. But he also controlled the State post, the secret service, and the royal bodyguard; cf. Bury, as above, i, p. 30.

The siege undergone by Constantine. The tyrant was besieged in Arles by Constantius, general of Honorius.

Jovinus. Cf. Bury, Hist., as above, i, p. 194. The elevation of Jovinus is placed not before, but after the death of Constantius.

Formerly chief of the secretaries. The text has ex primitivorum notariorum, but primicerio notariorum must be intended.

The Byzantine primicerius was a high civil servant, at the head of a staff commonly known as the schola of tribuni et notarii. Among their principal employments were the transcription of minutes of the meetings of the Imperial Consistory, and the editing of the Notitia of all military and civil offices in the Empire. But in addition to this they had to perform the most various duties: to attend cases of lèse-majesté, to go upon diplomatic or political missions, to supervise public works or works of defence, to act as paymasters of troops, to represent the emperor on the occasion of religious disputes, &c. The tribuni et notarii were thus a body versatile in accomplishments and of wide general experience, often attaining to high positions in the State. The primicerius, when he retired, ranked as a pro-consul, or might receive the title of honorary, or even active, Master of the Offices. His lieutenant was known as the secundicerius.

The Government departments had their own staffs of notarii. Doubtless many of these were skilled in shorthand, thus doubly deserving the title of notarius, which was sometimes used for the ταχυγράφος pure and simple. (See Daremberg and Saglio, Dict. des antiq., s. v. Notarii).

The patriciate. The title of Patrician, a very high mark of honour, was given from about the middle of the fifth century to the emperor’s principal statesman and director of affairs, who generally held the highest military command. Cf. Bury, Hist., as above, i, p. 252.

Count of the domestics. This officer was commander of the Domestici, a section of the imperial guard which could be sent away from the Court on special service. Their counts were not dependent on the Master of Soldiers (Bury, as above, i, p. 38). Cf. p. 516.

Stilicho. Orosius says this of the Vandals, not of Stilicho (Hist. adversus Paganos, vii, ch. 40).

The remaining chroniclers. Reading historici reliqui instead of reliquere.

From Pannonia. This is only a conjecture.

Thuringia. The region of this name on the lower Rhine; cf. Introduction, pp. 89, 90.

Country districts and cities (pagi and civitates). Cf. Introd., p. 202.

Long-haired kings. Long hair was the mark of royalty. See Introduction, p. 383, and cf. chs. 21, 30 (41); III. 18, 19; IV. 24; VIII. 10.

This is proved. He means, the existence of local kings. When Clovis was consolidating his power, he removed these kings from his path in order to become sole ruler. See Introd., pp. 94-5.

Consular Fasti. To the lists of consuls were added records of important occurrences in their years of office. This passage shows that, like Marius of Aventicum, Gregory drew upon Gallican fasti, which used consular, not imperial years (Mommsen, M. G. H., Auct. antiq. xi (1894): Chronica Minora: Marius of Aventicum, p. 229.

Dispargum, in the land of the Thuringians. For these Thuringians see the note above, and Introd., p. 171. Dispargum, described as a castrum, a term which came to mean a town of secondary rank, may have been on the site of Duisburg, though this is not certain. (Cf. A. Longnon, Géographie de la Gaule au VIe siècle, p. 619; Gibbon, Decline and Fall (Bury’s illustrated ed., 1909), ch. 35, vol. iii, p. 479.)

Merovech. Fredegar (Chron. iii. 9) relates a legend that this prince was not the son of Clodio, but of a sea monster encountered by this king’s wife while bathing. Cf. K. Müllenhoff, Die Merovingische Stammsage, in Zeitschr. für Deutsches Altertum, vi, p. 432. For Clodio and Merovech, see G. Kurth, Clovis (2nd ed. 1901), vol. i.

10 (11). Avitus. The story of the offences of Avitus is more fully given by Fredegar (Chron. iii. 7).

