Retórica y democracia

The presentation of Merovingian kings in Book IV establishes a narrative entrenched in chaos and disorder. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the first section of the book, covering the reign of Chlothar. Chlothar emerges from the Histories with a tarnished image due to his ruthless determination to acquire power and territory, whatever the cost. He achieved his goal, by becoming sole ruler of the Franks shortly before his death. While there is no doubt that survivability was a major factor, one only need look at his actions with regard to the kingdoms of his rivals, to see that Chlothar’s role was far from passive. He began his campaign of acquisition with the cold-blooded murder of his nephews, the heirs to Chlodomer’s kingdom. This he accomplished with the

484 Hist. III.6. 485 Hist. III.6. 486 Hist. IV.51. 487 Hist. II.31.

144

reluctant aid of Childebert, and Chlotild, who acted under duress.488 With this horrendous black mark against his character, Chlothar’s ambitions led him to try to oust Theudebert from his newly acquired kingdom, again with Childebert’s backing. Once his brother and accomplice died,489 Chlothar would take over his kingdom also, having already acquired that of Theudebald. For three years (558- 561) Chlothar ruled alone, but Gregory makes no attempt to argue for a return to the unity he espoused under Clovis. Indeed the bishop does not even mention that Gaul was unified. Rather, the period passes in the glint of an eye, overshadowed by the events that led up to Childebert’s death, and the revolt of Chlothar’s son Chramn.

While Chlothar’s actions are bad enough, it is the events that punctuate his reign that really deepen the atmosphere of a land divided and debauched, far from the path of God. This is no better illustrated than in the life of Chramn and the careers of the priests Cato and Cautinus.490 In fact Chlothar actually plays a near cameo role in Books III and IV, with few of the chapters dedicated to his actions. More often he plays a supporting role in proceedings, as in the dispute between Cato and Cautinus, where the king personifies authority. Strikingly his power is challenged by the episcopal feud, as will be detailed below.491 Therefore the narratives that are depicted within the king’s reign paint a more

488

Hist. III.18. Presented at the climax of the first half of Book III, this plays a part in darkening the image of Theuderic, as I will show below.

489 Hist. IV.20. 490 See chapter 5. 491 See chapter 5.

145

vivid picture of Gregory’s view of Chlothar than do those chapters focused upon his actions.

In order to highlight this, I will concentrate now on the rebellion of Chlothar’s son, Chramn. Gregory portrays him in unambiguous terms, and appears primarily concerned with the nature of the advice given to him. His initial actions occur, significantly, in the first quartile chapter, thirteen. Sent to Clermont by his father, he was ‘Multae enim causae tunc per eum inrationabiliter gerebantur,et ob hoc acceleratus est de mundo.’492 There are echoes here of the theme of bad advice given by women in Book III.493

‘Nullum autem hominem diligebat, a quo consilium bonum utilemque posit accipere, nisi collectis vilibus personis aetate iuvenele fluctuantibus, eosdem tantummodo diligebat, eorumque consilium audiens, ita ut filias senatorum, datis praeceptionibus, eisdem vi detrahi iuberet.’ 494

Chramn is immediately painted as of weak character, easily influenced and perhaps inclined toward evil deeds. Ascovindus, an upstanding ‘circumspect’ citizen of Clermont, does his utmost, in vain, to counteract the bad advice of

492

Hist. IV.13, MGH.SRM. 1.1, p.144, ‘extremely ill-advised in nearly everything he did, and his premature death was a direct result of this.’ Thorpe, p.207. Aëtius was reputed to be ‘never swayed in his judgement by the advice of unworthy counsellors.’, Hist. II.8, quoting Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus.

493

See chapter 5, below.

494

Hist. IV.13, MGH.SRM. 1.1, p.144. ‘He loved no-one from whom he could get good and useful advice. Instead, he gathered round himself low characters in a youthful and restless stage of their lives. He only had affection for them and listened to their advice, even issuing directives allowing them to carry of daughters of senators by force.’ Translation taken from A. Callander Murray, Gregory of Tours. The Merovingians (Toronto, 2006). This compares interestingly with Remigius of Reims’ advice to Clovis. Remigius advises Clovis to temper the levity of young men with the counsel of their elders.

146

Leo, ‘qui nominis sui tamquam leo erat in omni cupiditate saevissimus.’495 Leo is struck deaf and dumb by the power of Ss. Martin and Martialis, whom he had insulted, and died a raging lunatic. Such is the fate of Chramn’s most persuasive advisor, thus colouring the character of the prince as well.