Aegidius. Afranius Syagrius Aegidius, whose real post was Master of Both Services in Gaul. For Aegidius, see Bury, Hist., as above, pp. 331, 333, 346. He was the father of the Syagrius who represented Rome in Belgic Gaul in the last years of Childeric.

11 (12). Childeric, father of Clovis. The whole story of Childeric’s early adventures is derived from national legend (Junghans, Geschichte der Könige Childerich und Chlodovech, pp. 6 ff. and 140).

Thuringia. This may have been the Thoringia on the lower Rhine (cf. above, ch. 9 (10), and Introduction, pp. 89, 90). Fortunatus, in his Life of Radegund (princess in the great Thuringia), describes Bisin as father of Hermanfrid and Berthar, the queen’s father and uncle (avo rege Bissino), but if the Thuringia on the lower Rhine was an emigrant settlement, the name might occur in the royal family in both places. Bisin is also mentioned in ch. 2 of the Vita Sanctae Radegundis by Baudonivia (M. G. H., Script. rer. Merov., ii) as Bessinus.

A friend. Later chroniclers give his name as one Biomad, who had won the confidence of Aegidius. Fredegar (Chron. iii. 11) calls him Wiomadus.

Solidus. The gold piece current in the Empire, called nomisma in the east Roman provinces. This remained the standard gold coin, and retained its proper weight without much variation for many centuries after Constantine. Seventy-two went to make a pound of gold, and in ordinary transactions the weight, rather than the nominal value, was considered, the purity of the metal being guaranteed by the mint. Cf. Introd., p. 224.

Rome. The word respublica is again used as in ch. 2, above.

The two. Aegidius and Chilperic.

Basina . . . came to Childeric. Fredegar (Chron. iii. 12) tells a tale of Basina three times rousing Childeric in the night, bidding him go outside the palace (ante aulas palaciae), note what he sees there, and each time bring her word. The first time he sees lions and leopards; the second time, bears and wolves; the third time there appear lesser beasts. ‘Even so’, she says, ‘shall be thy descendants.’ This supposed prediction of degeneracy in the Merovingian royal line is clearly inserted from popular legend.

12 (13). Paulinus bears witness. The passage quoted is not to be found in the writings of Paulinus of Nola.

While the bishops were seated together. These were the other bishops of the province, summoned by the metropolitan to attend the election (cf. p.288).

14. He judged it unworthy of such miracles. The new church of Perpetuus is described by Sidonius, Ep. iv. 18.

17. The story of deeds done of old time. The book may have been an early illuminated Bible, but, if so, one imported from Italy or the Christian East. We know, for example, that the mosaics in the nave of S. Maria Maggiore at Rome probably reproduce the miniatures of an illuminated MS.; the thirteenth-century mosaics in the vestibule of S. Mark’s at Venice certainly copy a Bible of the type represented by the Cotton Genesis in the British Museum.

13 (18). This and the following chapter are disconnected in statement and difficult to understand; their facts may be derived from the short entries in early annals (cf. Loebell, Gregor von Tours und seine Zeit, pp. 534-49).

Childeric fought at Orleans. Gregory gives no hint as to his opponents. The allusion may be to the engagement at Orleans in 463, when Aegidius defeated the Visigoths; it would then be assumed that Childeric was fighting under Roman standards: he seems to have always maintained the federal bond with the Roman Empire.

The statement in Fredegar that his adversary was Odovacar must rest on a misunderstanding of this chapter.

Odovacar, with his Saxons. Piratical Saxons had occupied the wooded islands in the Loire between Saumur and Angers, from which bases they were able to harass the Romans.

The Bretons. These were the recent immigrants from Britain who, under their chief Riotham, aided Count Paul against the Visigoths, Childeric on his part lending similar aid to the Roman arms. Riotham is mentioned by Sidonius, Ep. iii. 9, and Jornandes, Getica, ch. xlv. Cf. also Fauriel, Hist. de la Gaule méridionale, v, p. 314; L. Schmidt in C. M. H. i. 283.

Déols (Dolensis vicus) is on the Indre not far from Châteauroux; it is mentioned again by Gregory (G. C., ch. 92) as containing a sculptured marble sarcophagus still in the crypt of the village church (Longnon, Géogr., p. 466).

The church house. Cf. p. 488.

After Count Paul had been slain, Fredegar assumes that Childeric was responsible for Paul’s death. But as both seem to have been fighting on the same side, this must be an error.

14 (19). Their islands. i. e. those in the Loire.

Odovacar made a treaty with Childeric. Odovacar, after his defeat at Angers, probably lent his services to Rome. It is not known where Childeric and Odovacar inflicted this defeat on the Alamanni.

15 (20). Victorius receives a better character from Sidonius, who was his friend, and followed him into Italy (Letters, trs. Dalton, vol. i, pp. xiv, xxxvii, xliv, lxxx; ii, p. 134).

The seven cities. Clermont, Bourges, Rodez, Cahors, Limoges, Gévaudan, and Velay.

In the twenty-seventh year. This appears to be inexact. Euric’s reign lasted only seventeen years.

21. The hill of Chantoin (Mons Cantobennicus). For Chantoin (Cantobennum: Longnon, Géogr., p. 497), cf. above, I. 44.

Sidonius. Sidonius Apollinaris, the late Roman writer. He was Prefect of the City at Rome in 467; the daughter of Avitus, whom he married, was named Papianilla.

Abraham. Cf. V. P., ch. iii, and Sidonius, Ep. vii. 17.

22. The preface to the book which I wrote. This book has not survived.

23. Wherefore dost thou abandon us, O good shepherd? The episode of the dying saint surrounded by his flock uttering these lamentations is something of a stock motive, and is repeated almost in the same words of other bishops or abbots.

16 (24). A great famine afflicted the Burgundians. This famine, which Ecdicius, brother-in-law of Sidonius, helped to relieve, was more probably that which devastated Auvergne, and was chiefly stemmed by Bishop Patiens of Lyons.

Put to flight a multitude of Goths with ten men. This exploit is also vividly described by Sidonius (Ep. iii. 13). Ecdicius had really eighteen men.

A letter of Sidonius giving him eloquent praise. i.e. Ep. vi. 12 Bishop Patiens is often mentioned in the pages of Sidonius, who was a great admirer of his character.

17 (25). Blocked with briars. Cf. Sidonius, Ep. vii. 6. This method of closing a church is mentioned elsewhere by Gregory.

Novempopulana and Aquitaine. Novempopulana was the country between the Garonne and the Pyrenees, afterwards known as Vasconia, or Gascony (cf. Introduction, p. 173). The region here rendered by Aquitaine is, in the text, Gemina Germania, or ‘the two Germanies’. The context, and the letter of Sidonius mentioned immediately after, show that Gregory means ‘the two Aquitaines’, i. e. the country between Garonne and Loire, of which the eastern half was Aquitania Prima, the western Aquitania Secunda. Gregory calls it ‘Germany’, as being under the Visigoths, while Auvergne was still Roman.

A letter . . . in which these facts are recorded. i. e. Sidonius, Ep. vii. 6.

18 (27). Clovis. Gregory’s sources for the history of Clovis are examined by G. Kurth, Études franques (1917), Étude xv. For Clovis himself see Introd., p. 45.

Syagrius, king of the Romans. Syagrius is mentioned by no Latin author but Gregory, unless he is identical with the person to whom Sidonius addresses two of his letters (v. 5 and viii. 8). He never had the rank of king; he was perhaps Master of the Soldiers, in which office he may have succeeded Count Paul. His territory was bounded towards the north by the Somme and the Meuse; on this side the Franks were his neighbours.

Himself also a king. This seems to be the sense of quia et ipsi (ipse) tenebat in the text. Ragnachar was one of the petty Salian kings to whose rule Clovis ultimately put an end. Cf. Pfister in C. M. H. ii, p. 110.

To Alaric at Toulouse. This was Alaric II, successor of Euric as king of the Visigoths, whose capital was still at Toulouse.