Chramn moved on to Poitiers, where he once again succumbed to the whispers of his evil advisors and conspired with Childebert against his father.496 He then annexed part of Chlothar’s kingdom, causing the king to send two of his other sons, Charibert and Guntram, to deal with the rebel. Chramn managed to trick his half-brothers into quitting the field and advanced to Dijon, where the clergy stopped him from entering the city. Whilst his cunning is portrayed in a manner reminiscent of Aëtius,497 the refusal of the clergy to admit Chramn to Dijon shows he lacked the grace of God. Travelling on to Paris he cemented his alliance with Childebert.498 When his uncle died, in 558, Chramn still proved to be untrustworthy, and fearing his father’s judgement, fled to Brittany. With the support of a Breton Count Chanao, the son faced his father in battle, likened by Gregory to Absolom fighting David. Chramn was defeated and captured trying

495

Hist. IV.16, MGH.SRM. 1.1, pp.147-8 ‘a man aptly named, for he raged like a lion as he strove to satisfy his every passion.’ Thorpe, p.211.

496

Hist. IV.16.

497

In Hist. II.8 Aëtius tricked his allies out of the booty of battle by suggesting to their king that his father had died, and that he must return to his own lands in order to secure the succession. A similar ruse is pulled by Chramn, who tells his brothers that Chlothar had died.

498

147

to save his family. Chlothar ordered them all to be burnt alive;499 a year later to the day, he too died.500

Chramn clearly exemplified a disregard for secular authority, in the person of his father, Chlothar. He also stretched the bounds of respect for the Church, when he evicted Firminus from the sanctuary of the church of St. Julian.501 This would mark the prince out as a heretic in Gregory’s eyes.502 In many ways Chramn can be seen as a model for the rebellious prince Merovech, to whom it has been suggested that the Preface to Book V was initially addressed.503 Gregory’s text implies that he sees the same mistakes being committed time after time, throughout history.

Chramn’s refusal of the good advice of Ascovindus echoes Sigibert and Charibert ignoring the advice of Germanus of Paris. Choosing instead the evil advice of Leo, a direct cause of his premature death,504 Chramn personifies the weak kings of Book III.505 The refusal of admittance to Dijon shows Chramn’s lack of grace, to which his ultimate fall can be attributed. Lacking God’s grace,

499

Hist. IV.20.

500

Hist. IV.21. For the similarity with the death of Valens at I.41 (interestingly very nearly the same point within Book I - at the end of the first half of its last quarter - as Chramn’s death is within the four books of the ‘Prehistory’), see chapter 2, above.

501

Hist. IV.13.

502

Heinzelmann, ‘Heresy’.

503

Halsall, ‘The Preface to Book V’, p.313.

504

Gregory does not often predict the death of his characters, but here he clearly desires his readers to fully comprehend his message. Perhaps also it would not do to claim to foresee the death of a ruling monarch. What precedent would this set, and what charges of necromancy could then be levelled against the Bishop by his rivals?

505

148

he clearly also lacked divine backing for his rebellion against his father, as it went against the Lord’s will,506 and as such was damned. In turn, Chlothar was unable to be reconciled with his rebellious son, and so cannot be said to possess divine authority either. The kingdom was united for only one year before he too would succumb to the will of the Lord. Chlothar, who had recently performed acts of penitence for his many sins before the tomb of St Martin, was brought low by a fever whilst out hunting. He would not recover, and died, crying out‘Wa! Quid potatis, qualis est illi rex caelestis, qui sic tam magnos regis interfecit? 507 Gregory leaves no doubt that Chlothar had not been forgiven his sins, and that the Lord had seen fit to exact judgement, fittingly on the first anniversary of the death of Chramn. Indeed, the scene has been suggested to encapsulate one of Gregory’s most important overall messages.508

The reign of Chlothar as depicted largely in Book IV conveys an atmosphere of greed and debauchery the likes of which we have yet to encounter within the pages of the Histories. The base for this portrait of the king begins in Book III. His second wife Radegund, taken as booty in Thuringia, turned to God and built the nunnery near Poitiers that would feature heavily in the narrative of Book IX. Gregory mentions her calling in the same breath as Chlothar’s murder of her brother.509 One gains the impression that the two events were not necessarily unconnected. Chlothar’s first wife, at least as far as Gregory informs us, was the

506

As interpreted by Gregory in the Preface to Book V.

507

Hist. IV.21, MGH.SRM. 1.1, p.154. ‘what kind of king in heaven is this who kills off such great kings in this way?’

508

Chlothar’s death ‘drew particular attention to the folly of earthly vanities’: Halsall, ‘The Preface to Book V’, p.316.

509

149

widow of his brother Chlodomer. This would not be the last time that he made advances towards a Merovingian widow.

Upon the death of Theudebald, son of Theudebert, Chlothar ‘regnumque eius Chlothacharius rex accepit, copulans Vuldotradam, uxorem eius, stratui suo. Sed increpitusa sacerdotibus, reliquit eam, dans ei Garivaldum ducem’.510 This was shortly after his third wife, Ingund, had asked him to find a suitor for her sister Aregund. Never one to miss an opportunity, Chlothar sought out the very finest husband in the kingdom: himself!511 With such a fine exemplar for a father, it is not difficult to see how Chlothar’s sons would largely fail to live up to the ideals of faithfulness within marriage, that Gregory had promoted in Book II. Just as Gregory does at this point, I shall now move on to the reigns of Chlothar’s sons, with which the ‘Prehistory’ comes to a cataclysmic finale.