After the craven habit of the Goths. The Franks, after the great victory of Clovis, affected a contempt for the Visigoths, which the later prowess of that people, both in Septimania and in Spain, does not justify. Cf. 27 (37) below.

The bishop of that church. According to the chronicle of Fredegar, his name was Remi. We may assume that S. Remi, bishop of Reims, is intended. (Cf. iii. 16.)

The field of March. The Franks in the earlier years of their power were reviewed by the king under arms upon the first day of March in every year. The story of Clovis and the ewer may be based on some real event, though in its actual form it has a legendary air. It is repeated by Fredegar (Chron. iii. 16), who also describes the vessel as urceus.

The Thuringians. Cf. ch. 9 above.

19 (28). Chilperic and his consort. The murder of Chilperic and his consort was never forgotten by Clotild, who, when the time came, sent her sons to conquer Burgundy and avenge her parents’ blood on Gundobad’s son Sigismund (III. 6). An Athanaric was mentioned by Gregory in ch. 3 (4), but he seems to be mistaken in connecting this king of the Goths with the Burgundian line.

20 (29). Clotild (Chrotchildis, Chrothildis, &c.). The Vita Sanctae Chrothildis, probably written in the tenth century, is based upon Gregory, but includes certain additions of a legendary character from the Gesta Francorum; it is therefore of slight historical value (M. G. H., Script. rer. Merov. ii (1888), pp. 333 ff.). Fredegar (Chron. iii. 17) says that the name of Clotild’s sister, before she became a nun, was Sideleuba; he adds (Chron. iv. 22) that she built a church in the suburb of Geneva. Fredegar also gives the legend of Aurelianus, the messenger of Clovis, sent to the Burgundian Court to report upon the appearance of Clotild. Aurelianus, disguised as a beggar, revealed himself to the princess, showing her the signet of Clovis.

Sister and spouse (soror atque coniux). Cf. Virgil, Aen. i. 47. Fredegar says nothing about these classical comparisons in his account of the conversion of Clovis.

In the white raiment (in albis). The white robe was received after emerging from the water of baptism. Cf. note to ch. 22 (31) below.

21 (30). The Alamanni. (Cf. Introduction, p. 171.) The territory of this people extended at this time as far north as the Main. The site of the battle, which was fought in 495 or 496, is held by some to have been Zülpich in Rhenish Prussia, between Bonn and Jülich (cf. below, ch. 27 (37). Others consider that the place was in the region of the upper Rhine, citing a passage in the Life of S. Vaast, where it is stated that, after the battle, Clovis returned home by Toul.

Yielded themselves to Clovis. In fact, only the northern Alamanni submitted, those on the left bank of the Rhine and in the country between the Neckar and the lower Main. The southern Alamanni moved south into Rhaetia and passed under the protection of Theodoric the Great, king of the Ostrogoths (cf. Introduction, p. 171, n. 3), who took them under his protection, finding them a new home in Pannonia.

22 (31). To impart the word of salvation to the king. The date and place of the baptism of Clovis have afforded matter of much controversy. In the second part of his preface to the Life of S. Vaast (Ionae vitae sanctorum Columbani, Vedastis, Iohannis, in Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum, from the Monumenta Germaniae historica (Hanover and Leipzig, 1905)) B. Krusch maintained that the king was baptized not at Reims, but at the basilica of S. Martin at Tours in 507-8. He based his argument on a passage in a letter of Nicetius, bishop of Trèves, to Chlodosvind, queen of the Lombard Alboin and granddaughter of Clovis, written c. 561-8 (M. G. H., Epistolae, vol. iii; Ep. Merovingici et Karolini aevi, i, pp. 335-7). In this letter it is said of Clovis: humilis ad Domni Martini limina cecidit, et baptizare se sine mora promisit. It seems to be certain that Clovis did visit Tours before his baptism, but after a full consideration of the evidence derived from this chapter of Gregory, the letter written to Clovis by Avitus, bishop of Vienne, excusing his absence from the ceremony (M. G. H., Auctores antiquiss., vi, p. 75; G. Kurth, Clovis, i, pp. 335-7), and the above-mentioned letter of Nicetius, we may decide with Kurth, d’Arbois de Jubainville (Bull. de la Soc. nat. des antiq. de France, 1906, pp. 171-3), and L. Levillain (Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes, lxvii (1906), pp. 472 ff., and xc, p. 261; Le. Moyen Age, 1909, p. 203), that Reims must after all be retained as the place, and the year 496 as the date of the ceremony. Levillain suggests that the sequence of events was as follows. First, attempts of Clotild to convert her husband failed. Then came the vow of Clovis in the desperate battle with the Alamanni. After this he was secretly catechized by S. Remi, but hesitated to change his faith for political reasons. Meanwhile the Arians in their turn attempted his conversion to their sect. To settle the question whether the Catholic or the Arian faith was best, Clovis went to Tours, and was finally persuaded by the miracles which he there witnessed, perhaps at the time of the Feast of S. Martin on the 11th November. He now promised to be baptized, and as soon as possible after his return the rite was performed at Reims on Christmas Day. This theory appears successfully to reconcile the account of Gregory with the letters of Avitus and Nicetius, and to justify the statements of our author. It may be noted that none of the three early authorities who refer to the baptism mention the place where it occurs; Reims is first mentioned by seventh-century writers. Fredegar (Chron. iii. 21) inserts in his account the following picturesque anecdote. S. Remi was reading the story of Christ’s Passion, when Clovis shouted in a loud voice: ‘Had I and my Franks been there, we would have avenged him!’ In the Life of S. Clotild, ch. 7 (M. G. H., Script. rer. Merov. ii) it is related that a dove appeared carrying two ampullae of oil for use by S. Remi. Clovis (Chlodovechus, Chlodoveus) received at baptism the latinized name of Ludovicus, which, under the form of Louis, was borne by so many later kings of France.

The font. The word used is lavacrum. The ceremony of baptism for adults has been described by L. Duchesne, Origines du culte chrétien, pp. 296 ff.: his account has been summarized in English by H. H. Howorth, St. Augustine of Canterbury (1913), pp. 78 ff. The candidate stood in the lavacrum, immersed up to the middle, water being poured, or allowed to stream, over his head three times; before entering the water he had been anointed on the breast with oil of the catechumens, administered by a priest. (For unction at baptism, and trine immersion, see F. H. Dudden, Gregory the Great, i, pp. 370 and 411.) On issuing from the water he received a second unction on the breast (in later times on the head), again administered by priests, this time not with ordinary oil, but with chrism (cf. V. 28 (38)).¹ After this he was led to the bishop, who again anointed him with chrism, but on the forehead. For references to anointing at baptism, see Dict. of Christ. Antiq., s. v. Unction (2), p. 200. The letter of Gregory the Great to Leander, bishop of Seville, is important (Ep. i. 41). The ceremony thus completed, the new Christian became a ‘candidate’ (candidatus) by being robed in the customary white garments, which he retained for some days, during which time he was said to be in albis. At the end of this period, the white garments being removed, the whole rite of baptism was accomplished.

In the sixth century, baptism, as administered to adults, and perhaps even to children, was by ‘affusion’ rather than by dipping or full immersion; the latter practice does not seem to have become the rule until the ninth century, the Council of Chelsea (816) ordering that priests were not merely to pour the water over the head of the infant, but wholly to immerse the child. Arians used trine immersion, which had always been the usage of the Roman Church. After the conversion to Catholicism of the Visigothic King Recared, Gregory the Great, in 587, to mark a distinction from the old Arian practice, ordered that in Spain only one immersion should be used (Ep. i. 41). Of value to the student as producing classified archaeological evidence, is the monograph of C. F. Rogers, Baptism and Christian Archaeology, in Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica (Oxford, 1903), v, p. 301). The evidence adduced supports the judgement of Duchesne (Origines du culte chrétien, p. 302, and Églises Séparées, pp. 93, 95) that the early usage was for the person about to be baptized to stand in a basin sometimes sunk in the ground, sometimes standing upon it, the water seldom reaching the waist, and generally much shallower. If running water from a spout at a high level was available, the officiant placed the head of the catechumen under the flowing water, or directed the flow over it with a vessel of the patera form; where there was no spout, he poured water over him from the patera. … The bishop stood at the side of the basin, generally at a rather higher level, and sometimes at a desk. As soon as the priest had performed his part, the bishop stepped down, received the newly baptized, and applied the chrism. This is the action described in such phrases as suscipere de sacro lavacro and the like, frequently employed by Gregory.

Sicamber. The Sicambri, once dwelling on the Sieg, were settled by Rome on the Rhine; some are mentioned as living on the Waal. In these new seats they became connected with the Franks, whose kings in Merovingian times often styled themselves Sicambrians, regarding the name as a mark of honour.

A book of his life. This is perhaps the short Life attributed to Fortunatus (M. G. H., Auct. antiquiss. iv, pt. ii, p. 64; Bibl. hag. lat., No. 7150).

More than three thousand. Hincmar, in his Life of S. Remi, says that a part of the Franks deserted Clovis for Ragnachar.

His sister Albofled. A sister of Clovis of this name married Theoderic, king of the Ostrogoths, about 497, and died in 526. Gregory is therefore in error as to her speedy death.

Lanthechild. Cf. Dict. of Christ. Biogr. iii. 624 (1882). Of her Gregory uses the words chrismata est. Cf. note on 22 (31) above.

23 (32). Gundobad and Godigisel. The events recorded in this chapter are related by Gibbon in his thirty-eighth chapter. As Pfister has remarked (C. M. H. ii. 112), the attack of Clovis upon Burgundy left Gundobad for the time being stronger than before. Marius of Aventicum (Avenches) mentions the battle at Dijon under the year 500 (cf. M. G. H., Auct. antiquiss. xi: Chronica Minora, ii, p. 234).

Dijon (Divione castrum). Dijon was not a civitas, but one of those places which, though fortified, was for administrative purposes a town of the second rank, having neither its own count, nor its own bishop (cf. Intr., p. 160). Gregory was familiar with the place through its connexion with his ancestor Gregory, bishop of Langres, and mentions it elsewhere in the History (III. 19; IV. 10 (16), 24 (31); V. 5), as well as in his other writings, G. C., ch. 42; G. M. ch. 50; V. P. vii. 2, 3. Cf. Longnon, Géogr., p. 210, and the article by H. Leclercq, in Cabrol, Dict. d’arch. chrét. et de liturgie, s. v. Dijon.

These barbarians. The word sounds strange, used by one Teutonic prince of another. But the culture of the Burgundians was superior at this time to that of the Franks, through the presence of a greater number of Gallo-Romans in their country. Aridius, to whom the king was speaking, was himself a Gallo-Roman. Fredegar (iii. 23) tells this story, sometimes repeating Gregory’s words.

24 (33). The Franks who were with him. Fredegar (iii. 23) says that they numbered five thousand, and that Gundobad put them to the sword.

Milder laws among the Burgundians. These were embodied in the Lex Gundobada and the Roman law of Burgundy, which have been preserved. The former was chiefly designed to regulate the relations between Burgundians and Gallo-Romans. Disputes between Gallo-Roman and Gallo-Roman were judged by the Roman law. The Lex Burgundionum, edited by Bluhme, is printed in M. G. H., Leges, vol. iii. Cf. also Introduction, p. 207.

25 (34). The holy bishop of Vienne. This was Avitus, whose name is mentioned farther on in the chapter; as noted above, he had written a congratulatory letter to Clovis after the latter’s baptism. His Dialogi cum Gundebado rege, and his homily to the king, in a letter urging him to abandon Arianism, will be found in M. G. H., Auct. antiquiss. vi, pt. i (ed. O. Seeck), pp. 1 and 12; his letters to the king on pp. 29, 32, and 54. Later he converted Sigismund, son of Gundobad (III. 5), to Catholicism. The literary references to Avitus are given by U. Chevalier, Répertoire, as above: Bio-bibliogr., col. 396; A. Molinier, Sources de l’histoire de France, p. 76.

Both that taught by Eutyches and that of Sabellius. Sabellius, a priest at Ptolemaïs, A. D. 250, proclaimed heretical doctrine as to the Trinity and the divine nature in Christ. This doctrine persisted despite the persecution of its adherents. Eutyches, an archimandrite, was regarded as his successor. About 440 he denied the orthodox doctrine as to the twofold nature of Christ, recognizing only the divine. His heresy was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

His admirable letters. The letters of Avitus are published in M. G. H., Auct. antiquiss. vi. Nos. 2, 3, and 28, to which reference is specially made in this passage of Gregory, will be found in that volume, pt. ii, pp. 15, 22, and 60.

Rogations . . . instituted by Mamertus. For these public prayers or litanies, cf. also Sidonius, Letters, v. 14; vii. 1. In the second of these letters, written to Mamertus himself, Sidonius tells how he has encouraged by these prayers the citizens of Clermont, then besieged by the Goths. Rogations were ordered at times of public calamity, but regularly held before Ascension Day. Cf. iv. 5, 8; ix. 6, 21; x. 30, and Introduction, p. 339.

26 (35). Alaric . . . sent envoys. Fredegar (iii. 24) says that Alaric only feigned friendship, and that Clovis detected this.

36. The book containing his life. This forms a part of Gregory’s own work, V. P., ch. iv.

27 (37). The history of the abbot’s Life. Two Lives of Maxentius are extant, but it is doubted whether they are as old as Gregory’s time. Maxentius has been credited with a Life of S. Viventius (Hist. litt. de la France, iii, p. 81).

Vouillé (Campus Vogladensis) on the Auzance, an affluent of the Clain. The place lies south of Poitiers, on the Roman road from that city to Nantes (Longnon, Géogr. de la Gaule, pp. 576 ff.). Fredegar mentions the battle in two places (ii. 58 and iii. 24). He adds in the latter place that Clovis made gifts out of Alaric’s treasure to the churches of S. Martin and S. Hilary at Tours and Poitiers.

As their habit is. Cf. note to ch. 18 (27) above.

The fight at Zülpich. Cf. ch. 21 (30) above. For Zülpich (Tolbiac) see III. 8, note.

Apollinaris. This was the son of Sidonius. Cf. III. 2, below, where he is found as a successful candidate for the see of Clermont, owing to the family influence of his mother and aunt. For letters of Avitus, bishop of Vienne, to him, see n. to III. 2.

Amalaric. The young prince was taken under the protection of the great Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths, who secured for him Septimania, north of the Alps, himself taking over the adjoining territory of Provence between the Isère and the Durance. (Cf. Cassiodorus, Var. viii. 10. 8, and Introduction, p. 94). His reign was really rather longer than twenty years. He married Clotild, daughter of Clovis, whose ill usage at his hands led to his death. Cf. III. 10.

Theuderic. Fredegar (iii. 24) says of the prince’s expedition that it resulted in his taking cities: circa maritima.

28 (38). Conferring the consulate. For this investiture, which greatly enhanced the dignity of Clovis, especially among the Gallo-Romans, see Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. xxxviii. Cf. also note on p. 503.

Mantle (chlamys). This was the military type of cloak, fastened by a fibula on the right shoulder.

The church of the city (ecclesia civitatis). i. e. the bishop’s cathedral church within the walls, from which S. Martin’s church was distant more than a mile. It is Gregory’s usual practice to describe the principal church or cathedral church in a civitas as ecclesia, using the word basilica for the other churches.

Consul or Augustus. It does not appear that Clovis himself was described as Augustus; at the beginning of the Salic Law (ed. Behrend, p. 125) he is styled Proconsul. It seems probable that Gregory carries too far back the assumption by Frankish kings of the imperial title Augustus, which was only adopted by later kings: it is seen, for example, on the coins of Theudebert. In any case, it is not at all likely to have been conferred by the emperor. ‘The expression tamquam consul seems to be equivalent here to ex consule, the official title of honorary consuls’ (Bury, Hist. of the Later Roman Empire (1923), i, p. 464).

29 (40). This chapter shows us Clovis putting into action his policy of securing the sole monarchy over the Franks, by removing all possible rivals from his path.

Sigibert: ‘the Lame’ (cf. ch. 27 (37) above). This Sigibert was king of the Ripuarian Franks, who lived to the east of the Maas; he controlled both banks of the Rhine, his power extending as far as Fulda; his capital was Cologne. The death of Sigibert is rather differently described by Fredegar (iii. 25).

The forest of Buchau (Buconia silva), otherwise Buchonia or Buchovia, lay between Hesse on the north and Franconia on the south.

They raised Clovis upon a shield. In the same way his grandson Sigibert was raised at Vitry (IV. 36 (51): collectus est ad eum omnis exercitus, impositumque super clipeum sibi regem statuunt. So also was the pretender Gundovald at Brives-la-Gaillarde: ibique parme superpositus, rex est levatus. Sed cum tercio cum eodem girarent, cecidisse fertur, ita ut vix manibus circumstancium sustentari potuisset (VII. 10; cf. also VII. 14: Gundoaldum manifeste regem levatum). It has been suggested that the Franks only had recourse to this ceremony when there was a possibility that the succession might be disputed; where the crown passed in the ordinary way of succession, it does not seem to have been employed (Loebell, Gregor von Tours und seine Zeit, pp. 224 ff.). The custom, which prevailed in ancient Germany (Tacitus, Hist. iv. 15), was regularly practised in the East Roman Empire, and is mentioned by the historians Ammianus, Libanius, Zosimus, Corippus, Codinus, and Zonaras; it is recorded as early as the fourth century as a regular part of the coronation ceremony. In the Byzantine ceremony this hoisting of the new sovereign took place in the presence of the army and the people. It preceded a formal coronation by the bishop, during which the emperor stood erect, holding the shield in one hand, a spear in the other. The emperor then proceeded to the church and laid his diadem on the altar; after making the usual gifts to the clergy, he resumed the diadem. The elevation on the shield represented the military and civil element in a ceremony which also comprised a religious element. On the subject of the raising on the shield as part of the Byzantine coronation ceremony, see J. Ebersolt, Mélanges d’histoire et d’archéologie byzantines (Revue de l’histoire de religions, lxxvi (Paris, 1917)), pp. 19, 20; and Sickel, Das byzantinische Krönungsrecht bis zum 10 Jahrhundert, in Byz. Zeitschr., vii (1898), pp. 511 ff. The chief literary authority is the Book of the Ceremonies of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Book I. Various works of art of earlier date represent the scene, which occurs for example on a silver dish of the sixth century found in Cyprus and now in the Metropolitan Museum at New York, though in that case unhistorically inserted in the history of David.

And did that which was pleasing in his sight. These words read strangely, but the orthodoxy of Clovis covered many sins. Cf. the prologue to Book III.

30 (41). Chararic. This king ruled over the Salian Franks, perhaps at Thérouanne in the Pas-de-Calais.

Cut off their hair. Cf. note on p. 494 above.

31 (42). Leudes. The word here means the king’s friends; primarily it denotes all taking the oath of fealty. Cf. Ducange, s. v., and Introduction, p. 386.

The gold which Clovis had given them was false. Cf. M. Prou, Cat. des monnaies françaises de la Bibl. Nationale: Les monnaies mérovingiennes, p. lxiii; see also Introduction, p. 224.

32 (43). The church of the Holy Apostles. Or church of S. Peter. Afterwards Ste Geneviève. Cf. p. 510.

In the eleventh year... of Licinius. There is an error here, Licinius not having been consecrated until 511.

Previous · Contents · Next